Is episode "Past Tense" an omen of a Donald Trump presidency?

[Locutus of Bored]

Other posters already have the bitter,angry petulant child act covered. You can stop acting like one any day now and stop attacking posters you disagree with. It's very unbecoming of a moderator.

You waited three days after the situation was over and made another post in the thread before coming up with an "I know you are, but what am I?" retort?

If you don't want to be called out on your comments then perhaps you shouldn't pretend like there's something wrong with people who dare to take issue with Donald Trump. But don't poke a beehive and then whine about getting stung like you were a poor hapless innocent just wandering by.

"The moment you put "Trump" in the title the torches and pitchforks from the usual suspects will always come out."

 

[ichab]

You waited three days after the situation was over and made another post in the thread before coming up with an "I know you are, but what am I?" retort?

Sorry bud but I actually work for a living and have responsibilities that are far more important than you and your little war on Trump.

If you don't want to be called out on your comments then perhaps you shouldn't pretend like there's something wrong with people who dare to take issue with Donald Trump. But don't poke a beehive and then whine about getting stung like you were a poor hapless innocent just wandering by.

"The moment you put "Trump" in the title the torches and pitchforks from the usual suspects will always come out."

I don't spread "alternative facts." I state my opinion which is my right. Plus it's funny you keep trying to make me out as a Trump supporter when I've criticized him many times and didn't even vote for him.

But whatever. You can continue your little charade. I'm done wasting my time. Consider yourself ignored from here on out.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You criticize him when the comments come from a fellow conservative. But when they come from a liberal, suddenly it's irrational, they're snowflakes, it's unfair and picking on poor defenseless Donald Trump. Which has been my point all along. You prioritize sticking it to people who have ideological differences with you over being objective, even when you'd otherwise agree. You'd rather get in a dig at a liberal's expense than simply acknowledge that you also find a behavior Trump is doing wrong. That's why it's more disappointing when you do it versus when it's someone who just blindly follows everything he's said from the start, because I know you do disagree with him on several issues, yet you're so consumed with ideological one-upsmanship that you'd rather set aside what you think is right or wrong in favor of a lazy dig at liberal's or Democrat's expense.

It's a microcosm of the problems facing the country at large right now, where we really need conservatives of conscience who are in control of the House and Senate to stand up to Donald Trump, and so far with few exceptions they'd rather put party loyalty and sticking it to the opposition over their duty to the country and the people. We need people on both sides of the political spectrum to stop normalizing what Donald Trump is doing and acknowledge that this is bad for the country as a whole, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.

 

[Galactic Alignment]

I'm appalled at what Trump is doing.

 

[marsh8472]

Hold onto whatever jobs you can find and avoid those sanctuary districts. No ones locking me up with a bunch of dim's and ghost's.

 

[fonzob1]

If Trump had just suspended issuing new visas to people in those 7 countries instead of making existing visas invalid, this would have been a lot less messy.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Other posters already have the bitter,angry petulant child act covered.

So does the POTUS...

 

[Nyotarules]

Hold onto whatever jobs you can find and avoid those sanctuary districts. No ones locking me up with a bunch of dim's and ghost's.

The sanctuary districts will be preserved for future Muslims who cannot find work.....

 

[Nyotarules]

If Trump had just suspended issuing new visas to people in those 7 countries instead of making existing visas invalid, this would have been a lot less messy.

Also if he included nations that have an actual history of blowing up American citizens - SAUDI ARABIA, then his ban would make sense. But who wants to piss off the people who control the oil and allow Trump golf courses? If those seven nations had the economic clout of Saudi or even Great Britain there would be no ban at all. Follow the money folks!

 

[Tenacity]

Also if he included nations that have an actual history of blowing up American citizens -

Nahh, instead place the ban on nations where there is currently high levels of terrorist activity and pose a threat to Americans.

Separately, if this was a religious ban (as some claim) then the ban would be on over forty nations ... which it isn't.

 

[ichab]

Nahh, instead place the ban on nations where there is currently high levels of terrorist activity and pose a threat to Americans.

Separately, if this was a religious ban (as some claim) then the ban would be on over forty nations ... which it isn't.

That's a very fair point. I've never bought into the whole "he just hates Muslims" hysteria that the left loves to perpetuate everytime a politician talks about cracking down on terrorists. If christians were hijacking planes, chopping off heads and bragging about it publicly I would expect my federal government to be more watchful of people entering my country to make sure they had no connections to that extreme elemant.

 

[Nyotarules]

That's a very fair point. I've never bought into the whole "he just hates Muslims" hysteria that the left loves to perpetuate everytime a politician talks about cracking down on terrorists. If christians were hijacking planes, chopping off heads and bragging about it publicly I would expect my federal government to be more watchful of people entering my country to make sure they had no connections to that extreme elemant.

Nahh, instead place the ban on nations where there is currently high levels of terrorist activity and pose a threat to Americans.

Separately, if this was a religious ban (as some claim) then the ban would be on over forty nations ... which it isn't.

Oh yes follow the arbitrary list or did he actually listen to the US security agencies that he compared to Hitler's Germany?
Its not a religious ban its a 'pick on the Islamic places where Trump has no business' ban

 

[Tenacity]

its a 'pick on the Islamic places where Trump has no business' ban

Rather a list of places where there high levels of terrorism.

If it's a Muslim ban why not Indonesia?

 

[Nyotarules]

Rather a list of places where there high levels of terrorism.

If it's a Muslim ban why not Indonesia?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/world/asia/indonesia-donald-trump-resort.html?_r=0

Rush hour 2 - 'follow the rich white man'

 

[fonzob1]

Oh yes follow the arbitrary list or did he actually listen to the US security agencies that he compared to Hitler's Germany?
Its not a religious ban its a 'pick on the Islamic places where Trump has no business' ban

The 7 countries were supposedly chosen based on a list of "countries of concern" identified by the Obama administration. So, either there is something they know that we don't know or Obama was in the other countries' pockets as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/index.html

 

[Nyotarules]

"In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries."

No mention of a ban on travellers under the previous administration

 

[Nyotarules]

The biggest suppliers of arms to Yemen is Iran and guess who else SAUDI ARABIA. And yet the West, including all leaders past and present, keep kissing their oil covered butts.

 

[suarezguy]

I think it's likely we will see more (and possibly more and more) violent protests and opinion may become really polarized about who is to blame (whose side are you on?!!?!?), while the center would be disgusted at both extremes and drop out of interest, then in the next elections reluctantly support the party that seems relatively more moderate.

 

[fonzob1]

"In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."
The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries."

No mention of a ban on travellers under the previous administration

It wasn't my intention to suggest that the previous administration instituted a travel ban. Only pointing out that the other nations in question, where the US has a lot of business, didn't make the Obama administration's list.

 

[thestrangequark]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but I just happened to be in the middle of a DS9 rewatch and got to "Past Tense" last night. Such a great two-parter, and of course it is relevant, with the most apt points being:
- The depiction of a USA in the midst of a second Gilded Age (to go back to the OP, if Trump and his cronies get his way this is likely to become only more extreme)
- Privatization of police/armed forces (explicit in the episode, though the degree to which different forces were privatized is never explored, also likely to get worse under Trump)
- A hint at corporate oligarchy (also likely to get worse under Trump, a likely kelptocrat)
- The notion that people failed to act because of a combination of apathy and paralysis at facing social obstacles seemingly too large to overcome (hopefully not something that will continue but which was already a dominant societal trend in the US when the episode was made)
- Opaque tights being in fashion in ladies wear (seriously, those ties were ridic, but the lines of Dax's wardrobe were on point. However, they made an error in the miniskirts: in times of economic turbulence the fashion is towards longer skirts, with shorter skirts correlating with economic stability)

I was most impressed by the thoughtful, MLK Jr-esque study of riot behavior, something that I think would get lazier, more black and white treatment on TV today -- it certainly does online.