Refreshing that a politician might actually view both sides of something before deciding - such as human rights, but also the need to be frugal. Now if he can only do something about Mountain View's incessant desire to build massively tall complexes for retail and living at a pace that will eventually destroy any remaining views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Perhaps he can head the committee on the city's eventual new name, maybe Pérdida Mountain View.

thank goodness Mountain View has declared itself a human rights city. I for one was sick and tired of blantant violations of human rights in mountain view. What with the systematic torture of political and religious dissidents by city apparatchiks, the human trafficking and slave trade, the suspension of free speech, the elimination of a free press and execution of journalists, not to mention the forced internment of city opponents in labour camps in North Bayshore... well it was just awful!

@David - I am going with Crane View right now. Maybe, Taillight View works well fro the future too.

I have known Mayor Rosenberg for about 30 years now. I know him to be an incredible human being with admirable moral and family values. I am proud abd comforted by the idea (and now reality) that he is more deeply involved in improving the daily lives of those in our community.
I Will Follow

Those citizens who thought he opposed the CTA lbe believed that because Rosenberg stood on their porches and said he had studied the plan and opposed it.

When I read that our new Mayor said that "he has been aghast at the vitriol playing out at the national level. People take their cues from their leaders, and he blamed Trump's behavior for enabling a rise in hate speech, bullying and intolerance", I was very disturbed by that so I decided to watch to his statement on the city's web site. After watching the recording several times, I did not hear him say anything like that, although he did say in regard to Trump "His language, his behavior and his deeds have proven himself to be the opposite of a role model to our children". The Mayor also said "He was divisive, it (the campaign) was ugly, and it fell far short of showcasing Americans at their finest" and asked "How can we as Americans elect someone like that.

As the Council is ostensibly a non-partisan body and representative of all residents of the city, I was very disappointed to hear such partisan language from our new Mayor. Campaigns for any Federal office are always ugly from participants on both sides as they fight for power and influence.

We have also heard about much of the "Fake News" that has influenced many people; and rumor and innuendo has led to the fears and uncertainty that many in our community are experiencing at this time. I have been telling people that it is better to take a wait and see attitude. Presidents do not "ascend" to the Presidency as the Mayor stated; Kings and Emperors ascend to their thrones. Presidents are elected by the people. In our country, a candidate needs to obtain 270 electoral votes; and in this election, Trump obtained 304 electoral votes by winning 30 of the 50 states. For the President to enact his agenda, he will need the support of Congress and the American people. He is not en Emperor, he is not "all-powerful", and he controls only one of the 3 branches of our government. Certainly there will be some changes, but in my opinion it is better to wait until they occur and then evaluate them on their merits rather than panicking about what MIGHT happen.

Another of the Mayor's statements I took issue with was when he said, "People in the United States often conflate The Bill of Rights with Human Rights". I don't personally know anyone who does, but I suppose there may be a few. The Declaration of Independence mentions "inalienable rights" and the Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of government over the people and to try to ensure that we would not be subject to tyranny. Also, while the Bill of Rights also encompasses Human Rights, it is not limited only to those rights.

I do like that our new Mayor said that he will "Focus on working to protect and improve the quality of life for all Mountain View residents" and I believe that he will do just that. I also think that his idea to open each Council meeting with a Mountain View historical fact is a very good one that will give us all a chance to learn more about the city in which we live and that we all love.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Hey Jim,

Guess what, Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin, 3 million votes, and won the EC by one of the lowest margins in history. The country hates that guy, and thankfully California is going to be leading the charge in opposing his divisive agenda. No one buys your "both sides" nonsense because you only whine about conservatives being oppressed. Thank God you lost all those City Council elections.

@Popular Votr - The rules of the election have been set for quite sometime and have NEVER included a popular vote count. It is the same as if you have a World Series where one team scores 100 runs in 7 games, and the other team only scores 50 but wins 4 games. It does not matter that they were outscored in the 7 game total, only that they won 4 games. Or a football game where one team is ahead for 3 quarters but loses the game in the 4th quarter.

Donald Trump won 30 of the 50 states, so if the vote was determined by popular totals, then those who voted for Trump could argue about why someone who only won 20 of 50 states should be President.

Another way to look at it is Hillary's margin of victory nationwide was less than her margin of victory in California, so basically California alone made the popular vote difference. Therefore you could argue that only ONE state would have decided the election for the entire country.

The bottom line is, the rules of the competition whether it be political or sport are set and it makes no sense to argue the rules should be changed because the losing side does not like the result.

Also, your claim that Trump won by one of the narrowest Electoral College margins in history is untrue. He won 304 to 225. Here are the past results of margins that were about as close or closer:


Bush 2004 286 to 251
Bush 2000 271 to 266
Carter 1976 297 to 240
Nixon 1968 301 to 237
Kennedy 1960 303 to 234
Truman 1948 303 to 228
Harrison 1888 233 to 168 Harrison LOST the popular vote by about 1%
Cleveland 1884 219 to 182 Cleveland won New York by only 1047 votes
Garfield 1880 214 to 155
Hayes 185 to 184 Hayes lost the Popular vote by about 4%
Lincoln 1860 180 to 123
Buchanan 1856 174 to 120
Taylor 1848 163 to 127
Van Buren 1836 170 to 124
Jackson 1824 99 to 162 (Candidate with the most EC votes won then, not a majority as is required today. There were 3 other that received the votes totaling 162).
Madison 1812 128 to 89
Jefferson 1800 73 to 202 (same situation as Jackson)
Adams 1796 71 to 205 (same situation as Jefferson and Jackson)
Washington 1792 132 to 132 (same as Adams, Jefferson and Jackson)
Washington 1789 69 to 69 (same as Adams, Jefferson and Jackson)


As far as divisive agendas, the country was already divided long before Donald Trump was elected. I am old enough to remember when Reagan and both Bush's were elected and nothing has changed.

As far as my "whining", I do speak up when I see people in San Jose being beaten and abused for no reason. Are you saying they deserve it? I also spoke out against what happened in Orlando and Los Angeles, as well as against the police officer that shot the Black Man in the back in South Carolina, and condemned the execution style killings of the police officers that were murdered for no reason in New York. I don't know what their political affiliations were and I don't care. Assaults and violence against people in California with differing political views are continuing and I have every intention of continuing to speak out against them no matter which side of the political spectrum they are on.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
.

Jim, just come to terms with the fact that your guy's victory in the EC was 46th out of 58 elections, he lost the popular vote, and that he has the lowest approval rating before taking office since we've recorded approval ratings. He's a deeply unpopular, divisive person, and no amount of your misleading, poorly reasoned, and uninformative posts will change that.

@ @Jim Neal - Thank you for your insight. However, I think the information is completely relevant to the claims of Popular voter and addresses all of his points, so I provided complete facts

I also believe in the exercise of free speech, guaranteed to all citizens of the United States and do not see any reason why mine should be placed under constraint any more than anyone else's. Also, my parents always taught me that as a Black man, it is very important never to allow anyone to prevent me from doing and speaking up for what I think is right.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@ @Jim Neal - I am merely expressing my opinions and giving facts (without resorting to anonymous personal attacks). I can fully understand how this might be upsetting to people who have a different perspective. If you have anything constructive to say I am more than wiling to listen.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

My only concern is that the City Council will act within it's limits.

The previous City Council acted like a "Star Chamber" secret court to try to dismantle the Charter Amendment it certified and entered into the City Charter on Dec 13th 2016.

Even though they are prohibited from doing so by the City Charter itself.

But no one understands this. THis information should be educational:

Many citizens believe that when a City Council member takes office, they know that they swear to uphold all laws and constitutions. The City Charter is very clear City Council is preempted by the city charter if you read:

“Section 506. - Powers vested in the council.

All powers of the city, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER, shall be vested in the council, and said council may establish the method by which any of such powers may be exercised.”

The City Council is restricted to specific actions defined as:

“Section 513. - Council action.

Legislative action shall be taken by the council only by means of an ordinance, resolution or minute action duly recorded in the official minutes of the city council. (As amended November 3, 1998.)”

The City Council may not judge whether the charter is unconstitutional or not, it can only create ordinances, or resolutions, where it is NOT PREEEMPTED by the city Charter. The City Council cannot determine whether the Charter is constitutional or not.

The Charter defines ordinances and resolutions as:

“Section 514. - Adoption of ordinances and resolutions.

With the sole exception of ordinances which take effect upon adoption referred to in this article, no ordinance shall be adopted by the council on the day of its introduction, nor within five days thereafter nor at any time other than at a regular or adjourned regular meeting nor until such ordinance shall have been published as required in this Charter. At the time of introduction or adoption of an ordinance or resolution it shall be read in full, unless after the reading of the title thereof, the further reading thereof is waived by unanimous consent of the councilmembers present. In the event that any ordinance is altered after its introduction, the same shall not be finally adopted except at a regular or adjourned regular meeting, held not less than five days after the date upon which such ordinance was so altered. The correction of typographical or clerical errors shall not constitute the making of an alteration within the meaning of the foregoing sentence.

No order for the payment of money shall be adopted or made at any other than a regular or adjourned regular meeting.

Any ordinance declared by the council to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health or safety, and containing a statement of the reasons for its urgency, may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting if passed by at least five affirmative votes.
(As amended June 3, 1980.)”

Since the City Council certified the election on Dec. 13th, 2016, any actions after that date were in fact PREEMPTED by the City Charter. Thus any instructions issued by the City Council on December 20-23rd are not valid City Council Actions. The City Council has no legal authority to determine the constitutionality of the law under the City Charter and no authority of any kind to instruct the City Attorney to stipulate to anything.

Thus, the City Council violated the City Charter in its direct action to interfere with the City Attorney and it’s obligation to to act according to the City Charter.

The City Attorneys duty is defined as:

Section 711. - Powers and duties of city attorney; eligibility, employment of attorneys to assist, etc., in legal matters.

"The city attorney shall have the power and be required to:

(a)
Represent and advise the council and all city officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices.

(b)
Represent and appear for the city in any or all actions and proceedings in which the city is concerned or is a party; and represent and appear for any city officer or employee or former city officer or employee for any action arising out of that person's employment or by reason of that person's official capacity as may be required by law.

(c)
Attend all meetings of the council and give the city attorney's advice or opinion in writing whenever requested to do so by the council or by any of the boards or officers of the city.

(d)
Approve the form of all bonds given to and all contracts made by the city, endorsing the city attorney's approval thereon in writing.

(e)
Prepare any and all proposed ordinances or resolutions for the city, and amendments thereto.

(f)
Prosecute on behalf of the people all criminal cases for violation of this Charter and of city ordinances.

(g)
Perform such other duties consistent with this Charter as may be required of the city attorney by the council.

(h)
On vacating the office, surrender to his or her successor all books, papers, files and documents pertaining to the city's affairs.

To become eligible for appointment as a city attorney, the appointee shall have been admitted to practice as an attorney at law before the Supreme Court of the State of California, and shall have been engaged in the practice of law for at least three years immediately prior to that person's appointment.

The council shall have control of all legal business and proceedings and may employ other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or matter or to assist the city attorney therein.

(As amended June 3, 1980; November 3, 1998.)"

Nowhere in this language is there any administrative deference stating that the City Attorney can make a judicial decision on whether anything passed by the City of Mountain View Citizens is "unconstitutional" or not.

The City Council has no authority judge the constitutionality of the charter or to act in any way to interfere with the adopted and certified election that it did on Dec. 13th, 2016. Once that was done, the Measure V preempted the City Council, thus establishing the violation of the City Charter by the City Council.

Many citizens took serious offense by this action, and justifiably so given the irreparable harm he suffered because of the actions of the City Council. And openly criticized such behavior to the City Council on many occasions, as was his right to do so. What the City Council did was act in furtherance of private interests, specifically the CAA, it choosing the course of action it did.

But as we now have seen the City of Mountain View has been proven wrong regarding there so called determination that they can pick and choose what charter provisions it will follow in the Richmond decision.

Most importantly the City Council of Mountain View has in fact attacked its own citizens equal protection under the law because it’s judgement was so wrong that when the procedural and substantive due process was followed by the Contra Costa Court and was followed by the City of Richmond City Attorney, the courts came to the only action it could. It denied the restraining order

Remember a restraining order is issued only where there is a demonstrated likelihood of prevailing in a legal case, but the Contra Costa Court did not determine that Measure L was likely to lose in the court. In fact there is no case precedence mention in the complaints filed against Richmond or Mountain View in the unsubstantiated allegations made by the CAA in it's pleadings.

Nowhere in this language is there any administrative deference stating that the City Attorney can make a judicial decision on whether anything passed by the City of Mountain View Citizens is "unconstitutional" or not. So the fact that it cannot in this case should be rectified by the new Mayor and the City Council, if they do not, this is going to be evidence that our new mayor likes to talk about civility, but act in the opposite manner.

I only wish that "The Business Man" will eventually step back enough from his writings to notice (albeit belatedly) the main thing that so many other people find prominent and memorable about them, on this website in recent weeks. They are often way, WAY too long. A posting that spills across multiple screenfulls turns off readers REGARDLESS of what it is trying to say, and further, it registers the meta-point that its author is unaware of this effect (and therefore, of what else too?)

This isn't just longstanding netiquette. It is a basic sensibility of successful communication. Strunk and White (decades ago): "Vigorous writing is concise."

My apologies about length.

I reviewed my writing and came up with this:

Original Post: 3 pages, 1343 words, 39 paragraphs

My writing was: 2 pages 675 words, 18 paragraphs

My writing came to about less than half of the posting. The rest was citations to ensure that I was not making up what I am describing, to demonstrate accurate objective information. 21 paragraphs were citation out of 39. If I do not provide substantiation, my opinion would have no justification.

Please be patient, I always try to provide references to make sure people do not think I am being irrational.

I strive to be as concise as I can.

The Mayor should start by cleaning out rot at the top of the Police Department.

I'm sure that Rosenberg is a decent fellow who means well, in contrast to Trump who...well, you know.

However, both were elected in ways that were strictly speaking legal, but discouraging to many of us who want to see democracy function well. Rosenberg - big money - $90K, if I recall correctly - spent by developers on advertising for him, with the source of the money disguised. Trump - voter suppression, Russian help, Comey, racism, appeals to the lowest instincts of the electorate.

Still though, Rosenberg seems to be a well-meaning fellow.

Jim Neal - Everything I've seen about the Trump agenda tells me we need to push back, from day one. Not "wait and see".

@Voter - Please allow me to clarify. Certainly once Trump is in office and begins announcing or enacting his agenda, he is fair game for criticism on day one. I am more concerned about all of the false rumors and misinformation that are being used to frighten people and that have already resulted in some taking violent action. For example, Trump ( from all the reliable reports that I have read ) has no plan to register all Muslims living in the US or to deport legal immigrants ( although this has been widely reported in the news and stated by many politicians ). If he were to announce or begin to implement plans to do either, I would be one of his harshest critics regarding such actions.

My hope is that all of our elected leaders will try to work to get more people to engage rationally and peacefully with each other, rather than engaging in scare tactics and fear mongering that very often results in more division, hate and violence.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim,

You got called out for lying about the Muslim registry earlier, someone posted a direct quote from Trump and you said something to the effect of "well that was a while ago, I'm sure he means something different now." Please stop posting misleading information to further your political agenda. Fortunately, you never attained that public office you so clearly yearn for.

I'm eagerly anticipating your next 1000 word post where you ramble on about how conservatives are under attack.

@Popular Votr - What you are saying is absolutely not true. If it were, you would post the exact quote here. What I said was that while there would be scrutiny of those people coming from countries that support terrorism, there never has been a plan to register all Muslims living in the US. I even provided a Snopes link that the Trump plan was taken out of context ( Web Link )

I am really struggling to understand the source of the vitriol against people who have differing views and are merely expressing a difference of opinion or attempting to clarify misconceptions. I also don''t understand why anyone would be upset that someone is calling for an end to unprovoked violence against anyone or these persistent personal attacks.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, we're not all as dumb as you think we are.

Reporter: "Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?"

Trump: "There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems."

Reporter: "But that’s something your White House would like to implement."

Trump: "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely"

Please don't lie to us. I'm sure you'll come up with something half-hearted explanation as to why that's not what he meant, but the rest of us will take him at his word.

@ Popular Votr - Here is the link to the full discussion from Politifact which is not a conservative organization ( Web Link ). From what is written there, it is very clear that Trump wanted to keep track of people coming into the US from countries that supported terrorism, and specifically Syria where they do not have the same type of record keeping process as the US. So in other words, he wanted to have a way of keeping tabs on people from countries that sponsor terror while they are in the US, not "all Muslims in the US", which were the words that THE REPORTER said.

In the earlier post of mine that you are referring to, you failed to mention that I also said that my wife is an immigrant and that we were subjected to interviews and fingerprinting for over two years and I did not see any reason why anyone else should not have to go through the same process. And yes, we were and ARE also in a database. They check it every time we reenter the country and my wife has to give 4 sets of fingerprints every time.

Lastly, I don't think anyone is dumb. Unlike others, I see no need to resort to personal attacks; I just write my opinions, back them up with links and facts, and people can agree or disagree as they see fit.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

There you go again, Jim, trying to act like Trump meant something different from what he said.

What on earth does the immigration status of your wife have to do with a registry to tracking law-abiding citizens solely based on their religious beliefs?

You keep trying to misdirect, but the facts are clear.

@Popular Votr - Yes, the facts are clear and they are in the previous link I provided which clearly shows that he was NOT asking for a database based on religion. Also, I was very clear that I am against any database tracking citizens. Trump's plan is not based on their religious beliefs. He said several times that it would be based on their country of origin and specifically mentioned Syria. Since Trump's comments were referring to immigrants coming to the US in the future, I gave a clear example of what the current process is for immigrants to provide context and contrast. The fact that you are having so much difficulty understanding what I am saying only demonstrates further that it is very easy for things to be misunderstood and/or taken out of context.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

It's clear that you're willing to interpret his statements in the rosiest light in spite of all evidence since he's your guy, which is fine, since it's a pretty natural reaction for partisans.

This does reinforce that we should all be glad you never made it onto the City Council, since you are clearly unable to empathize with people who would be tracked by their government solely because of their faith.

@Popular Votr - Here is the relevant portion of the story from politifact:

______________________
After Trump’s tweet, Fox News asked him about his position on a Muslim registry.

"Let's hear it directly from you," said host Kimberly Guilfoyle. "Would President Donald Trump support a full Muslim database?"

"Basically the suggestion was made and (it’s) certainly something we should start thinking about," Trump said, repeating that the reporter presented the idea. "But what I want is a watch list. I want surveillance programs. Obviously, there are a lot of problems. … But, certainly, I would want to have a database for the refugees, for the Syrian refugees that are coming in because nobody knows where they're coming from."

Guilfoyle followed up: "So to be clear, you are not saying anything with respect to a religious database. You are talking about the Syrian refugees in light of the national security development affecting this country as we speak here tonight."

Trump said he didn’t hear the MSNBC reporter’s question clearly, "but even if I did, I mean, I want databases for the Syrian refugees that Obama is going to let in if they come in."
__________________________


To me this clearly indicates he is talking about Syria. Other people may have a different interpretation.




Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

It's funny that you stop in the middle of that timeline from the article you referenced. Almost as if you're distorting and selectively presenting this to prop up your guy...

The final statement in your Politifact article, occurring after the quote you presented:

George Stephanopoulos: "You did stir up a controversy with those comments over the database. Let's try to clear that up. Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"

Trump: "No, not at all"

@Popuar Votr - You said " I'm eagerly anticipating your next 1000 word post where you ramble on about how conservatives are under attack". Then when a provide only the relevant part of an article for brevity, you accuse me of "distorting and selectively presenting", which makes no sense since I provided the link to the ENTIRE article for people to read for themselves. It is relevant because the interview that I posted occurred AFTER the Stephanopolis interview and it is the clearest about what he actually meant.

Also, what you quoted is NOT the final statement in the politifact article. Here are the last paragraphs:


__________________
On ABC News’ This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, "You did stir up a controversy with those comments over the database. Let's try to clear that up. Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"

"No, not at all," Trump responded. "I want a database for the refugees that -- if they come into the country. We have no idea who these people are. When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country, we don't know if they're ISIS, we don't know if it's a Trojan horse. And I definitely want a database and other checks and balances. We want to go with watchlists. We want to go with databases. And we have no choice."

Trump’s exchange with Stephanopoulos seems to be the clearest explanation of his position. No, he would not rule out a database on all Muslims. But for now, he wants a database for refugees.
______________________


I disagree with the conclusion that he might want a database for all Muslims though. His response could also have meant that he is not excluding all Muslims from being included in the database for the refugees. If you are including people from Syria, then obviously some of them will be Muslim. In other words he would not be ruling out a database on all Muslims, he would be ruling out a database on all Muslims except those who are entering the country as refugees from Syria.

I pointed out in my earlier comments that I could not find substantiation for one of the quotes in the article for this thread. Many times, and especially during TV interviews, there is so much cross talk and changing of topics that it is not clear what the meaning is or even which question is being responded to. Even Politifact admitted this in their comment on the exchange:

_____________________
While many headlines came out after this exchange saying Trump would "absolutely" require Muslims to register in a database, it’s not entirely clear that’s what he said. Trump was talking about building a wall along the border when the reporter asked if he would implement an unspecified policy -- "that" -- as president.
__________________


Forgive me for having another "long" post, but it seems that if I don't include everything then it is assumed that it is an attempt at "distortion".

Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Amazing back-and-forth here. Jim Neal repeatedly laboring to get at the objective reality, "Popular Votr" repeatedly laboring to get away from it.

The objective reality is:

George Stephanopoulos: "You did stir up a controversy with those comments over the database. Let's try to clear that up. Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"

Trump: "No, not at all"

There are interpretations of the clauses which follow that directly contradict the "No, not at all" portion, so it comes down to which part the reader wants to believe.

Can Jim or Humble give me a reading of "rule out a database on all Muslims" followed by "No, not at all"? "All Muslims" I remind you, includes non-immigrants. Maybe your guy just didn't hear the question again?

@Popular Votr - I have already done so. I explained how that can be interpreted as "No, not at all" meaning "I cannot rule out that all Muslims will not be affected by this, because obviously SOME will, such as those who are coming from Syria" (which does not have the same documentation and criminal history record keeping processes of the US). This is made clear by the rest of his answer (which you keep leaving out), where he said:

"I want a database for the refugees that -- if they come into the country. We have no idea who these people are. When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country, we don't know if they're ISIS, we don't know if it's a Trojan horse. And I definitely want a database and other checks and balances. We want to go with watchlists. We want to go with databases. And we have no choice."


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Holy cow, you've really tortured that into meaning what you want it to. I've got to hand it to you, it's impressive to see the partisan mind at work turning something so clearly stated into meaning something else entirely. My hat's off to you, but you've shown everyone that you are completely immune to evidence.

@Popular Votr - On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows Trump was talking about people immigrating from other countries, while it was Stephanopolis that injected the word "Muslims". However, Trump's answer was very specific that he was speaking about Syrian refugees and he never used the word "Muslims" in any of his replies.

Subsequent interviews with him and his team about this have also have also confirmed that such as this Reuters Report from November 2016:

________________

To implement Trump's call for "extreme vetting" of some Muslim immigrants, Kobach said the immigration policy group could recommend the reinstatement of a national registry of immigrants and visitors who enter the United States on visas from countries where extremist organizations are active.

Kobach helped design the program, known as the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, while serving in Republican President George W. Bush's Department of Justice after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States by Al Qaeda militants.

Under NSEERS, people from countries deemed "higher risk" were required to undergo interrogations and fingerprinting on entering the United States. Some non-citizen male U.S. residents over the age of 16 from countries with active militant threats were required to register in person at government offices and periodically check in.
______________________________________


That's pretty clear.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

"Hey, Jim, will you rule out eating all of these cookies?"

"No, not at all"

Somehow we're supposed to interpret that as meaning there's no way you will eat all of the cookies?

Come on, Jim. Words have meaning.

@Popular Votr - That has been my exact point from the beginning of my posts where I noted that the Mayor's words as reported in this article, appeared in a context that I did not hear in the recordings. So, words do indeed have meaning.

In your example you were very specific using the word "these", Stephanopolis was not. For instance, Stephanopolis could have asked "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims that are US Citizens?" or he could have said "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims who want to immigrate to the US from Syria?". By not being specific, it allows for the possibility of multiple interpretations or misinterpretations in much the same way that focusing only on the first half of Trump's answer gives one meaning, but focusing on his whole answer gives another meaning and provides the proper context for what he was actually saying. Anyone who only wants to focus on the first sentence of Trump's response without taking his entire answer in context will, of course be extremely likely to reach the wrong conclusion.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, I'd like to thank you again for this wonderful insight into how the partisan mind works. It's clear no amount of evidence will convince you, but I'm certain you'll next assert that you come to each judgment only after careful consideration. It's a pure coincidence that you absolve your guy in all cases.

Once again, we should all be thankful you came last when you ran for council.

@Popular Votr - Trump is far from a perfect person or even a perfect candidate and there are many things that I could criticize him about; however, I was tired of what I have seen out of both the major parties and I think he will bring REAL change to the two party system that very often leaves average hard-working Americans behind.

My posts have merely outlined where I took issue with comments and reports that I thought were inaccurate. As I have stated in other posts, I voted for Obama in 2012, but I thought is was time for something different.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

That's funny, Jim, I don't recall seeing you criticize Trump for anything. Maybe I missed it? A quick recap would help.

You really shook up the major parties by....voting for a major party candidate. Great thought process there!

@Popular Votr - Yes, you missed it. It was in my last post. Also, I don't have the power to shake up the 2 party system but Trump does. Bernie Sanders, in a different way from Trump, brought a fundamental shift, energy and excitement to the Democratic Party. By Contrast, Trump even though he ran as a Republican, brought a shift to the entire system by taking on the media, the Democrats, Big Business, Hollywood, and the Republicans (who did everything they could to torpedo his campaign even after he won the nomination).


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Still not seeing it, Jim. What are the specific things you'd criticize him for?

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Popular Votr - Throughout this thread I have expressed my opinions in what I hope has been a polite and thoughtful manner. By contrast, your posts to me have consisted of insults and personal attacks, yet you appear to believe that I owe you something even though I have answered most of your questions, while you have failed to respond to any of mine.

I do not mind engaging in a courteous exchange of ideas and opinions, but I have no intention of engaging in petty personal arguments since there are far larger issues that the community and the country are engaged in at the moment.

I am quite proud of the work that I have done in the community and will continue to do so in whatever capacity I am able, including acting as a voice for those I feel are underrepresented or unrepresented. I could hide behind a pseudonym and make anonymous comments but I choose not to because I want the community to engage with me and provide constructive feedback. Many people have done so, and in some cases have provided me with enough information to reevaluate my own positions on an issue.

I also know that there are people who will never agree with my point of view and that is fine too. The beauty of our country is that we are all free to express our opinions, as long as we do so without resorting to violence. It would be nice if we could do it in a civil manner as well.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

That's a lot of words to try to smokescreen your unwillingness to provide specific examples of things you'd criticize Trump for. You've shown everyone how much your word counts.

"there are many things that I could criticize him about" - Jim Neal

It shouldn't be like pulling teeth here if you actually meant that, but the silence followed by a non-answer makes it clear just how much you meant these words.

Gained office on the back of bald-faced lies and we made him Mayor?

Great........

@Popular Votr - I have been very sick with the flu for the past week and even when I am healthy I have much more to do than read online posts. However that being said, I was very dismayed to see yesterday that one or more people shot up a Mosque and killed several people in Canada yesterday. And last week during the inauguration protests, a limousine belonging to a Muslim immigrant was torched. There is absolutely no excuse for such senseless acts to occur.

This is exactly what I meant about having much more important issues occurring and goes right back to the first post that I made in this thread concerning the need for people to tone down the rhetoric, and how that is especially important for our elected leaders at all levels. It makes me sick ( no pun intended ) to see all the senseless violence taking place and having seen it happen here in the Bay Area several times in recent months is even more disheartening.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

"there are many things that I could criticize him about" - Jim Neal

You still haven't posted any specific examples of things you could criticize Trump for, even though you've claimed there are many things. Show some integrity.

Oh, no, Jim, did you come down with the flu again? I was waiting for you to post the specific things you would criticize Trump for. I hope you get well soon!

Jim,

I hope you're feeling better! Are we going to see some specific things you'd criticize Trump for, or was this all just grandstanding to make you seem even-handed?

Thanks in advance!

@Jim Neal,

I see that you're feeling better and discussing things on the Voice again. This is great!

I'm sure all of this time has given you ample opportunity to give some specific examples of criticism of Donald Trump. Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to continuing our discussion!