So like Hoover's, McCarthy's, and so on? What's more American than that?!
I think if you talked to the people who opposed firearm regulation (not their representatives, not a media portrayal, and not some vocal minority), you would find that most also opposed this watch list. Hence the existence of the NRA, the EFF and the ACLU.
Right, so why do these people let themselves be represented by those figures?
I have the same question for the vast majority of the conservative voter base.
We have record low unemployment for Blacks and Hispanics. Retirement accounts (401ks) are fat, good news for retirees. We have had rising wages for the working class for the first time in many years.
That's why I let myself be represented by President Trump. He isn't perfect, but he's done very well for most of America.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. A 2018 poll of political scientists ranked him dead last, and a 2018 poll of presidential scholars ranked him third-to-last:
Let's give it a little time, then see how he is ranked.
He’s also seen record foreclosures on farmers as his trade war has killed markets for them, US manufacturing shrank for the first time in a decade  due to cost increases from Trump trade war.
He’s also added to the deficit, heading towards 1 trillion annually, in a good economy when it wasn’t needed.
It's easier to show growth (improved metrics in unemployment, positive changes in wage growth, higher stock market) after a crash, right? When things are bottomed out, it's not so difficult to show improvements (after the initial proper steps are taken.) Along those lines-- I do give Obama credit for making the right moves immediately after the crash. He just ran out of ideas after a few years, thus the 'jobless recovery'.
But after things are improved for a while, then it gets harder to make incremental improvements.
If you're walking, it's not hard to change to running. But if you're already running, it can be pretty hard to move faster.
About giving it some time to evaluate, I agree this is a good idea.
Next, instead of paying down the debt, he ran the deficit up willingly during good times. Also bad Econ, no matter the party.
Steel and aluminum tariffs have raised the price of either in the US far above outside markets. As a result high tech industries that used to take that and turn it into precision instruments are losing foreign markets, many of which will never come back. Who wants unstable trading partners. And for what? Nothing but a handout to a few steelworkers at a large long term cost to consumers and producers alike.
The net result of all this nonsense is not making the US better off; Trump is running record trade deficits, despite saying he isn’t (easy to check). This is all unnecessary and only hurting the economy.
There’s a reason we (and most other countries) don’t do this type of nonsense anymore. It simply ruins economies. He was handed a strong one, still on an upswing. These choices will likely wreck it before it would have, through simple bad decisions.
I look forward to this exercise. I have a family of Trump supporters and I get percentages and perceptions like these from them in debate but have trouble getting them to point to those things as products of solid unbiased sources of statistical analyses.
Can you agree that's a great accomplishment?
Again I've read flattering headlines but not sure where raw data comes from, and I also said to a parent unemployment rates do not signify a lot to me as an adult as a positive absolute measure where underemployment and real social issues are brushed under the rug as part of number shuffling to stroke political egos. Hence I want to know data points.
I think we can agree the disinterest or avoidance on both sides of the American political spectrum in analyzing factual data and not leaning on sound bites is a problem.
Please reference your sources. I am interested.
Glad you're still here.
 an easy to read chart from data.bls.gov
 is an article from Black Enterprise, just for good measure
Black unemployment really is at record low levels. Trump's economy has been good for African Americans. (Rising wages help, too.)
Where is the raw data? This gets back to the data literacy issues. How do we empower people like you and me to know if the BKS got those numbers accurately and from where? I'll look on their site for taw data inputs. I couldn't find easily, but I am sure they have. But also let's find what kind of employment they have and see what it gets them. A graph doesn't tell me that.
Also in the article it has been going down 107 months (so approaching ten years, not just since 2017 at the start of his tenure). I did not think he has been president that long, and if we look at just the graph, except for increases in the end of 2009, it seems to have been going down with some consistency since then at similar rates. Just look at the graph. So what are we crediting whom for? Why do we assume if it happened in 2017 it is an immediate consequence of presidential action at that same time that year? Also kind of dubious to me.
Do you ever worry that your opinions motivate how you see data, not the other way around? I do a lot and why I also generally worry about political administrations in all countries who reference their success with correlation and not causation in this way. These kinds of conversations keep telling me they have won the perception game and we do not care to run a government like a business project and measure our success. Maybe if anything a weird ad campaign where we throw money at problems and if people's behavior changes we are certain it is the ad campaign in a vacuum and without real evidence.
I hope you understand why I'm not sold on your example. Thanks.
I say it from a place completely antipodal from the free world. People who live in totalitarian states still look up to you, America, even in your current state of unending downward spiraling.
Think, if America in it current state is still kept in such esteem, and still though of as a "moral etalon," think just how much you still have to loose, and how deep is the abyss your country is edging on.
Ergo, it is legally questionable that it was an extrajudicial killing of a US citizen and is more likely the legal killing of a non-state combatant not protected by the Geneva Convention.
The legal issue was whether serving in the armed forces of a non-state armed force engaged in hostilities against the US (i.e., Al Queda) would satisfy this condition.
And the overwhelming decision by every lawyer that reviewed this in the administration was that it would. Note that the linked NYT article does not say that the Obama administration admitted he was (still) a US citizen. That was added by the FP author, and the Obama administration has never conceded that point.
Note: if he had fought with ISIS instead of Al Queda, it wouldn't even be an issue, since ISIS did declare itself to be a state. Under US law, any US citizen who fought for ISIS could be treated as renouncing their US citizenship and the protection of the US constitution.
To begin with, all record of his "hostile membership" come from US administration, and not much known about him as a man, aside from him delivering a quite certain opinion as a theologian.
What is certain is that he and his family been hunted for years and killed.
It might well be the case of the "security theatre" establishment completely making up a legend of him being a "super duper mastermind," and him unwittingly (and possibly unwillingly) assuming the role.
Of course both are reprehensible
Aren't you forgetting about those lovely drone assassinations by presidential fiat?
Guantanamo Bay ring a bell?
So I think for a lot of folks Guantanamo does ring a fairly loud bell.
Here's a wee anecdote. When I was in my teens and early twenties (read that as late 80's) I was an active member of CND, the SNP and Scotland Out of NATO. I was active in the NUS (National Union of Students) as well and even organised a protest and student strike at my Scottish shithole of a college in Perth - having managed to drum up around 400 students to march upon the Tory offices in Perth to demonstrate against cuts to student grants and burseries.
During this time I was never arrested or apprehended by the Police. In fact I've never been arrested or apprehended and as far as I know don't have a criminal or civil violation record (except maybe a handful of traffic violations - speeding, and a driving without due care and attention when I was 26 [reading my map]).
After I left college, and despite being qualified for many jobs, the interviews came and went over around 6-7 years and I wondered why? Until it came to light there was an organisation called the Economic League which manually compiled lists of UK activists and fed them to many organisations as a form of blacklisting.
Whilst I was never able to establish that I might have been on their list, I had a fairly strong suspicion, with hindsight, I was listed. There's no way that the sort of jobs I was applying for, where right up until the last minute, the offers were withdrawn with no explanation.
Contrast that with the standard European model of criminal jurisprudence, in which the judge deciding the case is frequently also the prosecutor, and there is no panel of jurors, and no threshold of proof.
And what are you even talking about?
The prisoners kept there were picked up after attacks on US/Allied forces on battlefields or in areas immediately adjacent. Non-state combatants are not protected by the Geneva Convention, and the treatment of non-state prisoners was historically battlefield execution.
Some of the (innocent) noncombatants were released after investigation. The remaining purported noncombatants chose to boycott their trials.
Of course it would be easy to release them to US if other countries refused. But instead of that US rather kept innocents locked up for years, out of convenience or whatever.
I think continued detention after you're determined to be innocent, is quite bad. Also if I make a mistake and lock you up and torture you for years, just releaseing you is not really justice.
Is it really that hard to read up a wikipedia page on Guantanamo bay for americans, if not a book or two? There's enough info just on wikipedia's main article and some linked articles from there to make your skin crawl.
I suspect that would increase the accuracy marvelously.
...where it mingles with content that clearly belongs in the opinion section and away from "news".
This creates a real problem - if people who want to know if any claim is TRUE rather than just hearing the claims of the various parties to a dispute, they move to these opinion sections (and opinion organizations). This gives the credibility of objective reporting to those that aren't even claiming to be objective.
I want my reporting to mention when something isn't proven...but also to not be victims of battles over the Overton window.