-
So, while I was writing my respectful response to a member's post, stuff got heated and the thread was closed. But since I took the time to write a respectful post with lots of info, I'm going to try a new post and ask that we stick to a healthy, respectful debate on the issues and resist the temptation of personal attacks (well, except to attacks on Trump :~)
So, he's my post as written: (thank goodness I wrote it in a document so I didn't lose it when the thread was closed)
I fully believe that everyone who voted for Trump fully understood what and who they were voting for, and exactly what they were voting against.
You may be right...but I'm not sure Trump voters really knew what they were voting for because it's really hard to know what Trump truely stands for in many cases because over the years he has flipped and flopped about. It's also hard to know what he actually believes because he's a serial liar–Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/01/truth-check-clinton-and-trump-truth-o-meter-1-week/) tracked him last year and ranked him as mostly false, false or pants on fire a whopping 69.6%. So, only about 30% of what comes out of his mouth is true. Hard to really know, ya know? Heck, even Kellyanne Conway said we "should judge Donald Trump based on “what’s in his heart” rather than “what’s come out of his mouth”. The problem is it's hard to know what's in his heart.
But say they knew what they were doing when they voted for Trump. Unfortunately, the people who voted for Trump represent only 27% of of the eligible voters. Of the total of 231,556,622 eligible voters, only about 60% (138,884,643) voted. That means 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote and the 65,979,879 who voted for Hillary were out voted by 62,979,879 of the voting population. That means the majority of the eligible voters didn't vote for Trump. That doesn't sound like much of a mandate to me...
Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now.
One can debate all you want about why, but I'm pretty sure that Russia hacking the DNC computers and Podesta's email and James Comey's handling of the email server investigation and several states' attacks on voting rights (read voter suppression) had a negative impact on the Democratic Presidential Candidate's campaign. It didn't help that Hillary didn't even bother to visit Wisconsin and didn't really get out and connect with the people who Obama was able to connect with.
So, Trump is President. But he's not my choice and I don't have to accept what he is trying to do. My goal is to help generate the action and political will to get those people who didn't vote off their asses and get involved for the midterm elections to regain control of the Senate, mitigate the House and make sure Trump can't do everything he has said he wants to do because I think it's wrong for the country.
I want to see progressives (Democrats or Independents) organize in a way similar to the way the Tea party organized after Obama was elected. I saw an article in the NYT called The Alt-Majority: How Social Networks Empowered Mass Protests Against Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/technology/donald-trump-social-networks-protests.html) that is a sign of the times (I know, Trump thinks the NYT is fake news but hey, I think he's a fake person).
I'm not going to accept Trump's attempts at reshaping America into his likeness. I reject "Alternative Facts". I reject accepting Trump's lies as the new normal. I reject having a President who suffers from a mental disability called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)). I even wrote a post on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/jeff.schewe/posts/1249950058423253?pnref=story) in case you want to read more about NPD.
I can only hope that the GOP can somehow get Trump to quit being CEO of a closely help corporation that steps on everybody but answers to nobody and learn how to become a President of all Americans. If you voted for Trump, I hope you are right but fear you are wrong. Sadly the Doomsday Clock (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26/domesday_clock_150_seconds_from_midnight/) has moved to just 150 seconds from midnight–the closest setting to doom since 1953.
I'm an old white guy with money who stands to benefit by what Trump is likely to do (short of all out nuclear war) but that doesn't mean I want that for my country...so far it seems everything he's done has been at the expense of the little guy and instead of draining the swamp he's refilling the water with his own brand of billionare cronyism. Really, nominating Steven T. Mnuchin for Treasury secretary is gonna get rid of the swamp?
So, I'm going to work to bring about change. I'm an old hippy at heart. I actually walked in anti-Vietnam War marches (ok, it was only the last 2 years before the war ended, but I marched). My wife and my daughter walked in the Woman's March here in Chicago–I supported them and the other 250K that walked but couldn't make it. I donated money and joined the ACLU for the first time in my life and I'm going to write letters and work in support of the NEA (https://www.arts.gov), PBS (http://www.pbs.org) and NPR (http://www.npr.org). I'm actually thinking of marching in Washington on Earthday to support the The March for Science (https://www.marchforscience.com). What Trump and his Trumpets are trying to do to the EPA and climate science is truly scary. So, who's with me? What other Americans are going to step up and take action?
It's our country and we should be willing to work to bring about change...if you don't then you deserve what you get...Donald J Trump-President of the United Staes of America. Is that what ya want? Really?
-
Thank you, Jeff.
-
So, while I was writing my respectful response to a member's post, stuff got heated and the thread was closed. But since I took the time to write a respectful post with lots of info, I'm going to try a new post and ask that we stick to a healthy, respectful debate on the issues and resist the temptation of personal attacks (well, except to attacks on Trump :~)
So, he's my post as written: (thank goodness I wrote it in a document so I didn't lose it when the thread was closed)
You may be right...but I'm not sure Trump voters really knew what they were voting for because it's really hard to know what Trump truely stands for in many cases because over the years he has flipped and flopped about. It's also hard to know what he actually believes because he's a serial liar–Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/01/truth-check-clinton-and-trump-truth-o-meter-1-week/) tracked him last year and ranked him as mostly false, false or pants on fire a whopping 69.6%. So, only about 30% of what comes out of his mouth is true. Hard to really know, ya know? Heck, even Kellyanne Conway said we "should judge Donald Trump based on “what’s in his heart” rather than “what’s come out of his mouth”. The problem is it's hard to know what's in his heart.
But say they knew what they were doing when they voted for Trump. Unfortunately, the people who voted for Trump represent only 27% of of the eligible voters. Of the total of 231,556,622 eligible voters, only about 60% (138,884,643) voted. That means 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote and the 65,979,879 who voted for Hillary were out voted by 62,979,879 of the voting population. That means the majority of the eligible voters didn't vote for Trump. That doesn't sound like much of a mandate to me...
Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now.
One can debate all you want about why, but I'm pretty sure that Russia hacking the DNC computers and Podesta's email and James Comey's handling of the email server investigation and several states' attacks on voting rights (read voter suppression) had a negative impact on the Democratic Presidential Candidate's campaign. It didn't help that Hillary didn't even bother to visit Wisconsin and didn't really get out and connect with the people who Obama was able to connect with.
So, Trump is President. But he's not my choice and I don't have to accept what he is trying to do. My goal is to help generate the action and political will to get those people who didn't vote off their asses and get involved for the midterm elections to regain control of the Senate, mitigate the House and make sure Trump can't do everything he has said he wants to do because I think it's wrong for the country.
I want to see progressives (Democrats or Independents) organize in a way similar to the way the Tea party organized after Obama was elected. I saw an article in the NYT called The Alt-Majority: How Social Networks Empowered Mass Protests Against Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/technology/donald-trump-social-networks-protests.html) that is a sign of the times (I know, Trump thinks the NYT is fake news but hey, I think he's a fake person).
I'm not going to accept Trump's attempts at reshaping America into his likeness. I reject "Alternative Facts". I reject accepting Trump's lies as the new normal. I reject having a President who suffers from a mental disability called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)). I even wrote a post on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/jeff.schewe/posts/1249950058423253?pnref=story) in case you want to read more about NPD.
I can only hope that the GOP can somehow get Trump to quit being CEO of a closely help corporation that steps on everybody but answers to nobody and learn how to become a President of all Americans. If you voted for Trump, I hope you are right but fear you are wrong. Sadly the Doomsday Clock (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26/domesday_clock_150_seconds_from_midnight/) has moved to just 150 seconds from midnight–the closest setting to doom since 1953.
I'm an old white guy with money who stands to benefit by what Trump is likely to do (short of all out nuclear war) but that doesn't mean I want that for my country...so far it seems everything he's done has been at the expense of the little guy and instead of draining the swamp he's refilling the water with his own brand of billionare cronyism. Really, nominating Steven T. Mnuchin for Treasury secretary is gonna get rid of the swamp?
So, I'm going to work to bring about change. I'm an old hippy at heart. I actually walked in anti-Vietnam War marches (ok, it was only the last 2 years before the war ended, but I marched). My wife and my daughter walked in the Woman's March here in Chicago–I supported them and the other 250K that walked but couldn't make it. I donated money and joined the ACLU for the first time in my life and I'm going to write letters and work in support of the NEA (https://www.arts.gov), PBS (http://www.pbs.org) and NPR (http://www.npr.org). I'm actually thinking of marching in Washington on Earthday to support the The March for Science (https://www.marchforscience.com). What Trump and his Trumpets are trying to do to the EPA and climate science is truly scary. So, who's with me? What other Americans are going to step up and take action?
It's our country and we should be willing to work to bring about change...if you don't then you deserve what you get...Donald J Trump-President of the United Staes of America. Is that what ya want? Really?
Jeff, this is one and done for me in this thread.
The rules were the rules and like it or not Trump won by the rules. The rules stated that the candidate that collected 270 or more electoral votes, had these votes cast by the States Electors and then had those votes accepted by the Congress became the 45th President. That person is Trump. How many people voted is meaningless. How many stayed home is meaningless. The total of the national votes each candidate got is meaningless. The ONLY number that mattered was 270. Trumps mandate is the Presidency, the House and the Senate. And now we might be able to add a 5-4 conservative (or at least semi-conservative) Supreme court. I think odds are he will get to place even one more before his turn is over. Its my opinion and that of many of the Trump voters I talk to, the Supreme Court is perhaps the biggest reason for Trumps election. We as a country survived Obama, we will survive Trump. The Supreme Court however lasts a lifetime.
I believe how and why Clinton lost will be debated for years. IMO, she was a rotten candidate with a very weak message. And she looked lazy. Regardless of how the info made its way to the public ( think Posdesta’s “password” password for example), the actions of the DNC and Hillary herself did not paint her in or them in a positive fashion. Clinton only has herself to blame for the server issue. Period. I’m not a fan of hacking, but I’m really happy the data was made public. While I’m on that subject lets not be blind to the very real possibility that the US hacks governments around the world and puts its fingers into elections as well.
Yes Trump is President and I hate to break it to you but you do have to accept what he is doing if in fact it becomes codified into law. Well I guess you could chose to break the law, or leave the country….
I celebrate you wanting to work to motivate others to vote for your vision of what America should be. To do so is truly American. Best of luck with your efforts. If you are successful, I’ll be bound, to follow the laws that may come. Just as you are now bound to do the same for Trump. I may end up being wrong but I think the protests are going to backfire. I think you are just making more Trump voters, not less. Have at it!
Yes it is our country too, and yes we are willing to work to bring about change. We won. We voted for Trump. 305 electoral votes worth. Really.
-
Thank you, Jeff.
+1.
Absolutely right on in all details.
-
I reject having a President who suffers from a mental disability called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)).
Erich Fromm and others have expanded upon that diagnosis, which they call "malignant narcissism", adding sadism and psychopathy to the mix. Fromm called it, "the most severe pathology and the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity". Sound like Trump? BTW, I very much like and agree with your post; very articulate and cogent.
-
Hillary would be President now.
and if your grandma 'd have those balls... Trump played the game to win according to the rules and won, so suck it up.
-
I'm an old white guy with money who stands to benefit by what Trump is likely to do (short of all out nuclear war) but that doesn't mean I want that for my country...so far it seems everything he's done has been at the expense of the little guy and instead of draining the swamp he's refilling the water with his own brand of billionare cronyism. Really, nominating Steven T. Mnuchin for Treasury secretary is gonna get rid of the swamp?
Jeff,
Very well put! That, in my view, is the key point.
He has sold to his voters change they would benefit from. And what is shaping is change that will make their situation even worse.
The most striking example I feel is his proposal to ease financial regulations. Who could believe for a second that this is going to help the least bit the farmers of Arkansas? This is going to help his friends in Wall Street, that's it (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/03/sen-warren-goes-at-trump-for-financial-rules-rollback-were-finding-out-whose-side-hes-really-on.html).
Why am I spending time on this internal American discussion although I am not an American citizenship? Various reasons:
- I feel sorry for my American friends,
- I feel sorry for myself as a citizen of the world and as a father, because I aspire for more for my daughter and for a "better world" that Trump's actions will certainly not get any of us,
- I feel that the truth must surface quickly about the disastrous impacts of Trump's actions in order to reduce the temptation of voters in other countries, such as France, to believe in the simplistic lies of populist candidates.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks, Schewe, for a cogent, considered post.
Trump will continue to do whatever is best for Trump - that is the only thing that interests him. If that benefits others, that's great, but he doesn't really care. He attacks and name-called a GOP-appointed judge and pre-emptively blames him "if anything happens", yet the responsibility for signing a legal and constitutionally valid executive order remains with Trump. That his order isn't proof against challenge is his fault. If "something happens" then he's in charge and he's the blame - that's what happens when you're in charge - there's no one else to blame. He will never accept that, though. In his mind, he's never wrong, and whilst all politicians lean toward that bent, Trump is sitting at the top.
-
Jeff stick to photography you can see thru the lens but you can't see the forest through the trees?
-
FYI...
H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861?r=10)
115th Congress (2017-2018)
Sponsor: Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1] (https://www.congress.gov/member/matt-gaetz/G000578?r=10)(Introduced 02/03/2017)
Committees: House - Energy and Commerce; Agriculture; Transportation and Infrastructure; Science, Space, and Technology
Latest Action: 02/03/2017 Referred to House Science, Space, and Technology (All Actions) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/all-actions?r=10&overview=closed#tabs)
-
FYI...
Preserve the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/preserve-national-endowment-arts-and-national-endowment-humanities)
The Arts and Humanities are a vital part of our cultural identity and enhance the quality of our lives. They connect us to the past, they speak to us in the present, and they are our legacy, our gift to the future. Investing in them is never a waste, and I strongly urge that both the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities continue to receive federal funding.
Sign This Petition
Needs 22,647 (as of this post) signatures by February 20, 2017 to get a response from the White House
77,353 SIGNED 100,000 GOAL
(only US citizens need vote–sorry)
-
FYI...
INDIVISIBLE (https://www.indivisibleguide.com)
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR RESISTING THE TRUMP AGENDA
Former congressional staffers reveal best practices for making Congress listen.
DOWNLOAD THE GUIDE (https://www.indivisibleguide.com/resources)
[VIDEO 2:28] Introduction to the Indivisible Guide (https://www.indivisibleguide.com/resources-2/2017/1/30/video-introduction-to-the-indivisible-guide)
NOTE FROM THE INDIVISIBLE TEAM
Since this guide went live as a Google Doc, we’ve received an overwhelming flood of messages from people all over the country working to resist the Trump agenda. We’re thrilled and humbled by the energy and passion of this growing movement. We’ll be updating the guide based on your feedback and making it interactive ASAP. You can sign up for updates at www.IndivisibleGuide.com.
Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.
-
and if your grandma 'd have those balls... Trump played the game to win according to the rules and won, so suck it up.
I detest this anti-democratic attitude. Did the Rethuglicans just 'suck it up' when Obama won the presidency? No, they didn't; they did everything they could to frustrate his plans, including the descent into lies & misinformation that has so underpinned Trump's whole campaign & presidency so far. US democrcay isn't a one-time event, something that happens just every four years. Democracy is a process, on-going, never settled. Yes Trump won, but a fair bit of gerrymandering (aka 'cheating') underpinned that win. He won whilst losing the popular vote. He still won, but that's no reason why the rest of the people should just 'suck it up'. They have the right to complain, bitch & moan, protest, agitate for change, lobby their representatives, bitch & moan some more, throw legal challenges at the administration, refuse to comply with instructions and unjust laws, and to say "Not in my name" when Donald Little Hands tries to impose his racist, misogynist, hate-filled policies. Other than that, I agree with you 100%.
-
The real problem, however, is that Mr Trump isn't operating in a vacuum. But that he were! Like it nor not, and it is a responsibility long fostered, the USA power structure affects not only the USA. Exactly as does Mr Putin sitting in one of the scales, so does My Trump squatting within the other. Where the central pointer comes to its temporary rest affects the entire world, not just two major players.
This, of course, doesn't preclude the other huge elephant: China. Perfectly able, I believe, to knock the entire set of scales over on its ass.
Common sense, restraint and extremely finely tuned diplomacy is of the essence. Remove but a single element from that list, and we are in deep shit. It starts with respect for the planet, the common base upon which we all depend if the exercise of government is not to become irrelevant due to the resulting melt-down of all else.
The first lesson Mr T should be encouraged to learn is that social networks may sway the innocent, but they are no platform for international relationships and decisions. That work is best done at diplomatic level, not within a public chat show.
-
The Arts and Humanities are a vital part of our cultural identity and enhance the quality of our lives
I would agree. However, I am not sure that the Federal Government needs to get involved in the funding of the Arts and Humanities.
-
... Yes Trump is President and I hate to break it to you but you do have to accept what he is doing if in fact it becomes codified into law. Well I guess you could chose to break the law, or leave the country….
It will show how stabile this country is for mr Trump does not make 'the Law' on his own.
'the Law' as he seems to see it- is as something that has to benefit him or else it was a 'so-called judge' that made a wrong (stupid) decision.
It looks he may grow into being be the Christian Erdogan equivalent of the USA- making the country less democratic, with no free press.
Democratically chosen to bring democracy down.
-
From outside the USA it looks pretty obvious why Mr Trump won. It is not a surprise. The American system isn't working properly - and the same could be said of much of Europe. I guess the paradox is that peaceful, stable, prosperous government can only return when the system is working properly again but how does one bring that about without having to endure the anger and chaos of the present moment? The risk is that the present moment could drag on for years and become very unpleasant indeed. For myself, I think the disastrously one-sided settlement imposed after the bankers' crash of 2007-2008 has a lot to answer for. It's the one thing absolutely everyone has had burned into them. One law (and no penalties) for them, another law (and all the costs) for us. I'm not surprised people are hacked off.
I don't know what the answer is and I doubt a single person does. I do know, however, that the answer is not Mr Trump. He is a symptom but no solution, just as over here in the UK "Brexit" isn't going to make anything better. Perhaps in time, when the promises made by Mr Trump (or the Brexit movement) fail to materialize - they are too big and too numerous for that - people will start forgetting they voted Trump and instead begin to blame him for all the stuff that hasn't turned up. That is if he lasts the full term. I'd have thought the chances of that are rockier than they are with most previous presidents. He'll have to deal with ineptitude from his more ideological advisors, resistance from the government machine, protests and more resistance at street level and the inevitable meeting with reality in the form of Russia, China and the Middle East. A greater man might survive all that, but one handicapped by a mysterious business empire whose tax returns and loan agreements are bound to surface at some stage, not to mention an erratic personality with an itch to pick unnecessary arguments (environmental stewardship, e.g) ... one can see the professional politicians eventually deciding that Trump is an outsider they would be better off without. As an outsider Trump doesn't have much of a powerbase in politics itself and he does have a few people on his team whose resignations would be disastrous for him. None of this would be a fix for a broken system but it's still a possible outcome.
-
There's more to come:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/relaxing-coal-pollution-methane-flaring-rules-this-week-in-congress/
Cheers,
Bart
-
If I ran the LULA I would have a day where all the photos would be from the Ruinous Landscape. A polluted lake, A cityscape cut off by coal pollution, a forest damaged by acid rain, a river that smells like..... I'm ready to resist to protect these resources and the misinformation given to us by the present administration.
-
I would agree. However, I am not sure that the Federal Government needs to get involved in the funding of the Arts and Humanities.
I think you're right; I also think that we should get rid of state subsidies to artists. I see grants as a very doubtful strategy.
By all means fund art schools, but then let that education be the limit of the state's intervention. I see no reason at all why individuals should be funded through the public coffers once they have had their training. Subsidies simply create unnatural prices and extend the misery or, alternatively, the publicly-funded pleasures of ego-trippers riding a horse they never personally learned to break in to their requirements: a horse called Business. If you believe yourself an artist, great, just don't imagine that the rest of society might owe you for that.
I think public museums and galleries should get good funding in order to keep and also to buy great work, but not so the folks who want to get their stuff hanging inside them. Ditto dancers: because you want to leap around showing the size of your upholstered cluster is fine, just as long as you do it on your own dollar, pound, euro or whatever; I'm sure lots of rubles are still headed that way - so there's an idea.
Why would one think it moral to draw the line at artists? Why not pay weekend fishermen and hang-gliders for having their versions of fun, too? It's unreasonable to limit public funds to one section of self-entertainment but not to all others.
;-)
Rob C
-
If I ran the LULA I would have a day where all the photos would be from the Ruinous Landscape. A polluted lake, A cityscape cut off by coal pollution, a forest damaged by acid rain, a river that smells like..... I'm ready to resist to protect these resources and the misinformation given to us by the present administration.
Yes, but the present admin. didn't create those existing problems; it just doesn't seem to want to believe they exist or if they do exist, to help towards solving them.
Rob
-
If I ran the LULA I would have a day where all the photos would be from the Ruinous Landscape. A polluted lake, A cityscape cut off by coal pollution, a forest damaged by acid rain, a river that smells like..... I'm ready to resist to protect these resources and the misinformation given to us by the present administration.
There are some good documentary photographers who have been doing exactly this over the years both here and abroad. I remember W. Eugene Smith's work in Minimata Japan (think he was beaten up pretty badly by thugs while working over there). Lee Friedlander has done some nice work on the steel plants that closed down. More recently a young photographer, Matt Eich published a good documentary book, "Carry Me Ohio."
Regarding government funding of the arts, have we not forgotten the wonderful photography that was carried out under the auspices of the WPA? It doesn't just have to be continued government funding but let's recognize what Standard Oil did in funding the photography project in 1943-50 that Roy Stryker managed. It would be nice to see more corporate underwriting in this area.
We can all spend some time doing some documentary photography in our own geographical areas. I don't think LuLa wants to get into the book publishing business but perhaps they could curate an on-line exhibit. Just a thought.
-
... The rules were the rules and like it or not Trump won by the rules....
+1 (for the whole post)
-
Did the Rethuglicans just 'suck it up' when Obama won the presidency?
I voted twice for the magic one - once against the crippled slayer of civilians and once against the moron of the bain ;D - so yes, the suggestion was the same back then.
-
The rules were the rules and like it or not Trump won by the rules.
Hi Craig,
Sure, technically you are correct. But that doesn't mean that the result reflects what the total (or even a majority(?) of the) population would want.
Major blame is with those who didn't vote out of disinterest, but now feel misrepresented. They should blame themselves. Another aspect is that the US electoral process as it is, has its flaws itself (https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim).
I’m not a fan of hacking, but I’m really happy the data was made public.
Yet there seems to be suspiciously little interest in Trump's business ties that limit (or worse steer) his maneuvering space in global politics. We already saw that with the ban on Muslim travel into the USA, which we are not allowed to call a ban, although he did himself. The selectivity is amazing discrimination and unconstitutional, under the guise of terrorism prevention. None of the affected countries have perpetrated acts of terrorism in the USA, yet countries that have, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libia, other Gulf states, are not mentioned. Why.
While I’m on that subject lets not be blind to the very real possibility that the US hacks governments around the world and puts its fingers into elections as well.
As revealed by Ed Snowden, programs like 'Prism' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)) target both foreign as well as local citizens, and government officials. What they do with the information is not obvious, but I'm not naive.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think you're right; I also think that we should get rid of state subsidies to artists.
Just to be clear the NEA doesn't give grants to individuals, the give grants to schools, museums, foundations and other organizations to help kickstart community programs-often in communities that would never be able to fund the arts themselves...
Not for nothing but if you are going to appose something it would be useful if you understood what you appose.
-
There are some good documentary photographers who have been doing exactly this over the years both here and abroad. I remember W. Eugene Smith's work in Minimata Japan (think he was beaten up pretty badly by thugs while working over there). Lee Friedlander has done some nice work on the steel plants that closed down. More recently a young photographer, Matt Eich published a good documentary book, "Carry Me Ohio."
Regarding government funding of the arts, have we not forgotten the wonderful photography that was carried out under the auspices of the WPA? It doesn't just have to be continued government funding but let's recognize what Standard Oil did in funding the photography project in 1943-50 that Roy Stryker managed. It would be nice to see more corporate underwriting in this area.
We can all spend some time doing some documentary photography in our own geographical areas. I don't think LuLa wants to get into the book publishing business but perhaps they could curate an on-line exhibit. Just a thought.
Oh, I'm all for corporate funding of the arts, especially if they feel inclined to sponsor me! It used to be called advertising, but came to the same thing. My little family and I did quite well out of it too, and my wife and I got to travel and work in many parts of the world we would never have otherwise seen.
I note David Bailey shot the portrait pic for the Queen's Sapphire Jubilee; if that was state-funded, then I make an exception and approve, seeing it as a commission and not a freebie, which perhaps it was, seeing it's not his first time photographing her. Who knows?
Rob
-
Just to be clear the NEA doesn't give grants to individuals, the give grants to schools, museums, foundations and other organizations to help kickstart community programs-often in communities that would never be able to fund the arts themselves...
Not for nothing but if you are going to appose something it would be useful if you understood what you appose.
Absolutey, and I wasn't even referring to the USA, where public money can be spent by the state in any old way it chooses without my giving a toss. You know, horses in the race etc.? I understand it's taxing, but try thinking outwith America - we, people, also exist in Europe.
Rob C
-
Hi Jeff,
I must say that Mr. Trump came number one in the presidential race, that is the way things work. It may be he came number one by a tiny margin, that he had no majority of the popular vote, but he was number one according to the rules.
US democracy is strong and it stands on multiple pillars. There is the House of Representatives and the Senate and an independent judiciary system.
There is a problem with democracy, the voters can make a bad choice. With a stable democracy the POTUS can only do that much and can be deposed by popular voice in four years. In less stable democracies that is not a given fact.
Citizens should protest about things they find wrong, they should write to their congress-persons and express opinion.
Best regards
Erik
So, while I was writing my respectful response to a member's post, stuff got heated and the thread was closed. But since I took the time to write a respectful post with lots of info, I'm going to try a new post and ask that we stick to a healthy, respectful debate on the issues and resist the temptation of personal attacks (well, except to attacks on Trump :~)
So, he's my post as written: (thank goodness I wrote it in a document so I didn't lose it when the thread was closed)
You may be right...but I'm not sure Trump voters really knew what they were voting for because it's really hard to know what Trump truely stands for in many cases because over the years he has flipped and flopped about. It's also hard to know what he actually believes because he's a serial liar–Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/01/truth-check-clinton-and-trump-truth-o-meter-1-week/) tracked him last year and ranked him as mostly false, false or pants on fire a whopping 69.6%. So, only about 30% of what comes out of his mouth is true. Hard to really know, ya know? Heck, even Kellyanne Conway said we "should judge Donald Trump based on “what’s in his heart” rather than “what’s come out of his mouth”. The problem is it's hard to know what's in his heart.
But say they knew what they were doing when they voted for Trump. Unfortunately, the people who voted for Trump represent only 27% of of the eligible voters. Of the total of 231,556,622 eligible voters, only about 60% (138,884,643) voted. That means 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote and the 65,979,879 who voted for Hillary were out voted by 62,979,879 of the voting population. That means the majority of the eligible voters didn't vote for Trump. That doesn't sound like much of a mandate to me...
Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now.
One can debate all you want about why, but I'm pretty sure that Russia hacking the DNC computers and Podesta's email and James Comey's handling of the email server investigation and several states' attacks on voting rights (read voter suppression) had a negative impact on the Democratic Presidential Candidate's campaign. It didn't help that Hillary didn't even bother to visit Wisconsin and didn't really get out and connect with the people who Obama was able to connect with.
So, Trump is President. But he's not my choice and I don't have to accept what he is trying to do. My goal is to help generate the action and political will to get those people who didn't vote off their asses and get involved for the midterm elections to regain control of the Senate, mitigate the House and make sure Trump can't do everything he has said he wants to do because I think it's wrong for the country.
I want to see progressives (Democrats or Independents) organize in a way similar to the way the Tea party organized after Obama was elected. I saw an article in the NYT called The Alt-Majority: How Social Networks Empowered Mass Protests Against Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/technology/donald-trump-social-networks-protests.html) that is a sign of the times (I know, Trump thinks the NYT is fake news but hey, I think he's a fake person).
I'm not going to accept Trump's attempts at reshaping America into his likeness. I reject "Alternative Facts". I reject accepting Trump's lies as the new normal. I reject having a President who suffers from a mental disability called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)). I even wrote a post on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/jeff.schewe/posts/1249950058423253?pnref=story) in case you want to read more about NPD.
I can only hope that the GOP can somehow get Trump to quit being CEO of a closely help corporation that steps on everybody but answers to nobody and learn how to become a President of all Americans. If you voted for Trump, I hope you are right but fear you are wrong. Sadly the Doomsday Clock (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26/domesday_clock_150_seconds_from_midnight/) has moved to just 150 seconds from midnight–the closest setting to doom since 1953.
I'm an old white guy with money who stands to benefit by what Trump is likely to do (short of all out nuclear war) but that doesn't mean I want that for my country...so far it seems everything he's done has been at the expense of the little guy and instead of draining the swamp he's refilling the water with his own brand of billionare cronyism. Really, nominating Steven T. Mnuchin for Treasury secretary is gonna get rid of the swamp?
So, I'm going to work to bring about change. I'm an old hippy at heart. I actually walked in anti-Vietnam War marches (ok, it was only the last 2 years before the war ended, but I marched). My wife and my daughter walked in the Woman's March here in Chicago–I supported them and the other 250K that walked but couldn't make it. I donated money and joined the ACLU for the first time in my life and I'm going to write letters and work in support of the NEA (https://www.arts.gov), PBS (http://www.pbs.org) and NPR (http://www.npr.org). I'm actually thinking of marching in Washington on Earthday to support the The March for Science (https://www.marchforscience.com). What Trump and his Trumpets are trying to do to the EPA and climate science is truly scary. So, who's with me? What other Americans are going to step up and take action?
It's our country and we should be willing to work to bring about change...if you don't then you deserve what you get...Donald J Trump-President of the United Staes of America. Is that what ya want? Really?
-
US democracy is strong and it stands on multiple pillars. There is the House of Representatives and the Senate and an independent judiciary system.
There is a problem with democracy, the voters can make a bad choice. With a stable democracy the POTUS can only do that much and can be deposed by popular voice in four years. In less stable democracies that is not a given fact.
Citizens should protest about things they find wrong, they should write to their congress-persons and express opinion.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
While your statement is correct on its surface, we do not see any move by the Republican Congress to investigate our President's business ties. We don't know how much President Trump's companies owe to foreign banks, we have not seen any evidence that he has adequately stepped away from his companies, and his sons, who ostensibly run the companies, get US taxpayer subsidized protection when traveling on business ($100K for a trip by Don Jr. to Uruguay). Regarding the independent judiciary, Trump accused an American born jurist who has Hispanic roots of being unfit to adjudicate a trial involving Trump University. This past weekend he insulted the Appellate Court judge who overturned the travel ban as a "so-called judge." These are the types of behaviors that are bothering many of us. I tolerated the victories by Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and even the disputed victory of George W. Bush in 2000. I agree that President Trump won the election because of the antiquated Constitutional provisions governing presidential elections. I do not regard him as fit for office and find his behavior demeaning to the majority of the American public that did not vote for him.
-
... Unfortunately, the people who voted for Trump represent only 27% of of the eligible voters. Of the total of 231,556,622 eligible voters, only about 60% (138,884,643) voted. That means 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote and the 65,979,879 who voted for Hillary were out voted by 62,979,879 of the voting population. That means the majority of the eligible voters didn't vote for Trump. That doesn't sound like much of a mandate to me...
Ah! The 27% argument.
Wouldn't the same argument apply in case Hillary won? Would her 28% be a mandate?
As for the popular vote "win" or "loss" (you can't actually win or lose in a game you didn't compete in)... Hillary "won" the popular vote thanks to California, where Trump didn't bother campaigning much (just like she didn't bother campaigning in Wisconsin - or campaigning at all - preparing for debates instead).
Now, take CA out of the equation (given that CA wants to secede anyway) and Trump actually "won" the popular vote in the other 49 states with a 1.4 million margin. In other words, it isn't "backward" USA, flyover USA, rural USA, redneck USA that voted Trump, it is the majority of 49 states voting, it is CA vs. the rest of the USA.
-
If you believe yourself an artist, great, just don't imagine that the rest of society might owe you for that.
Back in the '80's, I worked with this guy who truly believed that he should be able to "register" with the government as an "artist" and that the government would then give him a stipend to support himself while he did his art. Yikes!
-
An interesting read is Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies
I don't agree with everything he writes and I certainly don't agree with the way he puts forth his arguments, but it is an interesting read.
-
Unfortunately, the people who voted for Trump represent only 27% of of the eligible voters. Of the total of 231,556,622 eligible voters, only about 60% (138,884,643) voted. That means 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote and the 65,979,879 who voted for Hillary were out voted by 62,979,879 of the voting population. That means the majority of the eligible voters didn't vote for Trump. That doesn't sound like much of a mandate to me...
Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/399/31905720044_b82c47a4fe_b.jpg)
Now, take CA out of the equation (given that CA wants to secede anyway) and Trump actually "won" the popular vote in the other 49 states with a 1.4 million margin. In other words, it isn't "backward" USA, flyover USA, rural USA, redneck USA that voted Trump, it is the majority of 49 states voting, it is CA vs. the rest of the USA.
Sure as hell doesn't look that way ..
-
In a democracy a strong opposition is essential. The "winner" doesn't become a dictator and do what they like. A strong opposition will push Trump into overstepping himself and his four years won't run it's full time and a sane leader will be elected and the world, as well as the USA, will be a safer place. The more you prod Trump the bigger the reaction will reveal his hubris and eventually there will be a reaction which will get him impeached. :)
-
Hi,
I find that statement of Mr. Trump very much disrespectful, ignorant, stupid and unethical.
Best regards
Erik
This past weekend he insulted the Appellate Court judge who overturned the travel ban as a "so-called judge."
-
... Sure as hell doesn't look that way ..
What exactly are you disputing from what I said? That Trump "won" the popular vote with a 1.4 million margin in 49 states, except in CA? That is a mathematical fact. Your map is showing electoral votes.
-
" I actually walked in anti-Vietnam War marches (ok, it was only the last 2 years before the war ended, but I marched). My wife and my daughter walked in the Woman's March here in Chicago"
Well it's to bad that you didn't spend some time "walking" in Viet Nam itself at the time. I'm sure we could have gotten you into a uniform somehow.
All this drama reminds me of a spoiled child the first time it's told "no" and the ensuing tantrums.
Kevin in CT
-
... Well it's to bad that you didn't spend some time "walking" in Viet Nam itself at the time. I'm sure we could have gotten you into a uniform somehow...
Even better, I am sure that Jeff's Hawaiian shirts would have blended in quite nicely in the Vietnam jungle. No need for a camouflage. ;)
-
The speaker in the Uk parliament has stated that Trump will not be allowed to address the members of parliament if he visits the UK on a state visit. Loud applause greeted the announcement.
-
Hi,
I find that statement of Mr. Trump very much disrespectful, ignorant, stupid and unethical.
Best regards
Erik
Referring to me? No apology forthcoming.
-
Is this fake news?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/is-donald-trump-mentally_b_13693174.html
-
I see this statement over and over again, and it shows the gross misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of civics and the history of pure democracies by those who say it.
First, the electoral college is not antiquated. According to Google, antiquated means old-fashion or outdated. Well, the Electrical College has been around only for the age of the USA; pure democracies, which is what you are advocating for, have been around for eons. The Electoral College is not old-fashion in comparison; it's the opposite.
I was a political science minor in college with an emphasis on American government. Without getting into the weeds the Electoral College was established because of the founder's distrust in absolute democracy. It was the same reason that the senators were not elected by popular vote for a considerable period of time after the Constitution was adopted. There has been a lot of scholarly articles written about the Electoral College over the years predicting that there would be continuing problems regarding a differential between the popular and electoral vote.
Second, pure democracies don't work by the tyranny of the majority. Having a pure democracy allows the majority to only consider what is best for them, eventually causing dissidents amongst the minority. Read the Federalist Papers by James Madison for an argument against pure democracies with no checks on power that is more eloquent that what I can muster here.
I'm well versed in the Federalist Papers.
Third, the Electoral College forcThere are examples of this playing out through history that has indirectly led to the downfall of governments. es our presidential confidantes to pay attention to the entire country, which I see as a plus.
This is utter nonsense. Candidates spend time and media money in maybe 10 or so states so I don't understand how you can say this is a national campaign. Of course the media outlets in the those states love the Electoral College as it means big advertising money coming in. Consider the top ten states by population which make up over 1/2 of the total number of citizens in the country. Out of these states, candidates were very active in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. There was some campaigning in North Carolina and next to NONE in California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Georgia and New Jersey not too mention most of the other states with lessor amounts of Electoral Votes (anyone go to the Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming not to mention Alaska and Hawaii?). Now maybe you consider that this means that Trump and Clinton paid attention to the entire country, if so you and I have differing views of what 'entire' means. I still don't understand you you square paying attention to the 'entire country' and then not receiving a majority of the votes cast is then something meaningful. President Trump is governing with a minority of support from the people in this country (unless you subscribe to the voter fraud agreement).
I consider the Electoral College, regardless if my candidate wins or looses, an ingenious way to avoid to the pit falls of pure democracies and another great example of the many checks and balances our government has.
That's pure nonsense as the US with its two party system and bifurcated leadership is immune to the problems that plague most parliamentary systems.
-
The Electoral College, like many aspects of our governmental structure was a compromise. It was related to the "big state little state" issue of representation. The intention was for the person elected president to receive the majority of votes from the majority of states; not just the majority of votes. But how to do that in a way that is fair to small populated states and fair to large populated states. That's the problem that our founding dudes were faced with. After much harrumphing a compromise arose. A good compromise is where both sides are equally unhappy. ;D
It is an imperfect system, but after over 700 bills in congress to come up with something better, the Electoral College, warts and all, still remains.
It can be said that the electoral college is advantageous to our, mostly, two party system and that is probably a viable opinion.
The solution is not to get rid of the Electoral College (it would be far too difficult) but to fix it. One simple fix would be that each state would choose to allot their electoral votes along proportional methods and get rid of the "winner takes all". Each state has the authority to do so without congressional permission and would not necessitate any changes to the constitution.
Hence, the protests should be directed to the individual state legislative branches and not the federal government. The only thing preventing a state from changing how it allots its electoral votes is the state itself.
-
I'm with you Schewe! I was not a fan of Hillary but there is no way on earth I would ever have voted for such a morally weak person as Trump. How anyone could vote for a man who talked about sexually assaulting women staggers the mind. We are so invested in our polarized viewpoints, we are willing to accept a degenerate rather than admit "their" side has the better candidate.
-
I don't understand these complaints about the electoral system in the US, if both candidates agree to participate in such system then the result is to be respected. The fact that Trump won fair and square doesn't make the whole thing it any less tragic and scary.
-
... We are so invested in our polarized viewpoints, we are willing to accept a degenerate rather than admit "their" side has the better candidate.
Maybe because it is not always about candidates' personalities, but issues?
Then again, just imagine how much one side must have been pissed off with Democrats' positions on issues, to vote a "degenerate" in instead.
Also, let's not blame Trump for everything Democrats lost. They've been losing under Obama steadily, long before Trump: "1042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency."
-
Yikes! If this is as serious an issue to get Jeff riled up enough to post a lengthy LuLa topic on the subject, I guess I better pay attention.
As a life long Democrat in the heavily Republican red state of Texas, I was one who didn't vote because I really didn't believe from the cartoon-ish persona of Trump that he was going to win. I also saw the lines even in early voting, so I just stayed home.
But I think there's going to be a kind of silver lining from a Trumps presidency in that now more than ever the majority of the voting population will be made even more aware due to increased scrutiny from the media AND social networking TO NEVER EVER VOTE FOR A P***K LIKE THAT AGAIN!
In a way Trump is doing us a favor to the nation to pay attention, we can all make a difference.
-
The speaker in the Uk parliament has stated that Trump will not be allowed to address the members of parliament if he visits the UK on a state visit. Loud applause greeted the announcement.
And then there is this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/02/06/john-bercow-does-not-speak-britain-just-monstrous-ego/
-
Maybe because it is not always about candidates' personalities, but issues?
You can change a person's mind about issues, but his character is set...he's 70 years old.
-
You said the EC was antiquated; compared to the only other option given so far, it is not. If you have something to suggest other then a pure democratic vote or the EC, please let us know what it is.
Now, although I do not disagree that there are flaws in the EC (after all, men are flawed), I do think it is a better system then a pure democracy, which has been shown throughout history as an unfair system of voting due to what James Madison so eloquently explains.
I imagine that you are not troubled by the five elections where the winner of the popular vote was not elected President. I am troubled by it and believe as do the citizens of the states that have approved legislation that allows those states to cast their electoral votes in favor of the candidate that wins the popular vote.
[quot]Second, to say that candidates only campaign in 10 states only applies to single time frames, but if you look at the history of campaigns in general, they do represent the majority of the states, collectively. [/quote]
This is certainly not the history in recent elections. One cannot compare this election with those in the pre-Civil War era where there were far fewer people, fewer states, and it cost much less to campaign.
Eventually though, those in those states being ignored become dissident and start looking at the other side, creating opportunity for a shift. As I am sure you know since this your subject, FL was not always a swing state and not campaigned in nearly as much.
Also, consider WV, did anyone really think Bush could have changed that state? No, which is why Gore ignored them and then Bush did just that. Hillary ignored PA, WI and MI for the same reasons, and found out that was a bad idea.
Although little serious campaigning has been done in those states and they are not part of your 10 (I assume), I am sure that will change in 2020. Will we see more then just 10 states being seriously campaigned in? Maybe, maybe not, however, if not, it will be a different 10 states then before, even if just by one, and the process will repeat itself somewhere else, in some other state, over time.
The EC votes don't change until after the 2020 election so we will have the same set up. The only major state that "may" be more contested next time is Texas where the Latino vote is expected to increase significantly. I don't see the politics of New York, California, or New Jersey changing at all. All three states are also every expensive in terms of media markets so if the current Dem/Rep ratio stays as is and there is no reason to expect otherwise, the Republican candidate would be a fool to spend any money there.
Last, I never said the USA government is immune to problems present in other parliamentary governments, so I am not sure how you arrived at that. ???
parliamentary governments under proportional representation regulations are as close to pure democracy as one can get.
-
Well it's to bad that you didn't spend some time "walking" in Viet Nam itself at the time.
To be clear, I was eligible for the draft for 3 years...my number selected never came out below 200 or so and the draft never got over 150 those last 3 years...not sure what I would have done if drafted. I had friends who fled to Canada and Europe and I never heard anything about them. But if you were alive at the time of the Vietnam War, it was pretty clear the nation no longer wanted to be there. Ironically, I have friends who went and survived...a couple when back to visit Vietnam a couple of years ago and felt very welcomed by the people. Seems America is much admired by the people of Vietnam these days even though we were at war with them.
Not sure what you are trying to get at with the rest of your post...so you wanted me fighting in Vietnam in an immoral war? Or you think I'm throwing a temper tantrum?
Either way, I'll not respond to such baiting because I see the current situation in America unacceptable and I'm planning on doing something about it.
-
Second, we do not need to look at pre-Civil War eras; states have been ignored by their favored party and changed in the last century. CA is a great example; remember, it use to be a strong republican state. Texas use to vote strongly democratic. They both changed in the middle of the last century.
Now I purposely used CA and TX as examples above since you mentioned it would be unlikely that those states would change parties. Well, they did once already (two counter examples here, remember you only one to disprove a statement). Sure, it is not going to happen over 4 years, or even 8, but it certainly can happen.
Texas as all the other southern states moved to the Republican column after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that. California move away from the Republican party after Governor Wilson's xenophobic adoption of strict immigration controls at the state level. This was amply documented in Kevin Starr's wonderful history of California during that era "Coast of Dreams: California on the Edge - 1990 - 2003" where Repblicans today stand no chance of winning any statewide office.
Last may I state here, you still have not argued against my rebuttal of your statement that the EC is antiquated, only provided more red herrings, although interesting and perhaps not intentional, distracting my attention, which is the very definition of a red herring argument.
One final try here. The EC is inherently undemocratic in that it violates the 'one person - one vote' paradigm. Because each state gets a minimum of 3 EC votes regardless of population, a vote in Wyoming counts more than a vote in California. California gets 1 EV for every 508K people whereas Wyoming its 1 EV per 143K. Thus a Californian has 1/5 the voting power of someone in Wyoming. Slate published a good MAP (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html) showing the disparity.
-
Is this fake news?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/is-donald-trump-mentally_b_13693174.html
Nope not fake, the NPD diagnosis is very real (see my OP and post on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/jeff.schewe/posts/1249950058423253?pnref=story))...but it's also not sanctioned by the Psychiatric community in general because back in the 1964 elections, Barry Goldwater was diagnosed as not being fit by 1,189 psychiatrists out of 12,000 surveyed and the Psychiatric community came up with the Goldwater Rule (http://jaapl.org/content/44/2/226)
From the section about the rule:
"The American Psychiatric Association (APA) condemned the use of psychiatric commentary for political purposes, and nine years later declared unethical psychiatrists' public commentary on public figures who have not been personally examined and had not given consent for disclosure. This dictum, established as Section 7.3 of the APA Code of Ethics,2 is informally known as the Goldwater Rule."
But there's nothing to keep me from calling Trump a victim of Narcissistic Personality Disorder...
Here's what I wrote in my Facebook post:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)) is a serious personality disorder. According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believe that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Is interpersonally exploitative
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”
Note, that phrase as indicated by five (or more). Trump ticks all 9 and then there's the degree of which the individual suffers the disorder. Trump doesn't exhibit a mild form of any of the 9 criteria, Trump exhibits an excess of each of the 9 criteria.
I'm pretty sure it is not in America's best interest to have somebody suffering from NPD to be President...
-
If not, you have neither addressed the premise in a logical manner about why the EC is antiquated (old-fashion and out-dated, nothing to do with undemocratic) when compared to the only other option listed, a pure democratic vote, which is a centuries old concept, nor have you provided another modern, more efficient and proven method of voting for national figures, which would by the definition of antiquated prove your point.
We will need to let this one end on this point and we shall both declare victory for our respective opinions.
-
... The EC is inherently undemocratic in that it violates the 'one person - one vote' paradigm...
You forgot one more "one" - "one person - one vote - one state." Which is already the case here.
In federal situations, that paradigm is simply not valid. Federally organized entities typically have two parliament chambers: one based on the proportional principle, the other on parity. I am not aware (someone please correct me if wrong) of a federal state with the "one person - one vote" paradigm.
-
This talk about Trump's mental health reminds me of the Soviet practice of sending political opponents to asylums. Because, you know, who in their sane mind would disagree with the party line (or, as it is known here, PC)?
-
How is this different?
It isn't...since I'm not a psychiatrist, the Goldwater rule doesn't apply to me. I only point out the fact that NPD is a real and potentially disaffiliating mental disease and that both psychologists and psychiatrists I personally know say that somebody with such a disorder is really not a good choice for somebody who has control of the nuclear codes and is commander in chief of America's military.
Maybe he can learn how to be presidential but so far, his actions give me little hope that he can overcome his mental challenges.
-
... his actions give me little hope that he can overcome his mental challenges.
Isn't the left the one who constantly harps about the need to include mental patients in regular activities, not isolate them? ;)
-
I voted twice for the magic one - once against the crippled slayer of civilians and once against the moron of the bain ;D - so yes, the suggestion was the same back then.
Except that the Rethuglican wing of the Corporate Incumbent Party, did everything they could to stymie Obama's policies, and even his choice for the Supreme Court. Of course, when Democrats threaten the same thing, that's an anti-democratic outrage.
-
You forgot one more "one" - "one person - one vote - one state." Which is already the case here.
In federal situations, that paradigm is simply not valid. Federally organized entities typically have two parliament chambers: one based on the proportional principle, the other on parity. I am not aware (someone please correct me if wrong) of a federal state with the "one person - one vote" paradigm.
Israel, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, and many more
-
Isn't the left the one who constantly harps about the need to include mental patients in regular activities, not isolate them? ;)
Absolutely and he is a wonderful real estate developer and should have stuck to that line of work. Are you confident that he has authority over the largest military in the world (and I ask this seriously)?
-
That's politics, it's a blood sport, always has been, always will be, regardless of time or country. If you can't handle it, go home.
Not really. During the Reagan years there was a lot of collaboration between parties to get things done. I can remember being a a couple of Congressional hearings back then where Republican Senators were praising their Democratic colleagues and thanking them for working so hard to get a particular piece of legislation passed. Dan Quayle used to remark how well he worked with Ted Kennedy on health legislation. Things changed when Gingrich declared war on the Democrats and was able to lead the party to victory in 1994 when they took over the House. The House has remained rancorous ever since. The Senate still worked in bipartisan directions until McConnell and Reid rose to power in their respective parties and then the Senate became as rancorous as the House.
The nice thing about archiving things is how some of these old statements are catching up to current members. I just wanted to point out a bit of history from one who was there at the time.
-
Israel, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, and many more
None of those are federations, except Canada. And even in Canada it isn't "one man, one vote" to elect the national leader: people vote for their local member of parliament, just like here they vote for their electoral representative.
-
Except that the Rethuglican wing of the Corporate Incumbent Party, did everything they could to stymie Obama's policies, and even his choice for the Supreme Court. Of course, when Democrats threaten the same thing, that's an anti-democratic outrage.
As Tom Selleck said In "Quigley Down Under" "we already ran the misfits out of our country, we sent 'em back to England." Words to remember
-
All this drama reminds me of a spoiled child the first time it's told "no" and the ensuing tantrums.
Yes, that's exactly Trump. Well described.
-
We have our own problems, some of which overlap with other countries, but hey, at least were not like Great Britain. Watching parliament on C-Span is both entertaining and confusing, confusing because in that environment how does anything actually get done?
As opposed to your Congress, which is infamous for being slower than frozen molasses?
-
Erik,
While your statement is correct on its surface, we do not see any move by the Republican Congress to investigate our President's business ties. We don't know how much President Trump's companies owe to foreign banks, we have not seen any evidence that he has adequately stepped away from his companies, and his sons, who ostensibly run the companies, get US taxpayer subsidized protection when traveling on business ($100K for a trip by Don Jr. to Uruguay). Regarding the independent judiciary, Trump accused an American born jurist who has Hispanic roots of being unfit to adjudicate a trial involving Trump University. This past weekend he insulted the Appellate Court judge who overturned the travel ban as a "so-called judge." These are the types of behaviors that are bothering many of us. I tolerated the victories by Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and even the disputed victory of George W. Bush in 2000. I agree that President Trump won the election because of the antiquated Constitutional provisions governing presidential elections. I do not regard him as fit for office and find his behavior demeaning to the majority of the American public that did not vote for him.
You can vote him out of office in 2020 if you're not happy with him. In the meanwhile he has the power of the Presidency, is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and Chief Executive of the US Government for four years just like Obama and every other President before him. His mandate and power come from the US Constitution not from how many people voted for him.
-
Back in the '80's, I worked with this guy who truly believed that he should be able to "register" with the government as an "artist" and that the government would then give him a stipend to support himself while he did his art. Yikes!
I've been waiting for check too so I could spend all my time taking pictures.
-
Texas as all the other southern states moved to the Republican column after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that. California move away from the Republican party after Governor Wilson's xenophobic adoption of strict immigration controls at the state level. This was amply documented in Kevin Starr's wonderful history of California during that era "Coast of Dreams: California on the Edge - 1990 - 2003" where Repblicans today stand no chance of winning any statewide office.
One final try here. The EC is inherently undemocratic in that it violates the 'one person - one vote' paradigm. Because each state gets a minimum of 3 EC votes regardless of population, a vote in Wyoming counts more than a vote in California. California gets 1 EV for every 508K people whereas Wyoming its 1 EV per 143K. Thus a Californian has 1/5 the voting power of someone in Wyoming. Slate published a good MAP (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html) showing the disparity.
You deliberately ignore that we are a Federal republic made up of 50 separate sovereign states that have their own governments. Each State wants to be recognized that they are just as legitimate as any other regardless of geographic size or population. Just like the UN Assembly where tiny Jamaica has one vote like China, each US State gets two electoral votes representing each of their senators plus the apportionment based on population. Beside the Electoral College, the Senate is made up of two Senators from each state regardless of geographic size and population. The Senators do not represent the people. They represent their sovereign states. Only the House of Representatives, the house of the people, represent the people and are proportionately delegated based on population.
True democracy and parliamentarian government won't work in the USA because of the Federal multi state situation. That's why and Electoral system was created; to honor each states' sovereignty. The Electoral system also created the two party system although parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution. Since a majority is required to become president, it forces people to get together under a big tent and adjust their differences to created a single candidate to get the majority of electoral votes. This couldn't work in a Parliamentary system; hence two parties.
-
You can vote him out of office in 2020 if you're not happy with him. In the meanwhile he has the power of the Presidency, is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and Chief Executive of the US Government for four years just like Obama and every other President before him. His mandate and power come from the US Constitution not from how many people voted for him.
No, his executive power comes from (and is limited by) the Constitution. Any mandate comes from the people and so the numbers do matter. Creating and implementing policy as a transaction matter is provided for by the constitution. Deciding what that policy should be and how to practically apply it, is a matter of mandate.
-
The speaker in the Uk parliament has stated that Trump will not be allowed to address the members of parliament if he visits the UK on a state visit. Loud applause greeted the announcement.
The speaker and those applauding will change their minds when Trump reacts to this insult and reverses his offer to make a trade deal with GB after they leave the EU.
-
True democracy and parliamentarian government won't work in the USA because of the Federal multi state situation. That's why and Electoral system was created; to honor each states' sovereignty. The Electoral system also created the two party system although parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution. Since a majority is required to become president, it forces people to get together under a big tent and adjust their differences to created a single candidate to get the majority of electoral votes. This couldn't work in a Parliamentary system; hence two parties.
Damn us Aussies for having a parliamentary, multi-state, federation which provides for each state to be represented equally regardless of size or population in the upper house (Senate). Damn us to hell for using a form of government that Alan has declared can't work.
And, for the record, you're a republic and a federation and the issue of the president is one of your type of government being a republic - being a federation basically has nothing to do with it. Of course, on that level we differ - we are a constitutional monarchy, not a republic, but pretty much all models put forward for us to change to a republic retain the parliament and the current structure of the upper and lower houses thereof at the federal level.
The EC is easily resolved into a more equitable process by removing the "winner takes all" standard that the States currently use. You can keep your minimum for smaller states to protect them, but if you make it proportional then the big "locked" states which are ignored by each party suddenly come into play (the GOP might not win the majority of California, but they might, for example, be able to push a few more EC votes with campaigning and the Dems could similarly have some chance of pulling a vote of two in Texas. All states become important because there's no longer a lock on those which overall are not going to change, and it more evenly represents the voters by making the blocks more granular. It requires no significant change in any process except for the states to allocate EC votes proportionately.
-
The speaker and those applauding will change their minds when Trump reacts to this insult and reverses his offer to make a trade deal with GB after they leave the EU.
You realise it's not a right to speak to the house? Foreign dignitaries speaking to the house only started in 1939 (the house has been meeting separately from the Lords since 1341, more or less). For Trump to speak it would be a privilege and since he has insulted numerous people, including UK citizens, it's not unreasonable for the Speaker to not invite him (and it's not the first time a visiting foreign dignitary hasn't been invited to speak).
You're right, though, Trump will react like the spoilt-brat narcissist that he is, but since he has business interests in the UK he will probably not do much about it (hint: he is (and was always) going to try to negotiate a trade deal with the UK (not GB) that was in favour of the US, with little concern as to whether or not it benefits the UK. The only thing that will ameliorate that basic direction is if there appears to be a "win" in it for him to offer them something (either in terms of for his business interests or through public acclimation).
-
Phil, But the point is the states (except for Maine) have not decided to go to proportional electoral votes based on the popular votes in their state. Why would California give up their massive Democrat vote in the electoral college based on a winner take all system for their state? How would you get the democrat controlled California legislature to push for a state constitutional change to make that happen. It won't. Even the small states gain power by not proportioning the electoral votes based on their popular vote. So the US and State Constitutions stand as they are.
Your point about the Australian system is well taken. My point was the fact in the US there isn't proportional representation in the senate or in the electoral college for President based totally on population. Therefore, true democracy and a parliamentarian system won't work unless you somehow weight the electoral votes. It is also well to remember that the US Constitution originally had electors voted by each of the states' legislatures. The people did not originally vote for the President. The founders really had little use for Presidents giving most power to the Congress. Unfortunately, over the years, Congress has given up their power to the President because of their fecklessness and desire to not have to make hard decisions that might get them unelected. They'd rather let the President stick his neck out. A perfect example is what Trump did with the travel ban. The Congress previously passed a law stating that the president can declare immigration policy. So now he takes the lumps. They should have left it that the President had to go to Congress to get permission. But it was less dangerous for them to let him make the mistake as he did recently and let him take the lumps. Then they can sit back and gripe about what a shame he did what he did. They're cowards, frankly. The fact is Trump, Obama, and all our recent Presidents have had too much power to screw things up.
-
Damn us Aussies for having a parliamentary, multi-state, federation which provides for each state to be represented equally regardless of size or population in the upper house (Senate). Damn us to hell for using a form of government that Alan has declared can't work.
Phil how does that work? Does the Upper house have equal votes for each State? How is it all equal?
-
Phil how does that work? Does the Upper house have equal votes for each State? How is it all equal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia
-
The speaker and those applauding will change their minds when Trump reacts to this insult and reverses his offer to make a trade deal with GB after they leave the EU.
I read a persuasive post which suggested that the way to deal with this is to stop making any mention of the T word. The T word is a non-word. Instead, use the words Republican or Republicans. As a long-standing political party the Republicans are going to have the whole nine yards pinned to them anyway so it is in their interest to start owning the situation instead of trying to hide in the back of the room. This would bring some welcome balance to the conduct of affairs and reduce the crazed focus on the T word as if this is all about one man acting alone. It isn't or at least it shouldn't be unless one fancies a dictatorship which I am sure no one does. There is a Legislature and a Judiciary, not just an Executive. That is the whole point of the system.
I suspect the same thing may happen here in the UK if or more likely when withdrawal from the EU starts to go wrong. The panic button will get pressed as soon as enough politicians realize it is not the famous names who are going to take the rap but "the Tories" in general, as a party at the polls.
-
Phil how does that work? Does the Upper house have equal votes for each State? How is it all equal?
As Manoli linked, you can read about our Electoral system, but to answer the question directly each state (we have 6 - they're just physically very large compared to your states) has 12 Senators, and the two territories have 2 Senators each. So each state has the same representation in the Senate and they serve fixed, 6 year terms with half of them being elected every 3 years (the normal period of the lower house). There is an exception to that in that the constitution provides for what is known as a double dissolution, but that's not particularly relevant to this discussion.
Senators for each state are elected under a preferential voting system (as is the lower house).
In response to your point of why the states would change? That's not the point - the point is discussing a better and fairer way and acknowledging that the current EC isn't helping your country.
Oh, and why would CA give that up? Because based on the popular vote, the Dem candidate might have got up - it depends on exactly how you do it. Fortunately, someone has already crunched the numbers for us to see:
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13319/who-would-have-won-the-presidency-if-all-states-electors-were-allocated-proport
I'll repost the results here:
Quote:
I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method (based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:
•Clinton 263
•Trump 262
•Johnson 10
•Stein 2
•McMullin 1
In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:
•Trump 269
•Clinton 259
•Johnson 7
•Stein 2
•McMullin 1
For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:
•Clinton 256
•Trump 255
•Johnson 17
•Stein 1
•McMullin 1
•Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source)
***
It makes for an interesting exercise. Trump may still have won in such a scenario, but of course in such a scenario, campaigning would be different so this is really just illustrative of the outcome compared to the "winner takes all" approach as it stands (which was 306 to 232). It suggests that such a change would provide a more representative result based on the overall vote, providing a result closer to "one person one vote", which is an established principle of fairness in democracy. Again, though, campaigning would have been different under such models.
The real benefit is that all states are in play for both sides (or perhaps even an independent here or there).
-
The speaker and those applauding will change their minds when Trump reacts to this insult and reverses his offer to make a trade deal with GB after they leave the EU.
What is any verbal offer worth, especially from DJT? He's mostly shooting from the lip, just to be unpredictable (at best), or indifferent about the consequences for others (more likely).
His advances to Russia (e.g. suggestions to lift the sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea) have most likely already caused people getting killed at the Ukrainian border when Putin was testing the reactions from the Trump administration (https://www.unian.info/politics/1763141-russia-testing-ground-with-trump-administration-by-escalating-hostilities-in-donbas-mep-gahler.html). It may also have to do with that DJT chose to no longer get daily briefings from the security organizations.
This is not a game of who is right or who is wrong, this is really serious (geo-political) stuff. Not something a sane person would leave up to someone in charge with the mental issues that professionals in the field of psychology ascribe to him, based on the symptoms he is showing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You can vote him out of office in 2020 if you're not happy with him. In the meanwhile he has the power of the Presidency, is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and Chief Executive of the US Government for four years just like Obama and every other President before him. His mandate and power come from the US Constitution not from how many people voted for him.
I have never denied that real fact (I don't live in a realm of alternative facts). However, I also have the right to peacefully RESIST and and all off what I deem to be egregious regarding what this administration wants to do. I'm enjoying a good bit of Schadenfreude right now as the Republicans including the President realize they cannot easily repeal and replace Obama care. The latest Pew Poll says 60% of American believe that government should provide health coverage: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americans-say-government-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/?utm_content=buffer664a5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
You deliberately ignore that we are a Federal republic made up of 50 separate sovereign states that have their own governments. Each State wants to be recognized that they are just as legitimate as any other regardless of geographic size or population.
I never ignored this fact at all. I just pointed, factually, that under the EC, each state is not equally represented in terms of "one person, one vote." You cannot argue against mathmatics.
-
Fortunately, someone has already crunched the numbers for us to see:
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13319/who-would-have-won-the-presidency-if-all-states-electors-were-allocated-proport
There were a bunch of similar analyses by others as well. Unfortunately, Trump would have probably won the election under all the scenarios as no candidate would win a majority of EC votes and the House of Representatives would have decided the election. Each state gets one vote on behalf of their delegation and since most of the state delegations have Republican majorities it's likely Trump would win.
-
What is any verbal offer worth, especially from DJT?
Judging from some of his business practices, even a written agreement from Trump has dubious value.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/donald-trump-stiff-contractors/
-
What is any verbal offer worth, especially from DJT? He's mostly shooting from the lip, just to be unpredictable (at best), or indifferent about the consequences for others (more likely).
His advances to Russia (e.g. suggestions to lift the sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea) have most likely already caused people getting killed at the Ukrainian border when Putin was testing the reactions from the Trump administration (https://www.unian.info/politics/1763141-russia-testing-ground-with-trump-administration-by-escalating-hostilities-in-donbas-mep-gahler.html). It may also have to do with that DJT chose to no longer get daily briefings from the security organizations.
This is not a game of who is right or who is wrong, this is really serious (geo-political) stuff. Not something a sane person would leave up to someone in charge with the mental issues that professionals in the field of psychology ascribe to him, based on the symptoms he is showing.
Cheers,
Bart
It's interesting that people who are say Trump is unhinged for calling a US Federal judge a "so-called judge" have no problem when they insult him as President of the US. Where's your respect for the Office of the Presidency? But his supporters understand what's going on in trying to delegitimize him. Instead of name calling, why don't you figure out how you're going to reverse who's in charge in the White House in four years. Calling him names didn't work in the last one.
-
I have never denied that real fact (I don't live in a realm of alternative facts). However, I also have the right to peacefully RESIST and and all off what I deem to be egregious regarding what this administration wants to do. I'm enjoying a good bit of Schadenfreude right now as the Republicans including the President realize they cannot easily repeal and replace Obama care. The latest Pew Poll says 60% of American believe that government should provide health coverage: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americans-say-government-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/?utm_content=buffer664a5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Trump said before the election that he would not walk over someone who fell ill on the street in front of him when referring to health care. Cruz was right when he called him a New York liberal. Many conservative Republicans in Congress are concerned that he eventually will only settle on some form of universal health care. That he'll push Keysian spending, lower taxes and increase military spending and ignore deficits and increase the debt, definitely anathema to conservative republicans. They're also concerned about trade issues that are throwbacks to the past. His daughter Ivanka has lots of socially liberal friends and supports the LGBT movement. He's already stated that America gets into too many wars; he seems more interested in growing the economy than foreign adventures.
I think there's a knee-jerk reaction to Trump. If Liberals would just slow down and give him a chance, I think they're going to be surprised just how many of Trump policies will line up with their own. Not all, but many. He's really a middle-of-the-road politician who cares about people if you hear past his gruff demeanor as a tough New Yorker and real estate developer who talks like he's on a construction site.
-
Damn us Aussies for having a parliamentary, multi-state, federation which provides for each state to be represented equally regardless of size or population in the upper house (Senate). Damn us to hell for using a form of government that Alan has declared can't work.
If I understand correctly, your 6 states have equal representation in the upper house regardless of population. I guess my question is how would the US have set up a Parliamentary system while still giving less populated states more representation than the larger states?
Phil: This is a part I don't understand. Can you explain how your leader becomes the Prime Minister
-
I sort of think that a problem with the USA, as well as with "Europe", is one of size: both are too damned large and cover too many sorts of communities to be able to create any semblance of level playing fields.
How do you balance the citizens' rights, standards of living and so forth (with associated aspirations) when one massive area farms, another is industrial and yet another far more involved in finance and administration?
Even in tiny Britain we have great distortions of earning potential with the result that the south tops the league. With a sort of leveller, I suppose, being the fact that the prosperous south is far more expensive a place in which to live. Hence, inflated salaries just to enable some people to survive there, the only possible pay-back being when they are truly old and have to retire, at which time, have they been earning highly enough to buy, their home will sell for far more than a similar one costs elsewhere, leaving them cash-rich and able to live a less stressed life in the sticks.
Which, of course, leads to the very common situation where young people "in the sticks" will often be unable to compete with the incomers and thus be unable to buy within their own rural community, either. It's widespread in Scotland, Wales, Devon and Cornwall; here in Mallorca I've had conversations with local tradesmen, working in the house for us, who explained that one "benefit" of tourism (and our being here to give them work!) is that they can no longer afford to leave the parental home. Some years ago farmers were desperate to sell their farms to foreigners for what they imagined to be astronomical prices, not realising that as prices rise, so will they never again be able to buy back into the land they once owned and thought of so little worth. I hope they don't repeat the same mistakes in Cuba.
In Sardinia's north-east there sits the physically beautiful seaside paradise of the Costa Smeralda. It used to be a barren land, but blessed by nature with what was able to be turned into a relatively deep yacht haven at Porto Cervo. The Aga Khan bought a massive swathe of this coastline and, armed with very tight planning regulations designed by his Consortium, went on to produce the most spectacular homes - all low - you ever saw. Hotels there are out of this world - the Pitrizza and Cala de Volpe are two (we were able to afford to buy some drinks in the latter during a couple of trips; thanks, Mr Client!) - and the actual coastline has rocks reminiscent of the Seychelles.
But you might not know that this development turned out to be a spectacular and unexpected blow on behalf of women's rights. Now, this may perhaps be apocryphal, but I'm informed that before the Khan came sailing in, the coastline was considered to be of minimal worth, and 'twas the daughters of rural families who were bequeathed it, their brothers getting the better, and more valuable grazing lands futher away from the sand, sea and salty air. Yes! So maybe there is divine justice and God could well be a she. I think I'd rather like that.
I also kinda like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e92xQpoXic
Sweet rock?
Rob
-
Judging from some of his business practices, even a written agreement from Trump has dubious value.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/donald-trump-stiff-contractors/
It was Mayer from Metro Goldwyn Mayer MGM Studio fame who famously said, "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on."
-
It's interesting that people who are say Trump is unhinged for calling a US Federal judge a "so-called judge" have no problem when they insult him as President of the US. Where's your respect for the Office of the Presidency?
Respect has to be earned. Only sheeple take it for granted unless it's a cultural trait.
And yes, him calling a federal judge a "so-called-judge", only because some does their job and they doesn't blindly agree with the President, is totally consistent with the mental issues mentioned. As a president he can fire employees, but it is unjustified if done for the wrong reasons.
As for delegitimizing him (and with him the Republican party that elected him as their candidate), he's doing a good enough job himself, no help needed. If only people would wake up from their state of denial and return to reality, rather sooner than later, it could keep the number of innocent casualties more limited.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I sort of think that a problem with the USA, as well as with "Europe", is one of size: both are too damned large and cover too many sorts of communities to be able to create any semblance of level playing fields.
How do you balance the citizens' rights, standards of living and so forth (with associated aspirations) when one massive area farms, another is industrial and yet another far more involved in finance and administration?...
You make a good point. Certainly in America thee are more and less wealthy areas and varying chance of good opportunity. But nothing is stopping people from moving to NYC to get a chance at making it "big". Millions do move. Americans move constantly to "find their place in the sun." Also, there's another factor in America that is different than in Great Britain. The latter has a history of social class that often limits the growth of individuals. People there ask what your father does. In America we ask what you do.
-
You make a good point. Certainly in America thee are more and less wealthy areas and varying chance of good opportunity. But nothing is stopping people from moving to NYC to get a chance at making it "big". Millions do move. Americans move constantly to "find their place in the sun." Also, there's another factor in America that is different than in Great Britain. The latter has a history of social class that often limits the growth of individuals. People there ask what your father does. In America we ask what you do.
A bit of a silly caricature, isn't this?
-
Respect has to be earned. Only sheeple take it for granted unless it's a cultural trait.
And yes, him calling a federal judge a "so-called-judge", only because she does her job and she doesn't blindly agree with the President, is totally consistent with the mental issues mentioned. As a president he can fire her, but it is unjustified if done for the wrong reasons.
As for delegitimizing him, he's doing a good enough job himself, no help needed. If only people would wake up from their state of denial and return to reality, rather sooner than later, it could keep the number of innocent casualties more limited.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, A President cannot "fire" a Federal Judge who's appointed for life. Only Congress gets to do that by impeachment (indictment) by the House of Representatives and a two-third vote of the Senate; a very large barrier. Maybe you should hold your fire and learn something about my America before insulting our President.
-
A bit of a silly caricature, isn't this?
If it's not true, than I apologize.
-
What is any verbal offer worth, especially from DJT? He's mostly shooting from the lip, just to be unpredictable (at best), or indifferent about the consequences for others (more likely).
His advances to Russia (e.g. suggestions to lift the sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea) have most likely already caused people getting killed at the Ukrainian border when Putin was testing the reactions from the Trump administration (https://www.unian.info/politics/1763141-russia-testing-ground-with-trump-administration-by-escalating-hostilities-in-donbas-mep-gahler.html). It may also have to do with that DJT chose to no longer get daily briefings from the security organizations.
This is not a game of who is right or who is wrong, this is really serious (geo-political) stuff. Not something a sane person would leave up to someone in charge with the mental issues that professionals in the field of psychology ascribe to him, based on the symptoms he is showing.
Cheers,
Bart
This is key. Putin has had the upper hand ever since he started manipulating the US election, and who knows if the rumors of him having damaging info on Trump is true or not. Meanwhile all Trump does is praise his leadership and "though hand" of this almost-dictator guy, in full younger brother admiration mode, with only veiled critics to his actions.
Most likely at the end of the first term, Russia will have claimed back some land over their terrified neighbors.
-
It's interesting that people who are say Trump is unhinged for calling a US Federal judge a "so-called judge" have no problem when they insult him as President of the US. Where's your respect for the Office of the Presidency? But his supporters understand what's going on in trying to delegitimize him. Instead of name calling, why don't you figure out how you're going to reverse who's in charge in the White House in four years. Calling him names didn't work in the last one.
It is he who shows contempt, threats and disrespects everyone who oppose him. If you show yourself belligerent all the time, you can expect a proportional response, whoever you are.
-
You make a good point. Certainly in America thee are more and less wealthy areas and varying chance of good opportunity. But nothing is stopping people from moving to NYC to get a chance at making it "big". Millions do move. Americans move constantly to "find their place in the sun." Also, there's another factor in America that is different than in Great Britain. The latter has a history of social class that often limits the growth of individuals. People there ask what your father does. In America we ask what you do.
That was certainly true of Britain at one time but I suspect it has vanished, thank heavens, over the past 50 years or so. I never come across that old class system nonsense now though perhaps it continues in a few tattered corners of ye olde aristocracy. The real divide now, and this feeds into your earlier point about diversity, is education. It's a great worry, imho, and encourages the idea of elites (who are better educated) vs the rest. Poor education standards reduce life chances, reduce a nation's ability to compete in the world and become potentially very destabilizing to democracy itself if a country ends up with a mass of people who are trapped by low skills and express that in the form of anger and demagoguery, etc. Much better education incorporating proper skills in engineering, IT or whatever needs to be a #1 priority, imho.
-
Bart, A President cannot "fire" a Federal Judge who's appointed for life. Only Congress gets to do that by impeachment (indictment) by the House of Representatives and a two-third vote of the Senate; a very large barrier. Maybe you should hold your fire and learn something about my America before insulting our President.
I'm rapidly tiring of this whole thread so I'll make some final points here. Alan, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I have just one question, do you think all these statements to the press and tweets are normal behavior for any person, not to mention someone who is the President of the US? Secondly, yes as you note we should all wait ans see what the administration accomplishes but the nominees to several key cabinet positions are highly dubious (Education, EPA, HUD, Justice). In addition, some of the Executive Orders and other statements indicate that some of the environmental and financial regulations will be overturned for very dubious reasons.
As I have already noted, I do acknowledge that he is the President but unlike previous Republican Presidents, I have zero respect for him. I still believe that he will be gone within 12-18 months because of issues that arise with his business. At some point his tax returns will be released and we will know about entanglements with foreign banks. He is already seeing Ivanka's business going down the drain and Melania's hope to build a business off the Trump brand also going up in smoke. There will be pressure to force the Trump Organization to pay for Secret Service protection covering his son's foreign business trips (the recent Uruguay trip by Eric cost American taxpayers $100K; do you think American taxpayers should be on the hook for Trump Organization business expenses?)
-
Bart, A President cannot "fire" a Federal Judge who's appointed for life. Only Congress gets to do that by impeachment (indictment) by the House of Representatives and a two-third vote of the Senate; a very large barrier.
Correct, my mistake. I confused the Federal Judge with acting attorney general, Sally Yates, too many people negatively affected to keep track of ... And then having to separate Alternative facts from reality, what a mess.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Clean out the swamp? : removing protection (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trump-individual-investors-caveat-emptor-steven-rattner?trk=hp-feed-article-title-editor-pick)
How does this protect some machinist in Wisconsin?
-
His advances to Russia (e.g. suggestions to lift the sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea) have most likely already caused people getting killed at the Ukrainian border when Putin was testing the reactions from the Trump administration (https://www.unian.info/politics/1763141-russia-testing-ground-with-trump-administration-by-escalating-hostilities-in-donbas-mep-gahler.html). It may also have to do with that DJT chose to no longer get daily briefings from the security organizations.
unian.info ? "...Member of the European Parliament, a member of Committee on Foreign Affairs Michael Gahler (CDU, Germany) believes ..." ? seriously ? some member believes in something ?
you can try to find a better reporting, like for example = https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-02/the-flare-up-in-ukraine-is-not-just-about-putin
-
Clean out the swamp? : removing protection (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trump-individual-investors-caveat-emptor-steven-rattner?trk=hp-feed-article-title-editor-pick)
How does this protect some machinist in Wisconsin?
Robert, while it is an outrageous move, it's largely unnecessary. Barry Ritzholtz (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/06/its-too-late-for-trump-to-stop-this-financial-rule/?utm_term=.eb9434e5cb8a) has a very good piece in today's Washington Post on this. Several large financial houses (Merrill Lynch for sure) have already announced that they are going to continue to follow the fiduciary rule regardless of what happens.
-
unian.info ? "...Member of the European Parliament, a member of Committee on Foreign Affairs Michael Gahler (CDU, Germany) believes ..." ? seriously ? some member believes in something ?
I do not have the time to search for more reputable sources, when their info will fall on deaf ears anyway. BTW, Michael Gahler is (amongst others) the Coordinator - Security and Defence for the European Parliament.
you can try to find a better reporting, like for example = https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-02/the-flare-up-in-ukraine-is-not-just-about-putin
Is Bloomberg still taken seriously? Just asking, because DJT and supporters seem to dismiss the credibility of anybody who disagrees with him, like former CIA officials and Secretaries of State (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/former-cia-officials-secretaries-of-state-oppose-trump-travel-ban/), such as John Yoo (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/opinion/executive-power-run-amok.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/).
Cheers,
Bart
-
...damaging info on Trump...
Seriously? What in the world can be added to all the negative info on him that is already known? Short of actually having sex with a goat?
-
I do not have the time to search for more reputable sources
indeed ;D
Coordinator - Security and Defence for the European Parliament
exactly ! this means (1) he never has any real information ("believes") and (2) he naturally takes sides ... and UNIAN naturally picks what to report, just like the opposite side does... both sides have reasons both to escalate and not, but to use source that does not present any alternative point of view speaks for itself.
Is Bloomberg still taken seriously?
I rather read the author, it just happens he writes @ bloomberg too ...
-
Short of actually having sex with a goat?
male goat, may be :o ?
-
Robert, while it is an outrageous move, it's largely unnecessary. Barry Ritzholtz (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/06/its-too-late-for-trump-to-stop-this-financial-rule/?utm_term=.eb9434e5cb8a) has a very good piece in today's Washington Post on this. Several large financial houses (Merrill Lynch for sure) have already announced that they are going to continue to follow the fiduciary rule regardless of what happens.
I hope they mean it.
-
If it's not true, than I apologize.
There's some truth in it: Whether or not you encounter the remnants of the class system depends on what line of work you're in - it's still rife in some areas of the arts for sure.
Most Brits won't ask what your father does.
-
Seriously? What in the world can be added to all the negative info on him that is already known? Short of actually having sex with a goat?
I was referring to the rumor of him being on a explicit video with paid female escorts engaging in somewhat bizarre sexual acts, I also referred to it as "rumors" because that's what it is (at this point anyway).
He calls it fake news, but he also says that about real news.
Link (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russian-spies-infamous-golden-shower-memos-541315) to article
-
I was referring to the rumor of him being on a explicit video...
Yes, I am aware of the rumor. My point still stands. The public already knew he cheated on his wives, slept with numerous women, bragged about grabbing a certain kind of them by the..., etc. Does anyone really believe that the rumor (or even if true) about him just watching a bizarre act is that damaging?
-
Yes, I am aware of the rumor. My point still stands. The public already knew he cheated on his wives, slept with numerous women, bragged about grabbing a certain kind of them by the..., etc. Does anyone really believe that the rumor (or even if true) about him just watching a bizarre act is that damaging?
I don't know, Porn starring the POTUS? that just might be too much. ;D
-
male goat, may be :o ?
Muslim goat. ;D
-
Muslim goat. ;D
Nope. That would be a cultural appropriation ;)
-
I sort of think that a problem with the USA, as well as with "Europe", is one of size: both are too damned large and cover too many sorts of communities to be able to create any semblance of level playing fields.
How do you balance the citizens' rights, standards of living and so forth (with associated aspirations) when one massive area farms, another is industrial and yet another far more involved in finance and administration?
We had a hard enough time trying to answer that in the 1780's when the country was a lot smaller and more homogenized. Makes one wonder if there is an optimum size of a country for specific governmental types?
-
I'm depressed. We went from the blowhard in chief, to the blow-hole in chief. When President Obama was elected I genuinely wished him well. I saw hope for reconciliation. All that evaporated. I got to a point where I could no longer tolerate being "talked down to" by my president.
Then, the 2016 elections. What I've come to call the no-choice-choice. We ended up with the blow-hole in chief. I can say that he tapped into some seething anger among those in the U.S. who have felt increasingly disenfranchised over the last couple of decades. They would rather have what they perceive as "an honest evaluation sans PC nonsense" - even at the expense of it coming from someone who is venal, vulgar, narcissistic, and largely unable to string together three coherent sentences in a row.
I've come to agree with Jay Leno, "Every time I think I'm a democrat they do something stupid. Every time I think I'm republican, they do something mean." A pox on both their houses. In the same way that we've come to a post-modern consensus philosophically in the west, we're rapidly coming to a post-US dominance (for good and ill) in the world. And as history so plainly shows, this great society will be destroyed from within (by both left and right) and become a client-state to some other dominant society that is monolithic in its consensus (even if a forced consensus). It has been ever thus.
Rand
-
Where's your respect for the Office of the Presidency?
Where is his? While I do respect the office of President of the United States, the man current inhabiting that office deserves zero respect because he hasn't earned it. Rather than trying to bring the country together he is continuing to behave like he is still campaigning to his base. Rather than respecting the institutions of the American government he takes great delight at being the great disrupter. Rather than trying to develop better international relationships with our allies and enter into diplomacy with our enemies he's pissing off our allies and our enemies as though they are the same–with everybody except for Russia. Why is that? What is it the Putan has over Trump that makes Trump want to cosy up to him?
No, sorry, I'll not respect a man who for year's was the leader-in-chief of the "Birther Movement", that bragged about sexually assaulting a woman and who is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth. Seriously, are you proud that Trump is President? Do you think he brings respect to the office? Do you honestly think he's not gonna completely f#%k up this country?
Respect the office but not the man unless he earns it...
-
... being the great disrupter...
Which is why he was elected. It was perfectly clear to anyone that he is not the-same-old-same-old, status-quo, middle-of-the-road, don't-rock-the-boat type of politician, or politician at all. So why is everyone surprised that he continues to act the same was as during the campaign? Mind you, I am not arguing that is good or bad, just that it should not be surprising.
-
So why is everyone surprised that he continues to act the same was as during the campaign?
I'm not surprised...I'm furious.
He's behaving exactly liked the malignant narcissist that his supporters elected. But...careful what you wish for...already there are a lot of his supporters who regret voting for him because they really thought once he got into the office, the office would shape him and he would rise to the occasion and work to bring the country together.
Wrong...he's proof positive that there is something really wrong with this country and the answer is to get off your asses and vote the next time you get the chance whether it's local, regional or national.
Those that didn't vote got exactly what they deserve...the unintended consequence of standing on the sidelines and letting a looneytoon into the White House (and that applies to Trump, Bannon, Miller, Conway and Spicer).
-
So why is everyone surprised that he continues to act the same was as during the campaign?
Because he is no longer campaigning? Shouldn't someone in his office behave act as a president for all Americans?
BTW, I'm not surprised.
Already at his inauguration speech, it became undeniably clear that he was going to continue the campaign methods, instead of building bridges between those who were divided during the election process. Divide and conquer is his game. Spreading disinformation and denial helps.
It's a lot like Putin's MO. When people like him talk about a win-win situation, he means I win, and then I win again.
United We Stand, Divided We Fall [the Kentucky state motto]. No more unity leads to a predictable outcome.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Shouldn't someone in his office behave act as a president for all Americans?...
A lofty and noble goal, but utterly naive.
Politics is about representing interests of your constituents, not "all Americans," as there is no such thing as "all American" interests (short of defending country from an invasion). Do you really think that 60+ millions that voted Trump and 60+ millions that voted Hillary have much in common, let alone the same interests? The deranged reaction to his victory only reinforces the notion.
-
Yes, I am aware of the rumor. My point still stands. The public already knew he cheated on his wives, slept with numerous women, bragged about grabbing a certain kind of them by the..., etc. Does anyone really believe that the rumor (or even if true) about him just watching a bizarre act is that damaging?
Noting about him is damaging in the minds of the true believers. Even when the media call him out on lies and provide the documentation it doesn't seem to matter as it's just Trump being Trump in the minds of his supporters. Now maybe you think that's just fine and this is just all high (or low) comedy and that's fine, you can have that opinion. You also have to respect that a lot of us are just tired of all the lies and innuendos. I can remember as a kid sitting with my mother watching the Army/McCarthy hearings on our first TV. Go back and read a little history and you will see how lies and innuendo can damage this country.
-
Because he is no longer campaigning? Shouldn't someone in his office behave act as a president for all Americans?
Voting for someone in the hopes that he will change the MO after the election is not a very bright idea. However I don't think most of his voters were expecting any different and so far they seem pretty chill with everything that's going on.
-
... a lot of us are just tired of all the lies and innuendos...
Someone said that Trump supporters take him seriously, but not literally, while his opponents take him literally, but not seriously.
As for "lies and innuendos," count me in. Except, for me, the "lies and innuendos" come from both sides.
-
It's a lot like Putin's MO. When people like him talk about a win-win situation, he means I win, and then I win again.
reading UNIAN again, Bart ? Putin is a straightforward transactional person... if you have a fair trade you will get a fair deal
-
Rather than trying to develop better international relationships with our allies
you mean bloodsuckers who can't spend even 2% on their own defense ?
-
A lofty and noble goal, but utterly naive.
Politics is about representing interests of your constituents, not "all Americans,"
So why even the interests of his constituents then, instead of those of his sponsors and some lobbyists?
A 'Lesterland (https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim)' indeed, as Lawrence Lessig made clear, and maybe worse a 'Trumpland' in his case.
Good luck to all then.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Someone said that Trump supporters take him seriously, but not literally, while his opponents take him literally, but not seriously.
As for "lies and innuendos," count me in. Except, for me, the "lies and innuendos" come from both sides.
Yes, but I find it a bit murky in terms of what is literal and what is serious. Today he was at a meeting of local county sheriffs and the topic of civil asset forfeiture came up (a highly controversial practice where assets are seized from people who are suspected but may never be convicted or even charged with a crime). A sheriff from Texas said that there was a state legislator who was proposing a law to require a conviction before the money could be received. Here's what Trump said in response, “Who's the state senator?” Trump asked. “Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career,” he joked, to laughter from the law enforcement officials in the room.
Now, I'm sure this is a joke but was it really. I sometimes feel that we are in the Twilight Zone when Trump speaks.
-
I'm depressed. We went from the blowhard in chief, to the blow-hole in chief. When President Obama was elected I genuinely wished him well. I saw hope for reconciliation. All that evaporated. I got to a point where I could no longer tolerate being "talked down to" by my president.
Then, the 2016 elections. What I've come to call the no-choice-choice. We ended up with the blow-hole in chief. I can say that he tapped into some seething anger among those in the U.S. who have felt increasingly disenfranchised over the last couple of decades. They would rather have what they perceive as "an honest evaluation sans PC nonsense" - even at the expense of it coming from someone who is venal, vulgar, narcissistic, and largely unable to string together three coherent sentences in a row.
I've come to agree with Jay Leno, "Every time I think I'm a democrat they do something stupid. Every time I think I'm republican, they do something mean." A pox on both their houses. In the same way that we've come to a post-modern consensus philosophically in the west, we're rapidly coming to a post-US dominance (for good and ill) in the world. And as history so plainly shows, this great society will be destroyed from within (by both left and right) and become a client-state to some other dominant society that is monolithic in its consensus (even if a forced consensus). It has been ever thus.
Rand
+1+1+1
-
you mean bloodsuckers who can't spend even 2% on their own defense ?
If that's your view of all US allies, then not even Trump's wall will be long enough for your protectionist needs.
Should we start closing embassies?
-
It's even more like Brexit than Brexit!
The same denial from the voters to what they actually brought upon themselves; the same ass-kissing from the very politicians who rejected the concepts - and the candidature - but now promote them so as to retain political power.
It makes one internationally sick.
I just watched a Beeb (BBC) documemntary on Sicily, where the guy running the show was all smiles, and happy filming away in various markets. I also remember a Rick Stein show on the same island from a few years ago, where they had to quit filming rather rapidly because they hadn't paid the mafia boss controlling the market... I wonder if the newer show was courtesy such a payment - or two? Does it matter? Yes, it does, because that's what happens in countries where the power of law and/or governance runs into disrepute. Can you make the connection? Casinos, gambling, think about it for a second or three. Are the barbarians still without?
Rob C
-
If that's your view of all US allies, then not even Trump's wall will be long enough for your protectionist needs.
Should we start closing embassies?
for now let us just consider those useless puppets who don't do 2%... then those @ 2% who still spent much less (yes, UK - this is about you) then we are.
-
The nomination of Besty Devos, while not surprising, makes a mockery of our public education system. Forget our borders, soon we will build walls within our communities. This is what leads to racial and social division at its worse. As a pubic educator (elementary teacher) this decision makes me sad and angry. Social Injustice!
-
Do you really think that 60+ millions that voted Trump and 60+ millions that voted Hillary have much in common, let alone the same interests?
Yes, we are all Americans...we all want the ability to work and contribute to the common good. We all want safety and health for ourselves and our children. We want social justice and fairness in the dealing of civilians by the government. We all want freedom and right to pursue happiness. We all expect the government to respect the Constitution and its citizens...
So far, I've seen Trump act to benefit the wealthy (that really don't need the help), big business, cut regulations (many designed to protect consumers) put forth really bad people to be on his cabinet not to mention taking off the Joint Chief of Staff and putting Bannon on the National Security Council, Homeland Security Council and Principal’s Committee. So, a political appointee on the NSC? Really?
Here's a list of his executive actions and memorandums as of Feb 3rd (you can check what they mean HERE (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/10-executive-actions-trump-signed-far/))
20. “Fiduciary rule” delay
19. Reviewing financial regulations
18. Cutting regulations
17. Lobbyist bans
16. Reorganizing the top security councils
15. Plan to fight ISIS
14. Blocking refugees and all visitors from some countries
13. Reshaping the military
12. Border wall
11. Deportations and sanctuary cities
10. Review manufacturing regulations
9. American steel in pipelines
8. Speeding up environmental reviews for all priority infrastructure
6 + 7. Speeding approval of Dakota Access and Keystone Oil Pipelines
5. Federal hiring freeze
4. TPP.
3. Abortion
2. Regulation freeze
1. ACA rollback
So, how many of these will actually benefit Trump's constituents? The rest of the country?
He's put billionaires up for Treasury & Commerse, an EPA hater for EPA, Somebody who wants to do away with Medicare/medicaid, a former Texas governor to handle Energy who didn't even realize that included being in charge of the nuclear arsenal, a women who's never attended public school for education a Dr who has no executive experience for HUD and the eco of Exon as Secretary of State, Mitch McConnell's wife for Transportation, the former executive of World Wrestling Entertainment Small business administration...really? OMG!!!
And he's gonna be for the little guy in the flyover states? He's gonna bring back manufacturing jobs? Only if he outlaws robots...he's gonna bring back coal mining to West Virginia and Kentucky only if we're willing to surpass China for dirty power generation (wanna wear a mask outside like they have to do in Beijing?)
Naw, a seventy year old guy who has made his reputation and money off the backs of little guys is never gonna learn how to suddenly care about people he barely knows exist (unless they work for him in his companies).
The Trump supporters have been deluded by a scam artist. Even the Introduction of his book The Art of the Deal says it all: " Donald Trump was a young entrepreneur entwined in many controversies, but knew (and still knows) how to use these controversies to his own benefit. He has always been skilled at living large and doesn't take no for an answer."
Has Trump given any indication he's actually working on behalf of the people and not himself? Please, point out to me anything he has done solely for the benefit of the American people, his constituents...
-
The nomination of Besty Devos, while not surprising, makes a mockery of our public education system. Forget our borders, soon we will build walls within our communities. This is what leads to racial and social division at its worse. As a pubic educator (elementary teacher) this decision makes me sad and angry. Social Injustice!
My wife agrees with you. But she's a retired NYC school teacher in the teacher's union. Are you a union teacher too? Me? I disagree. The public school system, not Devos, has made a mockery of itself by failing many of the kids it's suppose to teach. (The breakdown of the family is also a major contributing fault, but that's for another discussion). Interestingly, while my wife taught, I managed capital construction projects in over 250 NYC schools during a 14 year period prior to my retirement three years ago. I was constantly in active teaching areas. Many of the buildings had different floors of teaching, most public and some charter. Whenever I enter the charter floors, the kids were behaving, there was solid teaching going on and the charter staff was still there at 5 and 6pm prepping long after the public school teachers had left. Minority parents throughout NYC are clamoring for more charter schools to the point there are long waiting lines to get their kids in. Devos supports charter and other alternative teaching environments. These will offer alternatives for kids failing in today's public schools and will provide a competitive environment that may push public schools into getting better as well.
-
On the heels of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos confirmation comes a bill introduced by Representative Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky). The bill, just one sentence long, reads “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”
He said: “Neither Congress nor the president, through his appointees, has the constitutional authority to dictate how and what our children must learn. States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students.” Read about it at his web site (https://massie.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rep-massie-introduces-bill-to-abolish-federal-department-of-education) (note the press release is a lot longer than the bill.)
What does this wing nut have to do with Trump? During his campaign he talked about eliminating the Education Department or cutting it "way way down," but didn't offer details about how he would do that, or what would happen to key programs if he did downsize.
So, ya wanna get rid of the Department of Education? Putting Betsy DeVos in charge sure seems like a step in that direction. Kinda like putting Scott Pruitt in charge of EPA or Steven Mnuchin in charge of the Treasury department...
Yeah, Trump's for the little guy. Let's make America Great again...let's use a time machine and go back to the 1950's & 1960's all over again. Or maybe he wants to go back further to the times when women didn't have a right to vote or how about back to the antebellum South when the worth of a slave was considered three-fifths of a person during this time in U.S. history.
Van Johnson of CNN called Trump's victory a "whitelash (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/van-jones-results-disappointment-cnntv/)"...I gotta say, that is hard to argue with.
Edit to correct spelling from whitewash to whitelash and add a link
-
Leave it to a Canadian paper to keep track of Trump's lies :(
The complete list of all 42 false things Donald Trump has said as president (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/03/daniel-dales-donald-trump-fact-check-updates.html) (so far)
The Toronto Star’s running tally of the bald-faced lies, exaggerations and deceptions the president of the United States of America has said, so far. (Last updated: Feb. 6, 2017)
Trump would probably call this Fake News!
I call it disgusting.
-
Thank. You. Jeff.
Jim
-
From Newsweek:
RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS ARE A BIGGER THREAT TO AMERICA THAN ISIS (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html)
Hum, any chance we can get Trump to ban right-wing extremists in America?
Naw, he just wants to ban travelers from those 7 Muslim majority countries and let right-wing wingnutz free range...hum, has Trump even condemned the Trump admirer that murdered those 6 Muslims in that Quebec City mosque?
Oh, yeah...this is what the White House said: "We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday afternoon. "It's a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be pro-active, rather re-active, when it comes to our nation's safety and security."
Trump did tweet "A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S." on Feb 3 but has yet to tweet about that Quebec City mosque.
-
You can gripe all you want but he won the election. All the attacks are pretty meaningless and are just sour grapes. If he doesn't perform, he'll be voted out of office in 2020. If he performs, he'll be voted in until 2024. So you got him for 4 or 8 more years.
-
Yes, we are all Americans...we all want the ability to work and contribute to the common good. We all want safety and health for ourselves and our children. We want social justice and fairness in the dealing of civilians by the government. We all want freedom and right to pursue happiness. We all expect the government to respect the Constitution and its citizens...
While those might be common goals and ideals, half of the country has a diametrically opposite views how to achieve them from the other half. Even your idea of social justice, for instance, is probably very far from my idea, let alone how to achieve it.
-
You can gripe all you want but he won the election.
Yep...but that doesn't mean I have to like it and roll over and play dead for 4 years...
That's why I'm taking an active and aggressive approach to work to resist the changes Trump is trying to make. I'm going to take a proactive approach to help bring about an Alt-Majority grassroots level change for the midterm elections. While taking over the House is unlikely, regaining control of the Senate is doable if we can get people off their asses and vote.
If you are a US citizen of voting age, check out this url to see what you can do to work towards regaining control of Congress.
INDIVISIBLE (https://www.indivisibleguide.com)
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR RESISTING THE TRUMP AGENDA
Former congressional staffers reveal best practices for making Congress listen.
All the attacks are pretty meaningless and are just sour grapes.
Hum, so is it an attack to simply tell the truth?
Point out any falsehoods I have stated and I will appolgize and correct it (something that I might point out Trump never does–oh wait, was that another attack? Sorry :~)
-
... Point out any falsehoods I have stated and I will appolgize and correct it...
It is not about falsehoods, in the sense of false facts. It is about your interpretation of those facts that constitutes your opinions. And while I might accept your facts, I disagree with almost every interpretation you made.
-
And while I might accept your facts, I disagree with almost every interpretation you made.
So, while you accept that Trump lies on average a tiny bit over 2/3 of the times he opens his mouth, you disagree with my interpretation that is bad...
So, while you accept that Trump has pissed off our friends and enemies with the curious exception of Russia/Putan you disagree with my interpretation that is bad...
So, while you accept that Trump is suffering from a debilitating mental condition called Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you disagree with my interpretation that is bad...
So, while you accept that Trump is putting an EPA hater in charge of the EPA, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker/movie financier/billionaire in charge of Treasury, somebody who wants to kill Medicare/Medicaid in charge of HHS, you disagree with my interpretation that is bad...
So, you accept that Steve Bannon Is the Most Dangerous Political Operative in America (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/) you disagree with my interpretation that putting him on the National Security Council is bad...REALLY BAD!
Do I have all of the above correct? So, you are happy and proud to call Trump president?
-
It's interesting that people who are say Trump is unhinged for calling a US Federal judge a "so-called judge" have no problem when they insult him as President of the US. Where's your respect for the Office of the Presidency? But his supporters understand what's going on in trying to delegitimize him. Instead of name calling, why don't you figure out how you're going to reverse who's in charge in the White House in four years. Calling him names didn't work in the last one.
No one called Trump "So-called-President" until AFTER he launched his unwarranted and unprecedented attack on that judge (a GOP appointed judge, by the way). There's respect for the office, there's no respect for the incumbent who shows no respect to anyone else.
Also, it isn't a 4-year wait - it's a 2-year wait. Assuming Trump is still there, if he faces a hostile house I fear his head will literally explode.
-
If I understand correctly, your 6 states have equal representation in the upper house regardless of population. I guess my question is how would the US have set up a Parliamentary system while still giving less populated states more representation than the larger states?
Phil: This is a part I don't understand. Can you explain how your leader becomes the Prime Minister
Your smaller states don't have more representation than the larger states in your senate - they only have a disproportionately large representation in the EC compared to larger states because of the minimum allotment. That could still be done, but just make the EC votes proportional and not winner-takes-all.
The Prime Minister is not the head of state - that's the Governor-General. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that has control of the lower house, either with an outright majority or in a minority with support for supply and confidence votes from independent or minor parties. The Prime Minister can be replaced by a change of the leader of that party (and this does happen from time to time, particularly if the electorate is expressing disapproval with the government or the Prime Minister).
-
As many have said in the past, in the USA anyone can grow up to be president... that is just one of the risks we have to accept. ;)
-
There was an hilarious bit on the local news (Ottawa, Canada)) last night about how Canada’s trade surplus with the USA was positive for the 2nd quarter in 20 years (or something, I don't have the details correct about the timing), and Trump was quoted as saying that he wasn’t happy with that because it made the USA look weak.
That’s not even remotely coherent.
I wondered something about the so-called Muslim travel ban. Shouldn't he have banned travel from Saudi Arabia, since that's where the 9/11 terrorists were from? Instead, he seems to want to pick a fight with Iran, who is Saudi's enemy. Needed a new enemy? Oceania not good enough anymore?
From what I've read, the USA has over 700 military bases around the world in over 120 countries. Lots of american citizens are armed, and yet to listen to the rhetoric, here and elsewhere, I get the impression of a country in constant debilitating fear of something or other? I don't get it, what are you so afraid of? And what makes you think that a real estate salesman can protect you?
The one thing that I would be the most concerned with if I was a US resident, is his reluctance to put his businesses into a blind trust or to reveal his taxes. Be interesting when the first welder in Wisconsin loses his job to some company overseas because of some back-handed sweetheart deal that enriches one of Trump's subsidiaries or buddies. There is a good reason why transparency in their financial affairs is required of politicians. The opposite of that is a banana republic. I understand that people pick sides in a tribal war, but isn't this going a little far?
-
You can gripe all you want but he won the election. All the attacks are pretty meaningless and are just sour grapes. If he doesn't perform, he'll be voted out of office in 2020. If he performs, he'll be voted in until 2024. So you got him for 4 or 8 more years.
I believe that there is serious hope out there that he won't stay in office 4 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes Alan, I'm a member of the CTA Union. I don't agree with everything about unions, but in my case, if it weren't for the union I would not be able to teach. Instead, they would only hire inexpereinced teachers for one or two years. Yes, public education needs an overhaul, but not at the expense of many of the equity issues I work with everyday. I am one of the lucky ones in that I only have 16 students. But still, I have kids that I'm worried will slip through the cracks - it is exhausting trying to motivate these students. As a teacher, my dad still buys my camera gear - he's no longer alive. Alan, you can't be too bad of a guy, if your wife is still married to you - bless her! :-*
-
Leave it to a Canadian paper to keep track of Trump's lies :(
The complete list of all 42 false things Donald Trump has said as president (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/03/daniel-dales-donald-trump-fact-check-updates.html) (so far)
The Toronto Star’s running tally of the bald-faced lies, exaggerations and deceptions the president of the United States of America has said, so far. (Last updated: Feb. 6, 2017)
Trump would probably call this Fake News!
I call it disgusting.
The absolute best source for anti-Trump material is Jennifer Rubin's "Right Turn" blog at the Washington Post. Ms. Rubin was very anti-Obama during his Presidency and was a strong supporter of Marco Rubio during the Republican Primaries. She believes that Trump is slowly destroying the Republican Party and is dangerous for America. Today piece is on Trump's Lies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/02/08/trumps-lies-all-make-america-look-worse/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.21b284fb7dd2).
She usually blogs 3-4 times a day and they are all worth reading!
-
You can gripe all you want but he won the election. All the attacks are pretty meaningless and are just sour grapes. If he doesn't perform, he'll be voted out of office in 2020. If he performs, he'll be voted in until 2024. So you got him for 4 or 8 more years.
That's not at issue. What is at issue is that he has members of Congress scared of him, worried that if they cross him he will find someone to run against them in the 2018 primaries. We will not get any of the Congressional oversight that is needed. It was announced today that the Dept of Defense is going to rent office space in Trump Tower. Well this is in direct violation of the emollients clause in the Constitution. His sons receive government funded security on business trips and so on. Will we see Congressman Chafetz, head of the government oversight committee in the House do anything? I doubt it as he is still going after Hilary Clinton (talk about not recognizing who won the election)>
-
Yes Alan, I'm a member of the CTA Union. I don't agree with everything about unions, but in my case, if it weren't for the union I would not be able to teach. Instead, they would only hire inexpereinced teachers for one or two years. Yes, public education needs an overhaul, but not at the expense of many of the equity issues I work with everyday. I am one of the lucky ones in that I only have 16 students. But still, I have kids that I'm worried will slip through the cracks - it is exhausting trying to motivate these students. As a teacher, my dad still buys my camera gear - he's no longer alive. Alan, you can't be too bad of a guy, if your wife is still married to you - bless her! :-*
I'm sure you're a great teacher as was my wife. She did Special Ed language and speech in classes from one to four children who had psych problems as well. Tough environment. The problem is that the public school system and the unions work in ways that increase learning failure. Some teachers should be fired but can't due to unions. And the system protects kids against teachers because the politicians who want votes in the election backup the parents in situations where the kids should be disciplined and aren't. So the teachers hands are tied. Discipline breaks down and the good kids who want to learn fall behind as well. That doesn't happen in charter schools because the parents are on the teacher's side. They want their kids taught right and won't put up with any BS from their own kids like when we were kids. If my teacher told my parents I was acting up (can you believe that?), it was my parents that slapped me on the side of the head. Today, the parents complain to the school officials that the teacher is giving their kid a hard time and the kids act out worse. It's nuts! Good minority parents are desperate to get their kids in good learning environments - hence their support for charters that Devos supports. It's the unions that are opposed to her.
If the Feds provide money to the state, some of it should be for public and some for charters and some for vouchers to allow competition to improve schools overall. Teaching requirements though should not be mandated from Washington as I believe each local community knows best how they should teach their kids. For example, because of federal funding requirements, my wife wasted about ten minutes of every period filling out federal forms on her class teaching procedures. That was ten minutes every period that should have been spent with her kids. It's these wasteful requirements from Washington that just don't help at all.
-
Your smaller states don't have more representation than the larger states in your senate - they only have a disproportionately large representation in the EC compared to larger states because of the minimum allotment. That could still be done, but just make the EC votes proportional and not winner-takes-all.
The Prime Minister is not the head of state - that's the Governor-General. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that has control of the lower house, either with an outright majority or in a minority with support for supply and confidence votes from independent or minor parties. The Prime Minister can be replaced by a change of the leader of that party (and this does happen from time to time, particularly if the electorate is expressing disapproval with the government or the Prime Minister).
My question is can you set up a parliamentary system in a Federal system like the US if you have a weighted electoral system where smaller states have more electoral votes? Second question, how can you have a multiparty system in an electorally weighted system like the US? The 51% requirement to become President forces a two party arrangement. How would you get around that with a Parliamentary system?
-
The absolute best source for anti-Trump material is Jennifer Rubin's "Right Turn" blog at the Washington Post. Ms. Rubin was very anti-Obama during his Presidency and was a strong supporter of Marco Rubio during the Republican Primaries. She believes that Trump is slowly destroying the Republican Party and is dangerous for America. Today piece is on Trump's Lies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/02/08/trumps-lies-all-make-america-look-worse/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.21b284fb7dd2).
She usually blogs 3-4 times a day and they are all worth reading!
So the liberal Washington Post finds an anti-Trump Rubio conservative to blog bad things about Trump. Preaching to the choir. I'm impressed.
-
That's not at issue. What is at issue is that he has members of Congress scared of him, worried that if they cross him he will find someone to run against them in the 2018 primaries. We will not get any of the Congressional oversight that is needed. It was announced today that the Dept of Defense is going to rent office space in Trump Tower. Well this is in direct violation of the emollients clause in the Constitution. His sons receive government funded security on business trips and so on. Will we see Congressman Chafetz, head of the government oversight committee in the House do anything? I doubt it as he is still going after Hilary Clinton (talk about not recognizing who won the election)>
I happen to agree with you here. I'm a proponent of the guy who said, "The best government is the government that governs the least." When you have both the President and the Congress from the same party, bad laws get passed and too frequently. Obamacare is an example. Good laws that are fleshed out and will last happen when both sides have to get together and compromise. The split in parties between the branches slows down stupid laws that are enacted too frequently.
Regarding your point about members being scare, well that's the way it worked when Obama and other presidents were in charge. The President is leader of his party and rules the roost. That's life. That's why you want a split in parties between the two branches.
-
Also, throw in there common core and all of the other requirements coming down from Washington. The amount of time lost to testing is absurd. Not to mention you are always told not to teach to the test, but then told if your students do poorly you could be out of a job or have funding decreased. So really, the only option is to teach to the test.
Teaching to the test is poor teaching at best. Our public school system does not use that approach and students do very well. However, the common core was designed so that students had a standard for which to learn. This is the crucial fact in light of the disappointing performance of American students versus their foreign peers. If you don't like the common core, what type of standards do you propose?
And insofar as even local and state broads deciding on what to teach, that can be a disaster as well. I use to teach high school math in NY state and we were the only state to have a Math A and Math B course, which integrated all of the fields of mathematics (you would teach in high school) into one. This does not make sense since geometric proofs have nothing to do with algebra and so on, they are all separate fields of study that build upon each other. It is much better to teach one field consistently over a long period of time so the students can build upon there knowledge instead of jumping back and forth.
Absolutely. My wife is a professor of education at a local university and is constantly frustrated at the poor direction teachers are given.
Now this is not to say most school districts are in shambles; they are not. However, the inner city schools are and they need a change. You can argue that all we need is more money, but when has that argument ever not been used by government cronies when talking about a failing government system? Plus, we have for years been giving more money all for not. Time for a something else.
The record of charter schools in the District of Columbia which has had them for a number of years now is quite spotty. There are a small number of good ones but most are no better than the public schools. The poor ones siphon money away from the public schools so everything ends up being a race to the bottom rather than the top.
Am I happy with the choice? No. I really would prefer someone with teaching experience, but I cant support someone who is against charter schools at this moment in time.
The bigger issue with DeVos is her support for vouchers and that they might be used to send kids to religious schools. Of course this likely would be struck down as unconstitutional. Also Obama's Education Secretary was not opposed to charter schools. Our school district doesn't have them because the public schools are so good that there is no outcry for them. It depends on where one lives. also in rural areas where the student populations are already low, charter schools are likely not to get any support.
-
I don't see money returned to taxpayers as unconstitutional if their kids are not educated in a public school but rather in a private or religious school . That's basically what a voucher does. Basically the government is just giving a tax deduction for your kid that is not public school educated. It similar to when you take a dependent deduction on your 1040 return for each child you have. The government doesn't tell you where to spend the deduction money. You can spend it for your dependent kids to learn something or drink it away in a bar. How you spend the voucher or education credits to educate your kid is your business as long as the school meets education standards of the State in which you live. The government is not imposing any religious test or requirement on you so there's no constitutional implication. You decide what you want to do with the money in how to educate your kids. Why should others tell you what to do? It's none of their business.
As an aside, voucher or tax credits are usually less than what it costs to educate the student in a public school. So the public school system saves additional dollars that can be used for the kids that remain.
-
So the public school system saves additional dollars that can be used for the kids that remain.
public school system will gain more if it will never be mandated for a teacher to be a union member & pay dues...
-
Here's another broken promise of Mr. T: "Obamacare. We're going to repeal it, we're going to replace it, get something great" (It's always something great isn't it)
Well the deadline that the GOP set was January 27th and that is now gone, with no replacement in sight, not even a hint. All of the sudden some Reps Senators are talking about "fixing" Obamacare, rather than repealing it, go figure.
FWIW I though that a replacement to Obamacare was about the only good thing ever to come out of this guy.
-
On the first point, I absolutely agree. However, not teaching to the test is often not the case, especially when money and school reputations are on the line. No matter what teachers are told to do, they are always held to the results of the state and federal test scores of their students. This creates the situation where teachers start teaching to test, even if inadvertently, and it gets much worse in a subject with lots of material that need to be taught in a time frame not really long enough, like mathematics.
I was in K-12 a lot of years ago but can remember taking standardized achievement tests in certain grades. IIRC they were used to judge proficiency. This was in California and I don't know how many other states employed the. New York has the Regents exams for graduating senors.
I use to be so jealous of history teachers; if they took a day off, they could just have the students watch a movie and catch up when they got back. The math curriculum was so jammed packed that taking one day off could really screw you up, especially with subs, most of whom had little to no skills in math, and could not control a class room.
Absolutely!!! I remember when my girls were in school, they had to be prodded to keep up with the math homework everyday.
Unfortunately in the current environment, students are tested on a national and state level, so twice. This just waste too much time and puts too much stress on the teachers making sure they cover everything. I do agree we need standards, however I would prefer to see them at the state level. Leave it the case that suits can be brought against the state by citizens within federal court if they feel certain requirements are unconstitutional, but leave it at that.
I don't know whether there duplication of testing. I would rather see standards set at the national level as it provides for more uniformity across the states.
Now, insofar as disappointing scores, I feel this is quite misleading. Many countries separate their students in high school in different curriculums, such as college bound or trade bound, but only really test the college bound students and publish those scores. We though are trying to teach all students to the same level (accept for special education and developmentally challenged.)
At the high school level, you are correct for some countries. However testing is done at two earlier levels before any separation into trade and academic is made. US is well behind in the earlier grades as well.
I guess I could also add a third here too. I thoroughly believe the biggest problem with out school system is the decrease in family values when it comes to education. Students who are smart tend to have parents who really push them and keep up on their education. Every smart student I taught had parents who came to every parent teacher conference. The bad students, I never heard from or meet their parents no matter what (until maybe the last week of school asking what was wrong with my class since their child was failing.) I'm not sure how you fix this.
Absolutely and this is a point that the late Senator Moynihan was writing about in the late 1960s!!! My wife has some former students who teach in inner city schools and this is the big problem that they face.
-
I don't see money returned to taxpayers as unconstitutional if their kids are not educated in a public school but rather in a private or religious school . That's basically what a voucher does. Basically the government is just giving a tax deduction for your kid that is not public school educated. It similar to when you take a dependent deduction on your 1040 return for each child you have. The government doesn't tell you where to spend the deduction money. You can spend it for your dependent kids to learn something or drink it away in a bar. How you spend the voucher or education credits to educate your kid is your business as long as the school meets education standards of the State in which you live. The government is not imposing any religious test or requirement on you so there's no constitutional implication. You decide what you want to do with the money in how to educate your kids. Why should others tell you what to do? It's none of their business.
As an aside, voucher or tax credits are usually less than what it costs to educate the student in a public school. So the public school system saves additional dollars that can be used for the kids that remain.
Charter schools take money away from the global school budget and go to the charter school. This is fine for the charter school which might have enrolment criteria that all students in the city might not be able to meet. However, the rest of the schools have to do with a budget that is lowered by the amount of money that flows to the charter schools. This would be OK if the charter schools all performed at or beyond expectation. The reality is that many charter schools do a poorer job than the public schools and in many cities are closed down. this ends up being a waste to tax payer money.
Vouchers only go so far. I know that the private schools in Washington DC have tuition in the $20K or more region. I believe that Sidwell where the Obama girls went is now $25K/year. I don't think anyone is talking about vouchers that high. You say the public school system saves money for the kids who remain. Where do you think the money for the vouchers is going to come from?
-
From Newsweek:
RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS ARE A BIGGER THREAT TO AMERICA THAN ISIS (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html)
Hum, any chance we can get Trump to ban right-wing extremists in America?
Naw, he just wants to ban travelers from those 7 Muslim majority countries and let right-wing wingnutz free range...hum, has Trump even condemned the Trump admirer that murdered those 6 Muslims in that Quebec City mosque?
Oh, yeah...this is what the White House said: "We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday afternoon. "It's a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be pro-active, rather re-active, when it comes to our nation's safety and security."
Trump did tweet "A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S." on Feb 3 but has yet to tweet about that Quebec City mosque.
The tragic events of Quebec City are a stark reminder of the effect that divisive, xenophobic politics and policies can have anywhere in the world. In terms of actually improving homeland security, many agree that the effect of the travel ban will be miniscule. However, a number of security experts point out that it certainly plays into the narrative used by terrorist recruiters. And it further emboldens the alt-right, white nationalists, and violence-prone lone-wolves. It makes them feel "safe and supported" in their bigoted convictions, to hear and see the President and his administration's rhetoric and actions. While I fully support a nation's right to security and defense, I firmly believe that to focus on division, play upon fears, and use tweets to justify it, is simplistic and counterproductive.
When the President seems to routinely use canards as a rhetorical strategy, it makes one wonder what the real purpose of the Executive Order might be. Some would suggest that Trump is simply following through on his campaign promises and, on the surface, this would seem to be the case. But there may be much more to it than that.
a) It seems to be a trial balloon to test the President's power, particularly with respect to orders that segment society based on religion and culture (tempered by economic interests, of course).
b) It plays consistently to the narrative that terrorists are only Muslim. It fits lock-step with the President's rhetoric that Iran is the seat of terrorism. One wonders what would happen if that confrontation were to become more active? I wouldn't be surprised to see alt-right calls for Muslim internment camps, as was done with the Japanese during World War II. "You know, folks, you just can't trust them". Interestingly, Iran is one area where Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin seem to be at odds.
c) It perpetuates the fear that America is under attack, and infers that the current intelligence and security communities are incompetent and in need of help from Trump and his team who "know better". I think Trump and Bannon want firm control of the intelligence apparatus, to set their own agenda and priorities. "WE will tell YOU where the danger lies, who to keep tabs on, who we want you to mess with." The question is, do you trust them?
d) It infuriates and unhinges social liberals, causing a few to lash about in regrettable and ineffectual ways. While cooler heads organize legal challenges and retrench for longer-term vigilance and effective change, the President tweets to belittle and bully the opposition, and to preemptively lay the blame for any future terrorist acts at its feet.
e) It makes the guileless feel safer. "Trust me. Believe me. Don't worry about it. The world's a bad place, but we're going to fix it. That's what I do. I fix things. We'll make it better. Believe me. It's true." Years ago I worked for a company with a VP who said stuff like this. I was immediately skeptical. He turned out to be a sociopath (or maybe NPD?) who attacked and undermined colleagues, and sabotaged operations so he could play the saviour. He exhorted his sales staff to lie to customers. He was instrumental in destroying that company. Fortunately for me, I worked for a different VP and never came under personal attack, but we ALL lost out in the end. Now, this kind of patter gives me the "willies".
f) It distracts from other items that are (or seem to be) on the administration's agenda:
- scale back consumer protections
- scale back environmental protections
- scale back health care assistance for the most vulnerable
- claw back women's rights
- claw back LGBT rights
- claw back worker's rights
- work toward "corporatizing" education
- give massive tax cuts (which disproportionately advantage the already rich)
- claw back funding of social programs (which diminishes the standard of living and quality of life of the poor and lowest economic strata)
In my own country, I'm following the debates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's interesting (alarming?) to watch what some of the candidates have "learned" from the U.S. election, and the strategies that some employ to differentiate themselves. Some want to focus on whether or not public employees can wear the niqab. Some want additions to the citizenship process and/or oath. One seems to implore us to outsource our interests to the "economic elite". This is the same individual who posted a video of himself gleefully firing a series of automatic weapons at a Miami gun range on the day of the funeral for three of the Quebec City shooting victims. Oops! Personally, I hope that this dark and disturbing world vision and brand of politics makes little headway here. For my friends and (distant) relatives in the United States, I sincerely hope for the best.
-
Charter schools take money away from the global school budget and go to the charter school. This is fine for the charter school which might have enrolment criteria that all students in the city might not be able to meet. However, the rest of the schools have to do with a budget that is lowered by the amount of money that flows to the charter schools. This would be OK if the charter schools all performed at or beyond expectation. The reality is that many charter schools do a poorer job than the public schools and in many cities are closed down. this ends up being a waste to tax payer money.
There have been quite a few scandals concerning charter schools, embezzlement being the most common one, some charter schools had to close doors after the first few weeks, leaving a bunch of students hanging in the air.
-
Here's a list of his executive actions and memorandums as of Feb 3rd (you can check what they mean HERE (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/10-executive-actions-trump-signed-far/))
20. “Fiduciary rule” delay
19. Reviewing financial regulations
18. Cutting regulations
17. Lobbyist bans
16. Reorganizing the top security councils
15. Plan to fight ISIS
14. Blocking refugees and all visitors from some countries
13. Reshaping the military
12. Border wall
11. Deportations and sanctuary cities
10. Review manufacturing regulations
9. American steel in pipelines
8. Speeding up environmental reviews for all priority infrastructure
6 + 7. Speeding approval of Dakota Access and Keystone Oil Pipelines
5. Federal hiring freeze
4. TPP.
3. Abortion
2. Regulation freeze
1. ACA rollback
Well about #14
"In 2011 via executive order, Obama suspended travel from these same countries (that’s where Trump got the list from) for twice as long, six months, yet there were no objections on the Democrats part, no invections about his unsuitability for office, no protests, no riots and destruction of property, no suggestion of unconstitutionality, no calls for impeachment, no rabble rousing by the media, etc. And why not! Because he was a Democrat, the first black president, the media and liberal’s darling, who could do no wrong!
So why now all this against Trump’s essentially identical executive order but of shorter duration? Bitterness, revenge, being sore losers, anything to divert, misinform, deceive about its intent, anything to disparage and disrupt the new administration! A very sad commentary about Democrats and an easily led, easily misinformed, easily deceived bunch of liberal lemmings!"
But don't let facts get enter into the discussion. As far a the "tantrums" I referred to in my earlier post it was directed at those in the opposite camp that haven't stopped stamping their little feet, missing classes, and crying like spoiled children.
Kevin in CT
-
Charter schools take money away from the global school budget and go to the charter school. This is fine for the charter school which might have enrolment criteria that all students in the city might not be able to meet. However, the rest of the schools have to do with a budget that is lowered by the amount of money that flows to the charter schools. This would be OK if the charter schools all performed at or beyond expectation. The reality is that many charter schools do a poorer job than the public schools and in many cities are closed down. this ends up being a waste to tax payer money.
Vouchers only go so far. I know that the private schools in Washington DC have tuition in the $20K or more region. I believe that Sidwell where the Obama girls went is now $25K/year. I don't think anyone is talking about vouchers that high. You say the public school system saves money for the kids who remain. Where do you think the money for the vouchers is going to come from?
I don't understand your point. Maybe you can clarify. If voucher money comes out of the public school budget, the charter school pays for teachers and other services out of it. The global school system is not teaching those kids so they save money on teachers. So there's a saving for the global system.
Of course the global system has other costs such as providing space, security, utilities, etc to the charter school that should also be reimbursed by the charter school. Frankly, the overarching issue that no one wants to talk about is that charter school teachers are not union. So the objection to charters is from the union directors, union teachers and union supported politicians. It's all about power and money. No one really cares about the kids except the parents.
-
You're quite right about facts not entering the discussion, at least on this specific point. And amusingly so regarding who the "easily led, easily misinformed, easy deceived.." are. (Edit - there are certainly people on both sides of the equation that meet that description...)
To clarify:
1) Obama's 2011 order didn't ban anyone. It slowed new visa applications from Iraqis while at the same time re-examining some previously issued visas in response to some identified holes in the vetting process. The process DID slow down significantly.
2) The other countries were not part of this process, but rather were part of a program to tighten a visa *waiver* procedure. Meaning that it's more accurate to say that prior to Obama's changes some of these people could travel *without* visas, much as we (US citizens) do to Canada, for example, but Obama changed that. In actuality, there's practically no equivalency.
3) What this DOES mean, however, is that claims that Obama was allowing "open borders" and had practically no oversight on those entering the country from areas that generate terror are nonsense.
Carry on.
So why now all this against Trump’s essentially identical executive order but of shorter duration? Bitterness, revenge, being sore losers, anything to divert, misinform, deceive about its intent, anything to disparage and disrupt the new administration! A very sad commentary about Democrats and an easily led, easily misinformed, easily deceived bunch of liberal lemmings!"
But don't let facts get enter into the discussion. As far a the "tantrums" I referred to in my earlier post it was directed at those in the opposite camp that haven't stopped stamping their little feet, missing classes, and crying like spoiled children.
Kevin in CT
-
The tragic events of Quebec City are a stark reminder of the effect that divisive, xenophobic politics and policies can have anywhere in the world. In terms of actually improving homeland security, many agree that the effect of the travel ban will be miniscule. However, a number of security experts point out that it certainly plays into the narrative used by terrorist recruiters. And it further emboldens the alt-right, white nationalists, and violence-prone lone-wolves. It makes them feel "safe and supported" in their bigoted convictions, to hear and see the President and his administration's rhetoric and actions. While I fully support a nation's right to security and defense, I firmly believe that to focus on division, play upon fears, and use tweets to justify it, is simplistic and counterproductive.
When the President seems to routinely use canards as a rhetorical strategy, it makes one wonder what the real purpose of the Executive Order might be. Some would suggest that Trump is simply following through on his campaign promises and, on the surface, this would seem to be the case. But there may be much more to it than that.
a) It seems to be a trial balloon to test the President's power, particularly with respect to orders that segment society based on religion and culture (tempered by economic interests, of course).
b) It plays consistently to the narrative that terrorists are only Muslim. It fits lock-step with the President's rhetoric that Iran is the seat of terrorism. One wonders what would happen if that confrontation were to become more active? I wouldn't be surprised to see alt-right calls for Muslim internment camps, as was done with the Japanese during World War II. "You know, folks, you just can't trust them". Interestingly, Iran is one area where Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin seem to be at odds.
c) It perpetuates the fear that America is under attack, and infers that the current intelligence and security communities are incompetent and in need of help from Trump and his team who "know better". I think Trump and Bannon want firm control of the intelligence apparatus, to set their own agenda and priorities. "WE will tell YOU where the danger lies, who to keep tabs on, who we want you to mess with." The question is, do you trust them?
d) It infuriates and unhinges social liberals, causing a few to lash about in regrettable and ineffectual ways. While cooler heads organize legal challenges and retrench for longer-term vigilance and effective change, the President tweets to belittle and bully the opposition, and to preemptively lay the blame for any future terrorist acts at its feet.
e) It makes the guileless feel safer. "Trust me. Believe me. Don't worry about it. The world's a bad place, but we're going to fix it. That's what I do. I fix things. We'll make it better. Believe me. It's true." Years ago I worked for a company with a VP who said stuff like this. I was immediately skeptical. He turned out to be a sociopath (or maybe NPD?) who attacked and undermined colleagues, and sabotaged operations so he could play the saviour. He exhorted his sales staff to lie to customers. He was instrumental in destroying that company. Fortunately for me, I worked for a different VP and never came under personal attack, but we ALL lost out in the end. Now, this kind of patter gives me the "willies".
f) It distracts from other items that are (or seem to be) on the administration's agenda:
- scale back consumer protections
- scale back environmental protections
- scale back health care assistance for the most vulnerable
- claw back women's rights
- claw back LGBT rights
- claw back worker's rights
- work toward "corporatizing" education
- give massive tax cuts (which disproportionately advantage the already rich)
- claw back funding of social programs (which diminishes the standard of living and quality of life of the poor and lowest economic strata)
In my own country, I'm following the debates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's interesting (alarming?) to watch what some of the candidates have "learned" from the U.S. election, and the strategies that some employ to differentiate themselves. Some want to focus on whether or not public employees can wear the niqab. Some want additions to the citizenship process and/or oath. One seems to implore us to outsource our interests to the "economic elite". This is the same individual who posted a video of himself gleefully firing a series of automatic weapons at a Miami gun range on the day of the funeral for three of the Quebec City shooting victims. Oops! Personally, I hope that this dark and disturbing world vision and brand of politics makes little headway here. For my friends and (distant) relatives in the United States, I sincerely hope for the best.
So you spent all this time and a long essay focusing on Trump's immigration policy when a French-Canadian citizen killed 6 Muslim-Canadians in the French-Canadian town of Quebec City where twenty years ago the French Canadian Province of Quebec tried to breakoff from Canada totally and nearly caused a civil war there. Maybe you should focus on your own problems.
-
The edit got messed up. The point I was making is that no one in America has killed Muslim-Americans in a terrorist attack like the one that occurred in Canada. Trying to blame Trump immigration policy for Canada's bigoted attack on Muslims is an insult to America and you should straighten out the bigotry in your own country and not try to blame America and others for Canadian bigotry.
-
I don't understand your point. Maybe you can clarify. If voucher money comes out of the public school budget, the charter school pays for teachers and other services out of it. The global school system is not teaching those kids so they save money on teachers. So there's a saving for the global system.
There is no net savings at all. If the school budgets $10K for a 100 students (make the math easy) the global budget is $1M. 20 kids go to a charter school and that school gets $200K while the public school is left with $800K. That's the way it works in Washington DC which is the system I'm familiar with. Other districts may have a different way of funding.
Frankly, the overarching issue that no one wants to talk about is that charter school teachers are not union. So the objection to charters is from the union directors, union teachers and union supported politicians. It's all about power and money. No one really cares about the kids except the parents.
Union or non-union is irrelevant. It's whether the teachers are committed along with the school district. As I already noted our country school system is first rate. Very few kids attend private schools other than the parochial schools (both Catholic and Jewish). There has never been a drive for charter schools and the teachers that our two girls had were all very committed to educating. Similarly the public schools in northern Virginia are also excellent and I think the STEM magnet high school, Thomas Jefferson is regarded as one of the top ten high schools in the country.
-
My question is can you set up a parliamentary system in a Federal system like the US if you have a weighted electoral system where smaller states have more electoral votes? Second question, how can you have a multiparty system in an electorally weighted system like the US? The 51% requirement to become President forces a two party arrangement. How would you get around that with a Parliamentary system?
Yes, of course you can. The EC is voting for the head of state only.
Other countries use a run-off system for presidential elections - if no one candidate gets over 50%, then the top two are voted on again. The other way to do it is with preferential voting (as we have here), wherein each candidate provides an order of preference in the event they don't get enough votes (so that their votes flow to another candidate) and voters can either use that order or they can preferentially order all the candidates themselves. We've been doing this long since before computers, and now it's really quite quick and easy to crunch the preferences to get a result, particularly in a relatively small field (our senatorial elections can have dozens of candidates with preferences).
-
There is no net savings at all. If the school budgets $10K for a 100 students (make the math easy) the global budget is $1M. 20 kids go to a charter school and that school gets $200K while the public school is left with $800K. That's the way it works in Washington DC which is the system I'm familiar with. Other districts may have a different way of funding.
Union or non-union is irrelevant. It's whether the teachers are committed along with the school district. As I already noted our country school system is first rate. Very few kids attend private schools other than the parochial schools (both Catholic and Jewish). There has never been a drive for charter schools and the teachers that our two girls had were all very committed to educating. Similarly the public schools in northern Virginia are also excellent and I think the STEM magnet high school, Thomas Jefferson is regarded as one of the top ten high schools in the country.
Your figures are wrong. The vouchers are not equal to but are less than the public school cost so the difference is a saving to the global school system. And it is a union issue because money that goes to charter schools and their non-union teachers doesn't go to union teachers and union officials. Also, union dues are less overall because there are less union teachers so that's another reason unions object to charter schools.
-
So, while I was writing my respectful response to a member's post, stuff got heated and the thread was closed. But since I took the time to write a respectful post with lots of info, I'm going to try a new post and ask that we stick to a healthy, respectful debate on the issues and resist the temptation of personal attacks (well, except to attacks on Trump :~)
So, he's my post as written: (thank goodness I wrote it in a document so I didn't lose it when the thread was closed)
You may be right...but I'm not sure Trump voters really knew what they were voting for because it's really hard to know what Trump truely stands for in many cases because over the years he has flipped and flopped about. It's also hard to know what he actually believes because he's a serial liar–Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/01/truth-check-clinton-and-trump-truth-o-meter-1-week/) tracked him last year and ranked him as mostly false, false or pants on fire a whopping 69.6%. So, only about 30% of what comes out of his mouth is true. Hard to really know, ya know? Heck, even Kellyanne Conway said we "should judge Donald Trump based on “what’s in his heart” rather than “what’s come out of his mouth”. The problem is it's hard to know what's in his heart.
But say they knew what they were doing when they voted for Trump. Unfortunately, the people who voted for Trump represent only 27% of of the eligible voters. Of the total of 231,556,622 eligible voters, only about 60% (138,884,643) voted. That means 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote and the 65,979,879 who voted for Hillary were out voted by 62,979,879 of the voting population. That means the majority of the eligible voters didn't vote for Trump. That doesn't sound like much of a mandate to me...
Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now.
One can debate all you want about why, but I'm pretty sure that Russia hacking the DNC computers and Podesta's email and James Comey's handling of the email server investigation and several states' attacks on voting rights (read voter suppression) had a negative impact on the Democratic Presidential Candidate's campaign. It didn't help that Hillary didn't even bother to visit Wisconsin and didn't really get out and connect with the people who Obama was able to connect with.
So, Trump is President. But he's not my choice and I don't have to accept what he is trying to do. My goal is to help generate the action and political will to get those people who didn't vote off their asses and get involved for the midterm elections to regain control of the Senate, mitigate the House and make sure Trump can't do everything he has said he wants to do because I think it's wrong for the country.
I want to see progressives (Democrats or Independents) organize in a way similar to the way the Tea party organized after Obama was elected. I saw an article in the NYT called The Alt-Majority: How Social Networks Empowered Mass Protests Against Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/technology/donald-trump-social-networks-protests.html) that is a sign of the times (I know, Trump thinks the NYT is fake news but hey, I think he's a fake person).
I'm not going to accept Trump's attempts at reshaping America into his likeness. I reject "Alternative Facts". I reject accepting Trump's lies as the new normal. I reject having a President who suffers from a mental disability called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)). I even wrote a post on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/jeff.schewe/posts/1249950058423253?pnref=story) in case you want to read more about NPD.
I can only hope that the GOP can somehow get Trump to quit being CEO of a closely help corporation that steps on everybody but answers to nobody and learn how to become a President of all Americans. If you voted for Trump, I hope you are right but fear you are wrong. Sadly the Doomsday Clock (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/26/domesday_clock_150_seconds_from_midnight/) has moved to just 150 seconds from midnight–the closest setting to doom since 1953.
I'm an old white guy with money who stands to benefit by what Trump is likely to do (short of all out nuclear war) but that doesn't mean I want that for my country...so far it seems everything he's done has been at the expense of the little guy and instead of draining the swamp he's refilling the water with his own brand of billionare cronyism. Really, nominating Steven T. Mnuchin for Treasury secretary is gonna get rid of the swamp?
So, I'm going to work to bring about change. I'm an old hippy at heart. I actually walked in anti-Vietnam War marches (ok, it was only the last 2 years before the war ended, but I marched). My wife and my daughter walked in the Woman's March here in Chicago–I supported them and the other 250K that walked but couldn't make it. I donated money and joined the ACLU for the first time in my life and I'm going to write letters and work in support of the NEA (https://www.arts.gov), PBS (http://www.pbs.org) and NPR (http://www.npr.org). I'm actually thinking of marching in Washington on Earthday to support the The March for Science (https://www.marchforscience.com). What Trump and his Trumpets are trying to do to the EPA and climate science is truly scary. So, who's with me? What other Americans are going to step up and take action?
It's our country and we should be willing to work to bring about change...if you don't then you deserve what you get...Donald J Trump-President of the United Staes of America. Is that what ya want? Really?
Thanks for this Jeff. Agree 110 percent. Dark days on the american landscape...
-
So you spent all this time and a long essay focusing on Trump's immigration policy when a French-Canadian citizen killed 6 Muslim-Canadians in the French-Canadian town of Quebec City where twenty years ago the French Canadian Province of Quebec tried to breakoff from Canada totally and nearly caused a civil war there. Maybe you should focus on your own problems.
Thank-you; we most certainly are, and most certainly will continue to focus on our not inconsiderable problems. Here's part of one recent newspaper editorial (Toronto Star):
But the most encouraging thing in the wake of the shooting is that Quebec’s political leaders and news media are finally taking a hard look in the mirror. They’re starting to openly acknowledge their own role in creating an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility towards Muslims.
A decade of toxic debates about supposed threats to Quebec values, about hijabs and niqabs and “reasonable accommodation,” has taken its toll. No one yet knows exactly why the shooter did what he did, but the poisoned rhetoric undoubtedly created a climate in which hate can more easily flourish and extremists can find justification for their feelings.
For far too long, Quebec politicians and commentators have gone into a defensive crouch whenever anyone (especially an outsider) points out the streak of Islamophobia that has run through the province’s political discourse. Any suggestion that the province has a special problem is just more “Quebec bashing,” they insisted.
But the massacre at the mosque is a turning point, the moment for some long-overdue soul-searching.
To his credit, Premier Philippe Couillard has opened the debate by acknowledging that Quebec, like all societies, has to deal with its “demons” – and “these demons are named xenophobia, racism, exclusion.” Importantly, he pointed out that the way public figures talk about social issues can have hurtful effects in the real world: “Words can be knives slashing at people’s consciousness.”
That’s a vital reminder to politicians who have cynically played on voters’ fears for their own benefit. Couillard’s own government has proposed a law that would ban veiled women from receiving government services; he could follow up his fine words by backing away from any such action, which just fuels public fear to no good end.
This is not a problem for the province of Quebec alone. As I pointed out, some candidates for our federal Progressive Conservative Party leadership seem to promote the same rhetoric. You can be sure that they will not get my support, even if they succeed in winning the leadership race.
Part of my point is that this is an international problem. We are too connected through media for it to be otherwise. Hate groups exist world-wide; they normalize aberrant behaviour and attitudes for their following. Canada struggles along with other countries in defending free speech and ideas, and guarding against the promotion of bigotry and hatred – the things that spur a disturbed mind to heinous acts. The problem is that messages can be misappropriated, and careless rhetoric can be misconstrued. The fact that Alexandre Bissonnette, an admirer of Donald trump, committed this act two days after the signing of the travel ban, just as it was really heating up in the media, is probably a coincidence. It seems that he's harboured Islamaphobic thoughts for a while. But, like it or not, what the President of the United States says and does, and the manner in which he says and does it, is followed around the world, and has consequences at home and abroad.
It is not my intent to insult America. An act of terrorism (regardless of who carries it out, or wherever it is carried out) sickens me, as I'm sure it does you. As the article implies, I believe it's time for responsible politicians, the media, and society to think very carefully about the impact of their voice and actions. Perhaps you will disagree. I will not continue to try to convince you. All I hope for is that you think about the efficacy of this Executive Order in advancing homeland security beside its farther-reaching political impact.
-
...
It is not my intent to insult America. An act of terrorism (regardless of who carries it out, or wherever it is carried out) sickens me, as I'm sure it does you. As the article implies, I believe it's time for responsible politicians, the media, and society to think very carefully about the impact of their voice and actions. Perhaps you will disagree. I will not continue to try to convince you. All I hope for is that you think about the efficacy of this Executive Order in advancing homeland security beside its farther-reaching political impact.
I appreciate your balanced response. Despite all the terrorist attacks in America, and my sister lost her daughter on 911, most Americans, myself included, do not harbor ill will toward people of the Muslim faith. However, we have a right to protect ourselves from further violence from those Muslims who still want to kill us. There will always be those, like the Canadian, who will take action into their own sick hands and use their own problems to hurt innocent people. But I think that's unavoidable. Their sickness and acting out however should not stop the rest of us from taking appropriate action to protect ourselves. That would be foolish.
-
But don't let facts get enter into the discussion.
Yes, let's not since what you said was, in fact, not a fact. I won't bother to respond to your alternative facts because James Clack did a great job of that. But I would ask you where you got your "facts"?
Was it from a Trump surrogate or perhaps stated on Fox News or perhaps, shudder at the thought, http://www.breitbart.com?
I ask because, well and this is important, if you haven't noticed, Trump and his surrogate lie...not only do they lie, when they get caught in a lie they go right ahead and lie about it. It's called "doubling down". As I said before during the campaign, Politifact determined Trump lied about 69.6% No, you might be temped to write them off as a Fake News but PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/) has won a Pulitzer prize for, well, telling the truth about liars...
So, I recently read an opinion in the The Guardian that seems to make a lot of sense...Trump’s lies are not the problem. It’s the millions who swallow them who really matter (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/donald-trump-lies-belief-totalitarianism).
One phrase hits it on the head:
"Compulsive liars shouldn’t frighten you. They can harm no one, if no one listens to them. Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you. Believers are the liars’ enablers. Their votes give the demagogue his power. Their trust turns the charlatan into the president. Their credulity ensures that the propaganda of half-calculating and half-mad fanatics has the power to change the world."
So, maybe you think I'm a leftwing wing nut? Nope...personally I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I'm more of a libertarian. The problem with most libertarians is there is little to no chance they can win any serious elections. So, call me a bit more if an "independent" sort of like Joe Lieberman was and like the way Bernie Sanders is. Yes, I voted for Bernie but of course, Chicago, IL went big time for Hillary.
The point I'm trying to make is that people have to exercise good judgment and not blindly follow anybody.
When it comes to news: be skeptical, check the author, check the publisher, check the sources. Don't get your news single sourced...
I watch CNN and Fox News...take what I hear and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle (leaning towards CNN as more balanced).
I also go to web sites like ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org) (a non for profit news web site) as well as Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com) (which is decidedly for profit-wanna buy a Breitbart hoodie). I also check out British newspapers and the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news) as well as The Economist (http://www.economist.com) to see what the world thinks about what we're doing.
The one thing I try really REALLY hard is to avoid the Echo Chamber (http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/07/24/486941582/the-reason-your-feed-became-an-echo-chamber-and-what-to-do-about-it) where the only things I see and read are things hand picked for me based on social media or google algorythims determination that these times would be news I would be inclined to agree with.
Yes, it takes work to be well informed. You can't simply go to the place where they tell you what you want to hear because it makes to feel good about yourself. You have to challenge everything and everybody and have the conviction to stand up for your own beliefs and convictions. As I'm doing now...I seriously wish I had started this effort earlier last year–I bet a lot of people are kicking themselves right now for not working harder or making the effort to vote. But rumination won't impact the future, effort will.
Edit to fix ProPublica link
-
I also go to web sites like ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org) (a non for profit news web site)
Thanks for posting that link. It looks like an interesting site worth checking out.
-
The edit got messed up. The point I was making is that no one in America has killed Muslim-Americans in a terrorist attack like the one that occurred in Canada. Trying to blame Trump immigration policy for Canada's bigoted attack on Muslims is an insult to America and you should straighten out the bigotry in your own country and not try to blame America and others for Canadian bigotry.
American geopolitics (and Russian and some others) are a major feeding ground for radical Jihadists. The Muslim ban (masqueraded as immigration policy) is a major help to those hate preachers for recruitment, and also for home-grown terrorists who get their indoctrination fake news from the internet.
For instance, why Iran, and not Saudi-Arabia on the Ban-list? Geopolitics, for oil, and for weapons delivery, and for regional influence.
The Trump administration (supported by the Republican party representatives in congres) feeds the negative sentiments around the world, as well as at home.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Their sickness and acting out however should not stop the rest of us from taking appropriate action to protect ourselves. That would be foolish.
Appropriate action... Not feeding radical extremist sentiments. Who could be opposing that? But that's not what is happening.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I ask because, well and this is important, if you haven't noticed, Trump and his surrogate lie...not only do they lie, when they get caught in a lie they go right ahead and lie about it. It's called "doubling down". As I said before during the campaign, Politifact determined Trump lied about 69.6% No, you might be temped to write them off as a Fake News but PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/) has won a Pulitzer prize for, well, telling the truth about liars...
So, I recently read an opinion in the The Guardian that seems to make a lot of sense...Trump’s lies are not the problem. It’s the millions who swallow them who really matter (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/05/donald-trump-lies-belief-totalitarianism).
I agree with most of that article, and your post. Which is exactly the reason why Trump disqualifies the media as unfair bringers of biased news, only to discredit him, by going over their head directly to the believers via Twitter. Good quality investigative reporting (which is more important than ever before) is a threat to him, because it exposes his lies.
His mental condition does not see his alternative facts as lies, they are an integral part of the likely condition he's suffering from. But by bypassing the media verification (just like daily security briefings, or critical judges), he can remain living in his imagination bubble, and probably gain some support for his views by, as the article describes them, "compulsive believers".
And yes, the compulsive believers are at least as responsible for the developing situation, because they are the liars’ enablers. The Republican Party's paralysis in free thinking, due to 'the wrath of Trump', will only help to further reduce the checks-and-balances that Congress is supposed to offer. It's the axe at the roots of the political democracy, as flawed as it already was.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You can gripe all you want but he won the election. All the attacks are pretty meaningless and are just sour grapes. If he doesn't perform, he'll be voted out of office in 2020. If he performs, he'll be voted in until 2024. So you got him for 4 or 8 more years.
He will implode long before that. His hubris will get the better of him and he will do something to get impeached. Another Nixon?
-
Your figures are wrong. The vouchers are not equal to but are less than the public school cost so the difference is a saving to the global school system. And it is a union issue because money that goes to charter schools and their non-union teachers doesn't go to union teachers and union officials. Also, union dues are less overall because there are less union teachers so that's another reason unions object to charter schools.
If you read my post carefully you would have observed that I was talking about Charter Schools in the first instance and that this was how Washington DC allocates budget money. Perhaps you have mixed up vouchers for private schools with charter schools which are public. Vouchers are a separate issue and for many low income people they won't work. I believe I posted that private schools in the Washington DC area have tuition of $20-25K per year. Say the voucher is $10K, there is very little possibility that the family can come up with an additional $10K (or more if the family has more than one child who wants to go to a private school). Catholic schools have a lower tuition as the church underwrites part of the cost. However, in DC a number of Catholic schools have closed because of lack of attendance. I doubt the courts would permit public money to be used for voucher to attend a parochial school.
-
He will implode long before that. His hubris will get the better of him and he will do something to get impeached. Another Nixon?
I think it won't come to that. He will continue to see his businesses being imperiled and if he ever releases his tax returns that will be the final straw. Once the nature of the foreign bank loans to the Trump Organization are known it will pretty much be all over and he's going to resign. He is already seeing Ivanka's business suffering because of boycotts that are leading to very low sales volume. He Tweeted out against Nordstrom yesterday but the blunt fact is that her clothing line wasn't selling very well. Taxpayer paying for the Trump sons' security on foreign business trips is going to be another tripwire if Congress ever investigates this (with the Republican's in power this might never happen).
-
Is it just me. Why isn't your entire country in an uproar over the President tweeting about a company's relationship with his wife's business? Isn't this offensive to anyone?
Is the US a banana republic now?
-
Is it just me. Why isn't your entire country in an uproar over the President tweeting about a company's relationship with his wife's business? Isn't this offensive to anyone?
Is the US a banana republic now?
I own Nordstrom stock and was happy to see him Tweet as the price rose about 6% yesterday. Keep up the Tweets and I'll get rich!!!! Humor aside, a lot of us think that this is juvenile behavior of the worst kind, something a 12 year old would do but not the President of the US.
-
Is it just me. Why isn't your entire country in an uproar over the President tweeting about a company's relationship with his wife's business? Isn't this offensive to anyone?
Is the US a banana republic now?
It is daughter. And political.
-
...Taxpayer paying for the Trump sons' security on foreign business trips is going to be another tripwire if Congress ever investigates this...
You mean Secret Service didn't provide security for Malia Obama's trip to Bolivia last year?
-
Good morning! I'm getting my lesson plans together for the day. Thanks to the new administration I can expand what I teach to include alternative facts. I'm choosing lessons from this source as a replacement for science.
The Flying Pasta Monster (http://www.venganza.org)
-
I own Nordstrom stock and was happy to see him Tweet as the price rose about 6% yesterday. Keep up the Tweets and I'll get rich!!!! Humor aside, a lot of us think that this is juvenile behavior of the worst kind, something a 12 year old would do but not the President of the US.
While not strictly illegal (https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/08/trumps-nordstrom-tweet-isnt-illegal-but-its-still-a-problem/), such a tweet is not unexpected from someone who deliberately didn't disclose his tax records, and didn't really distance himself from his own commercial activities other than letting his family run the business. What's even more troubling is that he tweeted those remarks while 'involved' in a security meeting.
And of course, the private tweet (retweeted on the official account and made worse by Sean Spicer) was another lie, because according to a Nordstrom spokesperson the decision to stop selling the fashion line, due to a disappointing sales trend, was communicated to his daughter in early January already. So no personal attack on his daughter, but disappointing sales, and probably a good business decision.
When a person like that is given the free reigns, it will only get worse...
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Some more background info and opinions on the matter, here (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-nordstrom-tweet-ivanka-234791).
-
I'm choosing lessons from this source as a replacement for science.
The Flying Pasta Monster (http://www.venganza.org)
I remember when a friend and his brother (almost) convinced his sister (who was in College!!) that spaghetti grew on trees, like moss. It was harvested, straightened, and dried before packaging. There were huge tracts of spaghetti trees in Italy, they said. She was taken in because her teasing siblings remained convincing and sincere, and because she'd never ever thought about it before. Their father put an end to the nonsense, of course.
Critical thinking is one of the most important things that a teacher can encourage in his/her students.
-
... Thanks to the new administration I can expand what I teach to include alternative facts..
As you should. It is a real shame that a teacher falls for the currently-popular, yet erroneous interpretation of alternative facts as lies. Alternative facts is a legitimate concept, so educate yourself first.
-
You mean Secret Service didn't provide security for Malia Obama's trip to Bolivia last year?
I'm not talking about vacations. I have no problems with that at all nor the fact that it cost $7M for the Trump Thanksgiving at Mar-a-Lago when he was just President elect. I don't think US taxpayers should be on the hook for protection on business trips. This should be paid to the US government and then the Trump Organization should expense it on their tax returns as a normal cost of doing business which it is. Isn't that rational policy? Do you as an American taxpayer want to pay for the Trump Organization business expenses? Not to mention that this might also violate the emolument clause of the Constitution.
Of course we won't have any Congressional hearings on this and other things related to the Trump Organization because the Republicans are afraid of the Prez.
-
As you should. It is a real shame that a teacher falls for the currently-popular, yet erroneous interpretation of alternative facts as lies. Alternative facts is a legitimate concept, so educate yourself first.
I quite agree. We need to change the medical school curricula to encourage the use of homeopathic remedies as opposed to dangerous pharmaceuticals. Think of all the lives that will be saved. More research money needs to spent on commercializing cold fusion so we are truly free of the pesky middle-eastern petroleum states and their OPEC price fixing cartel. Their are truly endless possibilities here! I'm actually thinking of going back to graduate school and getting another PhD in the Science of Alternative Facts that I can add to my PhD in Chemistry. Now I just have to find a university that offers such a degree. Perhaps those paragons of higher education Bob Jones University or Liberty University offer such degree programs!
-
I'm not talking about vacations... I don't think US taxpayers should be on the hook for protection on business trips.
OK, how about clintonbill or magicone or whoever going somewhere to give a paid speech ? it is a business trip ;D to make money ...
-
I'm not talking about vacations...
Same difference. Why would American taxpayers pay for someone's vacation?
The above was a rhetorical question. I am not advocating that presidents' children should not have protection when traveling, business or pleasure.
-
I quite agree...
Yet another example of a high-educated, yet low-information voter.
-
As you should. It is a real shame that a teacher falls for the currently-popular, yet erroneous interpretation of alternative facts as lies. Alternative facts is a legitimate concept, so educate yourself first.
Not sure what you are suggesting here. Do you mean lies as untruth (as in newspeak), or do you mean lies as falsehoods, or incomplete information which might lead to the wrong conclusion, or...?
You are probably aware that there are companies in Russia that have the production of "Alternative facts" as their sole activity? Employees are supposed to produce some 80 hard to check falsehoods per working day and participate in discussions by posting in discussion fora, and there are 2 or 3 shifts to provide a constant stream around the 24 hour clock. Those falsehoods (known to be not the truth) are presented as alternative explanations why e.g. a passenger plane gets shot out of the air, and these employees are also using that information they created themselves to disrupt discussions on fora to confuse the participants as to what "truth" is really true. When a lie is told often enough, there will be people who start believing it.
Sofar, Trumps seems to be lying a lot and a lot of people are buying in on those lies, or at least defending them.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are probably aware that there are companies in Russia that have the production of "Alternative facts" as their sole activity?
those efforts pale vs such propaganda masterpieces as "WMD in Iraq" or "Gulf of Tonkin" ;D you did not bother to check how many people died because of just these 2 vs "their sole activity", did you ? too busy reading UNIAN probably ..
-
Alternative Fact is an oxymoron!
Now the definition of fact has changed!
-
Alternative Fact is an oxymoron!
Now the definition of fact has changed!
True, what is actually happening is an alternative interpretation of facts. But that does not have the same comic effect as alternate facts.
-
Alternative Fact is an oxymoron!
Nope.
-
True, what is actually happening is an alternative interpretation of facts....
Interpretation of facts is a different story. I am talking about alternative facts as a legitimate concept.
-
Jeff, I'm sorry but I just can't engage with anyone who believes that CNN and it's ilk are fair and balanced. Before any of you try to jam FOX news down my throat, I am not a viewer of it either. I get most of my news from print newspapers (online versions) and some from network news websites. As far as what other countries think of us, I really don't give a damm. If things are so bad here in the good ol' USA why of the rest of the world so desperate to live here??
Kevin in CT
-
those efforts pale vs such propaganda masterpieces as "WMD in Iraq" or "Gulf of Tonkin" ;D you did not bother to check how many people died because of just these 2 vs "their sole activity", did you ?
Didn't know we were discussing that propaganda here. Do we? Anyway, give it a bit of time and the casualties will start piling up in this case as well. "The first casualty when war comes is truth" (attr. Hiram Johnson (USA)), as usual.
Cheers,
Bart
BTW, I do not read "UNIAN", I didn't even know it existed until Google linked to it, but I did read/view the official reportings (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwixxtOHsYPSAhVMFMAKHUK3B_0QFgg7MAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fonderzoeksraad.nl%2Fen%2Fonderzoek%2F2049%2Finvestigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014&usg=AFQjCNEnaMvvwdjAjRsLFULRlHON6a69MA) of the Official Safety Board investigation committee of the MH17 massacre by a Russian BUK rocket. What followed was a fine example of spreading Fake news and Alternative false facts.
The BUK rocket was transported to the Ukraine conflict zone from Russian territory, launched, and the launcher was returned to Russian territory in order to allow denial of Russian involvement in launching, the Ukrainian forces were mentioned by Fake news as launching the rocket, and then a fighter plane was supposed to have take the passenger plane down, and then Russia said that their radar systems show something different, yet the radar data was not provided to the investigators, then the radar data that was provided was in a non-standard international format and was thus unusable. The investigation and conflicting Fake news and conflicting Alternative facts (usually shortly preceding official report updates and announcements) is continuing as we speak.
-
American geopolitics (and Russian and some others) are a major feeding ground for radical Jihadists. The Muslim ban (masqueraded as immigration policy) is a major help to those hate preachers for recruitment, and also for home-grown terrorists who get their indoctrination fake news from the internet.
For instance, why Iran, and not Saudi-Arabia on the Ban-list? Geopolitics, for oil, and for weapons delivery, and for regional influence.
The Trump administration (supported by the Republican party representatives in congres) feeds the negative sentiments around the world, as well as at home.
Cheers,
Bart
Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US. While it's true that many 911 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, that was 16 years ago and things have changed. Both countries have very strong anti-terrorist organizations that work together. It's easier to vet people coming from Saudi Arabia because of this. That isn't true with Iran. Our security agencies don't work together. Also, Iran has been an adversary of the US since their revolution and a state sponsor of international terrorism. They've provided arms to others who then kill American soldiers. Finally, if Trump did apply the ban Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries in general, you would be arguing it is a general Muslim ban rather that a target specific ban of countries where the governments are in poor condition to vet travelers to the USA.
Finally taking a pause in letting people in from war torn areas to figure out how to vet them properly before entering should lessen the chance we'll wind up like what's going on in Europe. Why should America jump into the same quagmire that Germany and others have done?
-
Didn't know we were discussing that propaganda here. Do we?
surely you prefer to discuss the more convenient propaganda, instead of inconvenient one ... like that evil Putin who does not want to cooperate - here is what cooperation that US means, example = http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/07/the-strategic-suicide-of-aligning-with-russia-in-syria/ =
"In the summer and early fall of 2016, during the negotiations over a potential “Joint Implementation Center” to conduct coordinated targeting against Nusra and the Islamic State, Obama insisted that Moscow enforce a nationwide ceasefire (including in besieged Aleppo) and ensure unfettered humanitarian access across Syria for the United Nations as preconditions. Obama also required that, if and when the Joint Implementation Center was established, Russia commit to following the laws of war, avoid targeting the moderate opposition, ground Assad’s air force over most of the country, provide the United States a veto over Russian counterterrorism targets, and press the Assad regime back into negotiations on a political transition. Ultimately, the Russians proved unable or unwilling to convince Assad (and Iran) to meet these conditions, and the proposal collapsed."
how dare Putin refuse to give US veto over Russia while not being offered the veto over US strikes... he is really not a reliable partner, is he ;D ... so what exactly Putin was offered that was beneficial for him and not for US ? a single item please ?
so no wonder that Kerry was told to go and f..k himself 8)
-
Yet another example of a high-educated, yet low-information voter.
Anti-intellectualism is a core problem on the right these days, sadly, and it's disappointing to see someone like you buy into it. Note that I'm not suggesting that practical or widely-ranging alternative sources of education and learning are any less valuable in the grand scheme of things, but the dismissal of formal higher education and upper-level experience as somehow not appropriate for a "real American" is an attitude that fosters populist nonsense based on "common sense" that oftentimes turns out to be wrong.
-
surely you prefer to discuss the more convenient propaganda, instead of inconvenient one ... like that evil Putin who does not want to cooperate - here is what cooperation that US means, example = http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/07/the-strategic-suicide-of-aligning-with-russia-in-syria/ =
"In the summer and early fall of 2016, during the negotiations over a potential “Joint Implementation Center” to conduct coordinated targeting against Nusra and the Islamic State, Obama insisted that Moscow enforce a nationwide ceasefire (including in besieged Aleppo) and ensure unfettered humanitarian access across Syria for the United Nations as preconditions. Obama also required that, if and when the Joint Implementation Center was established, Russia commit to following the laws of war, avoid targeting the moderate opposition, ground Assad’s air force over most of the country, provide the United States a veto over Russian counterterrorism targets, and press the Assad regime back into negotiations on a political transition. Ultimately, the Russians proved unable or unwilling to convince Assad (and Iran) to meet these conditions, and the proposal collapsed."
how dare Putin refuse to give US veto over Russia while not being offered the veto over US strikes... he is really not a reliable partner, is he ;D ... so what exactly Putin was offered that was beneficial for him and not for US ? a single item please ?
so no wonder that Kerry was told to go and f..k himself 8)
No wonder... Except you bolded the wrong things. Here - I've helped you out.
-
Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US.
any murderer who is an ally gets a free pass and weapons
They've provided arms to others who then kill American soldiers.
you remember what USA & Co did in the first place to Mohammad Mosaddegh ? atonement was due ...
-
Interpretation of facts is a different story. I am talking about alternative facts as a legitimate concept.
If it is legitimate, how so? What is the difference between an 'alternate fact and a lie?' Here is an easy one, President Trump said it stopped raining and the sun came out shortly after he began his inauguration speech. Weather radar, those broadcasting the event, as well as my own personal experience in being outside that day about three miles from where he spoke showed otherwise. Now Ms. Conway would claim that President Trump's statement is an alternate fact. I would say it is a lie. Which is the legitimate concept?
-
Anti-intellectualism is a core problem on the right these days, sadly, and it's disappointing to see someone like you buy into it.
Not just today! As anyone who has read the works of the great American political scientist, Richard Hofstadter, well knows, anti-intellectualism has a long and storied life in the US. In fact it was the title of one of his books.
BTW - Nordstrom stock is up another 3% this morning. Keep up the Tweets Mr President!!!
-
No wonder... Except you bolded the wrong things. Here - I've helped you out.
let me translate for you
"ensure unfettered humanitarian access across Syria" - did you notice that once Aleppo was finally freed from your friends somehow nobody in the West remembers that urgent need to feed the people of Aleppo... no need for propaganda anymore, isn't it ? no need to resupply "opposition" so that they continue to use civilians as human shields ?
"Russia commit to following the laws of war" - whose laws ? you probably mean nuking couple of towns full of civilians to save soldiers ? that was a noble cause for sure - but others are certainly not allowed to save their soldiers, are they ?
"avoid targeting the moderate opposition" - while US & Sunni Co supply them with weapons so that they can continue to murder people and use civilians as human shields in Aleppo and elsewhere :)
"ground Assad’s air force over most of the country" - so that so called "moderate" terrorists can get an advantage over the Assad, nice try ;D
---
the sole purpose of what US suggested was to put Assad & his allies into every possible disadvantage...
-
Anti-intellectualism is a core problem on the right these days, sadly, and it's disappointing to see someone like you buy into it. Note that I'm not suggesting that practical or widely-ranging alternative sources of education and learning are any less valuable in the grand scheme of things, but the dismissal of formal higher education and upper-level experience as somehow not appropriate for a "real American" is an attitude that fosters populist nonsense based on "common sense" that oftentimes turns out to be wrong.
How did you read all that in my post? I meant none of that ("dismissal of higher education...") My point was different. That in spite of high education, which typically happens in one narrow area, a specialized field, we might sometimes resort to a quick and erroneous judgment in some other areas of knowledge. Hence my comment of "high-education, low-information."
-
For all the Trumpians here do you not think his response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/09/trump-questions-credibility-of-senator-who-disclosed-comments-by-judge-gorsuch/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trumpcomment-8a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ee30afb2cd72) about his Supreme Court nominee's comment about an early Tweet questioning the judiciary system is not disturbing? If we do not have an independent and fearless judiciary then we are no better than a banana republic (with apologies to all countries that export bananas).
-
My point was different. That in spite of high education, which typically happens in one narrow area, a specialized field, we might sometimes resort to a quick and erroneous judgment in some other areas of knowledge. Hence my comment of "high-education, low-information."
I don't understand what you mean about 'high(er) education, which typically happens in one narrow area, a specialized field.' It's been my experience that most if not all colleges and universities require multiple courses outside one field of interest. Even so the pioneering work of Tversky and Kahneman have show your statement is really not linked to education at all. Lots of people suffer from perception bias in lots of situations.
-
If it is legitimate, how so? What is the difference between an 'alternate fact and a lie?'...
While alternate facts can be misused to represent lies, the concept itself is legitimate.
Example: a glass containing 50% of water (fact #1) can be described as half-full (fact #2) or half-empty (fact #3).
Or for those who prefer a visual explanation, here is the best one:
-
How did you read all that in my post? I meant none of that ("dismissal of higher education...") My point was different. That in spite of high education, which typically happens in one narrow area, a specialized field, we might sometimes resort to a quick and erroneous judgment in some other areas of knowledge. Hence my comment of "high-education, low-information."
To answer your question, I find your defense of the "alternative facts" argument curious, and when combined with, what you have to admit (even if you're not making it yourself) could easily be read as a now-standard critique from the right (a class-based attack centered on attacking higher education and the alleged "bubble" it creates) I assumed you were making the "out of touch intellectual" argument.
If you are saying that was an incorrect read on my part, you have my apology.
-
surely you prefer to discuss the more convenient propaganda, instead of inconvenient one
I was under the distinct impression that this was a thread about Trump.
Maybe I'll spend some time to reacting to the rest of your message after reading it in full. Have to eat dinner first.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't understand what you mean about 'high(er) education, which typically happens in one narrow area, a specialized field.' It's been my experience that most if not all colleges and universities require multiple courses outside one field of interest...
When I studied economics, I do not remember taking courses in chemistry. The reverse is probably true for you as well. But you are right about perception biases, you do not need a degree to suffer from one. It is just that highly educated individuals tend to think they are somehow less prone to it. Ideological blindness doesn't help either.
-
When I studied economics, I do not remember taking courses in chemistry. The reverse is probably true for you as well. But you are right about perception biases, you do not need a degree to suffer from one. It is just that highly educated individuals tend to think they are somehow less prone to it. Ideological blindness doesn't help either.
WE AGREE!!! BTW, I was one course short of a double major in political science to go along with my chemistry degree. My daughter was a music major with a minor in brain and cognitive science, the other was a psychology major with a minor in history so it can be done.
-
Come on Alan, I would expect you of all on this forum to know ...
Short term increases in stocks should not be used for investment advice nor counted as gains. We need to wait and see what goes on those racks next and how well they sell.
Yes, I know that! :) By the way, the President's counselor, Kellyanne Conway is in hot water as she told everyone watching Fox and Friends this am to go out and buy Ivanka Trump clothes and jewelry. Apparently she isn't aware that this violates the ethics laws that she is subject to as a government employee. It keeps getting funnier with each passing day.
-
surely you prefer to discuss the more convenient propaganda, instead of inconvenient one ... like that evil Putin who does not want to cooperate - here is what cooperation that US means, example = http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/07/the-strategic-suicide-of-aligning-with-russia-in-syria/ =
"In the summer and early fall of 2016, during the negotiations over a potential “Joint Implementation Center” to conduct coordinated targeting against Nusra and the Islamic State, Obama insisted that Moscow enforce a nationwide ceasefire (including in besieged Aleppo) and ensure unfettered humanitarian access across Syria for the United Nations as preconditions. Obama also required that, if and when the Joint Implementation Center was established, Russia commit to following the laws of war, avoid targeting the moderate opposition, ground Assad’s air force over most of the country, provide the United States a veto over Russian counterterrorism targets, and press the Assad regime back into negotiations on a political transition. Ultimately, the Russians proved unable or unwilling to convince Assad (and Iran) to meet these conditions, and the proposal collapsed."
how dare Putin refuse to give US veto over Russia while not being offered the veto over US strikes... he is really not a reliable partner, is he ;D ... so what exactly Putin was offered that was beneficial for him and not for US ? a single item please ?
so no wonder that Kerry was told to go and f..k himself 8)
The feckless and weak Obama is gone. No one is going to tell Trump, Tillerson or Mattis to go f..k themselves. What Liberals, Leftists and Democrats fail to realize is that every time Trump strikes back whether it's about Taiwan or about Nordstrom and his daughter, the leaders of the world check their own bellicosity toward the US. They don't want to wind up on the fist end of his small hand. That advances American interests in the world.
Because Obama always knocked American values and place in the world, I think Trump and many Americans see Putin as a true patriot for his Russian people as our leader should be for us. While Trump can disagree with Putins' illegal and immoral methods, he wants to be a true American patriot. We weren't getting that during the last 8 years. Make America Great Again wasn't just a neat campaign slogan. It stirred patriotic feelings in many Americans who felt their own president and the world had lost respect for them and frankly we have lost a lot of respect for ourselves. Trump was going to return that respect using the tools of trade policy, jobs, a strong military, immigration, tax reform, Obamacare, regulation and others.
-
I was under the distinct impression that this was a thread about Trump.
yes, it is ... about everything related to Trump including him vs prev. presidents regarding their foreign policy in its current, past and future forms
-
No one is going to tell Trump, Tillerson or Mattis to go f..k themselves.
get some popcorn...
see Putin as a true patriot for his Russian people
Putin vs "opposition" is pretty much like Trump vs Clinton (or others) - it is just a matter which thief is more cunning, make no mistake... we know that either way we are being taken for a ride, but some thiefs (Putin or Trump) still seem more palatable ( even if this just an illusion ) ;D or may be just entertaining at least try to flip the bird (even for a moment).
-
get some popcorn...
Putin vs "opposition" is pretty much like Trump vs Clinton (or others) - it is just a matter which thief is more cunning, make no mistake... we know that either way we are being taken for a ride, but some thiefs (Putin or Trump) still seem more palatable ( even if this just an illusion ) ;D or may be just entertaining at least try to flip the bird (even for a moment).
Trump isn't Putin and America isn't Russia. The US Constitution has saved the U.S. for over two hundred years. It saved us from Obama and will save us from Trump.
-
While Trump can disagree with Putins' illegal and immoral methods, he wants to be a true American patriot.
So 'waterboarding (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/24/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-even-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it) or worse' illegal torture methods are considered patriotic???
Learning something new about the USA each day.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So 'waterboarding (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/24/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-even-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it) or worse' illegal torture methods are considered patriotic???
Learning something new about the USA each day.
Cheers,
Bart
Not by all of us, thanks :)
-
Not by all of us, thanks :)
Good to learn that some have some sanity left.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So 'waterboarding (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/24/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-even-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it) or worse' illegal torture methods are considered patriotic???
Learning something new about the USA each day.
Cheers,
Bart
You're conflating two differing things. Means and methods is not patriotism.
Patriotic: having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.
-
Good to learn that some have some sanity left.
Cheers,
Bart
Honestly, I wouldn't even say *most* of us think this is ok, including many on the right. While it's disturbing that anyone does, I think it's an unfair characterization to say that Americans in general are in favor of those things.
-
Trump isn't Putin and America isn't Russia.
I wrote "X vs Y like A vs B"... not "X vs A and Y vs B" like you tried to change it 8)
-
I think it's an unfair characterization to say that Americans in general are in favor of those things.
CIVILIZATION IS ONLY SKIN DEEP (tm) Sony
-
It's interesting for sure, but I think most of what is being published in the news thus far is just banter, on the left and the right. I think congress is giving them a grace period to complying with the law, on the ethics and business side, since no one there has ever been in politics before.
It will probably turn out to be an year, then elections campaigns will start setting some republicans straight. Will Lindsey Graham be the first to take on Trump? They do hate each other; maybe we will find out his new cell phone number.
John McCain already has backed down a couple of times so far, most recently today when he backed off his original criticism of the Yemen special ops attack. I wish I had as much optimism as you do. Personally, I don't think anyone gets any slack at all if they don't comply with the law, support illegal activities such as civil forfeiture (read George Will's (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-sides-with-the-sheriffs-on-their-racket/2017/02/08/964e41c0-ee4c-11e6-9973-c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.23027ba1b0a1) column that came out today on this, truly appalling), or is ethically compromised.
Maybe we haven't seen anyone like him in politics before but we have seen lots of hucksters in American history. Too bad H.L. Mencken is not alive today, he would have great fun.
-
I wrote "X vs Y like A vs B"... not "X vs A and Y vs B" like you tried to change it 8)
whatever you say. http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif
-
considered patriotic???
Lt. Calley of My Lai fame & then governor Jimmy Carter (a decent person, isn't he - read about his reaction to that verdict) ;D ... two fine american patriots :P
-
... Maybe I'll spend some time to reacting to the rest of your message after reading it in full. Have to eat dinner first.
Best post so far ;)
-
You're conflating two differing things. Means and methods is not patriotism.
Patriotic: having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.
So what you were saying is that, devotion and vigorous support for one's country (=patriotism) justifies waterboarding for Trump, while he at the same times "disagrees with Putins' illegal and immoral methods"???
I guess that some would say that they disagree (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16AeRO8GF7E), even if after the fact, and without consequences.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Best post so far ;)
Have a nice meal yourself.
I had some nice grilled chicken with a variety of mixed salads and some 'penne' (pasta) and a fine dressing, rounded off with delicious Quark (the dairy product) with coconut and lime for dessert. Now off for some fresh coffee.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So what you were saying is that, devotion and vigorous support for one's country (=patriotism) justifies waterboarding for Trump, while he at the same times "disagrees with Putins' illegal and immoral methods"???
...
Cheers,
Bart
No, what I said is that while one can disagree with a leader's means and methods, one can acknowledge that leader's patriotism towards his own people and country. While one can object to President Truman's use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima to end the war and save American lives as being immoral, those same people can still consider him a patriot. You're just twisting words into your own meanings. To steal a point I think scythe made: "I wrote "X vs Y like A vs B"... not "X vs A and Y vs B" like you tried to change it or something like that. :)
-
The feckless and weak Obama is gone. No one is going to tell Trump, Tillerson or Mattis to go f..k themselves. What Liberals, Leftists and Democrats fail to realize is that every time Trump strikes back whether it's about Taiwan or about Nordstrom and his daughter, the leaders of the world check their own bellicosity toward the US. They don't want to wind up on the fist end of his small hand. That advances American interests in the world.
No, it really doesn't, in anything but the very short run. It puts America firmly in the role of Great Satan - of course across the entire Muslim world, and now apparently in Europe, Australia, Mexico, China and counting. If you think the Russians will do anything other than play Trump like a big ugly fish with small fins, you might want to buy a bridge I'm selling.
-
No, it really doesn't, in anything but the very short run. It puts America firmly in the role of Great Satan - of course across the entire Muslim world, and now apparently in Europe, Australia, Mexico, China and counting. If you think the Russians will do anything other than play Trump like a big ugly fish with small fins, you might want to buy a bridge I'm selling.
Where is it, how much?
Rob C
-
No, what I said is that while one can disagree with a leader's means and methods, one can acknowledge that leader's patriotism towards his own people and country. While one can object to President Truman's use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima to end the war and save American lives as being immoral, those same people can still consider him a patriot.
Thanks, that makes your earlier statement a bit clearer, which was my objective.
Whether we agree or not is not really important. Understanding the points that are made helps to avoid further confusion.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, it really doesn't, in anything but the very short run. It puts America firmly in the role of Great Satan - of course across the entire Muslim world, and now apparently in Europe, Australia, Mexico, China and counting. If you think the Russians will do anything other than play Trump like a big ugly fish with small fins, you might want to buy a bridge I'm selling.
America's been The Great Satan since the Iranian mullahs overthrew the Shah 40 years ago. Since then, we've spent trillions of dollars and huge pools of American civilian and military blood. The mess in the Middle East though started by Bush and his predecessors, was unleashed by Obama's weakness when he left Iraq without no American military force to keep the lid on. The vacuum created was filled by ISIS, Russian arms and expansion, Iranian expansion adventures, Turkish dreams, and millions of Muslim refugees many of whom now occupy Europe trying to establish Sharia law in Berlin and Paris and the rest of the world by blowing themselves up in crowded shopping centers. We should all pray that Trump does better. Frankly, our concern should be that he will put American interests at home first and end many of the foreign entanglements President Washington warned us against. Without America power, all the crazies will come out and test the vacuum with more blood and gore. Would you prefer Russians or Chinese or Iranians to keep the lid on?
-
America's been The Great Satan...
+1 (for the whole post)
-
Where is it, how much?
Clever move, get a quotation in US$, wait for the Dollar to devaluate (as a means to decrease the value of the national debt, since the US$ is the fiat currency, the "gold exchange standard" which was established by the Bretton Woods Agreements), then purchase more dollars for less foreign currency. And if the bridge turns out to be a "Fake" bridge, you can pay in Monopoly money which is used to purchase Fake real-estate. Which brings us back to Trump.
When is he going to devaluate the Dollar, to achieve a so-called boosting of the Export of US made cars and other goods. Any guesses on his treasury plans? Something has to bring in money to pay for all the wondrous plans. The Mexicans alone cannot carry the burden.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I just heard that according to unrevealed sources (leaks from worried White House personnel), this morning DJT asked for advice (sounds promising) whether a strong Dollar is beneficial to the USA economy. Fair question (although why?), but instead of asking financial experts, he asked his National Security advisor, who is supposed to have said to ask someone else. This seems to have been in some USA newspapers, but I have not seen any confirmation of that yet.
-
While one can object to President Truman's use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima to end the war and save American lives as being immoral, those same people can still consider him a patriot.
yes, of course - but some want to load the word "patriot" with extra "noble" (subjective) meanings... let us scroll back in time... Napoleon and Spain... was Napoleon (even as an emperor) in general a progressive thing coming to Spain of that time ? yet we can agree that Spanish guerrillas led very often by that despicable clergy and cutting French throats were of course patriots... now scroll forward to "liberators" of Iraq
-
No one should ever confuse patriotism with nobility and morality. Hitler, Genghis Khan, Mao, Stalin were all patriots. Nature doesn't honor the best; only the strongest.
-
America's been The Great Satan since the Iranian mullahs overthrew the Shah 40 years ago. Since then, we've spent trillions of dollars and huge pools of American civilian and military blood. The mess in the Middle East though started by Bush and his predecessors, was unleashed by Obama's weakness when he left Iraq without no American military force to keep the lid on. The vacuum created was filled by ISIS, Russian arms and expansion, Iranian expansion adventures, Turkish dreams, and millions of Muslim refugees many of whom now occupy Europe trying to establish Sharia law in Berlin and Paris and the rest of the world by blowing themselves up in crowded shopping centers.
You should sit down with some good history books so that you get your facts right. The Middle East was carved up because of an agreement between the British and French during WWI and we are reaping the flaws of drawing boundaries without regard to nationalities. Read David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace>" Iraq's chance of staying in one piece was about the same as the Yugoslavia staying stable after Tito's death. You also might want to look into the history that put the Reza Pahlavi's father in power as result of a CIA sponsored coup back in the early 1950s; that will give you some good understanding of why the mullahs came to power in Iran in 1979. You also might want to read some history of the Alawite party's control of Syria and how they used inhumane means to keep the population under control until Russia had to come to their aid in the last year. Things are not always as simple as they appear to be.
-
The Middle East was carved up because of an agreement between the British and French during WWI
and 1948 ... idea with Madagaskar was better.
-
Ah, there's some confirmation from different media, although it could always be called Fake news.
Trump is wondering whether a strong US$ is beneficial to the USA, and he called his Security Advisor at 3 AM for guidance (why?), instead of a financial expert:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/8/14549380/donald-trump-strong-dollar
https://time.com/money/4663767/trump-strong-dollar-versus-weak-currency/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/donald-trump-us-dollar-strong-weak-unsure-best-economy-national-security-adviser-mike-flynn-a7568771.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-called-mike-flynn-about-us-dollar-at-3-am-2017-2?international=true&r=US&IR=T
https://www.businessinsider.nl/fx-currency-market-update-january-17-2017-2017-1/?international=true&r=US
https://www.ft.com/content/56558e7e-b257-11e6-9c37-5787335499a0
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ah, Bart, all those articles quote just one source: Huffington Post. How can we not trust such a trusted source? ;)
-
You should sit down with some good history books so that you get your facts right. The Middle East was carved up because of an agreement between the British and French during WWI and we are reaping the flaws of drawing boundaries without regard to nationalities. Read David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace>" Iraq's chance of staying in one piece was about the same as the Yugoslavia staying stable after Tito's death. You also might want to look into the history that put the Reza Pahlavi's father in power as result of a CIA sponsored coup back in the early 1950s; that will give you some good understanding of why the mullahs came to power in Iran in 1979. You also might want to read some history of the Alawite party's control of Syria and how they used inhumane means to keep the population under control until Russia had to come to their aid in the last year. Things are not always as simple as they appear to be.
All my facts are right. If you re-read my post I said, "...Bush and his predecessors..." That included all the events you mentioned, including the installation of the Shah, the earlier creation of false nations by European colonial powers, etc. I just didn't want to include the earlier history in my post as it would confuse the point I was making. But your history is appreciated as I'm sure many people aren't aware for it.
-
Ah, Bart, all those articles quote just one source: Huffington Post. How can we not trust such a trusted source? ;)
Hi Slobodan,
Do you have a better source (going to check Breitbart.com myself in a moment), or do you want to label it Fake/Alternative news, or maybe Unnews (have to check the '1984' newspeak dictionary). ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
...I just didn't want to include the earlier history...
It is all Genghis Khan's fault, folks! Or was it Alexander the Great that started it all? ;)
-
... Do you have a better source...
I think, Bart, that the major difference between the HuffPost and the alleged Russian company you described in an earlier post is that Russians are paying their employees ;)
-
I think, Bart, that the major difference between the HuffPost and the alleged Russian company you described in an earlier post is that Russians are paying their employees ;)
Well, I guess that a similar thing could have been said by Richard Nixon about the Watergate reports. ;)
BTW, I also do not think the sources of the Huffington post were paid.
Cheers,
Bart
-
BTW, I also do not think the sources of the Huffington post were paid.
sources or authors ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/christina-wilkie , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/sv-date ) ?
and why do you think that there were any sources at all ;D ?
-
Jeff, I'm sorry but I just can't engage with anyone who believes that CNN and it's ilk are fair and balanced.
Hum...well, if that's all you got from my post, I kinda think you proved my point. You want to live inside your own echo chamber and see/read only things you believe and agree with...
If you don't think CNN tries to be fair and balanced then you seem to be predisposed to disbelieve what they report. Do you honestly agree with Trump that the mainstream media is engaged in spreading lies and fake news? You say you read newspapers...cool, which ones? Do you read a variety of sources? Do you take a skeptical approach to everything you read?
If you are inclined to believe what Trump and his "Trumpets" say even though they have been proven to be pathological liars, then I question how anybody that supports Trump can honestly defend what he is doing...even the Financial Times (not known as a leftist propaganda mouthpiece) is worried: Truth, lies and the Trump administration Falsehood cannot be the basis for US foreign policy (https://www.ft.com/content/bbd596d8-e14e-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb).
Trump's ability to lie over and over and get away with it has contaminated the mainstream media to the point that everybody is being infected with doubt...
The Pew Research Center has a very good article about the The Modern News Consumer – News attitudes and practices in the digital era (http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/) It's a longish read but at the end you'll see how important it is to hold all media accountable and how important it is to be an educated consumer of news and information to avoid being a part of the problem.
The mainstream media is also struggling when dealing with the insatiable desire for news and information while the value of that news and information continues to go down because of the diffusion of news & info on the web. Tradition news sources like newspapers are struggling with broadcast and all traditional media is struggling with web based media who's credibility and validity is subject to little or no oversight. If you are interested, Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org) provides a lot of data.
Other sources for information about media are Ted.com/media[/url, [url=http://cmpa.gmu.edu]The Center for Media and Public Affairs (https://www.ted.com/topics/media) and Fair.org (http://fair.org) and MediaMatters.org (https://mediamatters.org).
Lies by the media or the politicians should not be accepted as the new normal.
-
(have to check the '1984' newspeak dictionary).
Thought you were joking then I found:
1984: Newspeak Dictionary Vocabulary (https://quizlet.com/18345440/1984-newspeak-dictionary-vocabulary-flash-cards/) (great for learning Newspeak)
Newspeak From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)
THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK (http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app)
Wow...I had no friggin' idea. I'm pretty sure I read 1984 (probably in school I think) but I had no real memory of the story. So...looks like 1984 is gonna be on my reading list. Yeah, I can get it free from Amazon Prime!!!
Or maybe I'll read: 1984-2017: Donald Trump Edition (https://smile.amazon.com/1984-Donald-Sample-Travis-Rosenberg-ebook/dp/B01MSCK8XJ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486684574&sr=1-1&keywords=1984&refinements=p_n_feature_browse-bin%3A618073011)
In this modern remake to the George Orwell classic, author and comedic writer presents "1984-2017: Donald Trump Edition." In this amazing work of political satire, comedian Travis Rosenberg details his escape from an alternate universe in which Facts are Lies and Lies are truth. This startling and timely release shows both the subtle comparisons to the current Trump Presidency to the classic book.
;)
-
While alternate facts can be misused to represent lies, the concept itself is legitimate.
Example: a glass containing 50% of water (fact #1) can be described as half-full (fact #2) or half-empty (fact #3).
Or for those who prefer a visual explanation, here is the best one:
No.
Taking the image you used, there is only 1 fact - a cylinder. There are two points of view which result in a circle or a square, but neither are facts.
In your written example, the only fact is a glass with water in it where the volume of water equals half the volume of the glass and the water is in the lower half of the glass. That's a fact. Half full or half empty is a point of view.
And therein lies the problem, when people take points of view and call them facts.
If you have two opposing "facts" then either one or both of them are false and not facts. The one or both that are not facts may be points of view, or they could be mistakes, or they could be miscommunications, or they could be deceptions, and so on.
-
Wow...
In unanimous ruling, U.S. appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump travel ban (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-travel-ban-ruling-20170209-story.html)
Then SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE! (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
Yeah, the United States of America is just fine...keep telling yourself that...we're F I N E (http://www.abbreviations.com/FINE)
(https://justhuckit.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/im_fine-525413.jpg)
-
Thought you were joking then I found:
1984: Newspeak Dictionary Vocabulary (https://quizlet.com/18345440/1984-newspeak-dictionary-vocabulary-flash-cards/) (great for learning Newspeak)
Newspeak From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)
THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWSPEAK (http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app)
Wow...I had no friggin' idea. I'm pretty sure I read 1984 (probably in school I think) but I had no real memory of the story.
Yes, amazing/disconcerting, or even fightening, isn't it? What once was an amusing read (although at the time of conception inspired by the events leading up to WW2), has become so much more realistic in our day and age, again. I wish I could only refer to it in a lighthearted historical fashion, but alas.
So...looks like 1984 is gonna be on my reading list.
Same with me. I'll have a look at some of the other titles you found.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No...
Well...no!
You are suffering from a hindsight bias.
The only reason you can smugly claim you've "seen the light." i.e., the truth, is because I've shown it to you (the cylinder). Otherwise, depending on your distance from one shadow (say it is miles instead of inches) the only thing you'd see is either a square or a circle. And for you, it would be an undeniable fact. Someone else, having a different standpoint, would see the other object. And for them, that would be a single, undeniable fact as well. Those are alternate facts. Only when viewed together, and seeing the third alternative fact (cylinder) we can claim we've seen the truth. The ultimate benefit of recognizing the existence of alternative facts is the need to illuminate the issue from various angles, to understand that truth is not a single fact, that truth is multifaceted, that we need to move around, walk in other guy's shoes, audiatur at altera pars, in order to see the truth.
-
...In unanimous ruling, U.S. appeals court refuses to reinstate Trump travel ban (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-travel-ban-ruling-20170209-story.html)
Then SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE! (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
I firmly believe in the court system of the United States. Therefore, I hope that the Trump administration will prevail in court ultimately.
-
I firmly believe in the court system of the United States. Therefore, I hope that the Trump administration will prevail in court ultimately.
Why? It was a needlessly inflammatory order that, (if I'm being generous) was redundant and poorly written, and (if I'm not) was likely purely politically motivated and served no rational purpose, but did tangible harm to actual people. Not to mention it's an application of executive authority that should give any true conservative pause. The judicial order that came down today is one that should warm the heart of anyone that had a problem with Obama's use of executive authority.
-
Well...no!
You are suffering from a hindsight bias.
AKA as progressive insight, a concept that is alien to most of the Trump administration 'believers', sofar (see, I'm an optimistic person).
The only reason you can smugly claim you've "seen the light." i.e., the truth, is because I've shown it to you (the cylinder). Otherwise, depending on your distance from one shadow (say it is miles instead of inches) the only thing you'd see is either a square or a circle. And for you, it would be an undeniable fact.
Not really, but rather an observation at this moment which, when more plausible alternatives are absent, might be called a fact.
Someone else, having a different standpoint, would see the other object. And for them, that would be a single, undeniable fact as well.
It might, if the alternatives, like you presented, were unlikely or unavailable. Like Gravity, which is still being debated.
Only when viewed together, and seeing the third alternative fact (cylinder) we can claim we've seen the truth.
Not really, progressive insight (unknown new information) though, yes.
The ultimate benefit of recognizing the existence of alternative facts is the need to illuminate the issue from various angles, to understand that truth is not a single fact, that truth is multifaceted, that we need to move around, walk in other guy's shoes, audiatur at altera pars, in order to see the truth.
With which I could largely agree. But so-called facts that are demonstrably wrong, should never be called 'facts', not even Alternative ones, unless one is deliberately trying to create a parallel universe! Only when presented with new (conflicting) information, one could reconsider one's opinion.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well...no!
You are suffering from a hindsight bias.
The only reason you can smugly claim you've "seen the light." i.e., the truth, is because I've shown it to you (the cylinder). Otherwise, depending on your distance from one shadow (say it is miles instead of inches) the only thing you'd see is either a square or a circle. And for you, it would be an undeniable fact. Someone else, having a different standpoint, would see the other object. And for them, that would be a single, undeniable fact as well. Those are alternate facts. Only when viewed together, and seeing the third alternative fact (cylinder) we can claim we've seen the truth. The ultimate benefit of recognizing the existence of alternative facts is the need to illuminate the issue from various angles, to understand that truth is not a single fact, that truth is multifaceted, that we need to move around, walk in other guy's shoes, audiatur at altera pars, in order to see the truth.
No ;-)
I understand what you're saying, but my point is that no matter how much you believe it and can't prove otherwise, neither the circle nor the square are facts, only the cylinder is fact.
In your example, it is possible to not know what the fact is, indeed. But that lack of knowledge doesn't allow you to substitute your point of view and call it fact. All you can say is that's it's a point of view. That you know what it's a shadow being cast (because you can see the light and the absence of light) you can surmise what might be causing the shadow, but you can't know. If you say, "I think it's a square because it casts a square shadow", that's a reasonable theory, but it's not a fact. You need to investigate further if you want to know what the fact of the matter is.
In relation to the various alternative facts from Trump and his administration, they have been largely proven to be untrue. The claim that the Sydney Lindt Café Siege was not widely reported despite it being broadcast live, globally, by the TV network whose studio was opposite it and in lockdown during part of it, easily proves that's incorrect. It's not a matter of perspective, they're calling the square a hexagon!
-
I firmly believe in the court system of the United States. Therefore, I hope that the Trump administration will prevail in court ultimately.
I don't share your faith, given the judicial activism of the Leftwing judges and their scant regard for the statutes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy
-
Facts can be skewed by time and space. For example, the NY Times might place a truthful article about something Trump did right on page 35 while placing a truthful article about what he did negatively on page 1. The number of articles of each, how they're written, etc also enhances their effect to make a biased point. Of course six montha later, the Times can factually state they reported on both.
What's fun is to watch the instant polls taken on MSNBC and Fox where you message in your opinion. If a poll is taken about some Trump policy let's say, on MSNBC the poll will show 95% opposed and on Fox 95% in favor. Why do the producers even bother? Aren't they ashamed of presenting results like that? I guess it's just red meat for their respective viewers. But all they do is show how biased their stations are. Another fun thing to do. Take an article from newspaper of record - The New York Times. Pick one that focuses on some political thing. Then count up the people who write in to the Comments for that article. 95% provide liberal viewpoints and the other 5% conservative. The NY Times readership is overwhelming liberal. That's important because just like MSNBC and FOX, they report to their customers with bias that will keep their readership buying their newspaper. Yet much of the public sees their reporting without bias. It's no different than cable news.
-
Facts can't be skewed in and of themselves. Reporting of them, interpretation of them - yes. But saying there exist things called "alternative facts" is making the mistake of saying the opinions are facts - they're not. It's a ploy, which was used by the pro Brexiters, to discredit inconvenient facts, by getting people to believe that opinions are facts. It's the same approach that you see from anti-vaxxers, for example, who cite as facts, unfounded, untested, unreviewed, and unsubstantiated claims.
Sure, politicians have been loose with facts for pretty much the whole of history - I'm sure we all get that. But the level and degree of the deception changes from time to time and, right now, it's increasing and it's A Bad Thing.
-
I don't share your faith, given the judicial activism of the Leftwing judges and their scant regard for the statutes.
In a good democracy I think you should have faith in the independence of judges to uphold the law and the constitution higher then political bullying and intimidation. Calling judges "leftwing" or "so-called judges" is an insult to the independence of appointed judges and I think is wrong.
In this particular case the federal judges were from appointments by both republicans as well as democrats, however their verdict was unanimous.
In case the supreme court rules differently so be it, but up to now my only conclusion is that the executive order was legally questionable.
I would think the Trump administration should be spending it's energy putting in place a better immigration check (I'm all for that) then defend something legally shaky as they are doing now.
-
I don't share your faith, given the judicial activism of the Leftwing judges and their scant regard for the statutes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy
The author of the article seems to have an agenda (leave aside the bias), deliberately fails to address the reasoning behind the decision, and selectively nit-picks to support his argument. Since when does a private directive to Rudi Giuliani to craft a plan to ban Muslims that will pass legal muster count as a campaign statement?
From the decision:
Washington asked the district court to declare that the challenged sections of the Executive Order are illegal and unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement nationwide.
Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.*
*In addition, the Government asserts that, “unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process.” But the Government may provide a court with classified information. Courts regularly receive classified information under seal and maintain its confidentiality.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf
-
Not just today! As anyone who has read the works of the great American political scientist, Richard Hofstadter, well knows, anti-intellectualism has a long and storied life in the US.
This even applies to the education of our presidents. If memory serves we have elected 12 presidents who did not have college degrees (although some attended) but only one president with a PhD. Only 10 of our presidents ever served as faculty/staff at the university level.
I often wonder if there is an innate distrust by the citizens of people with higher educations or teaching experience.
-
I firmly believe in the court system of the United States. Therefore, I hope that the Trump administration will prevail in court ultimately.
they are not going to prevail with the ban as written. The court pretty much stated this. Going to the Supreme Court is a waste of time as they likely would not accept the case. It's back to square one in terms of rewriting the ban so it will be judicially acceptable. This was a case of very poor legal work from the beginning as well as some pretty stupid comments from Mr. Guliani, "It's a ban on Muslims."
-
I don't share your faith, given the judicial activism of the Leftwing judges and their scant regard for the statutes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/the-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements-to-block-presidential-policy
that is not a news article but an opinion piece written by a law school professor. Many other law school professors have weighed in on this find the court's decision correct.
-
... I often wonder if there is an innate distrust by the citizens of people with higher educations or teaching experience.
That one is easy...people prefer those who can, not those who can't :P
-
No ;-)
I understand what you're saying, but my point is that no matter how much you believe it and can't prove otherwise, neither the circle nor the square are facts, only the cylinder is fact.
I'll side with Phil on this as it's similar to what I already wrote about perception bias. You cannot call perception bias a fact in the real sense (unless you want to travel down the road of "alternative facts") as it is dependent on the viewer and it can easily be disproved by making a physical measurement. It's like all the variety of illusions that trick the mind into believing something is when it is not. Similarly, the glass half full or half empty falls into the same category. A physical measurement can show that a one cup glass contains 1/2 cup which is an indisputable fact. An observe might conclude that it is half full or half empty. This is why the work of Tversky and Kahneman was so important to a variety of fields.
-
Going to the Supreme Court is a waste of time as they likely would not accept the case.
That is something that many don't understand. The Supreme Court has considerable discretion on what cases it hears and does not hear. President Trump can say that he will take it to the Supreme Court, but it is ultimately up to the Supreme Court to accept the case.
"Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." Rule 10 of the 2013 Rules of the Court.
It is uncommon for the Supreme Court to accept a write of certiorari for a case where the lower courts are in agreement.
-
Alternative Facts
I sometimes wonder what it would be like to an editor for the OED; to study etymology and semantics in such a fast-changing society must be both fascinating and daunting. If one starts with Oxford, one sees:
Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Alternative: available as another possibility
As has been written, interpretation of facts can be wildly different. And statement of fact can be true, false, incomplete, misleading, etc., etc. In certain circumstances, two separate facts are interpreted to be oppositional, the inference being that one of them is not actually a fact (and, with statement of fact, that can often be the case). In other circumstances, both facts co-exist without such inference (light behaves like and particle and light behaves like a wave). Perhaps a science major will correct me vis a vis that light example (I'll not contest it), but it does raise the issue of absolutes. A thing that is (believed to be) indisputably the case in one age and one society, may not be so in another. It's easy to accept that "the sun revolves around the earth" is not, now, a fact, but it certainly was considered a fact by many, at one time.
As to whether Alternative Fact is ultimately regarded as an oxymoron, a useful concept, or a dangerous tool of propagandists, remains to be seen.
-
Isn't this all far more complicated than it's supposed to be?
Alternative facts are simply facts that exist, are perhaps vaguely relevant one to the other, and may be quoted about something in order to create comparisons; or they are facts that simply exist as independent realities.
Alternative facts, in the sense of meaning that's come about post-T means - AFAIK - something else: that what's being said, written, read or quoted is just a fib.
I hardly see much confusion there, just another euphemism.
Rob C
-
This even applies to the education of our presidents. If memory serves we have elected 12 presidents who did not have college degrees (although some attended) but only one president with a PhD. Only 10 of our presidents ever served as faculty/staff at the university level.
I often wonder if there is an innate distrust by the citizens of people with higher educations or teaching experience.
What do college degrees have to do with charisma, the ability to communicate, common sense and the ability to lead and make executive decisions, all requirements to be an effective President? Practical experience beats book learning any day of the week. Can you imagine Einstein as President? That's not to say education is bad. But that alone isn't going to take you very far.
-
Isn't this all far more complicated than it's supposed to be?
Isn't it always more complicated when things get political? :)
Kellyanne Conway said that WH Press Secretary Sean Spicer gave 'alternative facts', when she tried to counter the assertion that Spicer's statement of fact was plainly false (regarding the size of the crowd at T's inauguration). Her comment really spurred the use of 'alternative fact' as a euphemism for falsehood, or propaganda (unintentionally, of course). But there's also been a push-back by some to legitimize alternative fact – to promote the idea that alternative facts don't have to be lies.
I think many in the press jumped on Conway (and Spicer) because they are very watchful for attempts to dissemble or use canards. And because they abhor the idea of a politician saying "Let me give you an alternative fact about that". I'm sure that media sympathetic to the WH downplayed or ignored the controversy. Of course, none of this prevents politicians from doing what they've always done with their statements of fact.
-
Kellyanne Conway said that WH Press Secretary Sean Spicer gave 'alternative facts', when she tried to counter the assertion that Spicer's statement of fact was plainly false (regarding the size of the crowd at T's inauguration). Her comment really spurred the use of 'alternative fact' as a euphemism for falsehood, or propaganda (unintentionally, of course). But there's also been a push-back by some to legitimize alternative fact – to promote the idea that alternative facts don't have to be lies.
Yeah, ya know, the Merriam-Webster dictionary even weighed in on Twitter, reminding Conway that “A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality.”
There is no legitimate place where the term "alternative fact" is really anything other than a lie. To further argue that point I turn to Scientific American magazine–not known as a bastion of either leftwing or rightwign views but simply scientific views...
Check out this article The Delusion of Alternative Facts (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/illusion-chasers/the-delusion-of-alternative-facts/) How science can guide the search for "actual" truth in our post-truth era.
The take away at the end says:
"In our new era of fake news and post-truth gloom, the quest for objective truth and (non-alternative) facts has become more critical than ever before. Scientists and journalists must join forces in this common endeavor, and not hesitate to call out present and future falsehoods, whether due to innocent mistakes or to frank attempts to mislead. Whereas post-truth is an illusion—with no basis in reality—the actual truth is impervious to our wishes, emotions or beliefs. The scientific method teaches us that we will only ever attain truth by stubbornly stripping away every piece of misinformation that stands in its way. Investigative reporting and aggressive fact-checking will be crucial to get us there."
Alternative Facts can not stand as the new normal...
-
It continues...
Federal official calls on Trump to share evidence of ‘astonishing’ voter fraud claim (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/02/10/federal-official-calls-trump-corroborate-astonishing-voter-fraud-claim/nyISyVd02hjNVOywEqc3IN/story.html)
"Trump made baseless claims during a Friday lunch that voter fraud prevented him and former N.H. senator Kelly Ayotte from winning their respective races in New Hampshire during the November election.
Specifically, he suggested that out-of-state voters were bused into New Hampshire to cast their ballots for someone other than Trump and Ayotte. There is no evidence to back up that assertion."
Also, Donald Trump is still calling Elizabeth Warren ‘Pocahontas’ (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/02/10/donald-trump-still-calling-elizabeth-warren-pocahontas/pvc1QAHhOPdID3MvxzthcL/story.html)
"Trump also used the “Pocahontas” reference several times during the campaign. Last May, when asked about his feud with Warren in an interview with The New York Times, he responded, “You mean Pocahontas?” (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/the-mogul-and-the-babe.html?_r=0)
Then there's this...Donald Trump Stunned To Learn Presidency Is An Actual Job, His First (http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-stunned-to-learn-presidency-is-an-actual-j-1792215349) based on this article Trump vexed by challenges, scale of government (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-challenges-governing-presidency-234879) The new president’s allies say he has been surprised that government can’t be run like his business.
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/cdf6ff2/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F89%2F4c%2F077ea0114719ba4fdf778c4495a0%2F09-donald-trump-87-gty-1160.jpg)
Sources say the mood of President Donald Trump in the three weeks since his inauguration has careened between surprise and anger. | Getty via the Politico web site.
-
The raids conducted by ICE in apparently six states so far triggered "a picture" in my mind.
9-10 November 1938, Germany, Night of Broken Glass.
10-11 February 2017, USA, "Enforcement Actions In Target Rich Environments" (ICE Language)
Meanwhile in Germany.... Ministers agreed on a 16 step plan for mass deportation of Refugees back to their countries of origin, safe countries only, of course, like Afghanistan is according to the Federal Minister of the Interior, Thomas de Maizière.
Oh, and did I get that right? Trump had a very pleasant phone call with Erdogan? Why am I not astonished...
-
Investigative reporting and aggressive fact-checking will be crucial to get us there.
Yes, I've said it before, high-quality investigative reporting is more important now than ever (in recent history) before.
Which is exactly the reason that DJT is trying to marginalize the free press, totally bypassing them with Twitter, and tying their resources up with the monumental task to debunk all the Alternative facts falsehoods that are produced.
The stream of executive orders is a tactic, a) it's suggesting that he is keeping his promises, and b) he can put the blame of those not becoming reality with others.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yeah, ya know, the Merriam-Webster dictionary even weighed in on Twitter, reminding Conway that “A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality.”
There is no legitimate place where the term "alternative fact" is really anything other than a lie. To further argue that point I turn to Scientific American magazine–not known as a bastion of either leftwing or rightwign views but simply scientific views...
Alternative Facts can not stand as the new normal...
The first time I heard something really outrageous was back in December when I was listening to the Diane Rehm show that originates on our NPR station but is broadcast nation wide. Scottie Nell Hughes, a Trump supporter, and CNN commentator said that "...there is no such thing as facts and longer..." You can go to the Washington Post link HERE (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/12/01/cnn-commentator-scottie-nell-hughes-facts-no-longer-exist/?utm_term=.1953379068fc) which also contains a link to the broadcast. I almost had to pull my car off the road because I could not believe what I heard. Jim Fallows, national correspondent for The Atlantic, was dumbfounded and responded right back with some expamples of facts which Ms. Hughes dismissed.
Secondly, I was listening to the news conference with Trump and Japanese PM Abe yesterday afternoon and Trump sounded pretty weird. I don't know if he was tired or not but his speech had a strange affect and he was repeating things more than usual. He did repeat that we will soon get new health insurance options which will be far better than Obamacare and cost much less. I can't wait to see how they pull this rabbit out of a hat.
-
The first time I heard something really outrageous was back in December when I was listening to the Diane Rehm show that originates on our NPR station but is broadcast nation wide. Scottie Nell Hughes, a Trump supporter, and CNN commentator said that "...there is no such thing as facts and longer..." You can go to the Washington Post link HERE (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/12/01/cnn-commentator-scottie-nell-hughes-facts-no-longer-exist/?utm_term=.1953379068fc) which also contains a link to the broadcast. I almost had to pull my car off the road because I could not believe what I heard. Jim Fallows, national correspondent for The Atlantic, was dumbfounded and responded right back with some expamples of facts which Ms. Hughes dismissed.
Maybe we should call that the United State(s) of Denial, instead of USA?
Cheers,
Bart
-
It continues...
Federal official calls on Trump to share evidence of ‘astonishing’ voter fraud claim (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/02/10/federal-official-calls-trump-corroborate-astonishing-voter-fraud-claim/nyISyVd02hjNVOywEqc3IN/story.html)
"Trump made baseless claims during a Friday lunch that voter fraud prevented him and former N.H. senator Kelly Ayotte from winning their respective races in New Hampshire during the November election.
Specifically, he suggested that out-of-state voters were bused into New Hampshire to cast their ballots for someone other than Trump and Ayotte. There is no evidence to back up that assertion."
Listen - we're gonna have to build a wall. The BEST wall, believe me. And Massachusetts is going pay for it. ;D
Seriously though - NH actually has a voter ID law. And how many busses would it take to transport 3001 illegal voters into NH on election day? And how come the voter fraud is only happening in places Trump lost, and only by just enough to cause him to lose. And how come only Clinton benefitted from those votes? And how come... aw, never mind....
Whether you think his policy positions are reasonable or not, this is absurd and simply shouldn't be defended.
-
Alternative voters?
-
By arguing there is no voter fraud and you should just believe that because we say so, just encourages more suspicion. Investigating and proving there is no voter fraud would do good things. It would appease Republican concerns and bust their arguments for voter ID requirements as having no value. This would make it easier for Democrats to push voter registration without the encumbrances of additional regulation, one of their pet projects.
-
Alternative Fact is an oxymoron!
Now the definition of fact has changed!
Yup, now you're on to something. The Oxford Dictionary's "Word of the Year" for 2016 is "Post-truth." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016
It fits well with our post-modern discussion here. "My metanarrative is bigger than your metanarrative."
In the absence of any sort of consensus on what "country" means, or "social justice," or "freedom of speech," or "illegal," or "rights," or "life," or "immoral," or even "is.." we're in deep trouble, I think.
Trump is, indeed, a moron of the first order. But he tapped into something in the American psyche that isn't just easily dismissed as "all those rubes where hoodwinked." I don't think that's true. Many, perhaps most, Trump supporters may be less articulate than the average liberal news pundit - but don't mistake that for "misinformed." The problem is precisely that they are "informed enough" to be really pissed off about being largely ignored and having their values seen as subversive, or oppressive. There is a "real" divide in the U.S. One metanarrative will win. Those on the losing side (ultimately the conservative middle-American, person of faith, I think) will be driven underground and permanently silenced at some point in the not too distant future. I view Trump's presidency as a kind of "last really bad joke" for those who have what used to be a normative, conservative, view of the American dream. His ridiculousness will make it that much easier for a hegemony of political correctness and an embrace of pluralism to the point where we'll all have to be very careful not to offend anyone, to reassert itself. But, this is more the norm in history, than not. Most people, in most of history, have had to be very careful not to speak ill of the dominant metanarrative - often on peril of their freedom, or even their lives.
If the "Brights" are to be believed, this is all fine and dandy. As I cited in another thread here on LULA, respected thinkers like Professor Richard Dawkins (author of, "The God Delusion") has expressed it like this: “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Dr. Dawkins isn't some raving lunatic. He's very well respected. I think he's a harbinger of what will become the dominant metanarrative (actually it already is). Few have the courage to speak so plainly. Some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky. At least this is honest.
As the more liberal (politically) and materialist/humanist (philosophically) regain political dominance (and they will, without doubt - I think) the return swing toward an oppressive form of "enlightened thinking" will bring a brave new world. Some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky. Meanwhile, in other parts of this planet, cultures with very cohesive and dominant worldview systems will gain power, resources, and the ability to pick this country apart, little by little, until it implodes.
So, cheer up . . . Trump is a mere blip on the radar of our march toward the future.
Rand
-
By arguing there is no voter fraud and you should just believe that because we say so, just encourages more suspicion. Investigating and proving there is no voter fraud would do good things. It would appease Republican concerns and bust their arguments for voter ID requirements as having no value. This would make it easier for Democrats to push voter registration without the encumbrances of additional regulation, one of their pet projects.
Sure - investigate away. I have no issue with it. Investigate CA, investigate NH. (But remember that "your side" had a major fit when Jill Stein wanted pay for an investigation in WI and MI).
Just answer me this. Do you honestly believe that the exact amount of "illegal" votes were cast to allow HRC got win CA, and that coincidentally, just the right amount of "illegal" votes were cast to allow her to win NH as well? You've gotta admit, it's a pretty goofy idea.
-
The reason you don't investigate these claims of voter fraud is the same reason the cops don't investigate when someone tells them that Superman stole their watch by flying down in front of them and then ripping it off their arms. Neither story has any evidence to warrant and investigation.
Here's the thing - there aren't always two sides to everything. Not all opinions are valid or even worthwhile. If you want to make accusations of voter fraud you need some evidence, and it needs to come from a credible source. Of course, if someone had that, it would have already been made available to the relevant authorities and an investigation begun.
-
I don't think we should be afraid of what an investigation would show.
-
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Saying that voter fraud is negligible because very few cases are documented or prosecuted is the same as saying the amount of drug trafficking should be judged by the number of caught drug traffickers.
-
By arguing there is no voter fraud and you should just believe that because we say so, just encourages more suspicion.
So, here's the problem with that...the claims have been made by a wing nut crackpot who claims to have created an iPhone/Android app called VoteStand (http://www.votestand.com) that has PROOF that over 3 million fraudulent votes were cast on Nov 8. Problem is, it's all a shame as talked about in this article: VoteStand: Donald Trump relies on unknown app to back up claims of voter fraud (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/votestand-donald-trump-voter-fraud-claim-unknown-app-conspiracy-us-president-election-hillary-a7549791.html). From the article:
""Look forward to seeing final results of VoteStand," Mr Trump tweeted, apparently in reference to seeing final data from the app. "Gregg Phillips and crew say at least 3,000,000 votes were illegal. We must do better!"
But VoteStand is an amateur app that allows people to send in their own reports of voter fraud. The app has been downloaded just a few thousand times and is barely used.
When people do use the app, they can only send in a report of a problem, many of which are impossible to verify and might not depict voter fraud at all. One Twitter user pointed out how the app claims to show an instance of voter fraud in a picture of some wires surrounding a voting booth, for instance – but on closer inspection those wires are simply the power cables for a fan that was in the room."
This Gregg Phillips fella has steadfastly refused to show his data or prove the numbers he claims. Want some additional info on Mr. Phillips, check this NBC News article Who Is Gregg Phillips, the Man Trump Name-Checked to Prove Voter Fraud? (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/who-gregg-phillips-man-trump-name-checked-prove-voter-fraud-n713186). Hum, President Trump maybe you should not hang your credibility on a crackpot.
Or maybe it's the report that Spicer was talking about when he said "I think there's been studies," Spicer responded. "There's one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed 14 percent of people who voted were noncitizens. There's other studies that have been presented to him. It's a belief he maintains." Uh, well, check out this article Sean Spicer wrongly uses Pew study to bolster claim that non-citizens vote in large numbers (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/25/sean-spicer/sean-spicer-wrongly-uses-pew-study-bolster-claim-n/). It says "The study that "came out of Pew in 2008" actually came out in 2012, and it’s about outdated voter rolls, not fraudulent votes.
The 2012 Pew Study (http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf) — titled, "Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade" — makes no mention of noncitizens voting or registering to vote."
So, ok...not a lot of actual hard evidence of any widespread voter fraud. There is one recent case in Texas: Grand Prairie woman illegally voted for the man responsible for prosecuting her (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/tarrant-county/2017/02/08/grand-prairie-woman-found-guilty-illegal-voting). Ironic that Ortega voted in the November 2012 election and May 2014 GOP primary runoff in Dallas County knowing she wasn't a U.S. citizen. Problem is, that's the only recent case and she voted GOP.
Maybe Trump was thinking about True the Vote (https://truethevote.org) President Catherine Engelbrecht who claims Voter Fraud Has Been ‘Institutionalized,’ Allowing Non-Citizen Voters to ‘Flood Our Rolls’ (http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/29/catherine-engelbrecht-voter-fraud-institutionalized-non-citizen-voters-flood-rolls/). Slight problem–the story is on http://www.breitbart.com (http://www.breitbart.com) which doesn't have an a good track record of stellar journalism ya know?
But, even if we admit that investigating alleged voter fraud might be a good idea, who is gonna pay? According to this article, not the feds...Mitch McConnell won’t fund President Trump’s voter fraud investigation (http://www.salon.com/2017/02/06/mitch-mcconnell-wont-fund-president-trumps-voter-fraud-investigation/). McConnell won't give federal funds to an investigation because "there’s no evidence" behind Trump's wild assertions.
But even if we did investigate voter fraud, Forbes says Voter 'Fraud' Charges Are A Scheme To Further Stack The Deck And Undermine The System (http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/01/31/voter-fraud-charges-are-a-scheme-to-further-stack-the-deck-and-undermine-the-system/#763264533673). The fear it seems is that alleged voter fraud will be used to reduce voter participation:
"However, there are also those who would welcome charges of voter fraud as an excuse to reduce voter participation. For example, multiple studies, including a recent one from the University of California San Diego, have shown that voter ID laws disproportionately affect and hurt (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/02/research-more-conclusive-that-voter-id-laws-hurt-blacks-and-latinos/459819/) Latinos, blacks, and multi-racial Americans.
For the courts and for American democracy the core question should be—are these laws fair? Do they limit the access and participation of the nation’s most disadvantaged? Are these laws racially discriminatory? The findings presented here indicate that these laws do, in fact, have real consequences for the makeup of the voting population. Where they are enacted, racial and ethnic minorities are less apt to vote. The voices of Latinos, Blacks, and multi-racial Americans all become more muted and the relatively influence of white Americans grows. An already significant racial skew in American democracy becomes all the more pronounced."
So, you see, words have consequences...Trump claiming widespread voter fraud as the reason he lost the popular vote trickles down to his supporters and surrogates who then cling to outrageous and fraudulent claims and this brings down the whole system of democracy that people have fought and died for.
Again, honesty and veracity are extremely valuable and becoming more rare by the day. This kinda says it all: Trump’s Presidency Is Officially A Dumpster Fire As Voters Trust SNL More Than Trump (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/10/trumps-presidency-dumpster-fire-voters-trust-snl-trust-trump.html). "A new Public Policy Polling poll revealed that American voters have so little trust Trump that they find Saturday Night Live to be more credible than the President."
Ouch, that's gonna leave a bruise...
-
From https://forwardprogressives.com (https://forwardprogressives.com) (yeah, ok it's a leftwing progressive site) comes this: At This Point, If You’re Still a Donald Trump Supporter, Here’s What You Really Are (https://forwardprogressives.com/point-youre-still-donald-trump-supporter-heres-really/). It contains a list of things to remember about Trump:
This is a man who’s:
Mocked a man with disabilities.
Attacked the parents of a fallen American hero.
Belittled POWs and the war record of Sen. John McCain.
Lied about how much money he raised for veterans.
Called a former Miss Universe “disgusting” and fat, telling his Twitter followers to find her non-existent sex tape.
Accused an American-born federal judge of being unfit to do his job because of his Mexican heritage.
Likely avoided paying taxes for nearly two decades.
Called most Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, even though that’s not remotely factual.
Lied about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11.
Lied about getting a letter from the NFL complaining about the debate schedule.
Tried to exploit the death of an African American woman in Chicago to say that’s why black voters will support him.
Found the “bright side” to tragedies because his poll numbers tend to go up.
Settled with the Department of Justice after his company was found guilty of racially discriminating against minorities.
Has cheated on at least one wife.
Was just discovered on video admitting that he not only tried to cheat on his current wife, but he attempted to do so with another married woman.
Had his first wife publicly say that he did nothing when it came to raising their children until they were old enough to talk business.
Tweeted that women should have expected to be sexually assaulted when they mixed males and females together in the military.
Said he wants to target the families of terrorists.
Stated that he wants to ban an entire religion.
Praised a Russian president who obviously hates the U.S. and Americans.
Encouraged the Russian government to commit espionage against Americans.
Insinuated that another Republican’s wife was ugly.
Tried to implicate another Republican’s father in JFK’s assassination.
Sought out the help of former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes after he was fired following multiple allegations that he had sexually harassed women for years.
Made Breitbart’s Steve Bannon one of his top campaign people.
Had a former campaign manager abruptly resign after a report came out linking him to pro-Russian groups that were directly trying to undermine U.S. policy in eastern Europe.
Called Carly Fiornia ugly.
Has said climate change was a hoax created by the Chinese — then denied saying it.
Was a leading conspiracy theorist when it came to the racist-driven birther conspiracies against President Obama.
Dismissed nearly eight years of accusing the president of not being an American with a less than 30 second statement where he didn’t apologize for any of it.
Tried to blame Hillary Clinton for his racism.
Re-tweeted anti-African American propaganda created by a white supremacy group.
Played dumb about knowing who former Grand Wizard of the KKK David Duke was.
Skipped a presidential debate because he was scared of a moderator.
Has, on several occasions, suggested he finds his daughter attractive.
Called a husband doing things like changing diapers and helping with the children, a man “trying to be the wife.”
Has said he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons.
Said he can’t release his tax returns because they’re currently being audited — even though the IRS said that’s a lie.
Feels he has the right to sexually assault women.
Too bad becoming President of the United States of America hasn't changed him...if anything he's becoming worse since his words carry the weight of the office.
Edited to correct typo.
-
Ruh-roh! (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/10/who-started-ruh.html)
New Jersey congressman invokes 1924 tax law giving Congress power to examine Trump's tax returns (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/11/1632589/-New-Jersey-congressman-invokes-1924-tax-law-giving-Congress-power-to-examine-Trump-s-tax-returns?detail=facebook)
Hum....
By the way, it was Astro from the Jetsons who made the Ruh-roh not Scooby Doo. But the same guy Don Messick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Messick) voiced both characters, and Scooby Doo, who has been around since 1969, is both more contemporary and more popular than "The Jetsons," which first aired in 1962.
:~)
-
it was Astro from the Jetsons who made the Ruh-roh not Scooby Doo
LOL
This German TV chap who became well known for his "abusive criticism" of Erdogan, came up with this song back in 11/2016. Not too shabby. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZc8tBtIDhI
-
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Saying that voter fraud is negligible because very few cases are documented or prosecuted is the same as saying the amount of drug trafficking should be judged by the number of caught drug traffickers.
That's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.
All I've said is to provide some actual evidence of voter fraud, and then pass it on to the authorities for investigation. Creating a congressional (or some other federal) format to investigate without any evidence of systemic or widespread wrongdoing is a waste of money, something that Trump is supposed to be against, right?
If it's so widespread (millions, right?) how hard could it possibly be to get some evidence?
-
From https://forwardprogressives.com (https://forwardprogressives.com) (yeah, ok it's a leftwing progressive site) comes this: At This Point, If You’re Still a Donald Trump Supporter, Here’s What You Really Are (https://forwardprogressives.com/point-youre-still-donald-trump-supporter-heres-really/). It contains a list of things to remember about Trump:
This is a man who’s:
Mocked a man with disabilities.
Attacked the parents of a fallen American hero.
Belittled POWs and the war record of Sen. John McCain.
Lied about how much money he raised for veterans.
Called a former Miss Universe “disgusting” and fat, telling his Twitter followers to find her non-existent sex tape.
Accused an American-born federal judge of being unfit to do his job because of his Mexican heritage.
Likely avoided paying taxes for nearly two decades.
Called most Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, even though that’s not remotely factual.
Lied about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11.
Lied about getting a letter from the NFL complaining about the debate schedule.
Tried to exploit the death of an African American woman in Chicago to say that’s why black voters will support him.
Found the “bright side” to tragedies because his poll numbers tend to go up.
Settled with the Department of Justice after his company was found guilty of racially discriminating against minorities.
Has cheated on at least one wife.
Was just discovered on video admitting that he not only tried to cheat on his current wife, but he attempted to do so with another married woman.
Had his first wife publicly say that he did nothing when it came to raising their children until they were old enough to talk business.
Tweeted that women should have expected to be sexually assaulted when they mixed males and females together in the military.
Said he wants to target the families of terrorists.
Stated that he wants to ban an entire religion.
Praised a Russian president who obviously hates the U.S. and Americans.
Encouraged the Russian government to commit espionage against Americans.
Insinuated that another Republican’s wife was ugly.
Tried to implicate another Republican’s father in JFK’s assassination.
Sought out the help of former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes after he was fired following multiple allegations that he had sexually harassed women for years.
Made Breitbart’s Steve Bannon one of his top campaign people.
Had a former campaign manager abruptly resign after a report came out linking him to pro-Russian groups that were directly trying to undermine U.S. policy in eastern Europe.
Called Carly Fiornia ugly.
Has said climate change was a hoax created by the Chinese — then denied saying it.
Was a leading conspiracy theorist when it came to the racist-driven birther conspiracies against President Obama.
Dismissed nearly eight years of accusing the president of not being an American with a less than 30 second statement where he didn’t apologize for any of it.
Tried to blame Hillary Clinton for his racism.
Re-tweeted anti-African American propaganda created by a white supremacy group.
Played dumb about knowing who former Grand Wizard of the KKK David Duke was.
Skipped a presidential debate because he was scared of a moderator.
Has, on several occasions, suggested he finds his daughter attractive.
Called a husband doing things like changing diapers and helping with the children, a man “trying to be the wife.”
Has said he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons.
Said he can’t release his tax returns because they’re currently being audited — even though the IRS said that’s a lie.
Feels he has the right to sexually assault women.
Too bad becoming President of the United States of America hasn't changed him...if anything he's becoming worse since his words carry the weight of the office.
Edited to correct typo.
Yes, but apart from that ? :-)
Anyway - we are reliably informed that he will make America great.
-
America's been The Great Satan since the Iranian mullahs overthrew the Shah 40 years ago. Since then, we've spent trillions of dollars and huge pools of American civilian and military blood. The mess in the Middle East though started by Bush and his predecessors, was unleashed by Obama's weakness when he left Iraq without no American military force to keep the lid on. The vacuum created was filled by ISIS, Russian arms and expansion, Iranian expansion adventures, Turkish dreams, and millions of Muslim refugees many of whom now occupy Europe trying to establish Sharia law in Berlin and Paris and the rest of the world by blowing themselves up in crowded shopping centers. We should all pray that Trump does better. Frankly, our concern should be that he will put American interests at home first and end many of the foreign entanglements President Washington warned us against. Without America power, all the crazies will come out and test the vacuum with more blood and gore. Would you prefer Russians or Chinese or Iranians to keep the lid on?
Interesting take on history. Keeping the lid on does not seem to be a great idea judging by current progress - how many more tens of thousands need to die? What we need is to turn off the gas, not mess around with lids. The current disaster seems to have been created by the mistake of going into Iraq under the impression that once Saddam was gone everything would be beautiful and people would love each other - including the humiliated Republican Guard who were not incorporated into plans for the future and now form the basis of ISIS, along with the Ba'athist organisation. Into that mess steps Trump's new best buddy, nice and kind Mr Putin, applying the same tactics that served so well in Grozny - levelling cities regardless of the toll on civilian casualties. No wonder there is a refugee problem.
In this context we have Trump opening his flap to stoke up Muslim hatred with his travel ban, and the endless US support for Israel's excesses. What could possibly go wrong?
-
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Saying that voter fraud is negligible because very few cases are documented or prosecuted is the same as saying the amount of drug trafficking should be judged by the number of caught drug traffickers.
I enjoy looking at your photos, Slobodan.
-
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Saying that voter fraud is negligible because very few cases are documented or prosecuted is the same as saying the amount of drug trafficking should be judged by the number of caught drug traffickers.
I agree, so let's have an investigation. If not, then why not if there is any truth to it? Millions of fraudsters should be a piece of cake to prove, even if you miss a few.
However, it is also known that Trump just likes saying things that his electorate likes to hear, and here is why ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica
Which has turned the elections into more of a social IQ-test.
Cheers,
Bart
-
By arguing there is no voter fraud and you should just believe that because we say so, just encourages more suspicion. Investigating and proving there is no voter fraud would do good things. It would appease Republican concerns and bust their arguments for voter ID requirements as having no value. This would make it easier for Democrats to push voter registration without the encumbrances of additional regulation, one of their pet projects.
Almost all the secretaries of state who oversee voting (many of whom are Republicans) have already stated that they did not see any signs of voter fraud in November's election. The few cases that were documented came from several Trump voters who voted twice.
-
Jeff, peddling the left-wing nuts list of straw-man arguments (forward progressives!? - are there backward ones? - hmmm...come to think if it...) isn't going to strengthen your case.
-
This is a man who’s:
Mocked a man with disabilities.
Jeff,
I'm not familiar with the details and facts behind all these very negative aspersions you've listed about Donald Trump's character. However the first event you listed, the mocking of a disabled reporter, is something I heard about for the first time when listening to Meryl Streep's Golden Globe speech recently, in which she became very emotional when describing that event where Trump flailed his arms around as though he was imitating someone with disabled arms.
I was a bit surprised that even Trump would have shown such extreme insensitivity, so I did an internet search, looking at a number of sites, to find out the background and the context of this apparent mocking of a disabled reporter.
The impression I get is that he did not mock the disabled reporter. It's a concoction by the media.
Trumps flailing arms during this incident were apparently much the same as they have been when he disagrees with anyone, when making a speech.
The following site goes into great detail and presents a convincing case.
https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/
-
I enjoy looking at your photos, Slobodan.
:)
-
Thanks, Ray. As I said, "mocking" is just one of the many straw-man arguments being peddled.
-
Jeff, peddling the left-wing nuts list of straw-man arguments (forward progressives!? ... isn't going to strengthen your case.
.. the first event you listed, the mocking of a disabled reporter, is something I heard about for the first time when listening to Meryl Streep's Golden Globe speech
Is that the best you both can do ?
Leaving aside 'intent' on the reporter issue, - here are just a few of the unambiguous ones:
- Attacked the parents of a fallen American hero.
- Belittled POWs and the war record of Sen. John McCain.
- Lied about how much money he raised for veterans.
- Lied about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11.
- Was a leading conspiracy theorist when it came to the racist-driven birther conspiracies against President Obama.
- Dismissed nearly eight years of accusing the president of not being an American with a less than 30 second statement where he didn’t apologize for any of it.
And add to the above another smoking gun : "significant, wilful and repeated violations of the BSA" - aka money laundering -
multiple instances and currency reporting violations
failing to report suspicious transactions,
failing to properly file transaction reports,
failing to keep appropriate records
and it's ongoing
Dirty money: Trump and the Kazakh connection (https://www.ft.com/content/33285dfa-9231-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923)
I could easily go on ..
Edit:
Almost forgot :
- Dismissed the Acting Attorney General for upholding the Constitution ... :~)
-
I am sure, Manoli, that repeating and repeating the left's spin will make it "true" some day. It already did for many of you already, apparently.
-
Slobodan, I wasn't aware that the Financial Crimes section of the US Treasury is now classified as 'spin'. Live and learn , I guess :~)
-
I am sure, Manoli, that repeating and repeating the left's spin will make it "true" some day. It already did for many of you already, apparently.
Oh, the irony.
Seriously though, do you actually believe that there were 3 million illegal votes in CA for HRC and 3000 in NH for HRC, and zero, respectively, for DJT in those same locations.
-
I am sure, Manoli, that repeating and repeating the left's spin will make it "true" some day. It already did for many of you already, apparently.
Slobodan, do you think President Trump is an honest person? I would like a serious answer and not a quip.
-
I am sure, Manoli, that repeating and repeating the left's spin will make it "true" some day. It already did for many of you already, apparently.
I think the right seems to be spinning more successfully these days ;)
-
Jeff,
I'm not familiar with the details and facts behind all these very negative aspersions you've listed about Donald Trump's character. However the first event you listed, the mocking of a disabled reporter, is something I heard about for the first time when listening to Meryl Streep's Golden Globe speech recently, in which she became very emotional when describing that event where Trump flailed his arms around as though he was imitating someone with disabled arms.
I was a bit surprised that even Trump would have shown such extreme insensitivity, so I did an internet search, looking at a number of sites, to find out the background and the context of this apparent mocking of a disabled reporter.
The impression I get is that he did not mock the disabled reporter. It's a concoction by the media.
Trumps flailing arms during this incident were apparently much the same as they have been when he disagrees with anyone, when making a speech.
The following site goes into great detail and presents a convincing case.
https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/
Ray - that article has been mentioned elsewhere on this forum. It's from a much-less-than-objective source, and does nothing to counter the obvious fact that Trump did exactly what he is accused doing. The man is an embarrassment to the USA, and you do yourself no favours by making desperate excuses for him.
-
- Belittled POWs and the war record of Sen. John McCain.
so pilots who bombed aleppo were bad guys and mccain who bombed hanoi was a hero ;D
-
Into that mess steps Trump's new best buddy, nice and kind Mr Putin, applying the same tactics that served so well in Grozny - levelling cities regardless of the toll on civilian casualties.
and that was taken from American and British playbooks - leveling Dresden and nuking couple of towns in Japan ;D ... give the credit where it belongs to
-
so pilots who bombed aleppo were bad guys and mccain who bombed hanoi was a hero ;D
Depends who wrote (or will write) the history books on the subject ;)
-
and that was taken from American and British playbooks - leveling Dresden and nuking couple of towns in Japan ;D ... give the credit where it belongs to
They all got that trick from some Germans, remember Rotterdam and London in the early 1940's? And I'm sure there are earlier examples that might spring to mind as well.
-
i know this thread is about mr Trump, but i think voters did not choose so much mr Trump but they voted against the way the nation is lead the last decades. ( and we see the same happening in Europe)
As i see it;
There has been a world wide shift in the capitalistic economy that came up with the use of computers.
At the moment there is a real economy - people producing products and earn money with producing and selling these products,
and a financial economy where money makes more money.
They should be working together, the financial system supporting the real economy- but have grown apart.
It is now easier to make money with money than to actually invest in the real economy.
The financial economy has been booming until the financial crises of 2007. This way of earning money benefitted mostly the people that have money. At Wallstreet the computer runs the trade in millisecond reacting on the tiniest change of value. The fastest connection you have the more money you make. With more money comes a better connection and more power.
The crisis of 2007 was able to bring even system banks down, banks that were too big to fail- It appeared they lend out far too much money and took too much risk making the financial system unstable.
The government could only come to rescue to print more money to refill the buffers of the banks and at the same time keep the interest low in order to keep the economy going.
At the moment we still talk about 80 billion a month that is printed in Europe and in the same order the FED is doing that in the US.
The problem is that all that money does not directly benefit the real economy. Instead, with that money the FED buys financial products and the financial business knows how to make profit of it. The idea is that in the end the money will drip into the real economy in the form of cheap loans from the banks. But only little does a the moment.
What has happened is that big investors have found out that they can earn more money without much effort at Wallstreet than when they invest in the real economy. A new bubble is created. States themselves have a big interest not to radically change this financial system for they are themselves big players. Even more now they have put so much money into the system to rescue it.
Even companies as Google and Apple; innovators as they are- know nothing to do with their immense capital.
Meaning they rather have it at the bank, instead of investing it in the real economy.
In the 1950’s Roosevelt put money in the real economy making the USA flourish. All citizens were helped with this investment.
Now, the real economy suffers, especially the poor real economy.
I think those people - left behind - have voted for Trump and they are right to be angry, but i don’t think Trump will change this financial system for the benefit of those people that voted for him. His current actions seems to indicate he will make it easier for the financial market to create new bubbles.
Obama had the right timing with the crisis to make a change, but he failed to do so. I think Bernie Sanders might have been the best president now that could make this necessary change happen.
-
They all got that trick from some Germans, remember Rotterdam and London in the early 1940's? And I'm sure there are earlier examples that might spring to mind as well.
absolutely not comparable in terms of how many civilians eradicated in one day ...
-
absolutely not comparable in terms of how many civilians eradicated in one day ...
As time moves on the number of civilian casualties vs. combat casualties in military conflicts is trending sharply up, so the trick and intent is the same, only the effect is different.
-
and that was taken from American and British playbooks - leveling Dresden and nuking couple of towns in Japan ;D ... give the credit where it belongs to
If you are old enough - which I doubt - you may remember what was happening in London most nights during WW2. I saw a lot of the results of that. What you see is not what you read about or watch in the movies.
Had those two towns in Japan not been nuked, that bloody war would have cost even more lives than it did. Perhaps you believe that Japan would just have stopped, or that the US would have done so. Sorry, unless the nose is bloodied enough wars don't stop.
This may be misplaced innocence on my part, but perhaps Mr Putin is the only one who realises that putting a dictator out of the seat of power doesn't seem to do anything much other than to encourage the vacuum that spawns absolute madness, such as we have seen across the Middle East already. Had Iraq and Libya been left to fix themselves, there wouldn't be the effin' refugee and terrorist crisis that's ripping up Europe right now, and I'm sure that the little matter of Brexit would never have arisen.
I suppose we will never learn or understand that democracy is a solution that plays reasonably in some parts of the world, but certainly not universally. It's just one more 'way'.
Rob C
-
This may be misplaced innocence on my part, but perhaps Mr Putin is the only one who realises that putting a dictator out of the seat of power doesn't seem to do anything much other than to encourage the vacuum that spawns absolute madness, such as we have seen across the Middle East already. Had Iraq and Libya been left to fix themselves, there wouldn't be the effin' refugee and terrorist crisis that's ripping up Europe right now, and I'm sure that the little matter of Brexit would never have arisen.
Rob - As an amateur student of history, I agree with the comment about Iraq and Libya. The problem is that very few in power have the patience to wait for things to take their course which might involve several decades waiting for the rotten infrastructure to crack and finally crumble. Look at how long it took for the false communism that was Russia to fold and the Mao driven China fell in about half that time. Obviously, we don't want to revisit conflicts such as the 30 years war that laid waste to huge swathes of Central Europe or either of the 20th Century's world conflicts. Most authoritarian regimes tend to be fragile and borne from the power of one or two individuals . Once they are gone, things tend to revert back to the mean. Of course in the case of Russia which has never known democracy, the mean may not appeal to you or me. We my never realize Fukuyama's "End of History" but even he is not sanguine (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/09/the-man-who-declared-the-end-of-history-fears-for-democracys-future/?utm_term=.149f58898b9a) about it any longer.
-
The following site goes into great detail and presents a convincing case.
https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/
So, Catholics for Trump is a credible news source? Sorry...that site is only a tiny bit to the left of Breightbart.com. Heck, even Ann Coulter sited that site as proof for an article on Breitbart Ann Coulter: Media Invented Lie About Trump Mocking Disabled Reporter (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/08/31/ann-coulter-media-invented-lie-trump-mocking-disabled-reporter/) (course, she was using this as a promo for her new book In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! so it's not like she didn't have an agenda :~)
Of course, the Washington Post debunks her debunking Ann Coulter says she can prove Donald Trump never mocked a reporter’s disability. (She can’t.) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/01/ann-coulter-says-she-can-prove-donald-trump-never-mocked-a-reporters-disability-she-cant/?utm_term=.1f72e3dbf798)
So, who to believe? I believe my own eyes...even if Trump can weasel out of specifically mocking Serge Kovaleski's disability, he can't get past the fact he was intentionally insensitive and lied about his encounter with Serge Kovaleski over the years. But Ann Coulter's defense "that Trump was not making fun of Kovaleski's specific symptoms — he has arthrogryposis, which visibly limits flexibility in his arms — but rather "was doing a standard retard, waving his arms and sounding stupid." As if that made it okay.".
Uh, ok...he wasn't making fun of the reporter's disability, he was making fun of "a standard retard, waving his arms and sounding stupid".
And that's somehow better?
Sorry Ray...any way you cut it, what Trump did was disrespectful...which is not a habit you want in a US President, right?
But even if we give him a pass on that one, what about the other 38 items on that list? Gonna give him a pass on those too (just because the list came from the "left" doesn't mean they are false).
-
.... do you actually believe that there were 3 million illegal votes in CA for HRC and 3000 in NH for HRC, and zero, respectively, for DJT in those same locations.
Did I say so?
-
Did I say so?
Not explicitly, but you seem to be defending the accusation as reasonable.
-
Jeff, peddling the left-wing nuts list of straw-man arguments (forward progressives!? - are there backward ones? - hmmm...come to think if it...) isn't going to strengthen your case.
Well, the items on that list are not really in dispute, right? Not a list I would be proud of...
But it's not just the far left that has serious concerns about The Donald, even the Wall Street Journal has some concerns Wall Street Journal Rips Donald Trump: ‘Behave’ Like You Want to Be President (http://www.thewrap.com/wall-street-journal-donald-trump-behave-like-you-want-to-be-president/). (I would link to the actual article and not an article about the article but I don't subscribe to the WSJ-and yes it was about candidate Trump not President Trump but from what I can see, same difference).
Even the WSJ is having problems dealing with the issue of reporting on Trump: Conflict Over Trump Forces Out an Opinion Editor at The Wall Street Journal (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/conflict-over-trump-forces-out-an-opinion-editor-at-the-wall-street-journal/516318/) The departure follows weeks of reports of tension on the paper's news side about how to cover Trump.
In any event, people outside of the USA are getting really alarmed...see this article from Independent.co.uk (http://www.independent.co.uk/us). This is kinda scary: Donald Trump using Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' playbook, says world expert on Nazi leader (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adolf-hitler-donald-trump-mein-kampf-bluffed-way-to-power-nazi-leader-germany-fuhrer-us-president-a7568506.html) President's 'views come out of a playbook written in German' says author — 'the playbook is Mein Kampf'
Hum, sorry, don't know if the Independent.co.uk is left, right or out to lunch, but the very fact that this is being discussed is disquieting to me.
And this from another UK newspaper The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us) titled: Al Franken repeats senators' concern that Trump is 'not right mentally' (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/12/al-franken-senate-concern-trump-not-right-mentally). Yeah, ok...this is just a left wing former SNL writer and comedian who just happens to be a friggin' sitting US Senator, but he talking about is ‘A few’ Republicans in the Senate are worried about Trump, according to Franken: ‘I’ve heard great concern about the president’s temperament’.
So, Slobodan...is this a "good thing"? Is this just the left having hissy fits? Do you think Trump is doing a good job? Are you happy he's engaging in Twitter Diplomacy? Is there anything that the Donald is doing wrong?
-
For a bit of levity (cause ya gotta admit Trump stuff is sometimes funny–even on SNL) I post the following from Chuck Lorre Productions. Chuck Lorre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Lorre) is a is an American television writer, producer and composer. He has created a number of successful sitcoms such as Grace Under Fire, Cybill, Dharma & Greg, Two and a Half Men, The Big Bang Theory, Mike & Molly, and Mom. And yes, he's a left wing Hollywood elitist).
He puts up what he calls Vanity Cards (http://www.chucklorre.com) in the ending credits to his shows...his most recent was, well, funny, (at least to me)
>>
CHUCK LORRE PRODUCTIONS, #551
For Immediate Release January 20, 2017
EXECUTIVE ORDER
VERACITY PRINCIPLES,
DETERMINING FACT FROM FICTION
By the power vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. It shall be the policy of my administration that, in any given circumstance, the truth is what I say it is, or need it to be.
Section 2. Any statement, photograph or report that does not align with Section 1 shall be deemed "fake news."
Section 3. Contradiction of Section 1 or Section 2 shall be punishable by mean tweet.
Section 4. Handwriting analysis of my signature (see below) is fake news.
(http://www.chucklorre.com/images/signature.jpg)
>>
1st Aired: 9 Feb 2017
-
So, who to believe? I believe my own eyes...
Yeah, Jeff is 100% correct on this one. I've watched that clip a zillion times and Donald Trump's gestures can in no way be written off to "general agitation" or anything of the sort. He's doing the typical "spaz imitation" that all us schoolboys engaged in when we were young, dumb, and insensitive by nature. The issue is, most of us grew up. Attempting to defend Trump on this one (and many others like it) only make people who support what Trump is doing look stupid, in denial, or some kissing-cousin of that. Doesn't help much in the "cogent argument" department, I'd say.
One thing I'm curious about is whether the left would be as up in arms if, say, Rubio had been elected and was doing much the same things as Trump is attempting to do, but with a more PC face on it? What say you all? Would you have just said, "Aw shucks, we lost, we'll win next time." ?? If the travel restrictions had been better explained, and shown clearly as temporary, with review boards already in place to sift the legitimate exceptions so as to not cause undue hardship for those who have been vetted and were just "out of the country" when the restriction was put in place - would you be OK with that, or still claim it as merely "anti-Islam" with no other merit at all? I'm honestly curious. And how about border security? If Rubio had significantly tightened up the borders, extending walls where feasible, etc. and not talking about "criminals, rapists, etc." but as a legitimate need for national security, would he still be a racist, or just someone who disagrees with you about what is necessary for national security on our borders?
This thread seems monolithically tilted by those of the more "progressive" bent, as though it is only the right that has an agenda? Isn't that a tad disingenuous?
Rand
-
Interesting article about election fraud in Chicago in 1960 where then Mayor Daley was believed to have once marched his legions of the dead from the cemetery into the voting booths to get Democrat John F. Kennedy the majority in the electoral college and win Illinois by less than 8000 votes which helped him beat Republican Nixon in the presidential election. Nixon was urged by many to contest the election in Illinois and Texas (Democrat at that time). (like Hillary and Stein did in 2016 in three other states). But he thought that would create a constitutional crises. (Shades of 2000 Bush vs. Gore). And anyway, it would make him appear a sore loser and he intended to run again. Of course there were claims the Republicans were loading up the vote for themselves at the same time in other Illinois counties. One election wonk stated, "The Democrats rigged the election--fair and square."
My guess there are probably rigged votes from both parties still and both would rather forget the whole thing that Trump raised. It would embarrass too many people on both sides. The thing is though it doesn't take that many fraudulent votes to tilt a close election like 1960 or in 2000. While 3,000,000 nationally may be inflated, a few thousand could be significant. There are also local elections for Mayor, County, etc where fraudulent votes of only a few hundred could effect the election. We just got rid of a county executive where I live (he retired) who held the position for over 25 years and retired with a huge pension. I'm not saying he was a crook. But i wonder who's been counting the votes all these years?
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/
Another article.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20161019/downtown/vote-rigged-elections-history-fraud-stolen-trump
-
If you are old enough - which I doubt - you may remember what was happening in London most nights during WW2.
I hail from the country where what was happening in London "most nights during WW2" or even during the worst nights would be considered a very safe place to be back then ;D ...
Had those two towns in Japan not been nuked, that bloody war would have cost even more lives than it did. Perhaps you believe that Japan would just have stopped, or that the US would have done so. Sorry, unless the nose is bloodied enough wars don't stop.
exactly the point about Aleppo, Grozny, etc ;)
-
Is that the best you both can do ?
Leaving aside 'intent' on the reporter issue, - here are just a few of the unambiguous ones:
- Attacked the parents of a fallen American hero.
- Belittled POWs and the war record of Sen. John McCain.
- Lied about how much money he raised for veterans.
- Lied about seeing “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11.
- Was a leading conspiracy theorist when it came to the racist-driven birther conspiracies against President Obama.
- Dismissed nearly eight years of accusing the president of not being an American with a less than 30 second statement where he didn’t apologize for any of it.
And add to the above another smoking gun : "significant, wilful and repeated violations of the BSA" - aka money laundering -
multiple instances and currency reporting violations
failing to report suspicious transactions,
failing to properly file transaction reports,
failing to keep appropriate records
and it's ongoing
Dirty money: Trump and the Kazakh connection (https://www.ft.com/content/33285dfa-9231-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923)
I could easily go on ..
Edit:
Almost forgot :
- Dismissed the Acting Attorney General for upholding the Constitution ... :~)
If Trump is such a jerk, how come he won? His adversaries really have to get a grip on. Using the same insulting arguments against him after he got elected really makes a lot of sense. "N'yah. N'yah." Is that your strategy to win in 4 years?
Trump's running circles around you. He just met with Abe of Japan and re-enforced the same strategic policy we had with them against North Korea and China that we had before. He dropped the two-China Taiwan policy in keeping with the past. He's becoming a regular President and is going to use the Republican controlled Congress to pass his economic policies. "N'yah. N'yah" is not going to do it for you.
-
Ray - that article has been mentioned elsewhere on this forum. It's from a much-less-than-objective source, and does nothing to counter the obvious fact that Trump did exactly what he is accused doing. The man is an embarrassment to the USA, and you do yourself no favours by making desperate excuses for him.
I admit that I usually tend to focus on the evidence presented rather than automatically accept any view simply because it comes from a so-called reputable source in the opinion of some other group, or dismiss evidence simply because it's presented by a group that certain other people think is unreliable or not objective. I tend to think for myself.
I'm not trying to make desperate excuses for Trump. I'm not an American citizen, but I found the long, drawn out, election campaign rather amazing as well as entertaining, and the final result of the election even more amazing.
Politics in general seems to me to consist of a lot of bluster, and exaggeration, and misrepresentation of facts. There seems to be a continual power struggle going on, with an emphasis on personal attacks rather than an open discussion on sound and rational policies that will help the country prosper as a whole.
We also have this problem in Australia. When I occasionally view 'Question Time' in Parliament on TV, I'm amazed at the constant bickering and shouting and insulting remarks that are made, with the 'Speaker of the House' constantly having to warn other members to be quiet or they'll be ejected from the room.
I guess that's the nature of democracy. ;)
-
The financial crisis was caused by too much lending and in true American fashion, we totally over reacted after the crash making it harder to get a loan. Now small businesses who want to expand cant get the capital to do so because of too many regulations, Dodd-Frank being the largest. On top of that, the shear amount of new regulations put into effect make it impossible for any bank without a large staff to follow law and the lending requirements make it harder for them to make money.
Actually that is not true. The National Federation of Independent Business, the trade group that represents small firms regularly surveys their membership and access to capital is never a bit issue for them.
You think it is just by happenstance that we have had a net negative growth in the banking sector along with large increases in overall banking fees?
I don't understand this statement. I own stock in several big money center banks and their growth since the recovery from the great recession has been just fine according to my brokerage account (as well as their financial filings).
This is the real problem, the life blood of growing the economy is being held back. Not only does this indirectly prevent businesses from growing, but since banks also create money, it is keeping the economy from growing as well.
Economy has done better than all other countries save 'maybe' China since 2008. Sure we would all like 4% growth per year but I don't think that will ever be in the cards unless we really try to overheat things and then inflation will come roaring back.
And the financial center is not some abstract separate economy. If allowed to operate correctly, our economy should be booming. Yes, one can make an argument that, aside from the IPOs, trading stocks really does no one any good but the investors, investors such as every single person who has a retirement fund in almost the entire world.
Meaning???? I've been investing in stocks ever since I was a teenager (a long time ago!) and find that the stock market is pretty reflective of the overall economy.
The problem is socialism does not work, and Obama really force fed it to us.
Please describe in detail all or at least some of the socialistic things that Obama force fed us. Don't tell me it was the Affordable Care Act either as that was something that the Heritage Foundation came up with (I have the original work paper from them in my files as well as a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the topic). Private sector delivery of health care cannot in any way be described as socialistic.
It's interesting how many people are for socialism but fail to look at the countries (who don't receive massive amounts of aid such as those in the Eastern block whom the USA protects from Russia) where it is actually implemented. I totally understand the altruistic concept of helping everyone out and creating a big safety net, but in every country socialism is applied, that country eventually collapses.
It depends on what you are defining as socialism. certainly the Scandinavian countries provide a lot of free social welfare for their citizens and they seem to be reasonably stable. The Netherlands might also fall into this category but they do rely on mandatory private health insurance to care for all citizens.
I was in Cuba recently and the government in 2013 was forced to make it legal for private citizens to open their own restaurants (due to an extremely weak economy). What a novel concept!
Cuba was and still is a dictatorship and I don't think you can confuse that with democratic socialism
-
But it's not just the far left that has serious concerns about The Donald, even the Wall Street Journal has some concerns Wall Street Journal Rips Donald Trump: ‘Behave’ Like You Want to Be President (http://www.thewrap.com/wall-street-journal-donald-trump-behave-like-you-want-to-be-president/). (I would link to the actual article and not an article about the article but I don't subscribe to the WSJ-and yes it was about candidate Trump not President Trump but from what I can see, same difference).
Both George Will and Kathleen Parker who are conservative nationally syndicated columnists are ripping into Trump every week now. There is also Jennifer Rubin who is the conservative blogger at the Washington Post and a real Obama critic who is laying into Trump 3-4 times a day. Maybe Rush Limbaugh and the others on talk radio are still waxing poetic but the main line conservative news columnists are not.
-
If Trump is such a jerk, how come he won? His adversaries really have to get a grip on. Using the same insulting arguments against him after he got elected really makes a lot of sense. "N'yah. N'yah." Is that your strategy to win in 4 years?
He ran a very interesting guerilla campaign and one that used the long con. Now his supporters are surprised that the health care that they received through Obamacare may be taken away. There has been some very good field reporting of Trump voters in swing states and Appalachia who all are on Obamacare and didn't know that was what it was called. Some of the counties went for Trump 80-20 and now everyone is worried about losing their health care. http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump
-
He ran a very interesting guerilla campaign and one that used the long con. Now his supporters are surprised that the health care that they received through Obamacare may be taken away. There has been some very good field reporting of Trump voters in swing states and Appalachia who all are on Obamacare and didn't know that was what it was called. Some of the counties went for Trump 80-20 and now everyone is worried about losing their health care. http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump
Trump isn't a conservative. He's a populist. He said if someone fell ill in front of him, he would not walk over the sick person. He agrees that pre-existing medical conditions should not prevent you from getting insurance. Cruz creditably called him a NY Liberal, which he is. The only thing conservative about him is lowering taxes and calling Christmas, Christmas. He hasn't said but I suspect he'll let the Fed continue printing if he needs money to support his programs because the deficit is still there. He believes in non-conservative trade policies effecting foreign countries and American companies. His immigration policy will stop at throwing illegals who are criminals out of the country as Obama has been doing. Didn't Trump already say his wall will have a nice big door on it. Othere than the criminals, he's going to support the illegals who have been living here peaceably and allow them to become full citizens. He'll get the Latino vote in 2020 because of this and the black vote if he can really help the economy. Then in his second term, he'll put a Trump sign on the White House, rent out the Lincoln bedroom and move his headquarters permanently to Mar-a-lago. .
-
...democratic socialism
Oxymoron.
-
Trump not only enables esoteric fascist intellectuals to spread their poison and be on the administration.
Trump is a fascist!
Of course he is:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/)
-
Short and crisp!
Prof. Stephen Eric Bronner - http://www.polisci.rutgers.edu/cb-profile/userprofile/Ebronner (http://www.polisci.rutgers.edu/cb-profile/userprofile/Ebronner) on Trump and fascism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZnlFp1cthw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZnlFp1cthw)
Yes, and Trump is building an "internal empire" responsive to wealthy and special interests exclusively.
-
One thing I'm curious about is whether the left would be as up in arms if, say, Rubio had been elected and was doing much the same things as Trump is attempting to do, but with a more PC face on it? What say you all? Would you have just said, "Aw shucks, we lost, we'll win next time." ??
I did end up voting for Hillary in the general but Bernie in the Illinois primary. If there had been almost ANYBODY else running instead or Trump I would have seriously considered voting republican. The exception were Ben Carson, Rubio and Cruz.
I could have seen Jeb as a contender (depending on the VP pick). But my real favorite (if not Bernie) would have been Ohio Gov. John Kasich. I could seriously have voted for him because of all the other GOP candidates was the one guy that came across as the only adult in the room. He's been great for Ohio and would have been an excellent choice for president if the GOP didn't screw the pooch and let Trump beat way too many weak candidates. Image a peaceful transition from Obama to Kasich and how different that would have been than the last 3 weeks of disaster...
But my ire about Trump is that he's a rude, entitled, spoiled, boorish, insensitive, small minded, narcissistic, dishonest, mean-spirited, misogynistic, bombastic, racist, xenophobic, dangerous, embarrassing, unqualified, disresepctful fraud that simply should not be President–and except for the involvement of the Russians, the FBI and a flawed candidate would not be President of the United States of America.
The fact that he's leading the USA down a dangerous path in a dangerous time scares the shit out of me. I don't want the doomsday clock to click down to midnight and that is far more likely with Trump than Hillary, Kasich, Sanders or even your friend Marco.
If you are wondering about the string of words I used to describe Trump (which I honestly believe each one to be accurate), there's a whole web site dedicated to collecting words to describe Donald Trump (I kid you not). Go to Describe Donald Trump in one word. (http://trumpinoneword.com) The site says "23,685 words submitted by 535,020 people."
Just something for leftwing progressives to mull over for the next 2 years...(or less–I really don't think Trump will finish out his term for a variety of reasons :~)
-
Quote from: Alan Goldhammer on February 12, 2017, 08:35:35 PM
...democratic socialism
Oxymoron.
Are you guys talking about democratic socialism or being a social democrat? Maybe we need to learn some stuff, try this: Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/).
And while we often call ourselves a democracy, we are actually a republic. See this explanation: UNITED STATES: REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRACY? (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/united-states-republic-democracy/). Remember the pledge: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (ok, technically, we are a constitutional federal republic)
-
One more post for the nite...this time a letter to America from The Boss, Bruce Springsteen.
A Letter of Apology From Bruce Springsteen for Letting Trump Win (http://observer.com/2017/02/an-apology-from-bruce-springsteen-for-letting-trump-win/)
He starts:
My name is Bruce Springsteen, and one day soon, when the windows of your mosques are smashed and the synagogues lie in ashes, when the skies are gray with dust and the sea has risen to wash away the roads, when the stars and stripes of our flag stand for discrimination and fear, I will wonder, could I have made a difference?
I have had to look at myself in the mirror. More importantly, I have had to look at my children, and consider, uncomfortably, the world they will inherit. And I wonder.
Could I have made a difference? Did I do everything I could have done?
Asking myself this same question, my answer is no...I could have done more. Would it have made a difference? I don't know but I will now try harder in the 2018 midterm elections. That's what I need to do...do what I can.
It's an unexpected good read from a real American...Yeah, ok, he's a rock star but he's also an American story teller...he says:
I’ve spent my life trying to tell a story about Americans that tried to do good when the easier route would have been to do bad, or do nothing; about an America where everyman was King, an America which was defined by its working men and women, not its oligarchs; an America where your children can look at you and say, just with their eyes, “Will our lives be as free as yours, daddy? Will we have the same rights and choices as you, will we have clean air to breathe? Daddy, will we have the ability to look the rich in the eye and say, ‘You may have more than us, but you do not have more rights than us.’
-
If Trump is such a jerk, how come he won?
The simple answer, because he was the 'best' that the Republican party had to offer for those who wanted to choose a Republican candidate.
Cheers,
Bart
-
C'mon, Bart. That's only part of the reason. Trump was also considered to be a less flawed candidate, with more to offer, than his rival, Hillary Clinton. ;)
-
The fact that these two candidates represented what the parties thought were the best of the best of the best, was one of the more depressing aspects of this election.
For the first time in our history, we had two candidates who were, at the same time, worse then the other. Quite the political paradox.
Sometimes I wonder if either party had just picked a random person, it would have been a better choice.
-
The fact that these two candidates represented what the parties thought were the best of the best of the best, was one of the more depressing aspects of this election.
For the first time in our history, we had two candidates who were, at the same time, worse then the other. Quite the political paradox.
Sometimes I wonder if either party had just picked a random person, it would have been a better choice.
My God! That would be as bad as jury duty but last longer!
Rob
-
and the winner is....
-
The fact that these two candidates represented what the parties thought were the best of the best of the best, was one of the more depressing aspects of this election.
For the first time in our history, we had two candidates who were, at the same time, worse then the other. Quite the political paradox.
Sometimes I wonder if either party had just picked a random person, it would have been a better choice.
Alternatively, employ the Athenian system of ostracism. Every few years, hold a vote with a slate of those who are deemed to have become a wee bit too powerful. Exile the losers for ten years.
It seems that what the US really has now is a kind of oligarchy since, realistically, the only people who can become president are a very select few who can provide or obtain access to the billion or so dollars it costs to win a successful campaign. The age of mass communication is proving a problem for democracies because the costs involved in so communicating are so huge that they concentrate power and money in undesirable ways.
I guess one could hold a vote to deal with the billion dollar problem too. Offer billionaires the choice of having their fortune capped at say $100 million if they elect to avoid exile or $200 million if they prefer to be exiled. The funds obtained from these fellows are put back into infrastructure spending. I'm sure that the Wall Street bankster set might find ways of making, say, Greenland or Liberia comfortable for a decade or two.
-
Oxymoron.
You come up with another throw away line and still have not answered my question.
-
Not explicitly, but you seem to be defending the accusation as reasonable.
Yes, I understand how it can be seen as "guilty by association," i.e., attacking the flawed logic of one side can be seen as defending the other, though it wasn't my intention.
My approach is different and is based on the adage: "Great minds discuss ideas/concepts; average minds discuss events/things; small minds discuss people." I am not interested in defending/discussing Trump. I am interested in debating concepts (any similarity with the "great minds" is purely accidental ;) )
I am debating the concept that it is possible, without a very thorough investigation, to claim either way: that there were three million illegal votes or that there was none. We simply can not possibly know either way.
I do know, however, there was a dead guy in Chicago who "voted" 11 times. In other words, it is possible to cheat. I do not believe that amounts to three million.
But there is something else.
In recent case of illegal voting (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/11/republican-green-card-holder-who-voted-illegally-in-texas-gets-8-years-in-prison/?utm_term=.4ec3028295f9), it became clear that it only takes one self-declaring tick on the voter application to get the voting card:
On her voter application, Ortega was faced with only two options — to mark herself as a ‘citizen’ or a ‘noncitizen’
In 2015, Ortega applied to vote in Tarrant County, indicating on the form that she was not a citizen; her application was rejected... However, five months later, she filled out another form and claimed the second time that she was a citizen...
Apparently, it is all it takes for all legal residents, but non-citizens, to vote if they decide so. All H1b, Green-card and other legal visa holders. And how about illegal residents who are here on someone else's social security number?
Does all that amount to three million? Possibly, but not likely. But claiming it is practically non-existent, as measured by those who are caught doing so, is equally ridiculous. It would take NSA capabilities of cross-referencing legal residents lists with voter registration lists or similar to smoke out all the cases. None of which would tackle illegal residents with fake SSNs. Or dead people voting. It would take another massive cross-referencing efforts.
Ok, I promised not to discuss personalities, but didn't Obama, in a video-taped interview, encourage illegal aliens to get out and vote, specifically saying no one is going to cross-check it against their status (video available on YouTube)?
-
. . . or even your friend Marco.
Interesting... I just picked Rubio out of a hat. I found Kasich the most credible candidate from either side. I was reasonably sure from the inane level of "debate" that he had zero chance of being nominated. He made too much sense. Bernie Sanders seems a nice man, but his ideology was not grounded in any kind of practical reality that I could detect. It was good to see young people excited about his candidacy, though. If he'd had a tad more substance to his proposals/positions, he might well have gotten the nomination.
Appreciate your response.
Rand
-
I do know, however, there was a dead guy in Chicago who "voted" 11 times.
Did you file a complaint with the bureau of elections? Is there some documentation on the this incident that you can link to?
Apparently, it is all it takes for all legal residents, but non-citizens, to vote if they decide so. All H1b, Green-card and other legal visa holders. And how about illegal residents who are here on someone else's social security number?
No, this is a fault of the states where these non-eligible voters are attempting to register. I'm not sure what the requirements might be as they vary from state to state. The states that I am aware of require a driver's license, a link to your Social Security Number, and date of birth. If those states are not doing their due diligence by appropriate cross checking then it's the state's fault and nobody else. the fact that we do not have national standards for voting which should be the primary right of all citizens is shameful but that's the way it is. All of what you describe is can easily be checked.
[quote}Does all that amount to three million? Possibly, but not likely. But claiming it is practically non-existent, as measured by those who are caught doing so, is equally ridiculous. It would take NSA capabilities of cross-referencing legal residents lists with voter registration lists or similar to smoke out all the cases. None of which would tackle illegal residents with fake SSNs. Or dead people voting. It would take another massive cross-referencing efforts.[/quote]
So I guess you are saying that all the Secretaries of State (most of whom were republican) that affirmed there was no massive fraud in this past election are lying to us? the rest of you statements are just BS. This would not be a massive undertaking at all unless the voter rolls were not computerized.
You still have not answered my question !
-
I am debating the concept that it is possible, without a very thorough investigation, to claim either way: that there were three million illegal votes or that there was none. We simply can not possibly know either way.
So a more interesting discussion might be how to replace what is a potentially broken system, with something better. Of course, it would help to know how large that need actually is (which is why Trumps claim won't be objectively investigated, not in his interest), besides the fact that improvements are always useful.
I have difficulty understanding why the system is not replaced by something better. In my country, with an election coming up next month, each citizen (thus legal) age of 18+ gets a single voter card (with hologram and all) sent home (yes one does need to have a known residence), and thus can cast 1 vote when handing over that card to the members of the voting station (and there are checklists at the allowed voting stations in one's town) who hand you the relevant ballot paper to fill in. Lots of checks and balances are involved, and also provisions for lost cards and travel situations.
Is it 100% secure, probably not, but pretty damn close. The group of people who do not go and vote is almost infinitely larger anyway, and could have a much larger influence on the outcome than an odd incident here or there, which then would probably get magnified anyway as if fraud would be rampant by (usually) the loser's side.
But, back to the topic, we'll have to wait and see if Trump feels the need to proof this, yet another, unbelievable claim. I'm not holding my breath. His tax returns would be much more important for democracy, to establish his vulnerability to foreign influence (like China). There must be a reason he's not sharing, unlike those who preceded him.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Apparently, it is all it takes for all legal residents, but non-citizens, to vote if they decide so. All H1b, Green-card and other legal visa holders. And how about illegal residents who are here on someone else's social security number?
No, that is all someone has to do to register to vote. Anyone, at any time, in any place can submit a voter registration form. Requesting registration is not the same as voting. The fact that this person was able to actually vote is squarely the fault of the registrar's office not the election officers. The registrar's office is the office that certifies and approves voter registration requests.
Once the registrar approves the application, there is nothing I can do as an election officer to "catch" an illegal voter. If I or another voter challenges a voter. All I can do is call the registrar's office to verify the eligibility of the challenged voter. If the registrar's office tells me they are eligible to vote, I must let them vote.
What is needed is a more robust voter registration verification system. That is one of the reasons I am completely against same day voter registration.
-
...The problem is socialism does not work...
I suggest you investigate the situation of the citizens of Norway, a socialist nation with one the highest standards of living in the world and best part of a trillion dollars in cash in the bank. (as opposed to the debt status of nearly all capitalist nations)
-
My approach is different and is based on the adage: "Great minds discuss ideas/concepts; average minds discuss events/things; small minds discuss people." I am not interested in defending/discussing Trump. I am interested in debating concepts (any similarity with the "great minds" is purely accidental ;) )
Reminds me on a joke I heard a long time ago (slightly adapted for today's times).
A man talking proudly at the bar with some friends saying that he leaves all the small decisions to his wife but that all important decisions in their household are made solely by him.
So his friends ask what are these small decisions your wife is taking. He responds: well it's where the kids go to school, what car we drive and when to get a new one, when our house needs maintenance or repainting, when and where we take our vacation etc.
So then they ask what the big decisions in the household are that are his responsibility: he says, it's the decision on our position vs. Trump, global warming, North Korea, Putin, China etc.
-
I have difficulty understanding why the system is not replaced by something better. In my country, with an election coming up next month, each citizen (thus legal) age of 18+ gets a single voter card (with hologram and all) sent home (yes one does need to have a known residence), and thus can cast 1 vote when handing over that card to the members of the voting station (and there are checklists at the allowed voting stations in one's town) who hand you the relevant ballot paper to fill in. Lots of checks and balances are involved, and also provisions for lost cards and travel situations.
Is it 100% secure, probably not, but pretty damn close. The group of people who do not go and vote is almost infinitely larger anyway, and could have a much larger influence on the outcome than an odd incident here or there, which then would probably get magnified anyway as if fraud would be rampant by (usually) the loser's side.
Bart, the only thing that is established in the US is the date of voting for Presidential election and the mid-term elections. The manner of voting (paper ballot, electronic registering device, mind reading) as well as what type of early voting if any are left up to the individual states and localities. This is why we had the disaster back in 2000 when poorly designed ballots in Southeastern Florida resulted in a lot of wrong votes or votes that were improperly registered as the paper punches used to mark the candidate were not fully punched through because the senior citizens who were voting didn't have enough hand strength. We used to have paper punch voting in my Maryland county and I can tell you that you had to give the punch lever a good push. The whole thing is crazy but this country hates the idea of national ID cards believing it is the first step towards authoritarian control (as if our current President isn't that first step). It could be linked to Social Security Numbers which are unique to each person.
-
Funny about ID cards; it's the same bit of nonsense in the UK, where opposition to the idea is huge. How strange, then, that at the same time there's so much concern about fraud, voter cheating etc. etc. Having lived with an ID card in Spain for decades, I quickly realised it's actually a very useful item to have. Why any sane person objects is beyond me: isn't it better to have an instantly reachable card in a crisis, an accident or whatever, linking you to the person that you say you are? It could save your life.
Strange, driving liceces are fine; a passport is wonderful, secret numbers and codes are expected for your various methods of banking; your credit card(s) carry your info, but hey! not a bloody ID card! How damned peculiar the mindset of some 'freedom fighters' amongst us...
I remember mentioning to somebody here that Brits didn't have ID cards; bemused, the person asked me: then how on Earth do you prove who you are? I shrugged, said they don't really care very much... only terrorists need to carry ID.
Rob
-
No, that is all someone has to do to register to vote.... Once the registrar approves the application, there is nothing I can do as an election officer to "catch" an illegal voter...
When you start your reply with a "No..." I assume you would disagree with what I was saying. You are actually confirming my point, except you are making a distinction which is best described as "same difference." :)
-
... So I guess you are saying that all the Secretaries of State (most of whom were republican) that affirmed there was no massive fraud in this past election are lying to us? the rest of you statements are just BS....
I could not care less if they are Republican or if they are lying or not. All I am saying is they simply couldn't know without a massive cross-checking of databases, which nobody has done so far. You'd think it would be an easy task (cross-checking) but you'd be surprised how many "easy" things are not done.
P.S. On a side note, you might have noticed that I've never labeled your statements as BS, no matter how much I disagree with them. Would be nice if you'd return the favor.
-
...Is there some documentation on the this incident that you can link to?...
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/27/2-investigators-chicago-voters-cast-ballots-from-beyond-the-grave/
Floyd Stevens. Records show he’s voted 11 times since his death in 1993....In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.
-
When you start your reply with a "No..." I assume you would disagree with what I was saying. You are actually confirming my point, except you are making a distinction which is best described as "same difference." :)
Why do you keep overlooking the obvious which is what Otto was saying and he was in fact not confirming your point. The point is that it is the state's fault for having poor registration requirements or not doing due diligence so that non-citizens cannot vote. The data is all out there and states have the access to it so that the voter rolls are proper. Of course this could all be dealt with rather easily if the US had a national ID card as Rob described in a previous post. Of course so many of the conservatives see this as another step towards government control of our lives (as if govt already did not control much of our lives anyway).
BTW, for the fourth time you still have not answered my question.
-
Slobodan, do you think President Trump is an honest person? I would like a serious answer and not a quip.
Ok, can't use a quip. Can I use a joke?
Job interview:
Interviewer: "Can you tell me what you consider your weakness to be?"
Candidate" "Honesty"
Interviewer: "I wouldn't think honesty is a weakness"
Candidate: "I do not give a sh*t what you think"
End of story: this time the candidate got the job. The job of the President of the U.S.A.
So, if you are asking me if Trump is honest, I'd say yes, he is. In the above sense, of course. If you have in mind some other definition of honesty, let me know, and I will try to answer that too.
-
P.S. On a side note, you might have noticed that I've never labeled your statements as BS, no matter how much I disagree with them. Would be nice if you'd return the favor.
If you are wrong you will be called out on it. I don't use the term BS which you seem so enamored of, I just say you are wrong when the facts are out there. I would return the favor if you had the courtesy to answer the question I posed several pages back in a very nice manner.
-
... The point is that it is the state's fault for having poor registration requirements or not doing due diligence so that non-citizens cannot vote...
Seriously, do I or anybody else really care if it is a state fault or federal fault or the Pope's fault or someone's mother-in-law's fault??? The end result is the same: illegal vote.
-
Ok, can't use a quip. Can I use a joke?
Job interview:
Interviewer: "Can you tell me what you consider your weakness to be?"
Candidate" "Honesty"
Interviewer: "I wouldn't think honesty is a weakness"
Candidate: "I do not give a sh*t what you think"
End of story: this time the candidate got the job. The job of the President of the U.S.A.
So, if you are asking me if Trump is honest, I'd say yes, he is. In the above sense, of course. If you have in mind some other definition of honesty, let me know, and I will try to answer that too.
You know what honesty is and just don't want to confront it. That's fine with me as you are entitled to any definition of honesty as you want. I'll stick with the dictionary definition, "honor, integrity, probity mean uprightness of character or action. honesty implies a refusal to lie, steal, or deceive in any way." I'll let others deal with your quips and snarky responses as they seem to be more patient or forgiving than I am. Adios amigo.
-
...I don't use the term BS...
I just quoted you using it!?
...the rest of you statements are just BS...
-
... I'll stick with the dictionary definition, "honor, integrity, probity mean uprightness of character or action. honesty implies a refusal to lie, steal, or deceive in any way." ...
Ok, thanks. I just needed your definition of honesty. If the above, then no, I do not consider Trump an honest man. Nor I like the guy. I do not idolize him. I think he is a playboy billionaire jerk.
-
Hey, did ANYONE notice that the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, met with President Trump today for the first time face-to-face? Probably not. ::) The meeting seemed to be well scripted and went according to plan. Trump soft-pedaled the NAFTA renegotiation, calling it a "tweak" that will benefit both economies (but not Mexico, of course).
In an interesting side event, Trump and Trudeau met with a roundtable of women business leaders (including Ivanka) and announced the creation of a Canada-US Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. Apparently the idea came from Trudeau's "wicked smart" Chief of Staff, Katie Telford. One Canadian journalist quipped that if someone had bet him a million dollars a year ago that Katie Telford would ever sit at the same table with DJT, that he would have borrowed the money to bet against it. He was genuinely surprised.
For Trump it could be good press, although I'm sure it will be called hypocricy by some. For Trudeau, it was probably good press, and a "natural" move. Trudeau formed Canada’s first gender-balanced cabinet in 2015, and has kept that gender parity during cabinet reshuffles (currently 15 women and 14 men). When asked why he chose to do this, he said simply, “Because it’s 2015”. He has said that he wants his cabinet to reflective of society, and he has followed through to a large degree.
Our Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is Jody Wilson-Raybould, a former crown prosecutor and First Nations Chief (We Wai Kai Nation).
Our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, is a former journalist (including a post in Moscow). She is of Ukrainian heritage, speaks 5 languages, and has been banned from entering Russia for her criticism of the Putin regime (sorry Donald). She negotiated CETA (Canadian-European Union Trade Agreement) in her former cabinet post as trade minister.
Our Minister of National Defense, Harjit Singh Sajjan, was the first Canadian-Sikh to command a Canadian military regiment. A highly-decorated lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces (3 tours in Afghanistan and 1 in Bosnia), he is credited for changing the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan.
Our Minister of Science, Kirsty Duncan, is a former medical geographer (studies the effects of locale and climate on health - who knew?). She served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
We have a Minister of Environment and Climate Change! Catharine McKenna is a former international trade lawyer and legal advisor to the negotiator of a U.N. peacekeeping mission. With the climate change portfolio, her peacekeeping experience may prove to be useful.
We have a Minister of Status of Women: Maryam Monsef’s family fled the Taliban and emigrated to Canada.
The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Ahmed Hussen, came to Canada as a refugee from Somalia at the age of 16.
The Minister of Health, Jane Philpott, is a former family doctor, chief of a hospital’s department of family medicine, and associate professor of family and community medicine. She worked in Niger for Doctors Without Borders.
Our Minister of Veterans Affairs, Kent Hehr, is a former lawyer and a quadriplegic as a result of being struck in a drive-by shooting at the age of 21.
Carla Qualtrough, a former lawyer, Paralympic medalist, and president of the Canadian Paralympic Committee, is our Minister of Sports and Persons with Disabilities.
In case you still think Canadians aren't forward-thinking enough, our Minister of Transport is Marc Garneau, a former astronaut, navy commander, and President of the Canadian Space Agency. ;D
Anyway, back to the real news.
-
I suggest you investigate the situation of the citizens of Norway, a socialist nation with one the highest standards of living in the world and best part of a trillion dollars in cash in the bank. (as opposed to the debt status of nearly all capitalist nations)
Norway is a wonderful and lucky country. It's easy for socialism to work in a country like it, because of its oil reserves and production, is the richest per capita country in the world. It has more oil per capita than any other country except in the Middle East. Also, Norway has 5 million people compared to the US which has 330 million of which 4.6 million are Norwegian, almost as many as Norway. NYC alone has more than 3.5 million people than the entire population of Norway. Anyway, its not like the US has no socialism. We have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food subsidies, Obamacare, etc. representing costs into the trillions of dollars. The problem with socialism is that eventually the money runs out. The US owes US$20 trillion in debt and is adding to that at a rate of US$500 billion a year. These are untenable amounts. Maybe Norway can give us some of their oil.
-
One more post for the nite...this time a letter to America from The Boss, Bruce Springsteen.
A Letter of Apology From Bruce Springsteen for Letting Trump Win (http://observer.com/2017/02/an-apology-from-bruce-springsteen-for-letting-trump-win/)
He starts:
My name is Bruce Springsteen, and one day soon, when the windows of your mosques are smashed and the synagogues lie in ashes, when the skies are gray with dust and the sea has risen to wash away the roads, when the stars and stripes of our flag stand for discrimination and fear, I will wonder, could I have made a difference?
I have had to look at myself in the mirror. More importantly, I have had to look at my children, and consider, uncomfortably, the world they will inherit. And I wonder.
...
... Daddy, will we have the ability to look the rich in the eye and say, ‘You may have more than us, but you do not have more rights than us.’
Give me a break. He's in denial. He IS one of the rich.
-
So a more interesting discussion might be how to replace what is a potentially broken system, with something better. Of course, it would help to know how large that need actually is (which is why Trumps claim won't be objectively investigated, not in his interest), besides the fact that improvements are always useful.
I have difficulty understanding why the system is not replaced by something better. In my country, with an election coming up next month, each citizen (thus legal) age of 18+ gets a single voter card (with hologram and all) sent home (yes one does need to have a known residence), and thus can cast 1 vote when handing over that card to the members of the voting station (and there are checklists at the allowed voting stations in one's town) who hand you the relevant ballot paper to fill in. Lots of checks and balances are involved, and also provisions for lost cards and travel situations.
Is it 100% secure, probably not, but pretty damn close. The group of people who do not go and vote is almost infinitely larger anyway, and could have a much larger influence on the outcome than an odd incident here or there, which then would probably get magnified anyway as if fraud would be rampant by (usually) the loser's side.
But, back to the topic, we'll have to wait and see if Trump feels the need to proof this, yet another, unbelievable claim. I'm not holding my breath. His tax returns would be much more important for democracy, to establish his vulnerability to foreign influence (like China). There must be a reason he's not sharing, unlike those who preceded him.
Cheers,
Bart
Your country and Europe in general is smart. They require a photo ID card of some kind to prove who you are. Makes a lot of common sense. In the US, every time a Republican proposes photo ID's for voting, it's the Democrats who oppose saying this is some racist plot by Republicans to deny votes to Black Americans. Of course what Democrats won't admit is that after many poor Americans and illegal residents are registered, they make arrangements for voting for them, Democrat of course. The whole identification process is a joke. This is part of the voting frauds that go one that are hidden and hard to identify. The Secretary of States who are responsible for checking are usually Democrats in those states where the fraud is going on like California. So they don't check anything. This is the stuff the Trump is talking about.
-
Your country and Europe in general is smart. They require a photo ID card of some kind to prove who you are. Makes a lot of common sense. In the US, every time a Republican proposes photo ID's for voting, it's the Democrats who oppose saying this is some racist plot by Republicans to deny votes to Black Americans. Of course what Democrats won't admit is that after many poor Americans and illegal residents are registered, they make arrangements for voting for them, Democrat of course. The whole identification process is a joke. This is part of the voting frauds that go one that are hidden and hard to identify. The Secretary of States who are responsible for checking are usually Democrats in those states where the fraud is going on like California. So they don't check anything. This is the stuff the Trump is talking about.
Well Trump has been challenged many times to come up with evidence of voter fraud, and he hasn't come through. I suggest you send him the results of your own detailed investigation and get the process started.
-
This is the stuff the Trump is talking about.
I guess you missed the part of my previous post:
So, here's the problem with that...the claims have been made by a wing nut crackpot who claims to have created an iPhone/Android app called VoteStand (http://www.votestand.com) that has PROOF that over 3 million fraudulent votes were cast on Nov 8. Problem is, it's all a shame as talked about in this article: VoteStand: Donald Trump relies on unknown app to back up claims of voter fraud (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/votestand-donald-trump-voter-fraud-claim-unknown-app-conspiracy-us-president-election-hillary-a7549791.html). From the article:
""Look forward to seeing final results of VoteStand," Mr Trump tweeted, apparently in reference to seeing final data from the app. "Gregg Phillips and crew say at least 3,000,000 votes were illegal. We must do better!"
THAT'S where the 3 million voters crap came from...that's the source of the massive voter fraud. Trump's claim is based on a total crackpot!
Clearly the US can and should do better with the process of registering legitimate voters..while written in 2012, this article discusses some of the weakness of our registration system. WHY ARE 51 MILLION ELIGIBLE AMERICANS NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE? (http://www.demos.org/publication/why-are-51-million-eligible-americans-not-registered-vote). From the article:
Who isn't Registered?
Today, approximately 51 million eligible Americans are still not registered to vote. This represents almost one in four eligible persons, disproportionately low-income voters, people of color, and younger Americans. Among eligible voters, some 30 percent of African Americans, 40 percent of Hispanics, 45 percent of Asian Americans, and 41 percent of young adults (age 18-24), were not registered to vote in the historic 2008 election.
In the 2008 elections, the voting rate for all eligible persons of voting age was only 64 percent, while the voting rate for people who were registered to vote was 90 percent – showing that registration is key to turnout.
In many states, pre-election registration deadlines of 25-30 days prior to the election have not been updated for decades; such deadlines may have been adopted long before the age of the Internet or computers, and no longer make sense in today’s world.
In the 2008 election, 2 to 3 million registered voters were prevented from voting because of various administrative problems, and 9 million eligible Americans were not registered because of residency rules or registration deadlines.
The number of people barred from voting in 2008 because of such problems exceeded the popular vote margin of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
BTW, the Pew Report that Spicer and Trump referenced as proof of fraud only talked about isn't about fraud: "Spicer responded. "There's one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed 14 percent of people who voted were noncitizens. There's other studies that have been presented to him. It's a belief he maintains."
But the Pew Report titled Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade (http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf). It makes no mention of voter fraud, just voter role problems.
So, no, Trump is delusional when it comes to the popular vote because, well, he's a malignant narcissism who refuses to accept the reality of the fact he won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote. We simply can't let it go...even though there's a lot more important stuff for him to spend his time on.
(edit to fix typo)
-
Your country and Europe in general is smart. They require a photo ID card of some kind to prove who you are. Makes a lot of common sense.
Here in Finland (and Northern Europe in general) things go smoothly: All people living in the country are in a social security database with birth date, address, parents' names, kids' names and social security number of course etc. So, when elections come up everybody gets an information leaflet in the mail telling that elections are coming up and where the polling station (schools usually) for that particular area is located, and the instructions about absentee balloting if one wants to do that instead. Nobody needs to register for anything, it is enough that you have turned 18 before the Election Day, it is all automatic.
At the polling station you must prove your identity with either 1) official identity card (good for travel between EU countries also) 2) driver's license, or 3) passport, or 4) the people manning the polling station know you, as they are volunteers from the same neighbourhood anyway.
Possessing an official photo ID is NOT required by law, by the way, but it certainly comes in handy many times, as there are many things you can not do without one (banking, travel, voting etc). Systems in US like voter registration every time, manual census every 10 years, or UK proving identity with gas bills and such are truly idiotic in our view, as you might understand.
What comes to mr Trump, it certainly has made following the news entertaining (check CNN and NYT every morning), but it really is curious to me why you Americans elected a draft evader, tax evader, pathological lier and man with clearly a mental disorder as your president?
-
Here is another, quite comprehensive, academic source on the subject:
https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/eip-blogs/2016/12/22/was-there-fraud-in-us-elections (https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/eip-blogs/2016/12/22/was-there-fraud-in-us-elections)
Post 2008 states that happily embraced the western plutonomy style of government, with the US perhaps leading the pack, show clear signs of demise, hence urgent requirement for deep structured reforms, instead more of the the same old same old politics.
I think failure to reform our democratic structures in a timely fashion is no option. However, I see very little efforts, not enough in Europe, not enough in the US. What I see however is an ever increasing will to spend on and display further militarisation, and that is leading down the road to destruction only.
Constitutional reforms are needed to a) Have the finance system work for the people, not the other way around b) inject more direct democracy swiss style into the entire system, would be my suggestion, c) acknowledge climate change and enshrine actions that cover coming generations, and the list goes on and on...
Without deep reforms, I do find the possible outcome of the current "spiral" pretty predictable. I am also convinced that certain people who dwadle in the Halls of power now have a vested interest in more devastating and far reaching war theaters.... The rest is up to imagination.
Sadly, I can not ask my parents or grandparents anymore, how they felt when fascism spread through the entire world. I imagine, it felt similar to what I perceive these days.
Best
G
-
An investigation would show if there's voter fraud and how bad it is if it does exist.
-
In my country, with an election coming up next month..
Hi Bart :) long time no see. Hope all is going well for you!
Yes, the far-right Wilders partij voor de vrijheid (What a joke that name really is!) turned into a threat for progressive thinking people and society at large, to put it mildly.
Hopefully dutch progressive voters will come out and vote.
Best
G
-
It would be a benefit if voting came as a legal obligation.
However crazy the outcome, at least it would represent a true picture of a country's majority feelings at a specific moment.
It would stop this stuff about misrepresentation of the popular wish: if the populace speaks...
Rob C
-
Voting is compulsory in Australia, there are fines for not voting, you can make a 'donkey vote' as a protest vote. Preventing people from voting is an anathema here. The turnout in the Presidential elections and efforts to prevent citizens from voting must be truely embarrassing in the 'land of the free'.
Cheers,
-
This year, there was more talk about making the Monday after the Super Bowl a holiday than for making Election Day a holiday.
Indicates where our priorities are. ;)
-
In many states, pre-election registration deadlines of 25-30 days prior to the election have not been updated for decades; such deadlines may have been adopted long before the age of the Internet or computers, and no longer make sense in today’s world.
I would be interested in reading why you feel this no longer makes sense. To me it makes sense as the state needs time to verify the registration application, cross verify against other databases (we actually need more of this) and to publish the various voter registration rosters. It is not like US elections sneak up on people. ;D
What is necessary is for the citizenry to become more involved in the election process and be responsible for updating their own data. The state can only do so much.
But, I would be interested in reading your opinion on the statement you made.
-
I would be interested in reading why you feel this no longer makes sense. To me it makes sense as the state needs time to verify the registration application, cross verify against other databases (we actually need more of this) and to publish the various voter registration rosters. It is not like US elections sneak up on people. ;D
...
Not to forget that each state needs to know in advance roughly how many ballots to print and distribute to each region.
100 people registering to vote and only 50 voting isn't really a problem.
100 people registering to vote and 200 people turning out to vote is a problem.
-
Seriously, do I or anybody else really care if it is a state fault or federal fault or the Pope's fault or someone's mother-in-law's fault???
Yes, 'you and anybody else' should care, if you want to fix it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Your country and Europe in general is smart. They require a photo ID card of some kind to prove who you are. Makes a lot of common sense. In the US, every time a Republican proposes photo ID's for voting, it's the Democrats who oppose saying this is some racist plot by Republicans to deny votes to Black Americans. Of course what Democrats won't admit is that after many poor Americans and illegal residents are registered, they make arrangements for voting for them, Democrat of course. The whole identification process is a joke. This is part of the voting frauds that go one that are hidden and hard to identify. The Secretary of States who are responsible for checking are usually Democrats in those states where the fraud is going on like California. So they don't check anything. This is the stuff the Trump is talking about.
this post is way beyond ludicrous. Do you even know about the voter registration requirements in California and how they are checked before being approved? I suspect not. Regarding photo IDs, these have usually been proposed in states that have a long history of voter suppression and have been subject to the Voting Rights Act until it was gutted by the Supreme Court. Personally, I'm not opposed to such IDs but they have to be easy to obtain and FREE. Remember that there are a significant number of people who don't drive and cannot easily get to the motor vehicle administration in their area where such IDs would be issued. For someone who works long hours during the day, they might not be able to get there at all or perhaps face long lines on a weekend 'if' such places are open. We seen how restrictions on the number of polling places in minority districts has led to extra long lines and voter frustration. This even happens in suburban Virginia near Washington, DC. Voting is a right, it should be easy to do; in many areas of the country it is not.
-
I would be interested in reading why you feel this no longer makes sense. To me it makes sense as the state needs time to verify the registration application, cross verify against other databases (we actually need more of this) and to publish the various voter registration rosters. It is not like US elections sneak up on people. ;D
The problem is that registration is done at the state rather than the national level. The most common sense solution is to link voting registration to one's Social Security Number which almost everyone in the US has (you cannot open a bank account or get any type of Federal payment without one). It's fine with me to have a photo ID attached to this as long as it is easy to check. I know California requires a state driver's license, date of birth and last four digits of the SSN to register (my daughter did this in September when she moved to Oakland from Philadelphia). The system is computerized and cross checking for identity is simple.
-
New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/voter-fraud-new-hampshire-gop.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)has a good summary of the voting fraud issues focusing on New Hampshire. Of course some would disregard the story because the Times is a well known left wing paper, not to be trusted. Also, think about what it means for 3000 out of state voters going up to New Hampshire to vote means. Travel by bus would mean. Most of the commercial inter-city buses have a capacity of about 50. So you have 60 or so coming across the border. Now these are pretty big vehicles so it's doubtful you would see them pulling up to a polling place but where would they park so that nothing out of the ordinary was observed? Are these 50 people all going to a single polling place or multiple sites? There would be logistical issues to deal with. If all these people came by car, don't you think all these out of state license plates would be noticed?
-
I moved from Illinois to Indiana during the election period. Nobody asked me to return my IL voting card, so I could have voted twice easily.
-
...The most common sense solution is to link voting registration to one's Social Security Number which almost everyone in the US has...
Including illegal aliens.
-
Including illegal aliens.
If they have them they are counterfeit as you have to prove citizenship or current immigration status in order to get a Social Security card. Again, this is a fake issue as fraudulent SSNs are easily queried for against the national database.
-
Voting is compulsory in Australia, there are fines for not voting, you can make a 'donkey vote' as a protest vote. Preventing people from voting is an anathema here. The turnout in the Presidential elections and efforts to prevent citizens from voting must be truely embarrassing in the 'land of the free'.
Cheers,
Well, in my country the USA, not only do we have the right to vote, we have to freedom and right to not vote.
-
In Virginia, not only are voter ID cards free, you can actually get one the week after the election. You cast a non-ID provisional ballot on election day and you have a week to come in to the registrar's office with appropriate documentation. If everything checks out they will take your photograph, issue you a Photo Voter ID card and then accept and count the provisional ballot.
Virginia makes it as easy as possible and I think could serve as a model for other states. In Virginia, we even have a procedure for registering homeless people.
I think the best solution is for the individual states to continue handling voter registration but to have an inter-state database where data can be cross linked. This would apply only to federal elections. For strictly state and local elections, the states can continue having responsibility but should implement more voter verification steps.
There is no need nor desire for the federal government to become involved in voter registration unless the federal government intends on having all federal elections separated from state elections, which would be prohibitively expensive and confusing for the voters.
Sometimes it sounds like some people just want to replace existing systems instead of trying to fix existing systems. Often, it may be better to fix stuff than to replace it.
-
I moved from Illinois to Indiana during the election period. Nobody asked me to return my IL voting card, so I could have voted twice easily.
You're the guy Trump's been talking about and everyone is looking for. Hope they don't catch you.
-
New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/voter-fraud-new-hampshire-gop.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)has a good summary of the voting fraud issues focusing on New Hampshire. Of course some would disregard the story because the Times is a well known left wing paper, not to be trusted. Also, think about what it means for 3000 out of state voters going up to New Hampshire to vote means. Travel by bus would mean. Most of the commercial inter-city buses have a capacity of about 50. So you have 60 or so coming across the border. Now these are pretty big vehicles so it's doubtful you would see them pulling up to a polling place but where would they park so that nothing out of the ordinary was observed? Are these 50 people all going to a single polling place or multiple sites? There would be logistical issues to deal with. If all these people came by car, don't you think all these out of state license plates would be noticed?
Better to use dead people to vote. You save on gas and no one can see them.
-
Hi Bart :) long time no see. Hope all is going well for you!
Hi G.,
Still alive and kicking. Hope you're fine as well.
Hopefully dutch progressive voters will come out and vote.
I hope that a lot of people will vote, from all political persuasions. But even without a recently growing number of Russian attempts to infiltrate systems, I'm pretty sure that Wilders' party will get a lot of votes (possibly more than any other single party).
But the entire Dutch population (i.e. all legal inhabitants with Dutch nationality of age 18 or older) is by default allowed to elect one individual person from a list. These electable persons are associated with one of many groups/parties. Each of those groups has a political program they would like to achieve. The groups/parties that collected the most voted members then form a (usually majority) coalition that appoints a government (from those elected or professionals in specific fields).
There is usually not a single party that has an absolute majority, so coalitions have to be negotiated and various interests groups can thus have an influence on the government's agenda for the coming 4 years. They either compromise and participate, or they become an opposition party or a party that sometimes sides with the government on some issues and opposes on others in the legislative process.
One person one vote, the majority rules, but with support and influence of minorities.
It works reasonably well, without a need for separate registrations and potential fraud, or claims thereof.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You're the guy Trump's been talking about and everyone is looking for. Hope they don't catch you.
I said "I could have voted twice" not that I did :)
Not that it would matter, even if I did. No matter who I voted for, Hillary would win IL and Trump IN.
-
... fraudulent SSNs are easily queried for against the national database.
One would think so... in theory, at least.
In practice, however: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-social-security-paying-millions-to-dead-people/article/2576250#!
Officials overpaid Social Security recipients by billions thanks to a series of administrative and reporting errors, the watchdog found....ended the year with $18.5 billion in uncollected payments... That included $46.8 million that was paid to Social Security recipients who had already died...The inspector general's office said it was "concerned" that "noncitizens" are illegally obtaining and using Social Security numbers..recent audit work determined that over 6 million number holders age 112 or older had no death information.
So, there is that.
-
A summation of this thread. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U2zJOryHKQ)
-
One would think so... in theory, at least.
In practice, however: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-social-security-paying-millions-to-dead-people/article/2576250#!
So, there is that.
Thanks for posting a link to a throw away tabloid that is distributed at DC Metro stations. BTW, the link in the article sends one to a page that doesn't exist. I've looked through the OIG audit reports that deal with the death issue and it's more complicated than one would assume. SSA actually requires proof that someone died though maybe in the Trump era it can rely on alternate facts.
-
Well, in my country the USA, not only do we have the right to vote, we have to freedom and right to not vote.
Which, of course, is the same silly situation as in the UK: the right to be a citizen should include the requirement to play one's part in the nation's big decisions, not simply to bitch about them later, and blame everybody else who voted for voting the wrong way. You can imagine how I feel about the Brexit vote: I wasn't given the chance to air my opinion, despite being one of the people out in the fucking battle-zone-to-be.
Even more annoying: I watched Sky News' financial spot last night and they floated a graph indicating that today's pensioners are so much more wealthy than the younger people in their late twenties; it was claimed that the average pensioner earns about £24,000 a year. I just received a note from the Pensions agency telling me that from mid-April, my state pension will rise to £123.99 (note the generosity in the 0.99!) a week, which last time I wound up the calculator, made a yearly sum of £6447.48.
It would cost more to feed an Alsation (dog). The actual living shortfall means that whatever I happened to save during my working years is vanishing by leaps and bounds, the banks paying no interest beyond an insult. Was a time back in the 80s when interest was almost enough to keep a couple alive. And this one of the governments that keeps harping on about the joys of self-employment, one of the prinicipal reasons why pensioners I know in my situation are feeling the pain. In retrospect, far better to be Mr Joe Blogs and do the 9 to 5 and stop thinking. They will love you for it, even your income taxation is easier for them to collect. The truth is governments don't love small business; it consumes individual time and personal attention in some cases, all for not very much, and for access to fewer social services. No work for a couple of months? Tough shit: no unemployment benefits for you, you capitalist bloodsucker. But hey, thanks for keeping the unemloyment figures down, stupid lad!
Bah.
-
Thanks for posting a link to a throw away tabloid that is distributed at DC Metro stations...
Is that the best argument you can have? Ad hominem (or is it the 21st century equivalent: ad media?) - questioning the Inspector General report itself just because it was reported in a tabloid?
Fair enough. Just for you, I hope an unquestionable source, PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/death-stop-social-security-payments/
Social security numbers active for 6.5 million people aged 112... One Social Security number was used 613 different times. An additional 194 numbers were used at least 50 times each... People in the country illegally often use fake or stolen Social Security numbers...
-
Even more annoying: I watched Sky News' financial spot last night and they floated a graph indicating that today's pensioners are so much more wealthy than the younger people in their late twenties; it was claimed that the average pensioner earns about £24,000 a year. I just received a note from the Pensions agency telling me that from mid-April, my state pension will rise to £123.99 (note the generosity in the 0.99!) a week, which last time I wound up the calculator, made a yearly sum of £6447.48.
Is that your government pension similar to our Social Security?
The actual living shortfall means that whatever I happened to save during my working years is vanishing by leaps and bounds, the banks paying no interest beyond an insult. Was a time back in the 80s when interest was almost enough to keep a couple alive. And this one of the governments that keeps harping on about the joys of self-employment, one of the prinicipal reasons why pensioners I know in my situation are feeling the pain. In retrospect, far better to be Mr Joe Blogs and do the 9 to 5 and stop thinking. They will love you for it, even your income taxation is easier for them to collect. The truth is governments don't love small business; it consumes individual time and personal attention in some cases, all for not very much, and for access to fewer social services. No work for a couple of months? Tough shit: no unemployment benefits for you, you capitalist bloodsucker. But hey, thanks for keeping the unemloyment figures down, stupid lad!
Bah.
While I am sympathetic to those who have retired (I am one of them myself), there is no written law that says interest rates have to be X%. Yes, interest rates are low now and they certainly were much higher in the early 1980s. But remember that because of the massive hike in oil prices in the 1970s when OPEC was formed, economies all over were hit hard. Stagflation was huge in the US and the Volker, head of the US Fed (our central bank) raised interest rates big time. Of course those with bank deposits were happy but those buying houses were certainly not with the mortgage rate at about 14%! I remember my father-in-law buying our new born daughter a zero coupon bond that paid 14%/year and when it matured on her 18th birthday it was enough to pay for one full year at a private college. So it cuts both ways and one has to adapt to the changing times. Bank accounts are not going to give one a pleasant retirement any longer.
-
It is important to distinguish between nominal interest rates (that all seem to remember and compare) from real interest rates, i.e., nominal minus inflation. In other words, interest rates could have been in the double digits, but inflation was just as well. Both are low today.
But looks like Rob is right: in the eighties, the real rates were quite positive:
-
So, 18 days ago, President Trump was informed about Michael Flynn's talks with the Russian ambassador. Now, only after the media started reporting about it, Trump took action and suddenly fired Flynn. Why? Was it becoming too dangerous to deny involvement (with Russia)? What are the involvements?
I've said it before, the role of the media is becoming more important than ever before ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
That £24,000 would of course include a working lifetime of contributions to occupational pensions for those in employment and a working lifetime of contributions to personal pensions for the self employed.
Indeed, that has to be the only way of coming up with figures like that.
But there was always a glitch regarding the self-employed: one never really knew what the hell one would be able to afford in a year or two's time. Long-term commitments were very dodgy deals, and it wasn't always possible to get pension plans that allowed you to up or down your contributions to suit fluctuating income, though I believe those are quite prevalent today, when it's too late. The thing is, in photography you're hot when you're hot - and you're not when you're not. Guess I never forgot that.
My accontant kept trying to get me to buy my cars on hire purchase, but I only let him talk me into it twice; every other time I stayed with what I had until I could sign a cheque and buy the thing there and then. It was a good discipline, but I still think I bought too many cars I didn't really need, other than to spend what would otherwise end up as tax. I disliked debt, and still do. I never sit on invoices, and settle everything right away, credit cards included. It's just how I happen to be.
Shares. I know enough about them from family experiences. Not for widows, old people hoping to leave something for ther kids, nor anyone else not prepared to lose the goddam lot in one night. Capital gains steals so much, and in the end I think the only people really making it work for them are the brokers themselves and the very rich who have access to the advice that lets them move very quickly indeed.
So, yeah, there are no certainties.
-
So, 18 days ago, President Trump was informed about Michael Flynn's talks with the Russian ambassador. Now, only after the media started reporting about it, Trump took action and suddenly fired Flynn. Why? Was it becoming too dangerous to deny involvement (with Russia)? What are the involvements?
I've said it before, the role of the media is becoming more important than ever before ...
Cheers,
Bart
Did you see the WH spokesman addressing reporters today? It was comic. The guy was fired resigned not because he broke any law, but because of trust, telling a porkie, he said. Yeah, right, nobody in the clan knew what he was doing, right. Different reporters phrased the same question in different ways but the answer was ever the same recital. What a job. There must be something better to do with one's life than be an official apologist.
-
Did you see the WH spokesman addressing reporters today? It was comic. The guy was fired resigned not because he broke any law, but because of trust, telling a porkie, he said. Yeah, right, nobody in the clan knew what he was doing, right. Different reporters phrased the same question in different ways but the answer was ever the same recital. What a job. There must be something better to do with one's life than be an official apologist.
The one by Kellyanne Conway, his other spokesperson, on the morning news was worse if that can be believed. I'm now of the opinion that Trump will be out before the end of the year.
-
I've said it before, the role of the media is becoming more important than ever before ...
Yes, indeed.
The political system here in the States, which was designed in the 18th Century, may seem somewhat antiquated at times. But we're currently taking advantage of a number of its "quaint" attributes: near-absolute freedom of the press and free assembly (i.e., public demonstrations), judges at the federal level who are essentially appointed for life and a system of federal courts that is not dependent on other agencies of the government, a national legislature composed of representatives whose primary responsibility is to the states and local voting districts that elected them rather than to any national party, and a libertarian tradition (albeit often unacknowledged) of skepticism toward government authority. Plus some modern innovations, not least a professional federal bureaucracy which—although almost everybody here finds it infuriating at one time or another—is populated by employees whose primary allegiance is to the law rather than to their political masters, and which operates within a restrictive institutional regime that quite effectively discourages corruption.
-
Well, in my country the USA, not only do we have the right to vote, we have to freedom and right to not vote.
Less a freedom and more a free ride - not participating in the democracy and complaining about results later?
It's easy to turn up and drop in a vote that has nothing on it, if you really don't want to vote here. Active participation is important, and letting people have the "right" to just let it all slide by is not constructive to a democracy (or practical variations thereof).
-
Well, in my country the USA, not only do we have the right to vote, we have to freedom and right to not vote.
Yeah, ya know, I wouldn't be real proud of that.
I know in the old days, a lot of people didn't register to vote because they thought that would keep them from getting called for jury duty. In many locals, that's no longer the case. Jury duty lists have been randomly selected from a general jury list which combines the names of all registered voters, drivers license holders 18 years of age and older whose licenses have been issued within the past 6 years, holders of Illinois Identification Cards, and holders of Illinois Disabled Person Identification Cards.
Personally, I avoided voting by not registering for years after moving to Illinois but was moved to register and vote in 2008 because I could not stomach a ticket that included Sarah Palin being one headset from the presidency. I actually liked and still liked John McCain and would have voted for him had he chosen Joe Lieberman as his running mate but the neocons shut that down.
Naw, I just can't see how anybody could be proud of having the freedom to not vote...
-
An investigation would show if there's voter fraud and how bad it is if it does exist.
Uh huh...you know that Trump is simply trolling the nation, right? He's sending tweets claiming something that has been repeatedly debunked. He sends his surrogates out to out right lie and you somehow have fallen for the troll.
Sure, go right ahead, demand an investigation...and while we're add it let's add voter suppression to the mix. Naw, I thought not...the right don't liked to be accused of supporting voter suppression or redistricting or other political efforts of exerting influence and control of who votes. This article is kinda scary...Trump Threatens to Make the GOP the Party of Permanent Voter Suppression
(http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/trump-could-make-gop-a-party-of-permanent-voter-suppression.html).
"Whatever his motives, Trump’s persistence in alleging — without a shred of evidence so far — massive voter fraud even after the election is most unfortunate. It will reinforce the fatal temptation on the political right, extending from non-ideological partisan hacks to the most race-crazed of white nationalists, to declare permanent open season on voting rights. And once universal suffrage stops being a principle to which both major parties subscribe in theory if not always in practice, reestablishing it could become as difficult as it was in the darkest days of the southern struggle for civil rights."
So, continuing the call for investigation because clearly Trump lost the popular vote is ignorant and foolish.
Yes, let's all work together to improve the accuracy of voter registration. Yes, let's all work together to make voting easier and more accurate. Yes, let's all work together to have minority and disabled voters exercise their right to vote. Let's all work to make sure each and every US citizen gets registered and actually vote...let's do that rather than let Trump troll us into investigating a fantasy because it doesn't fit with his distorted world view.
-
But, I would be interested in reading your opinion on the statement you made.
That wasn't something I wrote, I was quoting the article I linked to: WHY ARE 51 MILLION ELIGIBLE AMERICANS NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE? (http://www.demos.org/publication/why-are-51-million-eligible-americans-not-registered-vote).
But I agree with the Pew Report: Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient–Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade (http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf)
From the report (and I'm quoting the report, this isn't something I'm writing although i agree with it).
Our democratic process requires an effective system for maintaining accurate voter registration information. Voter registration lists are used to assign precincts, send sample ballots, provide polling place information, identify and verify voters at polling places, and determine how resources, such as paper ballots and voting machines, are deployed on Election Day. However, these systems are plagued with errors and inefficiencies that waste taxpayer dollars, undermine voter confidence, and fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of our elections.
Voter registration in the United States largely reflects its 19th-century origins and has not kept pace with advancing technology and a mobile society. States’ systems must be brought into the 21st century to be more accurate, cost-effective, and efficient.
-
...something that has been repeatedly debunked....
Nope.
-
Nope.
Open your eyes and read some of the links I've posted. The Pew report says ZERO about voter fraud...
The wingnut, Gregg Phillips claimed 3+ million has repeated failed to show any data but hey Trump believes it so it must be true: Trump’s Voter Fraud Numbers Are Apparently From a Random Guy With an App (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/27/some_dude_with_an_app_gives_trump_his_voter_fraud_ideas.html).
3000 voters bussed from Massachusetts to New Hampshire (a state that just instituted voter ID requirements) to vote for Hillary is the difference in Trump loosing New Hampshire? Think that's true? Stop it. NH voter fraud claims are completely bogus. (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/02/13/explaining-trump-voter-fraud-claims/7Mkc6rcxUqwxEZwnzYxnTM/story.html)
In spite of all the unfounded claims, the House republicans saw fit to ignore fraud claims. The House Administration Committee voted to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an agency formed specifically to ensure the integrity of elections.
Despite Trump Voter Fraud Claims, House Committee Votes To Eliminate EAC, Agency In Charge Of Election Integrity (http://www.ibtimes.com/despite-trump-voter-fraud-claims-house-committee-votes-eliminate-eac-agency-charge-2488146).
I guess the GOP isn't too worried about wide-scale voter fraud...huh?
-
So, 18 days ago, President Trump was informed about Michael Flynn's talks with the Russian ambassador. Now, only after the media started reporting about it, Trump took action and suddenly fired Flynn. Why? Was it becoming too dangerous to deny involvement (with Russia)? What are the involvements?
....and now!.... Trump demands that Russia returns the Krim to Ukraine. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-ukraine-idUSKBN15T2IY (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-ukraine-idUSKBN15T2IY)
I think you do ask questions that would make sense under normal circumstances. Not so with Caligula Trump, as it is chaos and fascist ideology that reigns in DC.
I wonder, will we see the first 100 days of this "administration" without major military escalation? Honestly, I would not place a bet on it.
-
Interesting:
...Flynn should be one focus of the investigation, and that he should be called to testify before Congress.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share)
-
Did you see the WH spokesman addressing reporters today? It was comic. The guy was fired resigned not because he broke any law, but because of trust, telling a porkie, he said. Yeah, right, nobody in the clan knew what he was doing, right. Different reporters phrased the same question in different ways but the answer was ever the same recital. What a job. There must be something better to do with one's life than be an official apologist.
I truly can't imagine why anyone would want to be a White House Press Secretary. You are just a talking dog being told what to say, when to say it, and how to say it. The only opinions a press secretary has are those given to him/her by the president. I assume that the job pays millions of dollars per year. But I know that ain't true. Is the pay off the ability to write a book after you retire or are fired?
But then I also can't understand why anyone would want to be president these days, but at least as president you have the power to get things done. As a press secretary all you do is spin.
Perhaps press secretaries don't cast a reflection in the mirror so they don't have to actually face themselves every morning. ;D
-
This is typical of the mindless speculation that occurs when people who have no clue as to what is actually happening starts wild guesses. Spread this kind speculation around and you end up with a lot of people with really hairbrained ideas about what Trump is or isn't doing.
-
This is typical of the mindless speculation that occurs when people who have no clue as to what is actually happening starts wild guesses. Spread this kind speculation around and you end up with a lot of people with really hairbrained ideas about what Trump is or isn't doing.
I think they are commenting on what is on the TV or press. An entitlement to do so, otherwise they won't know who to vote for.
-
Well, today we had Mr T and the Israeli saga.
Wonder what the next episode will bring; isn't it fun trying to keep up with who might be the next best friend!
Rob C
-
This is typical of the mindless speculation that occurs when people who have no clue as to what is actually happening starts wild guesses. Spread this kind speculation around and you end up with a lot of people with really hairbrained ideas about what Trump is or isn't doing.
What are you talking about and to whom? What you wrote is, um, ambiguous (at best).
-
Then there's this...
ROBERT REICH: WHAT DID TRUMP KNOW OF THE RUSSIAN PLOT? (http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-what-did-trump-know-about-russian-plot-557156)
The American public deserves to know the answers to at least the first five of these questions, and will then make a judgment on the sixth:
1. Why didn’t President Donald Trump act sooner to fire National Security Adviser Michael Flynn ?
2. What, if anything, did Trump authorize Flynn to tell the Russians before the inauguration ?
3. What other contacts did Flynn and other Trump aides have with Russia before the election?
4. Did Flynn or other Trump aides know of or cooperate with Russia in interfering in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf?
5. If so, did Trump know about or encourage such cooperation?
Which leads inevitably to the last question:
6. If Trump knew or encouraged, will he be impeached?
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed-lg/public/2017/02/15/0215trumprussia-01.jpg)
A mural depicts Donald Trump blowing marijuana smoke into the mouth of Vladimir Putin on the wall of a restaurant in Vilnius, Lithuania on November 23. Robert Reich asks: What did Trump know about his campaign's constant contacts with Russian spies, and did he encourage the contacts?
SEAN GALLUP/GETTY
-
When everything else fails, blame Russia.
Lost the election. Tried the popular vote bitching and moaning. Didn't work. Tried a recount. Didn't work. Tried to flip electoral votes, ended up losing them more than winning.
Russia is the last hope.
-
When everything else fails, blame Russia.
Lost the election. Tried the popular vote bitching and moaning. Didn't work. Tried a recount. Didn't work. Tried to flip electoral votes, ended up losing them more than winning.
Russia is the last hope.
Russia is a convenient scapegoat but have you listened to any of his press conferences recently? For some reason they come on when I'm in the car and I listen out of fascination. He got a rather involved question today from an Israeli journalist and started right off telling the reporter what a wonderful victory he had in the Electoral College and how he proved all the pundits wrong. Hey, I got over the election results the day after I voted but I guess our President needs to keep repeating it. Perhaps he is insecure. I also liked his response last week at the joint PC with Prime Minister Abe when he started riffing on health care and how Obamacare is just terrible for the economy (funny that the stock market under Obama was not reflective of this at all) and that his plan would provide better and cheaper coverage (this I cannot wait to see!!!). As an American I want our President to succeed but I'm increasingly thinking this guy is like Lt. Commander Queeg, sitting there rattling his marbles.
-
... He got a rather involved question today from an Israeli journalist and started right off telling the reporter what a wonderful victory he had in the Electoral College and how he proved all the pundits wrong. Hey, I got over the election results the day after I voted but I guess our President needs to keep repeating it...
Yes, that is indeed regrettable.
I have a feeling that the victory surprised him, as if he never actually expected to become a president. It reminds me of Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. The legend has it, if I remember it right, that he started a new religion as a bet with his drinking buddies. I have a nagging suspicion that Trump said one day "You wanna bet I can run for president and win?"
-
Russia is the last hope.
I'm ok impeaching him if he collided with his broman Putan. We'll see...
But yeah, he shouldn't be president and he's actually behaving like he doesn't want to be. Pretty sure he didn't think he would be. Pretty sure the world didn't think he would be, or wanted him except apparently Russia.
-
Well, this is funny (unless you are a hardcore Trump loyalist)
Watch How the Real Sean Spicer Compares to Saturday Night Live's Parody (http://time.com/4669781/saturday-night-live-sean-spicer-melissa-mccarthy-supercut/)
Melissa McCarthy has him down pat :~)
-
Yes, that is indeed regrettable.
I have a feeling that the victory surprised him, as if he never actually expected to become a president. It reminds me of Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. The legend has it, if I remember it right, that he started a new religion as a bet with his drinking buddies. I have a nagging suspicion that Trump said one day "You wanna bet I can run for president and win?"
I have a couple of good Republican friends (I don't discriminate ;D) who were close to the campaign and they said that the election night returns stunned him. He fully expected to lose as they thought that they had lost Florida as well as the three rust belt states that they won.
FWIW (and coming from a lifelong Dem and one who is very active in the party) I saw this coming in late 2015. It was almost as if it was a coronation of Queen Hillary and she never recovered from what happened when Sanders contested the primaries. She was never my candidate, really wanted Amy Kloubachar to run but Clinton preempted anyone else who would have won.
-
Russia isn't the last hope - it was raised during the campaign but the media failed to push the issue. Russia is only the "last" in so much as it's the last of the many major stumbles so far. Lost a top advisor (and Trump is complaining that he would have weathered it if not for someone leaking the facts...yeah, that's exactly the standard you want to set for your national security advisor), despite a Congress and Senate majority, couldn't get confirmation on DoL Secretary, has a press secretary who, I kid you not, states on his Twitter profile "horrible speller". Really? When your job is the communicate? I know he probably intends it as a joke, but it's hardly confidence inspiring. Multiple misnaming of foreign leaders, including in official press releases, no apologies when he gets the name wrong.
No, not the last, unfortunately.
-
Russia is the last hope.
Don't think so, I think Trump is perfectly capable of self destruction without Russia's help ::)
-
Lost a top advisor (and Trump is complaining that he would have weathered it if not for someone leaking the facts...yeah, that's exactly the standard you want to set for your national security advisor), despite a Congress and Senate majority, couldn't get confirmation on DoL Secretary, has a press secretary who, I kid you not, states on his Twitter profile "horrible speller". Really? When your job is the communicate? I know he probably intends it as a joke, but it's hardly confidence inspiring. Multiple misnaming of foreign leaders, including in official press releases, no apologies when he gets the name wrong.
Yup: it's definitely unpresidented (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/19/unpresidented-trump-word-definition).
-
...man with clearly a mental disorder as your president?
Ahmm... about that, from the horse's mouth:
Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.
The source should be respectable, I hope, at least for some: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/an-eminent-psychiatrist-demurs-on-trumps-mental-state.html
-
Ahmm... about that, from the horse's mouth:
Yep...in the opinion piece (not NYT reporting) the author says:
"Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.
His psychological motivations are too obvious to be interesting, and analyzing them will not halt his headlong power grab. The antidote to a dystopic Trumpean dark age is political, not psychological."
Well, that's not a ringing endorsement of our President huh?
Did you hear about today's press conference? He thinks his electoral vote was the widest margin since Reagan (Clinton, Bush and Obama beat that total) and the the Travel Ban release was very smooth and the courts are wrong (the 9th circuit has lots of problems). He claims there's no chaos in the White House and everything is running like a ‘fine-tuned machine’. Huh?
Let's see, Flynn is fired, the Labor Secretary nominee Andrew Puzder withdraws and the guy Trump asked to be national security adviser Robert S. Harward, the retired vice admiral and former Navy SEAL, on Thursday turned down the post. The Travel ban is squashed in court–twice and he is at war with both the mainstream media/fake news (except Fox News) and the Deep State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_within_a_state). And Russia is just a ruse...
He's sounds like the captain of the RMS Titanic ordering the band to keep playing to try to avoid panic...how did that work out? (truth be told he did help the crew to save 705 survivors–)
Yeah, maybe he's not insane but even this shrink thinks he a danger...dystopic Trumpean dark age
-
Folks outside of the US might not have seen this press conference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00d5zUFeeEk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00d5zUFeeEk)
It is worth watching in deed. Michael Moore commented on twitter:Never have I been unable 2 fall asleep simply because of watching a press conference. That was the most disturbing thing I've ever seen onTV
I think, what's the difference between Caligula Trump and Sultan Erdogan? Approx 5,217 miles DC-> Istanbul, the rest is marginal, at best.
-
Makes me wonder... does he prepare the 63 million Trumpets for a change of the 1st amendment?
-
Oh, we've all seen it - I was just surprised that it was on the News and not the Comedy Channel.
-
Ahmm... about that, from the horse's mouth:
Well, one of the horses anyway.
The source should be respectable, I hope, at least for some: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/an-eminent-psychiatrist-demurs-on-trumps-mental-state.html
The problem with that is that the diagnosis of mental illnesses is not an exact science. In fact, the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Illnesses is periodically rewritten, and indeed Allen Frances played a prominent role in earlier versions but he started opposing the now current DSM-5 since 2010 with a blog. According to Wikipedia, "He spoke out against the overuse of psychiatric medications—particularly in children; a general trend towards global diagnostic inflation—pathologizing normality; the intrusion of the pharmaceutical industry into psychiatric practice; and a premature attempt to move psychiatry to an exclusively biological paradigm without scientific justification".
So, while he may have good reasons to do so, we must also see his latest statements a bit in in that light. A number of his colleagues as we have read earlier, although they (correctly) won't call it a diagnosis, do point out that his public behavior does match the points on a checklist that would lead to the diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I'll leave it to the experts in the field to decide.
At any rate, it seems highly problematic to have a person with his personality running the ship. He (or rather his advisor Bannon) seems destined to disrupt other parts of the world in order to come out on top himself. The situation in Israel, the situation in Turkey and Crimea (and potentially the Baltics), the situation in the Middle East and Africa, the return to hostility towards Iran, the breaking up of trade agreements, the discrimination on basis of Faith or origin, the contempt and marginalization of the Judiciary, his under-rating of security concerns by using insecure phones for communication, the internal struggle with the national security services, his undisclosed personal/business ties and dependencies with foreign powers, the contempt for science (and other more factual information), the dismissal of environmental concerns, the list goes on.
Cheers,
Bart
-
When everything else fails, blame Russia.
...
If there weren't connections and facts that support links to Russia then it wouldn't be possible to blame Russia.
As they say, where there's smoke, there's fire.
"Russia" has already claimed its first scalp.
-
If there weren't connections and facts that support links to Russia then it wouldn't be possible to blame Russia....
About that (from another reputable source, for some):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.6beb7c33ad9d
FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit
Then again, FBI has already been discredited as a reputable source, right? ;)
-
If there weren't connections and facts that support links to Russia then it wouldn't be possible to blame Russia.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/rasputin-hack-universities-government-agencies,news-54867.html
Cheers,
Bart
-
15-year olds from all over the world, Norway, USA, and, yes, Russia, have hacked NASA, Dept. of Defense, CIA Director, etc. Does anyone believe it happens only at Putin's request or with his permission?
-
https://www.facebook.com/jookosnews/videos/10154624242593277/
New Hampshire Poll workers explaining how to illegally vote in the state. This, of course, doesn't prove that it actually happened on a massive scale, just that it is easily possible.
-
https://www.facebook.com/jookosnews/videos/10154624242593277/
Yeah well, are you honestly saying you follow Jookos News? Seriously?
Here's a run down of some of their recent news items:
LYING LIBERAL MEDIA / BUSINESSES / POLITICIANS: YOU ARE ON NOTICE. This is your One and Only Warning. Change. Or Else! (http://www.jookos.com/2017/02/17/warning-liberals/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jookosnewsfeed+%28Jookos+News%29)
Former CIA Operative, Evan McMullin calls Trump an “Enemy of the State,” NSA Analyst Vows to ‘Go Nuclear” says Trump “Will die In Jail” (http://www.jookos.com/2017/02/16/former-cia-operative-evan-mcmullin-calls-trump-enemy-state-nsa-analyst-vows-go-nuclear-says-trump-will-die-jail/)
FED UP! Driver Plows through a Group of Los Angeles Pipeline Protesters Attempting to Hold them Hostage by Blocking Traffic (http://www.jookos.com/2017/02/15/fed-driver-plows-group-los-angeles-pipeline-protesters-attempting-hold-hostage-blocking-traffic/)
Has the Obama Admin ALREADY Committed Acts of Treason? Evidence Says Yes, MULTIPLE TIMES! (http://www.jookos.com/2017/02/14/obama-admin-already-committed-acts-treason-evidence-says-yes-multiple-times/)
Starbucks Stocks STILL Plummeting after CEO Vows the Hire 10,000 Migrants & Illegals while Bashing Customers for Causing ‘Congestion’ (http://www.jookos.com/2017/02/10/starbucks-stocks-still-plummeting-after-ceo-vows-the-hire-10000-migrants-illegals-while-bashing-customers-for-causing-congestion/)
But wait, you reference a jookos new article about Project Veritas Action (http://www.projectveritasaction.com). Oh, ok...so James O'Keefe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe) must be a reliable source, right? Well...from the wiki page:
"James Edward O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some of which he then edits in order to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say, with figures and workers in academic, governmental and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. He gained national attention for his video recordings of workers at ACORN offices in 2009, his arrest and guilty plea in 2010 for entering the federal office of then-U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) under false pretenses, and the release of videos of conversations with two high-ranking, now former, NPR executives in 2011"
So, this is the source of news and information that is the basis of your world view? This is your echo chamber?
-
Yeah well, are you honestly saying you follow Jookos News? Seriously?...
Here we go again. A media version of ad hominem, i.e., attack the source, not the news.
It is a video, Jeff.
Doesn't really matter who recorded it and who published it. See it with your own eyes. Besides, the veracity of the statements in the video is confirmed by the very article you quoted (as a reliable source) about New Hampshire voter fraud (i.e., that you can vote there just by claiming you intend to stay there).
Which reminds me of an old joke, about husband who walks into the bedroom and finds his wife in bed with another man:
- "OMG, you are cheating on me!"
- "No, I am not"
- "What do you mean, I can see it with my own eyes?"
- "Who do you trust more, your eyes or your beloved wife?"
P.S. I do not follow Jookos News. Never heard of them, actually. These things appear in my Facebook feed. Contrary to many here and on FB, I do not un-friend people with different political views, who are otherwise on my friends list. In reality, my FB feed is typically inundated with posts from my liberal friends.
-
P.S. I do not follow Jookos News. Never heard of them, actually. These things appear in my Facebook feed.
Another great reason never to sign up for Facebook! ;) It's surprising to me how many people rely on various Facebook feeds for their news and for a lot of them (both left and right) it's just more confirmation bias.
-
Another great reason never to sign up for Facebook! ;) It's surprising to me how many people rely on various Facebook feeds for their news and for a lot of them (both left and right) it's just more confirmation bias.
Well said!
-
These things appear in my Facebook feed.
Which is part of the problem of where people get their news and info.
JookosNews (http://www.jookos.com) is the epitome of "fake news". "LYING LIBERAL MEDIA / BUSINESSES / POLITICIANS: YOU ARE ON NOTICE. This is your One and Only Warning. Change. Or Else!" Really? a news source that threatens the liberal media, businesses and politicians? Who is the liberal media? It seems everybody other than Fox News and Breitbart are the liberal lying media...
Doesn't really matter who recorded it and who published it. See it with your own eyes.
As for the video...so here's the problem with that..James O'Keefe and Project Veritas produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some of which he then edits in order to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say. The video, due to the lack of credibility of the producers, is bunk. I don't believe anything that James O'Keefe and Project Veritas produces...he has zero credibility and is also emblematic of the problem of "fake news".
If people accept, at face value, the crackpot ravings of lunatics and alt-right radicals then our society is bound to come apart. The Trump reality and the realities of those who rabidly support him are so far from mainstream society that it's impossible to have a real debate and discussion. When we can't even agree on basic facts, there is nothing we'll ever be able to agree on. That's why we can't let the 27% dictate to the rest of society...
-
The very people who accuse Trump of being unhinged are acting unhinged themselves accusing him of being mentally insane, crazy, the devil incarnate, etc. Calm down. He's already dropped so many of his hyperbolic campaign promises.
1. Japan should get nuclear weapons. Now, he reiterated our old policy where we defend Japan under the security arrangement we had before.
2. All illegals must leave. Now it's only those that have committed felonies, the same policy Obama followed. He said that his heart won't allow him to deport those that have been here with their families. So there's going to be some immigration legislation that's going to allow most illegals to stay.
3. "What do we need NATO for? The Soviet Union does not exist anymore" Now, he's reiterated his support for NATO although his still wants the other countries to pay their fair share that they agreed too, something every new administration has been saying for years.
4. A two China policy is a good thing. Now he's dropped that although I think he should have gotten something from Red China for that.
5. He's agreed to work with Britain in the Brexit issues.
6. He wanted to block all Muslims. Now, after the lousy rollout of his first executive order, he wants to block new visas in certain dangerous countries until we can develop new vetting procedures, a reasonable approach.
7. He wanted to get rid of Obamacare. Now he just wants to replace it with something better not go back to no universal health care. Basically he's just improving it. Obama will be very satisfied once it's done.
8. He was going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. Well, we'll see what he actually does. Maybe some additional fencing here and there.
9. He's going to apply import duties on foreign goods and taxes for those who move offshore. That's not going to happen even he really thinks it's a good idea which I'm not sure of. I doubt if the Republican congress will go along except maybe a little bit.
10. He's going to reduce business and individual taxes. That will happen but maybe not so much because conservative Republicans are too concerned about debt.
11. He's thrown the Israel/Palestinian settlement back to them letting them figure out what they want to do. Actually this will put pressure on the Palestinians because they may see the two-state solution disappearing. Actually there's not much America can do either way anyway as nothing much has happened in 60 years. So his policy is really beside the point which is reflected in the position he took.
My point is you may not agree with all his policies but none of them are really that far out of what we have been doing for decades. So relax. Don't be bitter. You'll get a heart attack.
-
The very people who accuse Trump of being unhinged are acting unhinged themselves accusing him of being mentally insane, crazy, the devil incarnate, etc. Calm down.
So, did you actually listen to the entire Trump press conference?
President Trump's full press conference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00d5zUFeeEk)
Fine-tuned machine?
SNAFU comes to mind.
Bitter? I'm not bitter, I'm really worried. The US government is in chaos...and Trump is enjoying himself. Off to MAR-A-LAGO (http://www.maralagoclub.com) again to hold a campaign event in airplane hangar in Melbourne, Florida. Wow...Trump to Celebrate Rough Week With Florida Rally on Saturday (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trump-to-celebrate-rough-week-with-florida-rally-on-saturday.html).
So, rather than actually governing, he's running for president again after less than 1 month in office? Does he crave the adulation of the crowds so much? Of course he does...actually sitting in the Oval Office and working doesn't seem to be what Trump thinks a president is supposed to do.
-
...it's just more confirmation bias.
Interesting, I've not really studied confirmation bias. This article in psychologytoday.com (https://www.psychologytoday.com) is interesting: What Is Confirmation Bias? Wishful Thinking (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias)
From the article: "Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true."
So, in the echo chamber of being feed news and info that is designed to fit into your existing beliefs, you can be influenced to accept things that objectively aren't true...
I've found (but not yet read) Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg wrote a 6,000-word letter addressing fake news and saving the world (http://www.recode.net/2017/2/16/14632726/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-manifesto-fake-news-terrorism). Here's a link direct to the letter: Building Global Community (http://www.recode.net/2017/2/16/14640460/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-manifesto-letter).
Somehow we need to live in a shared universe where our realities at least contain some level of agreed upon facts.
-
The US government is not in chaos. He's been president less than a month. He's still getting his cabinet approved. Did you figure out that new camera's menu right away? He's a fast learner.
He's using tweets and rallies as his bully pulpit. Also this last news conference. All Presidents use some form of bully pulpit. Some had fireside chats. Others made speeches on TV. He's not much of an inspiring speaker like Obama because he doesn't have the smoothness of a politician. (Hillary was pretty bad too but she was very good t speaking out of both sides of her mouth.) He's a plain talker who connects with his supporters. He's actually dropped a lot of the vitriol and cursing since being sworn in. But he is from New York and grew up in the construction trade. He uses the methods that work for him. He does love himself. But so did Obama. Did you ever see how he would strut around with that glare of superiority? Let's face it. So have to be a narcissist to become President. But he's not unhinged or nuts.
-
But he's not unhinged or nuts.
Did you see the entire news conference?
-
The US government is not in chaos.
Hum...Trump's team in disarray, U.S. Senator McCain tells Europe (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-usa-idUSKBN15W1J2).
So, fake news when a GOP leader (who admittedly hates Trump) "broke with the reassuring message that U.S. officials visiting Germany have sought to convey on their debut trip to Europe, saying on Friday that the administration of President Donald Trump was in "disarray"."
Yeah, keep telling yourself everything is ok...
-
Did you see the entire news conference?
Most of it. Didn't seem nuts to me. He did seem to be having a great time beating up the press who beats him up. Maybe you're suffering from Confirmation Bias.
-
Hum...Trump's team in disarray, U.S. Senator McCain tells Europe (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-usa-idUSKBN15W1J2).
So, fake news when a GOP leader (who admittedly hates Trump) "broke with the reassuring message that U.S. officials visiting Germany have sought to convey on their debut trip to Europe, saying on Friday that the administration of President Donald Trump was in "disarray"."
Yeah, keep telling yourself everything is ok...
Like you stated, McCain hates Trump. So why quote him? He's suffering from Confirmation Bias. He's ticked off what Trump said about him when he was a prisoner-of-war. I would be too if I were him. He's also ticked that Trump became President when he couldn't. On the other hand, he's a Republican and this is the first time in a long time that both the Presidency and Congress are from his party. So he's got to be careful he doesn't shoot himself in the foot.
-
... As for the video...so here's the problem with that....The video, due to the lack of credibility of the producers, is bunk...
It is a video, Jeff. Did you see it?
Lips are moving, producing words that you can hear. Furthermore, what they are saying just confirms what that news article you quoted earlier was saying.
so far from mainstream society
If by "mainstream" you mean majority, that majority (as defined by the current electoral rules) elected him. If by "mainstream" you mean "people who agree with me," than you might be right (i.e., left).
That's why we can't let the 27% dictate to the rest of society...
Forgetting that it would be also 27% if Hillary won? Then no election in the history of the U.S. would be legitimate, according to you, right?
-
No this is about a man who calls an apple an orange when we all know he is wrong. It is about common sense. His agenda does not embrace the values of true democracy. This is about civil liberties and rights and a defining moment in our country. People must speak out or else it will become OK.
-
Most of it. Didn't seem nuts to me. He did seem to be having a great time beating up the press who beats him up. Maybe you're suffering from Confirmation Bias.
Alan, don't you get it? This is not adult, responsible governance on display.
Not only is he making a fool of himself, but of government and the US itself. Did you not see that even the reporters were having a hard time maintaining respect? And then you wonder why he thinks them foes? Most governments have to deal with a hostile press at one time or another, and even party hacks get critical now and again. But man, why would any sane person go out of his way to make matters worse than they have to be?
Going by my memory of the election scramble, precious few Republican politicians had any time for Trump. Politicians, as tribe, all function the same way: self first. You need only watch the antics of the Labour party in the UK to see what's going to hit Mr T right on the nose: if your troops can't love you... It's the same scenario. I doubt he'll see the first term out. I just hope, that when he goes, it isn't too late to prevent international chaos. Not even the US can live in a vacuum, and even less so if the one that it creates outside of itself is rapidly filled by malevolent forces, as seems highly possible today.
And yeah, I did watch the Q & A session, and it was unbelievably scary in what it exposed. The saga just goes from bad to worse.
-
Forgetting that it would be also 27% if Hillary won? Then no election in the history of the U.S. would be legitimate, according to you, right?
no, No ,NO!, that is not a good question! ;)
-
It is a video, Jeff. Did you see it?
Lips are moving, producing words that you can hear.
Hum, you ever edit video? You hear somebody ask a question but was that the question the poll worker was asked? It's pretty easy to edit sound and video to completely distort the actual story-which is exactly what that guy has repeatedly done. You saw the video, do you belive it? I don't...
-
15-year olds from all over the world, Norway, USA, and, yes, Russia, have hacked NASA, Dept. of Defense, CIA Director, etc.
Sorry Slobodan, I don't understand your reaction.
Are you suggesting that the hacking operations (60 universities and government agencies were targeted, and previously selling access to a U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) database in December 2016) were done by a 15-year-old, or are you trying to downplay the issue? Or are you suggesting that, despite the evidence to the contrary, Russia wasn't involved?
Does anyone believe it happens only at Putin's request or with his permission?
Who said that? Or are you saying that it is ALL orchestrated by Putin, or NON OF IT, or ...?
All that's officially disclosed is that in December 2015, several security researchers identified the sale of 191 million U.S. voter records by a member of a top-tier Russian underground community. Do you suggest that Putin doesn't have any control over such communities (which could be the case), despite political adversaries getting killed or sent to prison camps?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. And given Trump's pathological pattern of lying (even 'Fox' is starting to wonder (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TfqTHlMszA)), are we to believe his claims that he has no ties to Russia and that it's also fake news like the other debunked fake news (while not disclosing his business tax records which could support such a claim)?
-
Gee, Bart, you raise so many issues in parallel and all over the place that I find it irksome (and others would too) to respond one by one.
But let me just quote your own source:
Based on Rasputin’s historical criminal forum activity, Recorded Future believes it’s unlikely that Rasputin is sponsored by a foreign government.
My point about 15-years old is that anyone could do it, with or without Putin's request or permission, especially, if, once again according to your own source:
The problem is that many groups--from tech companies like Yahoo and LinkedIn to the universities and government organizations implicated in this report--don't bother to defend against these attacks.
Most of hacking activity is of a criminal nature. Russians are good at it, and, next to porn, it is a good source of income. Can Putin use or misuse some of that...sure. As any other government would and does. From there to claiming that Russia "stole" the election, there is a huge conspiracy bridge that some of you are trying to sell.
-
Gee, Bart, you raise so many issues in parallel and all over the place that I find it irksome (and others would too) to respond one by one.
Just reacting to the suggestions/statements you posted, sorry for taking them serious.
But let me just quote your own source:
My point about 15-years old is that anyone could do it, with or without Putin's request or permission, especially, if, once again according to your own source:
Most of hacking activity is of a criminal nature. Russians are good at it, and, next to porn, it is a good source of income. Can Putin use or misuse some of that...sure. As any other government would and does. From there to claiming that Russia "stole" the election, there is a huge conspiracy bridge that some of you are trying to sell.
I didn't suggest the Russians 'stole' the election, so there's not even a bridge on offer...
'Gee', some of the responses are taking on Trumpian proportions ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
During the last couple years of my policing career, the Police Chief retired and was replaced after a lengthy search.
In retrospect, the new guy was remarkably similar to Trump. He was quite narcissistic, lied when it served his purpose, made many controversial changes without consulting anyone (should have seen the look on the face of the mayor, and Chair of the police board, when he unexpectedly announced he was dropping a program that the board and citizens loved, without having a replacement program in the wings) and often disregarded policy and procedure, seeming to administrate on the fly and at his whim. He made numerous changes in the first few months.
He loved controversy and divisiveness and one either loved him or hated him, which caused personnel to divide into camps of those who supported him and those who were suspicious of him. He was not respected by neighbouring police agencies (especially RCMP, they hated him) which resulted in reduced inter-agency cooperation.
He eventually left well prior to the end of his contract (he informed me one day towards the end that he was getting bored) and moved on to Provincial politics (becoming the Solicitor General - responsible for policing within the province). That did not last long and he left under a cloud, due to allegations of inappropriate campaign contributions I believe.
Having said that, he did make a number of positive changes that benefitted the department and community. Unfortunately, they were overshadowed because he was so controversial and disliked by many, and some couldn't read the message, just because of the messenger. Overall though, I think he left the department in far worse shape than when he arrived.
Hopefully things will turn out much better in the U.S. of A.
Marv
-
It is a video, Jeff. Did you see it?...Lips are moving, producing words that you can hear.
As one who has edited video, and watched a few Hollywood movies where the seemingly impossible appears real, I'm with Schewe.
Slobodan, you might want to watch and contemplate the veracity of this "video". Trust me. You'll enjoy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gneBUA39mnI&feature=youtu.be
-
My point is you may not agree with all his policies but none of them are really that far out of what we have been doing for decades. So relax. Don't be bitter. You'll get a heart attack.
So why is it worth having him there if he's not doing anything differently? It's all much the same, but he's embarrassing your country on the world stage in the meantime. He's not draining any swamps, he's a billionaire who started that way because of inheritance but claims to support the little guy, he ONLY does things that make him feel good. So if he's not actually changing anything, to adapt from the original Broadchurch, "what's the point of him"?
-
...He's already dropped so many of his hyperbolic campaign promises.
...
My point is you may not agree with all his policies but none of them are really that far out of what we have been doing for decades. So relax. Don't be bitter. You'll get a heart attack.
This is delicious coming from a Trump supporter...If Obama or Clinton had gotten off to a start like this the right would have already started the impeachment process. The hypocrisy of the right is a sight to behold.
If he's already dropped many of his "hyperbolic" campaign promises, and if his policies aren't that different from what we've been doing for decades, how is he going to #MAGA? Didn't he get elected precisely because he was supposed to DO all the things you listed, and explicitly NOT DO what was done before?
It's only 4 weeks in and you're already apologizing for him and conceding he's not doing anything close to what you expected of him. Open your eyes and see what virtually everyone else sees: Trump and his cohorts are a disaster. Don't tell "us" to relax--we're pissed because half of the country couldn't see what was painfully obvious from the start.
-
During the last couple years of my policing career, the Police Chief retired and was replaced after a lengthy search.
In retrospect, the new guy was remarkably similar to Trump. He was quite narcissistic.....Overall though, I think he left the department in far worse shape than when he arrived.
Hopefully things will turn out much better in the U.S. of A.
Marv
Thanks for sharing Marv!
Twice I came very close to people with NPD, covert, malignant narcissism, narcissistic personality disorders.
I had to learn about this condition. It is not an easy matter, and I am not edcuated in Psychiatry. Over a period of four years I discussed (mostly emails and Skype) my findings with lecturers and students, therapists, book authors, in Europe and the US. I was not aware about the nature of this phenomenon which is pandemic already.
Just a few things, I got to know some people with PhDs in Psychiatry who would refuse to treat someone with diagnosed NPD. Mainly out of experience, and because they were very aware that such an encounter can turn dangerous for themselves.
My first encounter with a NPD ended up in a disaster for me personally. After a period of recovering, I started my journey to learn as much as I could about this strange and disturbing condition.
My second encounter ended without a disaster for me, only because now I was educated on these matters, was able to identify the phenomenon, hence was able to protect myself.
The only way to get out of such a potentially disastrous relationship is to avoid every contact, even with the help of court orders if required.
Once a NPD does not get the result he desires, there are only two reactions possible in his distorted perception of the world, he looses interest and drops you in a heartbeat, or and this is more likely, he will start a campaign of ultimate destruction. Clnical narcissists are very dangerous people and essentially uncurable, and the red line through their life is usually destruction.
Concerning Caligula Trump, I think he needs to be judged on his actions, of which I have seen enough in the few days, to make up my mind. - Best G
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x54z2pRAvtg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x54z2pRAvtg)
-
So why is it worth having him there if he's not doing anything differently? It's all much the same, but he's embarrassing your country on the world stage in the meantime. He's not draining any swamps, he's a billionaire who started that way because of inheritance but claims to support the little guy, he ONLY does things that make him feel good. So if he's not actually changing anything, to adapt from the original Broadchurch, "what's the point of him"?
First off Obama was the President who was embarrassing my country. He was pissed on by Iran and China and others including many of our allies. No one respected him because he was feckless and weak. Your interests as a non-American do not match mine. You'd prefer a weak president while I want a strong President who will defend American interests not yours. It's nothing personal. You have your country's interest to protect; and I have mine.
My other point about him changing things is that many of the more radical campaign promises have been eliminated or weakened. Such as a nuclear Japan, a two China policy, getting out of NATO. But there are many other changes that he will do that Obama didn't do and Clinton probably would not do. These include better immigration policies, reducing taxes for individuals and business, focusing on jobs and the economy, trade policies. While we can debate the details of each of these, none really is radical, and he is proceeding with implementing them more or less the way the proposed during the campaign, keeping his promises to his supporters. And give the guy a chance. It took God almost a week to create the universe. Trump's only been at what he's trying to do for 4 weeks.
-
Alan, I did not read the entire thread here, so I can not be sure whether you are serious, or taking the Mickey.
However, your post has comedy quality for sure.
No one respected him [Obama] because he was feckless and weak. Your interests as a non-American do not match mine....
It took God almost a week to create the universe. Trump's only been at what he's trying to do for 4 weeks.
-
Concerning Caligula Trump, I think he needs to be judged on his actions, of which I have seen enough in the few days, to make up my mind. - Best G
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x54z2pRAvtg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x54z2pRAvtg)
Well, then, we only had a choice between Caligula and Medusa. :)
-
Well, then, we only had a choice between Caligula and Medusa. :)
Medusa never existed, is part of Greek Mythology.
Caligula however... Hmm, if history repeats itself, Mad Dog Mattis could be the modern Cassius Chaerea, the Praetorian who assassinated Caligula.
-
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 12hours ago
"The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"
I think it was Bush JR who said: " you are with us or you are against us"
It seems also Trump thinks about it that way when he talks about the press
-
First off Obama was the President who was embarrassing my country.
Amongst many others, a number of historians seem to disagree.
These Historians Say Obama Ranks 12th in the History of Presidential Leadership (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/these-historians-say-obama-ranks-12th-history-presidential-leadership-n722366)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 12hours ago
"The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"
While I agree that most of the press does treat him as the enemy, and I think that they have stopped being jupurnalists and turned into rabid attack dogs for their ideologies, it is still a far cry from seeing them as "the enemy of the American people." Definitely not cool.
-
some fake BBC news:
with some fake facts in it...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38663043
-
some fake BBC news...
It would be nice if people posting just links tell us what they are actually about and state what point they are trying to convey.
-
Interesting, I've not really studied confirmation bias.
Jeff - Two really fine books to read on the topic are "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman and the story of Kahneman's friendship with Amos Tversky whose untimely death prevented him from receiving the Nobel prize with his colleague: "The Undoing Project: A Friendship that Changed our Minds" by Michael Lewis (author of "Moneyball", "The Big Short" and a lot of other fine books). Both are good reads that make you think about stuff in ways that are counter-intuitive.
-
While I agree that most of the press does treat him as the enemy, and I think that they have stopped being jupurnalists and turned into rabid attack dogs for their ideologies, it is still a far cry from seeing them as "the enemy of the American people." Definitely not cool.
Perahps so but how to explain President Trump's treatment of the young Jewish Reporter (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/trump-press-conference-jake-turx.html) who asked a pretty straight forward question of the President on Thursday and then was slammed in response? Trump went off on a riff as why he was the least anti-Semitic person he knew and never answered the question. this was just plain rude and deserving of an apology.
-
Perahps so but how to explain President Trump's treatment of the young Jewish Reporter (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/trump-press-conference-jake-turx.html) who asked a pretty straight forward question of the President on Thursday and then was slammed in response? Trump went off on a riff as why he was the least anti-Semitic person he knew and never answered the question. this was just plain rude and deserving of an apology.
Trump was wrong by jumping to a conclusion about the question that he incorrectly felt was just another attack on him blaming him for whenever there are attacks on Jews. After all the unfair attacks on him by the press for these things, he was hyper-sensitive. He should have waited for the guy to finish the question which was about what the government will do to prevent such attacks from happening and prosecuting those involved. The reporter and his newspaper, who write for Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, are actually very pro-Trump and he should apologize if only because they represent some of the people who support him. Real news; not fake news!
-
While I agree that most of the press does treat him as the enemy, and I think that they have stopped being jupurnalists and turned into rabid attack dogs for their ideologies, it is still a far cry from seeing them as "the enemy of the American people." Definitely not cool.
He was referring to when media releases confidential info that would hurt America in the process of trying to hurt him. For example, he said releasing the conversation he had with the Australian President is one thing. But what if it was a conversation he was having with North Korea maybe to reduce tensions about their nuclear development. The release of that secret conversation could blow the deal hurting America and frankly peace in the whole world. In the past, responsible journalists and newspapers often did not release information they received from leaks if it would appear to hurt us. The papers often checked with Administrations or the Department of Defense who would ask them to hold the news as it could endanger us if it was released. For example, if there was a military operation, the papers would wait until the operation was in process or done before releasing it. That's responsible journalism.
-
This topic is about a very divisive issue and I'd just like to thank everyone involved for maintaining such a civilized discourse when it could easily devolve into personal attacks.
-
This topic is about a very divisive issue and I'd just like to thank everyone involved for maintaining such a civilized discourse when it could easily devolve into personal attacks.
+1
-
He was referring to when media releases confidential info that would hurt America in the process of trying to hurt him.
What about Wikileaks? Those were definitely designed to hurt people. Are you OK with what they have done. What about the Pentagon Papers, Deep Throat, and there are plenty of other examples where someone either leaked or spoke up to help preserve our democratic institutions.
In the past, responsible journalists and newspapers often did not release information they received from leaks if it would appear to hurt us. The papers often checked with Administrations or the Department of Defense who would ask them to hold the news as it could endanger us if it was released. For example, if there was a military operation, the papers would wait until the operation was in process or done before releasing it. That's responsible journalism.
But there are lots of times when it is not wise to ask someone in the Administration. Do you think Woodward and Bernstein would have gone to Nixon or Daniel Ellsberg to LBJ? These are all judgements that journalists have to make every day. Both Ben Bradlee and Katherine Graham had to make a tough call on the Deep Throat story.
-
But the problem is the man: he doesn't have the discipline for politics. He only has bluster. And money. Those two are difficult enough to deal with for anyone, and deadly in world affairs.
Regarding relationships with the press: caution all the time, and no hostages to fortune, please! And never make enemies of them. They can help you if you give them a fair break, but never forget they are there to do a skilled job. If something be rotten in the State of Denmark, then be sure they'll find it before too long. It's what they do.
-
First off Obama was the President who was embarrassing my country. He was pissed on by Iran and China and others including many of our allies. No one respected him because he was feckless and weak. Your interests as a non-American do not match mine. You'd prefer a weak president while I want a strong President who will defend American interests not yours. It's nothing personal. You have your country's interest to protect; and I have mine.
Which of your allies pissed on you?
Obama was seen as a statesman on the world stage - not perfect, not by any means, and it was obvious he had issues with domestic issues. I think some people agreed he was too soft at times, but overall, I don't think the world view was negative and certainly not embarrassing.
Trump, on the other hand, is seen as a feckless, spoilt, narcissist who is rude, purely self-serving, and as making the US the laughing stock of the world. Seriously, that's how you're being seen by a significant portion of the world.
As to preferring a weak president? Why on earth would I want one of Australia's allies, let alone such an important one and one with which we share a long and proud friendship, to have a weak leader? We are perfectly able to understand that the US will want their leader to put the US first, we just seem to disagree on what that means. With Trump, it appears to be settings the stage for his business interests and for him to look good (in his opinion). And that's it. Nothing he's doing seems likely to make America great again. The economics he's proposing on US companies mean I will be investing in hi-tech and in particular robotics (and Japan is a good place to look there, but some US and no doubt some as-yet-to-start start-ups in the US, too).
If he actually gets his way, he'll put millions out of work. He doesn't understand manufacturing - he's never made anything in his life. Real estate is all about impressions and emotion and the whim of the market. His hotels, resorts and so on - yes, he had things built (buildings and golf courses), but that's a far cry from manufacturing. Real estate doesn't become commoditised. He doesn't get that.
My other point about him changing things is that many of the more radical campaign promises have been eliminated or weakened. Such as a nuclear Japan, a two China policy, getting out of NATO. But there are many other changes that he will do that Obama didn't do and Clinton probably would not do. These include better immigration policies, reducing taxes for individuals and business, focusing on jobs and the economy, trade policies. While we can debate the details of each of these, none really is radical, and he is proceeding with implementing them more or less the way the proposed during the campaign, keeping his promises to his supporters. And give the guy a chance. It took God almost a week to create the universe. Trump's only been at what he's trying to do for 4 weeks.
Stronger border control is something that I think most people can actually accept, but proposing walls, billing other countries for it, even having a very early draft of an idea to suggest using the national guard to round up illegal immigrants - these are not useful policies. Proposing economic variations that will make Mexico weaker, for example, is not going to stem desire for people to get into the US.
Reducing taxes is a great idea, if you can afford it, but with current debt levels, the US needs to reduce expenditure, not income. Sure, a small decrease, targeted well, could add to overall revenue, but general reductions in taxes at the levels being proposed will cut income dramatically and it will take time for any benefit to flow back (and it's unlikely to be enough even in the long run), and in the meantime debt spirals again. It's a complex issue but he lacks the nuance to deal with it, instead looking for simplistic (rather than simple) solutions.
Yes, he's keeping some promises, but he's also wildly breaking others. He's no different. 4 weeks and he's lost a top advisor (and still apparently thinks that what was done was OK), had another confirmed position rejected even with majority backing in both houses, had another nomination decline, told US federal judges "SEE YOU IN COURT" as if that's somewhere they wouldn't be at home because he rushed through an EO without thinking it through and despite insisting he wouldn't back down, is now drafting a new one that might be constitutional. He's discussed national security matters in public view and he's racking up enormous travel costs because he doesn't like the White House (considering how often he had a go at Obama for golfing, he's done an awful lot himself).
Overall, he's floundering and badly. He has advisors who think they can just lie and bluster their way forward - that may work for a little while, but not forever. The one really top-notch advisor he has (Mattis) is already on a different page to him (and that's because Mattis is a real leader).
-
Phil, Other countries had been laughing at us because of Obama's fecklessness and weakness. While calling him a statesman to make his ego feel good, they were secretly laughing behind his back. He was disrespected and rolled not only by Iran and China, but by many of our Allies. In Europe, the countries there are suppose to be paying certain amounts for their defense but have been derelict leaving it up to the American taxpayers to defend them in blood and treasure. Meanwhile they're spending their saving on government health care laughing at America for not doing the same while we spend money defending them. Of course most European countries are upset at Trump because he wants them to pay up and Hillary wouldn't. They want a strong America but a weak President who won't insist on putting America first. Hopefully that ends with Trump. Frankly, I wonder if he has the will to really follow through with them supporting us defending them. We'll see.
Regarding you, an Australian, calling Trump's policy against illegal immigration as pretty wrong is hypocritical. Australia has very heavy rules regarding illegal immigration. Your President begged Obama to take those refugees Australia has been holding in those terrible detention camps on Australian Islands because you refused to take them in to Australia proper. Trump at first balked at that bad deal for America but went ahead anyway because Obama had made the deal and he would respect it. But come on. To complain that America wishes to deal with illegal immigration unlike Australia is just hypocritical. I'll bet dollars to donuts that we have more illegals than you do percentage wise. In any case, I don't really see much space between America and Australia. That phone call between our Presidents was just a minor spat. We've been good friends through the years and I hope we remain that way. With China wanting to expand more as they get richer, those islands in the South China Sea they built up is just the tip of their spear going forward. We really need to work together to keep them in check. I'm sure you agree.
-
Obama weak? Strange conclusion. What was weak was the perpetual and disgraceful opposition he met every single time he tried to do something positive such as introduce a little bit more gun control. Each new school massacre created the sad spectacle of the poor guy trying to do his best against a political and manufacturing system married to a 'sporting' lobby that blocked his every turn. There's money to be made in selling death. And politicians know it takes bags of money to be there. They will say thanks to every source. The exception is the exception.
He is an intelligent, well-educated gentleman with a lot of presence, in essence everything that Mr T has not chosen to display. Hell, he was even truthful enough to tell the Brexiting Brits that they should think twice, that any rainbow-coloured fantasy solve-it-all trade deal with the States was largely in their minds, and at best, rather far down the queue. What's not to like about somebody who tells it how it is? But that's not how the 'news' was received in the UK, was it? Nope, he was accused of 'interfering', of trying to vo¡ce an opinion! That should tell anyone all they need to know about the great public out there: lemmings have rights, too!
Regarding making America Great Again, I don't really think people pre-Trump went around thinking it was anything but. Okay, it did have some looneys running amok with guns, but as a country, it still had clout and presence, even if international moral credibility was being sacrificed on the alter of Israel, but as most folks imagine that the tribes already own the banks, the markets, and probably America, what's new? It was only the constant chanting of that slogan that made people wonder just how badly America might actually be doing, despite good employment figures compared with most other countries. Hey, if a presidential candidate screams all day long that the place is at death's door, you end up having to believe him, don't you?
Return all manufacturing to America? That's just fantasy. The work left America because of labour costs. Exactly as happened in Britain, in Japan; each place with cheap labour gets successful and then inevitably expensive, and the circus has to leave town for the next cheaper option. To keep costs down will force even more automation, so inevitably fewer jobs, not more. Cars are made not in isolation: bits come from all around the planet, just like with washing machines: my old, but good Zanussi ended up several shades of white before it died! It's all a part of keeping prices to a marketable level. That Detroit-built beauty that nobody can afford ain't gonna bring prosperity, just bankrupt more companies if they are forced to relocate there.
Evolution rolls on, with or without presidents playing Canute.
Rob
-
Phil, Other countries had been laughing at us because of Obama's fecklessness and weakness.
No, they (we) hadn't.
While calling him a statesman to make his ego feel good, they were secretly laughing behind his back. He was disrespected and rolled not only by Iran and China, but by many of our Allies. In Europe, the countries there are suppose to be paying certain amounts for their defense but have been derelict leaving it up to the American taxpayers to defend them in blood and treasure.
No one was laughing at him, as a general rule.
NATO has a guideline of 2%. The US, Greece, UK, Estonia and Poland all met or exceeded that. The guideline is total defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP, not just NATO related expenditure.
NATO also has an "Equipment as share of Defence Expenditure" guideline of 20%. In order, that is exceeded or met by Luxembourg, Lithuania, Romania, Poland, Norway, United States, France, Turkey, UK, Italy.
Those figures cover the last 3 years, but the latest report at http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf has data for the last 8 years. Some use this to suggest it was all Obama's fault.
Check here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11
It shows data since 1991 and it's clear that many nations have been below the 2% guideline since well before Obama. In that time you had Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush (by terms).
The assertion that they have been laughing at the US is just wrong. Also, the US presence in NATO and it's overall defence expenditure doesn't all go to defending Europe (whereas almost all European expenditure does). The US spends roughly 1/3 of its total defence expenditure toward forces and operations involving NATO. That's not just to protect Europe - that's protecting US interests (which are again highlighted by the threatening posture of Russia). So when we look at the US spending 3.6% of GDP on defence about 1.2% of that is NATO. That's less than many NATO countries are spending which is exclusively on European defence.
In other words, it's a lot more complicated and involved than the poor headlines and sound bites that are generally pedalled on the subject and far more complex that Trump tells as his story.
Regarding you, an Australian, calling Trump's policy against illegal immigration as pretty wrong is hypocritical.
So now I'm personally responsible for Australia's formal policies and if I have a view on something that differs I'm a hypocrite? Let's not resort to name calling, particularly when it's so absurd.
Trump's approach is wrong. Australia is an island and we have the physical capacity to do what we're doing. The US has a much bigger influx and for different reasons and a large land border across which most of the illegal immigrants come. The two situations are different in marked ways. It's not surprising that different approaches might be needed. You'll also find that our approach (which has significant opposition locally, despite being supported by the two major political parties) is only a portion of the policy.
Australia has very heavy rules regarding illegal immigration.
Yes. So what? Where did I say the US shouldn't?
Your President begged Obama to take those refugees Australia has been holding in those terrible detention camps on Australian Islands because you refused to take them in to Australia proper.
Firstly, we've discussed this, Australia doesn't have a president. If you want to discuss the subject, please check your facts. Our government didn't beg Obama to do any thing. They approached him and negotiated a refugee SWAP. We get the exact same number of refugees as we send. Did you know that? Did you check? The idea is that our government doesn't want to process the current detainees in line with their policy, but they have no problem taking in genuine refugees.
Also, they are not in detention on Australian islands - the whole point of the policy is to stop them getting to Australia - any part of it. They are in PNG, but an agreement with PNG to process them ended due to legal / constitutional issues in PNG.
The detention camps aren't great, but they're a whole lot better than being in the middle of a war.
Trump at first balked at that bad deal for America but went ahead anyway because Obama had made the deal and he would respect it.
He didn't know much about it, reported it incorrectly, and made a lot of noise about it for domestic political reasons. It's not a bad deal for the US at all.
-
Obama weak? Strange conclusion. What was weak was the perpetual and disgraceful opposition he met every single time he tried to do something positive such as introduce a little bit more gun control.
Rob, it goes further than just guns...as an aside, "the Republican Senate and House have managed to act with lightning speed in striking down a sensible Obama administration rule designed to stop people with severe mental problems from buying guns". The NYT editorial board had this to say Congress Says, Let the Mentally Ill Buy Guns (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/opinion/congress-says-let-the-mentally-ill-buy-guns.html)
Yes, Obama was weak but the majority of his weakness was due to the fact that GOP leaders in the House and Senate determined to be the The Party Of No (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2122776,00.html). Michael Grunwald reported and wrote a book about the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”
Add to the that the Koch Brothers with big oil and big tobacco to take over the GOP. This Time article outlines THE SECRET ORIGINS OF THE TEA PARTY (http://time.com/secret-origins-of-the-tea-party/). The Tea Party did well in the 2010 midterm elections and gained control of the House. That furthered the House GOP's goal of saying no to anything the Democrats or Obama tried to do.
The ultimate goal was to regain the presidency in 2012. That didn't happen so the House GOP dug in even deeper and Tea Party Senators like Ted Cruz tried to force force President Obama to strip the funding from the landmark health-care law that had come to bear his name — Obamacare — by threatening to shut down the government. He says he thought Obama and top Democrats would be cowed. He says he thought Senate Republican leaders would be willing — at least in public — to take the risk.
In both cases, he was wrong.
But the GOP was successful in fighting anything and everything that Obama wanted to do. That made Obama weak...the GOP made Obama weak, the GOP made America weak.
I'll admit (as did Obama) that his handling of Syria was seriously flawed. Obama was also unable to recognize the serious risk of ISIS until ISIS got too much traction. In spite of all the obstructionism Obama did do some things right. He took the country from the brink of a major recession/depression to a robust economy to hand over to Trump. Trump says America is a mess? Yeah, not so much.
Domestic accomplishments of President Obama:
Signed economic stimulus legislation like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus) and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 into law in response to the Great Recession of 2008
Signed the Dodd -Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010, strengthening financial regulations to an extent not seen since the Great Depression
Pushed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) overhauling the nation's health insurance system through Congress in 2010
Signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly support same-sex marriage
Repealed a Bush-era policy preventing federal tax dollars from being used to fund research on new lines of embryonic stem cells
Signed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 ending the role of private banks in lending out federally insured student loans
Foreign policy accomplishments of President Obama:
Ended US military involvement in the Iraq War and increased US troop levels in Afghanistan
Substantially increased the number of drone strikes targeting suspected terrorists around the world
Ordered U.S. military involvement in Libya following a popular revolt against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
Authorized the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011
Signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia reducing the number of long-range weapons held by both countries
The above comes from the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. millercenter.org (http://millercenter.org) and before you ask, the Miller Center is a nonpartisan institute that seeks to expand understanding of the presidency, policy, and political history, providing critical insights for the nation’s governance challenges.
One can quibble on some of the items and Trump & the GOP are hellbent to undo as much as they can regardless of the implications and ramifications, but I think Obama will go down as a good and important president...Trump? I seriously doubt he will contribute much other than increasing the debt and making the world a much more dangerous place...YMMV
-
Phil like I said I consider us friends so that's how I'm going to leave it.
-
Schewe: It was Obama's unilateral powers as President and Commander-in-Chief that I was referring to when I called him weak and feckless and why the world laughed at him. It had nothing to do with Congress, the Republicans or anyone else. He did it all by himself.
It was his decision alone to pull out of Iraq in 2011 and open up a vacuum to be filled by ISIS. It was his decision alone to draw a red line in Syria then erase it telling every bad guy in the world that they could do whatever they want and Obama and America would do nothing. It was his decision alone to do nothing to stabilize Libya after his stupid decision (and Hillary's) to encourage the overthrow of Gadhafi. (you think they would have learned from Bush's nation building mistakes in Iraq). It was his decision to do nothing while China appropriated those South China islands against UN vote and turned them into military bases to expand their empire. All Obama did was send a frigate by now and then to see how the construction was going. He made a deal with Iran so his legacy could be written into the history books making a bad deal and giving them 150 billion dollars to help them expand their sphere of influence throughout the Middle East. He even paid 1.5 billion in cash to release prisoners they were holding (but not all of them). In return we got a non-verifiable promise that they won't build atomic bombs for ten years. Because of this agreement, he ticked off all our Arab partners and that started wars between Saudi and Iranian proxies in Yemen and elsewhere. He let Russia take the Crimea and settle into east Ukraine. When he flew to China for a visit, instead of the Chinese welcoming him with balloons and fireworks for his gift of those islands, they made him leave Air Force 1 from the service entry refusing to provide a proper boarding staircase. He should have turned the jet around and flew home. But, instead, he sucked it up and got off. What a joke. I'm embarrassed as an American and so should you be.
-
I'm embarrassed as an American and so should you be.
I am now that America elected Donald J Trump...
Let's remember to have a discussion in 4 years time to see how badly Trump screws things up.
Maureen Dowd had an interesting article in the NYT (assuming you haven't drank the Kool-Aid and relegated the gray lady Fake News status).
Trump’s Gold Lining (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/opinion/sunday/trumps-gold-lining.html?smid=fb-share)
Listen up, haters.
The brief reign of Donald the First has been completely head-spinningly nuts so far. But let’s stay calm and look for the silver lining, or in this case, the garishly gold lining.
Donald Trump has indeed already made some of America Great Again.
Just not the aspects he intended.
He has breathed new zest into a wide range of things: feminism, liberalism, student activism, newspapers, cable news, protesters, bartenders, shrinks, Twitter, the A.C.L.U., “S.N.L.,” town halls, George Orwell, Margaret Atwood, Hannah Arendt, Stephen Colbert, Nordstrom, the Federalist Papers, separation of powers, division of church and state, athletes and coaches taking political stands and Frederick Douglass.
–snip–
Every time our daft new president tweets about the “failing” New York Times, our digital subscriptions and stock price jump, driven by readers eager for help negotiating the disorienting Trumpeana Oceana Upside Down dimension rife with gaslighting, trolling, leaking, lying and conflicts.
Similarly, whenever Trump rants about Alec Baldwin’s portrayal of him and tweets that “Saturday Night Live” is “not funny,” “always a complete hit job” and “really bad television!,” the show’s ratings go up. They’re now at a 20-year high.
–snip–
Trump has made facts great again. By distorting reality so relentlessly, he has put everyone on alert for alternative facts.
–snip–
Given the fever pitch on both sides, we’re going to have to pace ourselves, as David Axelrod tweeted. Still, the main way that Trump is proving that America is great is that the affronted and angered are rising up to take him on.
Yeah, The Donald has done us a favor, he's awakened the masses from their political slumber. It's the "gold lining" with what happened 11/8/2016
Let's touch base on 11/4/2020 and see what has transpired. Assuming The Donald actually lasts that long–I don't think he will.
-
Yes, I think that was Maureen Dowd's finest essay.
-
Phil, Other countries had been laughing at us because of Obama's fecklessness and weakness. While calling him a statesman to make his ego feel good, they were secretly laughing behind his back.
You are wrong. Trump is a joke we laugh at every day. A bad joke, so bad that he could never been invented by a novelist. Elected by a system which does not work as intended, by people who are frighteningly ignorant.
-
And speaking of fake news...
When A Politician Says 'Fake News' And A Newspaper Threatens To Sue Back (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515760101/when-a-politician-says-fake-news-and-a-newspaper-threatens-to-sue-back?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170217)
From the article:
"A news outlet publishes a story that a Republican politician dismisses as "fake news." Sounds familiar, right?
But in this case, there's a twist. The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel in Colorado is accusing state Sen. Ray Scott of defamation and threatening to sue. If filed, legal experts said it would be the first suit of its kind, potentially setting a legal definition for what is considered fake news and what is not."
Hum...wouldn't it be delicious irony if a fine purveyor of "fake news" (according to you know who) decided to sue the litigious one?
-
Then this...
Internet memes mock Donald Trump by making him look small - literally (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39015879)
From BBC:
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/3B80/production/_94723251_e152bbee-b482-49b2-98a0-f66749c7f369.jpg)
ALAMY
Many of the doctored images will be familiar to anyone who has followed recent news - but they have a small twist
Then there's also this from BBC...
'Enemies of the people': Trump remark echoes history's worst tyrants (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39015559)
(http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/152C2/production/_94722768_stalinmao.jpg)
Trump's remark drew comparisons with dictators Stalin and Mao
At a different time, in another country, it was effectively a death sentence.
Being branded an "enemy of the people" by the likes of Stalin or Mao brought at best suspicion and stigma, at worst hard labour or death.
Now the chilling phrase - which is at least as old as Emperor Nero, who was called "hostis publicus", enemy of the public, by the Senate in AD 68 - is making something of a comeback.
Yeah, Trump is gonna Make America Great Again.
-
Donald Trump Appears To Make Up Sweden Terror Attack
It didn’t happen. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-sweden-terror-lie_us_58a8f397e4b045cd34c263d3)
Trump from his campaign rally said:
“You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden,” Trump told a large crowd of supporters in a hangar at the Orlando-Melbourne International Airport. “Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden,” he added. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_720_noupscale/58a8f4302900002200f2752e.jpeg)
KEVIN LAMARQUE / REUTERS
At a rally in Melbourne, Florida, on Feb. 18, President Donald Trump referred to a terror attack in Sweden that occurred recently. No such event has happened.
Oooops...
-
And there's more...
Column: Leaks, squawks and ethics hawks: Poems about Donald Trump (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-trump-poem-mary-schmich-0219-20170217-column.html)
By Mary Schmich–Contact Reporter (who is actually a neighbor of mine on the near-north side of Chicago)
The Problem
The problem's not the spying
And the problem's not my lying
And the problem it is not the way I speak.
.
The problem is betrayers
And those sanctuary mayors
And the evil folk who think that they can leak.
.
The problem's not the Kremlin
And Sean Spicer's not a gremlin
And the problem it is not poor Michael Flynn.
.
The man was persecuted!
He was flat-out executed!
No, the problem is the press' nasty spin.
.
The problem is Chicago
It is not my Mar-a-Lago
I'm entitled to view missiles on my phone!
.
I shared some stuff at dinner?
That does not make me a sinner!
Those reporters, they should just leave me alone.
.
They say that I am crazy
And perhaps that I am lazy
But I tell you, people, neither one is true.
.
They say that I am awful
And I just may be unlawful
But, listen, folks — the problem? It is you.
:)
She has more on the page and I'm sure she'll have more in the future...
Trump might want to be careful who he makes into enemies...when you have poets coming after you, you might have gone too far.
-
While calling [Obama] a statesman to make his ego feel good, they were secretly laughing behind his back.
Well, it's all changed now - they are laughing in Trump's face! Progress!!
-
Well, it's all changed now - they are laughing in Trump's face! Progress!!
;D Excellent!
-
Someone said well that all the insults hurled at the T-word are just reinforcing the vote that put him where he is. Two sides can't come together for as long as they refuse to try to understand each other. We have this problem in the UK at the moment. Some of Mr T's ideas are pretty OK after all. Taking a tougher line with China, getting infrastructure in better condition, telling Europe and NATO a few home truths, nixing trade agreements entirely designed to benefit corporations and bureaucracies at the expense of the individual - these are all quite uncontroversial. Any president from either party could have produced similar ideas, I think.
He doesn't look happy. He doesn't look as if he really wants the job or knows how to do it or has the right character for it to begin with. There is only one figure of any substance at all on his team - General Mattis. It's not hard to see him engineering some kind of "retirement" before very long. I guess a question is whether creepy Mr Pence could survive for very long either.
-
I am stunned. And probably so are close to 7 billion other people on the planet. Your president can give such a pathetically unhinged performance as he did at that Press Conference this week and somehow there are still apologists for him closing ranks. Is this some kind of bad joke?
It's obvious to anyone who has spent time working for a spoiled boss that was installed by nepotism that the man has simply long passed his Peter Principle ceiling. You don't need to invoke evil dealings, or scheming dark-shadow Democrats, he and his cronies are just the latest manifestation of corporate-trained incompetent morons. There have been lots of them, who have dragged perfectly successful companies into the dirt, every time because of their own room temperature IQ and endless arrogance. If anything is crippling american enterprise, if it in fact being crippled, it's not high taxes or environmental legislation that's doing it, it's because you keep promoting snake oil salesmen who have no clue how anything actually works into positions of authority because their numbers are good this quarter or because they're tall. The rest of the world has moved on from this infantile Dale Carnegie nonsense, why are you still stuck in it? Read a book, why don't you.
No, you make things worse by electing an obvious incompetent to a very important position. And guess what, he appoints people even more incompetent than himself to his top jobs, because that's what incompetent people do all the time. Listening to or reading the excuses and lame contorted explanations of what Trump is "really" doing (wink-wink) and how awful Obama really was, and oh how terrible the US is being treated by its enemies is simply drawing loud guffaws from most corners. Drunk bar talk should remain in bars. This stuff has become impossible to take seriously. Is there really no adult supervision available?
-
I am stunned. And probably so are close to 7 billion other people on the planet. Your president can give such a pathetically unhinged performance as he did at that Press Conference this week and somehow there are still apologists for him closing ranks. Is this some kind of bad joke?
Unfortunately not a joke. Read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, a San Francisco longshoreman and student of political history. The book is brief and written in the early 1950s. He lays out clearly why leaders such as Trump arise.
-
" Is there really no adult supervision available?"
Where adults read comics? Copy for the UK where they read "red tops" instead. No wonder things go awry when these people are faced with any serious choice concerning foreign lands and peoples. The myth of the superhero wearing a star-spangled or a union jack resonates strongly, and such emotions are based on nonsense but thought valid. Just think of old war movies and even westerns, with the cavalry riding in at the last moment (as you knew they always would, didn't you?) and the same faith is displayed and consumed; it's not new at all, but just more visible in today's circumstances.
That's democracy, I'm afraid.
Rob
-
Equating Trump, and by extension the "deplorables" who voted for him, with Stalin and Mao is why he won. You're so over the top, it's like fake news, the very kind of hyperbole you admonish him of doing. All you're doing is assuring his reelection. You gotta get a grip on and calm down.
-
You're so over the top, it's like fake news, the very kind of hyperbole you admonish him of doing.
That's not me bud...I'm not making this stuff up...that was the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) that made the comparison to Stalin and Mao because what Trump said about the press being an enemy of the people sounds like something they would have said.
Don't you see what is happening?
-
Amongst many others, a number of historians seem to disagree.
These Historians Say Obama Ranks 12th in the History of Presidential Leadership (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/these-historians-say-obama-ranks-12th-history-presidential-leadership-n722366)
Yes!
For instance:
President Kennedy put men on the moon.
President Obama put men in women's bathrooms.
-
Equating Trump, and by extension the "deplorables" who voted for him, with Stalin and Mao is why he won.
Are you suggesting that Trump wasn't more than a protest vote? That's not the perception from my part of Europe.
Cheers,
Bart
-
President Obama put men in women's bathrooms.
Some people might take offense (and rightly so) at such a remark, unless it was meant as a joke (in poor taste).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Are you suggesting that Trump wasn't more than a protest vote?...
Are you suggesting that Trump was a protest vote? If so, I agree.
-
Some people might take offense (and rightly so)...
Another (protest) reason why Trump won.
-
Another (protest) reason why Trump won.
I don't understand why you want to picture 50% of the American electorate as retarded as you do. I don't see them as that simple minded. Trump on the other hand ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
...50% of the American electorate as retarded...
"Some people might take offense (and rightly so) at such a remark"
-
.50% of the American electorate as retarded...
"Some people might take offense (and rightly so) at such a remark"
Quoted out of context??? :o
-
Quoted out of context??? :o
Only if you don't understand (Bart's) sarcasm.
-
Are you suggesting that Trump wasn't more than a protest vote? That's not the perception from my part of Europe.
Cheers,
Bart
First off, you're presented with the same biased news that the liberal press spews out here in America.
Trump won because he tapped into a nationalist feeling that America and many Americans feel. That they have been left behind by the business and political elites who not only weren't hurt by the 2008 recession, but actually made out better. Trump understood this. He became the champion of these workers who were left behind who normally vote Democrat.
But Democrats like Hillary Clinton did not feel their concern. She called them deplorables and laughed at them. She was more concerned that men should be allowed to go into their daughter's children's toilets instead of her trying to get these workers good jobs again. So, they moved their allegiance to Trump and the Republicans. He promised he would get them jobs. He promised he would stop illegal immigration and bad trade policies that made good paying jobs impossible for them to realize. He promised them safety from terrorists. Meanwhile the Democrats couldn't even call these terrorists by who they were and wanted to open borders to everyone jeopardizing their safety. Americans don't want America to have the same terrorism like there is in Europe with the disastrous immigration policies you have there. The Democrats were stupidly playing identity politics trying to divide Americans by race, gender and how rich they are. Trump spoke of making all of America great again, helping everyone and getting these people jobs. Democrats failed to listen to the pain of their formally Democrat voters in key states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, etc. who then switched their political allegiance and voted for Trump.
Like Brexit, the entire political elite structure on both the Democrat and Republican sides totally missed what was going on in the middle of the country outside the left leaning cities. They all, as they are now, are caught in an echo chamber of Liberal progressivism that misses the basic concerns of the people - economic security, local safety, national security and patriotism. Trump taps into all these concerns.
-
Making promises is easy Implementing them - assuming he wants to - is harder?? The promises looks like lies to many and time will tell??
-
Making promises is easy Implementing them - assuming he wants to - is harder?? The promises looks like lies to many and time will tell??
If he doesn't make good, he won't be re-elected and the Republicans will lose the Congress. The big concern is another recession. If that happens, all bets are off.
-
Making promises is easy Implementing them - assuming he wants to - is harder?? The promises looks like lies to many and time will tell??
Correct, Stamper, I agree (no sarcasm).
-
I think the site owners should lock this topic for 24 hours as a mark of respect to the victims of the terrorist attack in Sweden yesterday.
-
I think the site owners should lock this topic for 24 hours as a mark of respect to the victims of the terrorist attack in Sweden yesterday.
For the sake of clarity you should have added....this is sarcasm ??
-
I think the site owners should lock this topic for 24 hours as a mark of respect to the victims of the terrorist attack in Sweden yesterday.
Nice (Jeremy's sarcasm)!
From a BBC article:
Some people suggest Donald Trump might have been referring to a clip aired on Fox News on Friday night of a documentary about alleged violence committed by refugees in Sweden.
"There was an absolute surge in both gun violence and rape in Sweden once they began this open-door policy," Ami Horowitz, who made the documentary, told Fox News, referring to Sweden's decision to open its doors to large numbers of refugees in 2013.
Preliminary statistics from the Swedish Crime Survey (in Swedish) show only a marginal increase in 2016 from the year before. Fraud and crimes against individuals were up, but drugs crimes and theft had decreased.
The number of reported rapes increased by 13%, although that is still lower than the number reported in 2014 (6,700), as Sweden's The Local reports.
It should be noted that Sweden doesn't not record (by law) the religion or nationality of perps. So we really don't know if the increase is a result of a decrease by the natives and a shaper increase by the newcomers, or any other combination. It is entirely possible that Swedes suddenly started raping more, and 72-virgins seeking men suddenly less.
Separately, Sweden is believed to have the highest number of Islamic State fighters per capita in Europe. About 140 of the 300 who went to Syria and Iraq have since returned, leaving the authorities to grapple with how best to reintegrate them into society.
The whole article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39020962
-
"Separately, Sweden is believed to have the highest number of Islamic State fighters per capita in Europe."
I think Sweden has the highest number of refugees from Syria per capita in Europe, in which case it would be surprising if this were not the case. What that leads you to do is, of course, another matter.
-
Trump won because he tapped into a nationalist feeling that America and many Americans feel. That they have been left behind by the business and political elites who not only weren't hurt by the 2008 recession, but actually made out better. Trump understood this. He became the champion of these workers who were left behind who normally vote Democrat.
This seems odd reasoning, from my point of view.
Many people lost a helluva lot when that pack of cards came falling down, and I'm not talking only about people getting hoofed out of houses they couldn't afford to buy in the first place. That a billionaire is suddenly going to become the champion of the dispossessed seems to me to be yet a further descent into fantasy thinking. On the one hand, you perceive them as racketeers, yet at the same time, one is Robin Hood? Maybe that's why he devoted so much time to building casinos: to help folks save their pennies.
I know an Italian lady whose son, working in the market in NY, lost everything (some of hers, too) and took himself out, breaking her heart twice. No doubt some smart asses weathered it all and are still doing well, but don't convert that into a blanket assumption that only those with blue collars felt the pain. Shit, I only wear T-shirts with no effin' collars, and my life has been double-screwed too, both by banks and brexiteers.
Strikes me that the fake news you might seem to think is all aimed at Mr T has been poured over the heads of those worthies in the rust belts that you conclude are the rising armies of the new America, the mighty wronged. Nobody has a monopoly on getting a bum deal, and most of the time we bring it upon ourselves by not paying attention properly. As with much of Britain's since-lost industrial might of the 50s, I suspect the American equivalents just got too comfortable and confident: in a word, complacent. I don't know how the Detroit unions dealt with life in those bounteous days, but in the UK, the equivalents were fuelled and driven by political agendas and the 'workers' were but the pawns used to disrupt government and try to bring about revolution. It's what's still driving the insane arm of UK socialism today, and we disregard and pass it over at our peril. That we could find ourselves with a PM who is willing to scrap our only deterrent is no idle, passing thought; it's a nightmare that we could wake up and find real. As bad, considering how inextricably entwined our security has become with the US, a man such as Mr T could decide, on yet another whim, to leave us hanging out to dry on the Kremlin line.
And some wonder why the rest of the world holds its breath?
Rob C
-
I've always taken "Sweden" to be a short-hand stand-in for godless debauchery. Sort of like saying, "Hades". Jimmy Lee Swaggart used to use the term that way, with a snear, leaving the impression that he needed a shower after speaking the word. So it may be that using the word "Sweden" at that "campaign" rally was to make use of its Pavlovian effect in the minds of those who don't understand (and certainly don't want to understand) that there are billions of humans who are non-american who manage to get through the day and feed themselves and have been doing so for millennia. Wasn't "useful idiots" Lenin's term?
Did anyone else notice the attempt above to describe how crime data is collected in Swedish, as a way to introduce plausible deniability that maybe there might have been some crime committed there in the last couple of days after all, and that maybe it might have been committed by a muslim immigrant because Sweden has so many. So maybe Trump's silly claim was not a lie, but maybe another "alternate fact". I am insulted by this BS. Maybe the flat earth is an alternate reality then, worthy of discussion? Most of this Trumpeteer tripe doesn't meet the minimum acceptable criteria for adult conversation.
Was the American middle class sold out to international bankers? Maybe. Maybe the entire planet was. So let's see Trump's tax returns and business holding details. Until I see them and they're analyzed by somebody competent, I'm going to assume you live in a banana republic where you just sold the rule of law to a snake oil salesman and didn't get much for your money.
The initiation fees recently doubled to that private club where he had that foreign affairs meeting in public a few days ago. Is that ok with you? Do you think it's ok for the Pres to cash in on his position? Is this what Conservatism represents now? Are you really not disgusted?
-
And some wonder why the rest of the world holds its breath?
Holding one's breath will only work for a limited time.
I've heard that European and Azian carmakers(and other producers of consumables) are negotiating with Mexico to fill the void in production capacity that was left by the USA ... And as for the 35% increase in import duties on non-US produced goods, that will only increase prices that have to be paid by US citizens, also like for fresh seasonal crops that are grown in Mexico and other parts of the world, when the climate is not favorable in the USA. Of course, that won't help those who now need to work for 'Mexican' wage levels ...
Trump was rumoured to have been wondering about a strong dollar (https://time.com/money/4663767/trump-strong-dollar-versus-weak-currency/) (which is bad for export), well, everything he seems to be planning only makes it stronger (before it collapses). Some more opinions on the strong dollar:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-top-economic-adviser-doesnt-like-a-strong-dollar-2017-02-13
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-dollar-idUSKBN15G2ZN
https://www.ft.com/content/56558e7e-b257-11e6-9c37-5787335499a0
And then there's that strange (if it had come from anybody else) remark about Sweden:
Sweden asks the U.S. to explain Trump comment (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sweden-idUSKBN15Y0QH). The excuse will probably be: "somebody handed me that information" or "I saw it on Facebook", because "the official media are always withholding such 'Facts' ".
Here are some more comments:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-20/trumps-last-night-in-sweden-claim-prompts-questions-from-swedes/8284758
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump won because he tapped into a nationalist feeling that America and many Americans feel.
Uh, I'm thinking that the Russian hack of the DNC, Podesta's email's and Comey's bungling of the email server might have played a small roles in Trump winning...and also maybe something else...This Newsweek article HOW DONALD TRUMP’S NATIONALISM WON OVER WHITE AMERICANS (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-nationalism-racism-make-america-great-again-521083) (#FAKE NEWS?) has this to say about one of the reasons Trump won:
As exit polls showed, Trump didn’t win among poor Americans, as was expected; the majority of voters (52 percent) with a total family income of less than $50,000 in 2015 actually voted for the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
Trump voters tended to be older (53 percent of people aged 45 and over voted for him), well-off and white. According to the exit polls, 58 percent of all white voters chose Trump at the voting booth, while just 21 percent of non-white voters cast their ballots for the Republican nominee.
The biggest issue for Trump voters—ahead of foreign policy, the economy or terrorism—was immigration, exit polls showed, with 84 percent of Trump voters saying that the government should deport undocumented migrants rather than give them the chance to apply for legal status.
Analysts say Trump’s success among white voters is partly attributable to his tapping into concerns about immigration and a feeling among many voters that the U.S. should be a white, Christian country. “It’s like everything he said hit the right nationalistic buttons,” says Allyson Shortle, assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma.
Ok, so what about MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN? Well...
But by targeting Muslims and undocumented migrants, Trump also played upon certain desires to view the U.S. as a “white” country that was under threat from non-white immigrants. Many of his supporters, Shortle says, interpreted Trump’s campaign slogan—Make America Great Again—as “Make America White Again.”
So, many voters voted for Trump as a result of a "Whitewash"...that's not my term, that was a term Van Jones, a CNN commentator said on 11/9/2017. 'This was a whitelash': Van Jones' take on the election results (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/van-jones-results-disappointment-cnntv/).
Yeah he walked that line back a bit on The View (#ANGRY WOMEN). Van said: "Let me tell you what I wasn't saying. I was not saying that all 50 to 60 million people who voted for Donald Trump are racially hateful people who want to be in the alt-right neo Nazi camp. I wasn't saying that. And it would actually be unfair to the Trump voters to say that they're all racist. But to say that the alt-right and the neo Nazis who were celebrating weren't a part, that would be unfair to the rest of America. We've got to be honest about what's going on. Both political parties right now I think have big problems and they don't want to discuss it. If you discuss it you get in trouble."
Ya might wanna walk back that "nationalist feeling that America and many Americans feel". Remember, the main reason Trump won was that the 62,979,879 (27%) of eligible voters who voted for Trump won out over the 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote at all. That sounds like a protest non-vote...
But as Maureen Dowd mentioned
"Donald Trump has indeed already made some of America Great Again.
Just not the aspects he intended.
He has breathed new zest into a wide range of things: feminism, liberalism, student activism, newspapers, cable news, protesters, bartenders, shrinks, Twitter, the A.C.L.U., “S.N.L.,” town halls, George Orwell, Margaret Atwood, Hannah Arendt, Stephen Colbert, Nordstrom, the Federalist Papers, separation of powers, division of church and state, athletes and coaches taking political stands and Frederick Douglass."
Let's see how long Trump hangs in there...at least there wasn't a new episode of SNL last night to have him tweeting about all morning :~)
-
A Mainer (and Libertarian) friend of mine, passed this on to me.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but it looks like Trump is actually making America great again. Just look at the progress made since the election:
1. Unprecedented levels of ongoing civic engagement.
2. Millions of Americans now know who their state and federal representatives are without having to google.
3. Millions of Americans are exercising more. They're holding signs and marching every week.
4. Alec Baldwin is great again. Everyone's forgotten he's kind of a jerk.
5. The Postal Service is enjoying the influx cash due to stamps purchased by millions of people for letter and postcard campaigns.
6. Likewise, the pharmaceutical industry is enjoying record growth in sales of anti-depressants.
7. Millions of Americans now know how to call their elected officials and know exactly what to say to be effective.
8. Footage of town hall meetings is now entertaining.
9. Tens of millions of people are now correctly spelling words like emoluments, narcissist, fascist, misogynist, holocaust and cognitive dissonance.
10. Everyone knows more about the rise of Hitler than they did last year.
11. Everyone knows more about legislation, branches of power and how checks and balances work.
12. Marginalized groups are experiencing a surge in white allies.
13. White people in record numbers have just learned that racism is not dead.
14. White people in record numbers also finally understand that Obamacare IS the Affordable Care Act.
15. Stephen Colbert's "Late Night" finally gained the elusive #1 spot in late night talk shows, and Seth Meyers is finding his footing as today's Jon Stewart.
16. "Mike Pence" has donated millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood since Nov. 9th.
17. Melissa FREAKING McCarthy.
18. Travel ban protesters put $24 million into ACLU coffers in just 48 hours, enabling them to hire 200 more attorneys. Lawyers are now heroes.
19. As people seek veracity in their news sources, respected news outlets are happily reporting a substantial increase in subscriptions, a boon to a struggling industry vital to our democracy.
20. Live streaming court cases and congressional sessions are now as popular as the Kardashians.
21. Massive cleanup of facebook friend lists.
22. People are reading classic literature again. Sales of George Orwell's "1984" increased by 10,000% after the inauguration. (Yes, that is true. 10,000%. 9th grade Lit teachers all over the country are now rock stars.)
23. More than ever before, Americans are aware that education is important. Like, super important.
24. Now, more than anytime in history, everyone believes that anyone can be President. Seriously, anyone.
-
Trump won because he tapped into a nationalist feeling that America and many Americans feel. That they have been left behind by the business and political elites who not only weren't hurt by the 2008 recession, but actually made out better. Trump understood this. He became the champion of these workers who were left behind who normally vote Democrat.
Even you must concede that Trump's appointment of lots of people who profited off the recent recession to his cabinet is somewhat at odds with the worker who were left behind. I seem to remember him raking Clinton over the coals for her interactions with Goldman Sachs and now his cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs alumni. Pretty strange if he is still trying to appeal to the worker bees and not the elites.
-
Did anyone else notice the attempt above to describe how crime data is collected in Swedish, as a way to introduce plausible deniability that maybe there might have been some crime committed there in the last couple of days after all, and that maybe it might have been committed by a muslim immigrant because Sweden has so many. So maybe Trump's silly claim was not a lie, but maybe another "alternate fact". I am insulted by this BS. Maybe the flat earth is an alternate reality then, worthy of discussion? Most of this Trumpeteer tripe doesn't meet the minimum acceptable criteria for adult conversation.
It's stranger than that. There was story on Fox cable news about Sweden and historical crime rates. He totally got the story wrong in his speech. One really wonders whether any of his assistants go over his remarks in advance. He just ends up looking foolish like a bad standup comic.
EDIT: Good Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/19/sweden-has-no-idea-what-trump-meant-when-he-said-you-look-at-whats-happening-in-sweden/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_wv-sweden-843am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c265748781e3) story on this. The Swedes have asked the State Department for clarification on this.
-
It's stranger than that. There was story on Fox cable news about Sweden and historical crime rates.
This was the source of the USA President's military/political intel (which he finds more reliable that his secret service's):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSzjfAMk-RI
Cheers,
Bart
-
(http://americanart.si.edu/images/1974/1974.80.3_1a.jpg)
"The People of These United States Are the Rightful Masters of both Congresses and Courts, Not to Overthrow the Constitution, but to Over-throw the Men Who Pervert that Constitution"
–Abraham Lincoln,
[September 16-17, 1859]
From a poster at the Smithsonian American Art Museum
Right On Abe!
Edited to adjust the link to the poster
-
Even you must concede that Trump's appointment of lots of people who profited off the recent recession to his cabinet is somewhat at odds with the worker who were left behind. I seem to remember him raking Clinton over the coals for her interactions with Goldman Sachs and now his cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs alumni. Pretty strange if he is still trying to appeal to the worker bees and not the elites.
Trump didn't win in a vacuum. There were two candidates. He ran against Hillary, an elite and multimillionaire who sold political favors, who continued to identify with the elites that had been in power for decades. Trump, despite his wealth, was an outsider. He never held any political power. He spoke brusquely, but in plain English regular people could understand. Clinton, the anointed one and royalty-in-waiting, spoke out of both sides of her mouth and she spoke down to people. Trump was a non-politician who supported "fly over" country voters in key electoral states that carried him to victory. Clinton called those former Democrats "deplorables" and "close the coal mines". She thought she had these states locked up and not worthy of even campaigning in many of them. So she lost.
Regarding Trump's appointments, you will be right if that's what they wind up doing - feathering their own beds. But they report to Trump. If he holds to his promises, they will support his objectives. The fact they are rich doesn't both people. After all they elected a rich guy so why would his rich appointees concern them. Plus, you want successful people in business who know how it works to make proper changes to effect policy. Otherwise you wind up with people who just rubber stamp the existing bureaucracy and nothing changes. Like I said, these voters didn't vote in a vacuum. They had no confidence that Hillary would change anything. Sanders supporters were right about his views of Hillary. We found out just how corrupt she was from the Russians when they revealed how Clinton conspired with the Democratic National Convention to defeat Sanders and how she received the CNN questions to the presidential debate before the debate. The people who eventually voted for Trump were more concerned about what Hillary did than the fact the Russians revealed it.
-
It's stranger than that. There was story on Fox cable news about Sweden and historical crime rates. He totally got the story wrong in his speech. One really wonders whether any of his assistants go over his remarks in advance. He just ends up looking foolish like a bad standup comic.
EDIT: Good Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/19/sweden-has-no-idea-what-trump-meant-when-he-said-you-look-at-whats-happening-in-sweden/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_wv-sweden-843am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c265748781e3) story on this. The Swedes have asked the State Department for clarification on this.
You totally missed his point, just like the biased media. You didn't hear, or frankly listen, to the rest of his point which included other countries and cities like Paris, Nice etc where there had been terrorist attacks. You only heard Sweden where he may have gotten wrong information. But you didn't hear his complete point that it was Europe letting in these Muslim refugees that allowed the climate for terrorist attacks to occur in Europe. Trump didn't want to make the same mistake as Europe. That's the point he was making. Trump's dumb, "flyover country, knuckle dragging supporters" however, got it! All the brilliant minds in their desire to hate Trump, refuse to actually listen to what he is saying. They focus on errors in speech and his inaccuracy with some of the facts missing entirely what he is saying and the points he is making. You're playing "gotcha" politics and his supporters laugh at you. Your hate of him blinds your thinking so you don't see the forest through the trees. Your rationality is gone. The more he repeats, "fake news", the blinder you get. It's a wonder to view!
-
You totally missed his point, just like the biased media. You didn't hear, or frankly listen, to the rest of his point which included other countries and cities like Paris, Nice etc where there had been terrorist attacks. You only heard Sweden where he may have gotten wrong information.
If you were going to speak in front of 9000 people with TV cameras recording your every moment would not you want to be sure of your facts? I've done lots of public speaking during my working career and testified at Congressional Hearings about a dozen times (twice under oath as that was the custom of that committee regardless of the topic of the hearing) an I damn sure wanted to make sure what I was saying was true and accurate. I expect the same standard as my President.
You're playing "gotcha" politics and his supporters laugh at you. Your hate of him blinds your thinking so you don't see the forest through the trees. Your rationality is gone. The more he repeats, "fake news", the blinder you get. It's a wonder to view!
No, I just demand the President live up to the same standards that I have set for myself. I don't hate President Trump, I want every President to succeed as I'm a citizen of the US and their success is my success. My concern is that President Trump appears to be very insecure. Why does he keep harping on his election victory? That was over with the second week in November? It's time to govern and not hold pep rallies. It's also time to deal with the press as a grown up and not a spoiled little child. He can chant "Fake News" all he wants and that's fine for the 30% of the people in this country who supported him. It won't do for the rest of us and he continues this at his peril.
-
Sorry, Alan, but PotUS really doesn't get to keep making mistakes. His commentary was unclear and without clear intent or meaning. Its his job to communicate effectively, without the need for constant clarification and apologists.
If this was a rare thing, to misspeak, to forget to say "Last night's documentary on Fox about Sweden", it wouldn't be an issue and a smart guy would have apologised, laughed at his mistake, and played along with some of the silly things people are mentioning about what happened last night in Sweden. But he does it all the time. He constantly does it. He's not used to people checking what he says is actually true and accurate and instead of fixing the problem, he blames the media. I know, I know, you'll say it's all being twisted. You know what? It's his job to make sure that what he says can't be twisted. He's not getting a harder time than any other leader, he's just not learning very quickly.
Everyone got the point he was making, but they aren't going to let him keep saying things incorrectly. Again, it's his job to get it right, all the time.
-
You totally missed his point, just like the biased media. You didn't hear, or frankly listen, to the rest of his point which included other countries and cities like Paris, Nice etc where there had been terrorist attacks. You only heard Sweden where he may have gotten wrong information. But you didn't hear his complete point that it was Europe letting in these Muslim refugees that allowed the climate for terrorist attacks to occur in Europe. Trump didn't want to make the same mistake as Europe. That's the point he was making. Trump's dumb, "flyover country, knuckle dragging supporters" however, got it!
Well, they got it mostly wrong.
The attacks that did take place, were mostly perpetrated by radicalized nationals (homegrown terrorists) and not refugees. Not that it's a contest, but more people die in the USA by gun violence among citizens (84 people killed and 190 injured in the last 72 hours as of this writing) than by refugees.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...he does it all the time. He constantly does it...
Correct. At some point you'd expect people to accept that that's the way he speaks, that's his personality, broad-brush, big picture, intuitive. Or they can keep taking him literally and deliberately misinterpreting the context.
-
...not refugees. ..
Yet.
-
Sorry, Alan, but PotUS really doesn't get to keep making mistakes. His commentary was unclear and without clear intent or meaning. Its his job to communicate effectively, without the need for constant clarification and apologists.
If this was a rare thing, to misspeak, to forget to say "Last night's documentary on Fox about Sweden", it wouldn't be an issue and a smart guy would have apologised, laughed at his mistake, and played along with some of the silly things people are mentioning about what happened last night in Sweden. But he does it all the time. He constantly does it. He's not used to people checking what he says is actually true and accurate and instead of fixing the problem, he blames the media. I know, I know, you'll say it's all being twisted. You know what? It's his job to make sure that what he says can't be twisted. He's not getting a harder time than any other leader, he's just not learning very quickly.
Everyone got the point he was making, but they aren't going to let him keep saying things incorrectly. Again, it's his job to get it right, all the time.
If the liberal news media did not hate Trump so much and stopped playing "gotcha" politics, they would have said, "Although Trump appears to have the facts about Sweden wrong, he again made his point that he's opposed to letting in Muslim refugees to America as they have in Europe. He expressed that he fears the same terrorism he said is occurring in Nice, Paris and other cities in Europe would happen here."
Now that would be refreshing, honest and responsible news reporting.
Instead we get this headline, "Trump falsely accuses Sweden of terror that hasn't happened. Gets his facts wrong again."
His main concern is not even mentioned. That's the essence of "fake news". And his supporters understand the game that's being played.
-
If the liberal news media did not hate Trump so much and stopped playing "gotcha" politics, they would have said, "Although Trump appears to have the facts about Sweden wrong, he again made his point that he's opposed to letting in Muslim refugees to America as they have in Europe. He expressed that he fears the same terrorism he said is occurring in Nice, Paris and other cities in Europe would happen here."
Now that would be refreshing, honest and responsible news reporting.
Instead we get this headline, "Trump falsely accuses Sweden of terror that hasn't happened. Gets his facts wrong again."
Alan,
Do really believe what you write?
Everybody knows that Trump thinks that immigrants pose a security threat and that's why he has proposed an illegal law preventing their entry. That isn't news. We could debate for years about the relevance, knowing that most perpetrators recently were not immigrants but people who were born in the country where they committed their horrible acts.
But to the point, there is no way that not reminding Trump's intend in every article shows a lack of objectivity. The news is clearly that he feels the need to invent new facts when real ones aren't supportive enough of his claims.
That reminds me of the blatant lies that supported the war in Irak... that itself is the real root cause of the terrorism in Europe.
See a trend?... Fake news/lies that have huge consequences in the long run. The problem is that the president of the USA lies to the public to support his ignorant and short sighted agendas.
If you tried to be objective, what would you disagree with in what I write here?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Alan,
Do really believe what you write?
Everybody knows that Trump thinks that immigrantes pose a security threat and that's why he has proposed an illegal law preventing their entry. That isn't news. We could debate for years about the relevance, knowing that most perpetrators recently were not immigrants but people who were born in the country where they committed their horrible acts.
But to the point, there is no way that not reminding Trump's intend in every article shows a lack of objectivity. The news is clearly that he feels the need to invent new ones when facts aren't supportive enough of his claims.
That reminds me of the blatant lies that supported the war in Irak... that itself is the real root cause of the terrorism in Europe.
See a trend?... Fake news/lies that have huge consequences in the long run. The problem is that the president of the USA lies to the public to support his ignorant and short sighted agendas.
If you tried to be objective, what would you disagree with in what I write here?
Cheers,
Bernard
Apparently Trump has been reading similar news articles on how there is more Muslim migrant crime in Sweden. Of course the Swedish government doesn';t want to own up to it because it would make them look bad to their voters for letting the migrants in. So in addition to not wanting terrorism like Europe has, Trump also doesn't want that associate "normal" crime caused by the migration. Seems like he got it right. I guess we'll have to wait for an actual terrorist crime in Sweden to confirm his mistake. In the meanwhile, read my previous post. This is all "gotcha" news perpetrated by a biased press. If it was anyone else, Sweden wouldn't even be mentioned. It's a non-story. The biased press did the same thing with Reagan. He's losing it. Etc. And I', old enough to remember the liberal press did the same thing with President Eisenhower in the 50's. He would sometimes flub his words in news conferences all the time and forget his point in the middle of making a statement. They would tear him down to make him look incompetent. But he won a second term anyway because the people saw through it.
http://www.infowars.com/second-swedish-police-officer-blows-the-whistle-on-migrant-crime-cover-up/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12466/how-muslim-migration-made-malmo-sweden-crime-michael-qazvini
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/19/trumps-sweden-comment-referred-to-rising-white-house-says
-
Apparently Trump has been reading similar news articles on how there is more Muslim migrant crime in Sweden. Of course the Swedish government doesn';t want to own up to it because it would make them look bad to their voters for letting the migrants in. So in addition to not wanting terrorism like Europe has, Trump also doesn't want that associate "normal" crime caused by the migration. Seems like he got it right. I guess we'll have to wait for an actual terrorist crime in Sweden to confirm his mistake. In the meanwhile, read my previous post. This is all "gotcha" news perpetrated by a biased press. If it was anyone else, Sweden wouldn't even be mentioned. It's a non-story. The biased press did the same thing with Reagan. He's losing it. Etc. And I', old enough to remember the liberal press did the same thing with President Eisenhower in the 50's. He would sometimes flub his words in news conferences all the time and forget his point in the middle of making a statement. They would tear him down to make him look incompetent.
Houston we have a problem.
Trump isn't anyone else, he is the president of one of the most powerful countries in the world.
Nobody would have a problem with him deforming facts about Sweden if he were doing it in his talk show.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Houston we have a problem.
Trump isn't anyone else, he is the president of one of the most powerful countries in the world.
Nobody would have a problem with him deforming facts about Sweden if he were doing it in his talk show.
Cheers,
Bernard
Another Trump jokester. Fortunately, you can't vote.
-
... most perpetrators recently were not immigrants but people who were born in the country....
Whose parents were immigrants. Same difference. The new immigrants just have not had their chance...yet.
-
Trump knows, his ancestors emigrated from Sweden.
Oh, that was actually a lie...
-
Apparently Trump has been reading similar news articles on how there is more Muslim migrant crime in Sweden. Of course the Swedish government doesn';t want to own up to it because it would make them look bad to their voters for letting the migrants in.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/19/trumps-sweden-comment-referred-to-rising-white-house-says
Wow, if you are gonna link to an article, ya might wanna read it to make sure it says what you think it says...
"On Friday night, the Fox News host Tucker Carlson presented a segment with the film-maker Ami Horowitz, who claims that the migrants Sweden has accepted are linked to crime.
“Sweden had its first terrorist Islamic attack not that long ago, so they’re now getting a taste of what we’ve been seeing across Europe already,” Horowitz claimed, without specifying what attack he was alluding to. “They oftentimes try to cover up some of these crimes.”
Sweden suffered a suicide bombing by an Iraqi-born Swedish citizen in Stockholm in 2010, a year before civil wars began in Syria and Libya and unrest across the Middle East pushed millions of people to flee their homes, many into Europe. Crime rates in Sweden have changed little over the last 10 years, according to the 2016 Swedish Crime Survey.
Sweden’s foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, tweeted a link observing that “post-truth” was named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries in 2016.
She also tweeted an excerpt of a speech she gave in parliament last week. “Both functioning democracy and constructive cooperation between states require us to speak with, and not about, each other, to honour agreements and to allow ideas to compete,” Wallstrom said. “They also require us to respect science, facts and the media, and to acknowledge each other’s wisdom.”
So, it seems that the real #FAKE NEWS story was the one that Fox News host Tucker Carlson did on Fox that Trump ended up seeing...which doesn't bode well for America's foreign policy being determined when Trump watches too much Fox News...
-
Apparently some Trump supporters are now claiming a Swedish cover-up of a terrorist attack. Clearly some are as stupid as he is.
-
Correct. At some point you'd expect people to accept that that's the way he speaks, that's his personality, broad-brush, big picture, intuitive. Or they can keep taking him literally and deliberately misinterpreting the context.
So, you are saying that I really can't listen to what Trump says to understand what he actually means? Huh? Are you seriously telling me to not listen to what he says and just watch his hand waving and promises to Make America Great Again but not actually try to understand what Trump is talking about?
Wow, you are starting to sound like Kellyann Conway on New Day “Why is everything taken at face value? You can’t give him the benefit of the doubt on this and he’s telling you what was in his heart, you always want to go with what’s come out of his mouth rather than look at what’s in his heart.”
That reminds me of a recent column from out home town newspaper, the Chicago Tribune ( suppose they fall under the #FAKE NEWS category too huh?) by Rex Huppke-Contact Reporter. Translating Trump's words into English (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-trump-press-conference-huppke-20170217-story.html).
In the column he says: If you watched President Donald Trump's most recent news conference, you may have reached a point midway through when you thought: "That's strange, I don't recall buying a one-way ticket to Crazytown."
Don't be alarmed. That's a perfectly normal reaction, as most Americans are what I call "Trump-illiterate." They hear words coming out of the president's mouth but have no clue what those words actually mean.
So, I guess Trump is speaking his own dialect of English called Trumpglish (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trumpglish) I'll copy the definition if ya want. urbandictionary.com (http://www.urbandictionary.com) defines Trumpglish as: "An American English dialect, evasive and insulting in nature, primarily used in situations where eloquent and rational answer is not in the person's vocabulary and to deviate, distract and deceive from real and honest commitment. Exclusively used by con men and unqualified billionaire presidential candidates at this time.
Instead of admitting you are clueless, one can use Trumpglish to offer an evasive answer get out the situation."
Actually, if ya wanna a good laugh, check out the other Trump'isms on the list on the side...I like Trumphatige: "A state of exaustion created by endless being subjected to new words stemming from the root word, Trump.
Bro, my brain just can't keep up with all the new Trump words. I think I'm suffering from Trumphatige".
Ok...I guess I'll just have to quit listening to Trump...ya know, actually I think that's a really healthy idea!
-
Whose parents were immigrants. Same difference. The new immigrants just have not had their chance...yet.
So, on that basis, that makes you and your daughter .. what ?
-
Trying to understand the social divide, and who really benefits from it, I come to think that the political reactionary forces that cast a shadow over the world as we speak are only the introduction of what is to come.
Americas economic system functions to make the existing money dynasty even richer. This I believe is a part of what motivated Trump votes, despite the ironic fact that Trump is member of this dynasty. Further the economic side of things functions by a long list of hot and cold wars that creates the ever higher profits for the entitled class in the US.
Currently ths US bullies nations into higher military spending, with little to zero resistance from the nations bullied.
Military state expenditures are the number one source for ridiculously high profits, and to keep them gushing forth, new theaters of war are urgently required, and the Mattis rhetoric on Iran leaves no doubts on the agenda in my mind.
I don't know how the war mongerers and profiteers can be stopped in their tracks and I find it too obvious what is coming down the pipe if the trend continues, sadly.
-
At least the US has coloured president again, cheese curl type this time.
-
There are some who think that he will change and turn back on what he campaigned on because the issues he raised were "extreme" and softer approach will be better? The problem is his critics will become more critical and his supporters will feel betrayed. He believes totally in himself so when the cliff edge appears he will go right over rather than pull back. His Republican colleges will be unable to stop him and go over the cliff with him??? If they manage to stop him he will become a martyr and turn on them blaming them for his failures. The US has huge problems ahead, not with the rest of the world but with someone with a huge ego who is only interested in his "world"
-
So, on that basis, that makes you and your daughter .. what ?
Let's not get personal. Afterall, all Americans except the native Indians, Yupik, and Hawaiʻi Maoli, are basically immigrants.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There are some who think that he will change and turn back on what he campaigned on because the issues he raised were "extreme" and softer approach will be better? The problem is his critics will become more critical and his supporters will feel betrayed. He believes totally in himself so when the cliff edge appears he will go right over rather than pull back.
Or as we used to say when our multinational corporation kept on heading for bankrupcy, despite our warnings:
Last year we were at the edge of the ravine, this year we're taking a giant step forward ...
It would be funny if it was not so serious. Trump is incapable of learning from his mistakes because he thinks he doesn't make mistakes. So it will only get worse.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now"
Thank God for the Electoral College, otherwise, we would have the lying and corrupt Clinton family enabled to continue their self-enrichment program at the expense of Americans while further degrading America in the eyes of the world and our citizens.
Maybe if the alt-left press would give him a chance and stop inventing mistruths about his agenda and personality, we might realize that he is going to move us forward and strengthen our standing in the world as the Republic we are.
Cheers,
Bud
-
"Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now"
Thank God for the Electoral College, otherwise, we would have the lying and corrupt Clinton family enabled to continue their self-enrichment program at the expense of Americans while further degrading America in the eyes of the world and our citizens.
Maybe if the alt-left press would give him a chance and stop inventing mistruths about his agenda and personality, we might realize that he is going to move us forward and strengthen our standing in the world as the Republic we are.
Cheers,
Bud
At least some have some sense of humour left...
-
So, on that basis, that makes you and your daughter .. what ?
Non-Muslim.
-
...Are you seriously telling me to not listen to what he says and just watch ... but not actually try to understand what Trump is talking about?...
No, I am actually telling you the opposite: to try to understand. The first step is not to take things literelly.
-
Non-Muslim.
Hmmm ... perhaps, but immigrants nonetheless, so if I'm to follow your line of reasoning - then:
Same difference. The new immigrants just have not had their chance...yet.
.. and anyway I thought the US Constitution forbade discrimination on grounds of religion ?
-
Hmmm ... perhaps, but immigrants nonetheless, so if I'm to follow your line of reasoning - then:
.. and anyway I thought the US Constitution forbade discrimination on grounds of religion ?
What we were clearly talking about was Muslim immigration, and the related rise in crime and rape in Sweden, and crime, rape, and terrorism in Europe. I ommitied that distinction for brevity, assuming everyone understands.
As for the US constitution, it applies to citizens and those legally inside it. It does not apply to those wishing to come in. On the contrary, any US president has a legal power to stop any group of people, for any reason, from entering the US.
The US already has a precedent of "discriminating" based on religion: special program for Jews leaving the USSR in the 70s-80s.
-
This thread is very entertaining. It also makes me feel glad that I live in the egalitarian country of Australia which has a sound, social security network where everyone gets adequate medical treatment whatever their financial situation.
The most troubling aspect of the situation in the USA, is the national debt. A few years ago it was an enormous 9, 10 and 11 trillion dollars. Now it's close to 20 trillion dollars, or about $62,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
That's the problem. Instead of quibbling about the accuracy of political statements from Donald Trump, you should focus on ways to reduce your national debt.
Attached is a graph of the US national debt between 1940 and 2015. It's only been greater, and then only slightly greater, towards the end of WW2.
-
Non-Muslim.
So Trump's new Executive Order should discriminate based on religion, and this time a.o. include countries like e.g. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia? And then people wonder why those so-called judges are so keen on defending the law. Who's next, people with brown hair, below a certain level of income, colored skin (unless it's orange), ... ?
And that's even before we start addressing the lack of security discipline by Trump himself:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/trumps-apparent-string-of-security-faux-pas-trigger-call-for-house-investigation/
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Who's next, people with brown hair...
If "people with brown hair" gang up, establish a hundreds of thousands strong army, with millions of followers or admirers around the world, start bombing and killing everyone and everywhere, get hell-bent on imposing their brown-hair worldview on everyone else by force (e.g., trying to convert blonds into smarts), then...yes, they'd be next.
-
This thread is very entertaining. It also makes me feel glad that I live in the egalitarian country of Australia which has a sound, social security network where everyone gets adequate medical treatment whatever their financial situation.
Hi Ray,
Like you, I'm glad to live in a Country that takes some (could be more in some cases, less or different in others) moral responsibility, and recognizes that 'the press' is a normal (if not indispensable) force in the system of checks and balances that go together with the mandate to govern a Country. Your PM Malcolm Turnbull sounds like a decent guy (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-17/turnbull-says-trump-wasting-his-time-with-fake-news-complaints), although he is probably also not popular with all Australians.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If "people with brown hair" gang up, establish a hundreds of thousands strong army, with millions of followers or admirers around the world, start bombing and killing everyone and everywhere, get hell-bent on imposing their brown-hair worldview on everyone else by force (e.g., trying to convert blonds into smarts), then...yes, they'd be next.
Unless they supply oil and buy weapon systems, I'm sure.
Although ..
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/mattis-no-plan-to-seize-iraqi-oil-235200
Makes one wonder how long James Mattis will be tolerated by Trump.
Cheers,
Bart
-
List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration:
Goldman Sachs appointees (http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/donald-trump-goldman-sachs-drain-swamp-steve-bannon-steven-mnuchin-gary-cohn-jay-clayton/)
Sorry, Republican battlers, you have been sold down the drain.
-
List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration...
Would you prefer rust-belt workers or the rednecks appointed instead?
-
Hi Ray,
Like you, I'm glad to live in a Country that takes some (could be more in some cases, less or different in others) moral responsibility, and recognizes that 'the press' is a normal (if not indispensable) force in the system of checks and balances that go together with the mandate to govern a Country. Your PM Malcolm Turnbull sounds like a decent guy, although he is probably also not popular with all Australians.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
Australia is a big country which is not over-populated and has a generous social services system. It is therefore an attractive destination for refugees.
Without the harsh rules with regard to refugees arriving by boat, our country would eventually be swamped by Muslims.
I understand perfectly Donald Trump's comment that the deal to export our refugees to the USA, which we'd placed in detention centres outside Australia, was a 'dumb deal' (by Obama).
Why should the USA take refugees that Australia doesn't want? Of course it's a 'dumb deal' (from the American perspective).
Muslim refugees should go to other Muslim countries. Isn't that obvious?
If I were a Christian, I would not want to live permanently in a Muslim country. Likewise, if I were a Muslim, I would not want to live in a Christian country, or a predominately atheistic country.
Muslim refugees should flee to other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia. That's bleeding obvious.
-
Muslim refugees should go to other Muslim countries. Isn't that obvious?
This is absurd. Yikes.
-
...Likewise, if I were a Muslim, I would not want to live in a Christian country, or a predominately atheistic country...
Unless the goal is to turn it into a Muslim one.
-
This is absurd. Yikes.
Why is it absurd? That's the point. Any opinion by whomever, is only worth the evidence and reasoning presented in support of the opinion.
-
Hi Bart,
Australia is a big country which is not over-populated and has a generous social services system. It is therefore an attractive destination for refugees.
One should make a distinction (which isn't always easy) between asylum seekers, refugees and economical fortune seekers or terrorists. Countries have a legal obligation (http://www.ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/) to give shelter to asylum seekers and refugees. Views on moral obligation differ between civilisations or those pretending to be. This does not mean these people will stay, but they will receive food, shelter, basic medical care, etc.
Muslim refugees should go to other Muslim countries. Isn't that obvious?
Not if they are fleeing (or have to fear) other Muslims, no, not obvious at all. There are several 'flavors' of Islam and they are rather intolerant amongst eachother. Would it be best to provide a safe place to stay (for a while) in the region they come from, sure. But if there are too many, one might be better off to spread the burdon a bit to avoid that direct neighbors collapse as well. One has to be pragmatic.
Muslim refugees should flee to other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia. That's bleeding obvious.
Or, as a Kuwaiti gentleman said when interviewed in the street about Syrian refugees, "it's too expensive here for those refugees, they cant afford it".
Cheers,
Bart
-
Let's discus the root causes of the current situation. What breeds terrorism and protectionist policies?
-
Unless the goal is to turn it into a Muslim one.
Exactly! That's the concern of most Australians.
-
...Or, as a Kuwaiti gentleman said when interviewed in the street about Syrian refugees, "it's too expensive here for those refugees, they cant afford it".
Wouldn't Kuwait also have a "legal obligation" to give shelter to asylum seekers and refugees, and provide them with "food, shelter, basic medical care, etc."?
Or is it only a "legal obligation" of idealistic (or is it spelled "idiotic"?) countries, committing a cultural suicide?
-
Not if they are fleeing (or have to fear) other Muslims, no, not obvious at all. There are several 'flavors' of Islam and they are rather intolerant amongst eachother. Would it be best to provide a safe place to stay (for a while) in the region they come from, sure. But if there are too many, one might be better off to spread the burdon a bit to avoid that direct neighbors collapse as well. One has to be pragmatic.
Bart,
There are many flavours of all sorts of things. If religion is important for you, then the best solution is to live in a country which supports your particular flavour of religion. That's pragmatic.
-
Wouldn't Kuwait also have a "legal obligation" to give shelter to asylum seekers and refugees, and provide them with "food, shelter, basic medical care, etc."?
Yes, but they don't give a damn about their 'brothers', and apparently have the sympathy of the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
There are many flavours of all sorts of things. If religion is important for you, then the best solution is to live in a country which supports your particular flavour of religion. That's pragmatic.
Not really, it's narrow minded, flat earth thinking behavior.
Open minded people can learn something from one another, even if it is what not to do.
Dogmatic beliefs, and the same goes for Trump, seem incapable of even learning from their own mistakes.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now"
Thank God for the Electoral College, otherwise, we would have the lying and corrupt Clinton family enabled to continue their self-enrichment program at the expense of Americans while further degrading America in the eyes of the world and our citizens.
Maybe if the alt-left press would give him a chance and stop inventing mistruths about his agenda and personality, we might realize that he is going to move us forward and strengthen our standing in the world as the Republic we are.
Cheers,
Bud
+1
-
Whereas you've got the lying & corrupt Trump family, continuing their self-enrichment programme at the expense of Americans, whilst further degrading the USA in the eys of the world & its citizens.
BTW, there is no alt-left press.
Neither candidate was fit for purpose, but the lesser of two the evils was probably Clinton.
-
On the contrary, any US president has a legal power to stop any group of people, for any reason, from entering the US.
Well, apparently not.
Or did I, and the rest of the world, misunderstand the recent Appeals Court decision ?
-
Correct. At some point you'd expect people to accept that that's the way he speaks, that's his personality, broad-brush, big picture, intuitive. Or they can keep taking him literally and deliberately misinterpreting the context.
You mean I am NOT going to get great health insurance for a very low price?????? I was so looking forward to this as I thought this was big picture and intuitive. I'm puzzled at what points I am supposed to take literally or not. It's all so puzzling and now I'm NOT going to get my wonderful health insurance; woe is me!!!
-
Would you prefer rust-belt workers or the rednecks appointed instead?
Nope, the Goldman people are fine with me as I will do quite well with their approach to tax reform. I feel sorry for the rust-belt workers who are going to be sold down the river with their $10/month increase in income after tax reform. It's wonderful being on the right side of hypocrisy.
-
Well, apparently not.
Or did I, and the rest of the world, misunderstand the recent Appeals Court decision ?
No, you got it right. Slobadan has a strange interpretaion of the Constitution as not applying to the President.
-
...Slobodan has a strange interpretation of the Constitution as not applying to the President.
It is not a constitutional issue, it's the law:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Immigration and Nationality Act - 1952, Section 212(f)
-
It is not a constitutional issue, it's the law:
Immigration and Nationality Act - 1952, Section 212(f)
There may be better sources, but this is quite clear:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm
Nothing supersedes the Constitution, not even Trump the President.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Nothing supersedes the Constitution, not even Trump the President.
Your link references "treaties," this is a law. You'd think that, if unconstitutional, it would have been overturned in the the last 65 years?
-
Well, apparently not.
Or did I, and the rest of the world, misunderstand the recent Appeals Court decision ?
It is not unheard of that lower courts got it wrong.
-
It is not a constitutional issue, it's the law:
Immigration and Nationality Act - 1952, Section 212(f)
/*sigh
yes, and the key wording (which of course you didn't embolden) is the part 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. Something that, despite repeated requests by both courts, the administration were unable (or unwilling) to supply any substantiating submissions.
And before you and other Trumpettes, blah-on about terrorism , I'd remind you that since the US refugee programme began in 1975, more than 3.2m refugees have entered the US and only three have carried out a deadly terrorist attack. Those three were Cubans who committed their crimes in the 1970s. A 2016 Cato Institute report found that the chance of an American being murdered in a refugee-perpetrated terrorist attack was 1 in 3.64bn in any given year.
-
/*sigh
yes, and the key wording (which of course you didn't embolden) is the part 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. Something that, despite repeated requests by both courts, the administration were unable (or unwilling) to supply any substantiating submissions....
Let me bolden the really relevant part of that sentence:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States..."
-
No, I am actually telling you the opposite: to try to understand. The first step is not to take things literelly.
So...I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Don't take anything Trump says "literally"...
So, assuming we can agree on the definition of "literally" (on dictionary.com–can we?) as:
literally
[lit-er-uh-lee]
adverb
1. in the literal or strict sense: She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
What does the word mean literally?
2. in a literal manner; word for word:
to translate literally.
3. actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:
The city was literally destroyed.
4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually:
I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume.
So, what you are saying is that Trump should not be taken literally in a strict sense, or word for word or without exaggeration or inaccuracy or in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.
Sorry, I guess I'm at a complete loss as to how I can listen to the words somebody says and not take the words that are said literally. You either say what you mean or you mean what you say but you can't say something and not mean it. Not if you are trying to communicate key ideas or concepts. Something I think is important if they are interested in leading people.
I think it's a very sad day when one can't take the words of our president as meaningful communication and to be told to not take him literally is an insult to the collective intelligence of the American people...reminds me of the line from the Wizard of Oz–pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/902/602/8bf.gif)
Yeah, that doesn't work for me...
-
Let me bolden the really relevant part of that sentence:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law
Cheers,
Bart
-
It is not a constitutional issue, it's the law:
Immigration and Nationality Act - 1952, Section 212(f)
Well aware of the statute that was passed during the awful McCarthy Red Baiting years (substitute Muslim for Red and you pretty much get what is happening today). the problem is that the President still has to follow the law and the first attempt was so woeful that had it been a first year associate at a law firm, that person would have been dismissed. We'll see if they can get it right the second time.
-
It is not unheard of that lower courts got it wrong.
Luckily we have a Guy On The Internet to set us straight when the judges get it wrong.
-
Luckily we have a Guy On The Internet to set us straight when the judges get it wrong.
No, luckily we have higher courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court.
-
Maybe if the alt-left press would give him a chance and stop inventing mistruths about his agenda and personality, we might realize that he is going to move us forward and strengthen our standing in the world as the Republic we are.
So, who are the "alt-left press"? Is it limited to the media Trump singled out The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Anybody else on the list? Let's take a look at the way media is rated (according to Pew)
(https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/10/PewNew2.gif&op=noop)
So, anything left of say Yahoo News or the Wall Street Journal may fall into Trump sphere of #FAKE NEWS. Wow...ok, that leaves us with only Fox News, Drudge Report and the hodgepodge wing nut/crackpot alt-right.
Well, I do occasionally listen to Fox News (it's like a jolt of caffeine from an expresso) and read Breitbart. Don't know about The Blaze (I'll have to check it out) but I draw the line at Limbaugh and Hannity. Glenn Beck however can sometimes make sense without boiling the blood of liberals...
So, anybody let of the WSJ acceptable? Kinda limits your sources for news and information...hopefully ya don't get all your news from the Facebook friend echo chamber...
Seriously, the "alt-left press" is only alt-left when you compare it to the alt-right press. But Trump labels everybody left of Fox as #FAKE NEWS...that's gonna come back to bite him in the ass.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law
I am not sure the link supports your side of the argument. The clause means the president must take care to see the laws executed, and that is exactly what Trump was doing: executing the existing law.
If someone has a problem with the law itself, that is a different matter, and there are legal ways to change the law.
-
So...I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Don't take anything Trump says "literally"...
So, assuming we can agree on the definition of "literally" ...
She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
Let me help you with that (bold). Grasping metaphors is a matter of intelligence. Taking things literally (i.e., failing to grasp the metaphor) is not.
-
I am not sure the link supports your side of the argument. The clause means the president must take care to see the laws executed, and that is exactly what Trump was doing: executing the existing law.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ensures that the United States does not adopt certain discriminatory immigration policies. The INA prohibits preference or discrimination on the basis of "a person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence".
So Trump's order was already in violation of that law. There were probably more elements that were unlawful, like unlawful detainment and like discrimination on the basis of religion, but I'd have to look up the exact wording. Not that it is necessary, because lawyers have unanimously already stated that several elements of the order were unconstitutional.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ensures that the United States does not adopt certain discriminatory immigration policies. The INA prohibits preference or discrimination on the basis of "a person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence".
So Trump's order was already in violation of that law. There were probably more elements that were unlawful, like unlawful detainment and like discrimination on the basis of religion, but I'd have to look up the exact wording. Not that it is necessary, because lawyers have unanimously already stated that several elements of the order were unconstitutional.
Cheers,
Bart
I quoted a section of that law [Section 212(f)]... it IS a part of that law, and thus can not be in violation of itself. As for constitutionality, lower courts are not in position to determine that, only the Supreme Court, which is known to overturn lower courts numerous times.
-
Let's not get personal. Afterall, all Americans except the native Indians, Yupik, and Hawaiʻi Maoli, are basically immigrants.
Cheers,
Bart
Well, if we go back far enough, everyone is an immigrant. Except perhaps for some people in Africa (or perhaps the middle east based on recent discoveries). This idea of "who was there first" is a bit specious, I think. If you want to talk about "who displaced whom" at a particular point in history, then that's perhaps a proper way to go about it. But then you're really talking about the definition of "advancing" (or not) civilization. And, since humans have been determined to be just another type of animal and nothing special except for being a tad more destructive, one might make a case that the western hemisphere's rightful "we were here first" goes to lots of "other" animal species and we should all leave so they can flourish without the destructive interference of homo sapiens on their turf.
We might all agree that going this far is unreasonable, but perhaps PITA might not think so.
The point is, we all "choose" a starting point for our various foundations of thinking.
Rand
-
I quoted a section of that law [Section 212(f)]... it IS a part of that law, and thus can not be in violation of itself.
The EO obviously is, in particular for those with valid VISA, so who already have been vetted.
As for constitutionality, lower courts are not in position to determine that, only the Supreme Court, which is known to overturn lower courts numerous times.
Not overturned in this case ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Not overturned in this case ...
Yet.
-
Yet.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-plans-new-immigration-order-next-week-ends-legal-push-in-appeals-court-1487275058?mod=e2tw
The Justice Department told an appeals court Thursday that President Donald Trump would soon rescind and replace his controversial executive order on visas and refugees, adding that the court had no further reason to consider the current version.
So the current EO will never be overturned by the Supreme Court.
We'll have to see how the new version is worded.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... So the current EO will never be overturned by the Supreme Court...
Correct. Taking something all the way to the Supreme Court takes a lot of time. It is more efficient to draft a new one.
-
Correct. Taking something all the way to the Supreme Court takes a lot of time. It is more efficient to draft a new one.
It's even more efficient to do it right the first time
-
It's even more efficient to do it right the first time
Yes, of course, Mr. Perfect ;)
-
List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration:
Goldman Sachs appointees
Sorry, Republican battlers, you have been sold down the drain.
Would you prefer rust-belt workers or the rednecks appointed instead?
To be honest, basically my philosophy is, "If it doesn't work, find another solution that does work".
Appointing a four time bankrupt and four senior executives from a company that was at the centre of the GFC is a recipe for disaster.
I'm resolved to see the crazy thing that is US politics. But Republicans, out of all the brilliant minds in the Republican Party, why have you voted for this dysfunctional lot? You have just voted in the people you most hate.
Good luck,
-
I am not sure the link supports your side of the argument. The clause means the president must take care to see the laws executed, and that is exactly what Trump was doing: executing the existing law.
If someone has a problem with the law itself, that is a different matter, and there are legal ways to change the law.
Slobadan, the original order was very poorly drafted and that was the key issue. I don't think anyone was arguing against what rights the President has. I have some good friends who are top notch lawyers and they laughed out loud when they saw what was issued. One of them recently retired as general counsel from a Fortune 500 company and he is now doing a lot of pro bono work back in DC. He was disappointed that he didn't get a chance to file the first legal challenge. The reason Trump is redrafting the original order is that they know it would not survive appeal to the Supreme Court and it's highly likely that the Supremes would not even accept it for hearing.
-
Grasping metaphors is a matter of intelligence.
Ah, so my inability to grasp and understand what Trump is saying is because I lack the intelligence to understand it...silly me. Here I was thinking that it was Trump Supporters who were "Ignorant & Dense (https://forwardprogressives.com/5-reasons-why-trump-supporters-arent-frustrated-americans-theyre-just-ignorant-stupid/).
5 Reasons Why Trump Supporters Aren’t ‘Frustrated Americans,’ They’re Just Ignorant & Dense
1. Nearly everything he says is a lie (to be factual, his rating was 69.6% not 100% lies)
2. He’s blatantly pushing bigotry and racism and they love him for it (see « Reply #548 on: February 19, 2017, 04:17:15 PM » how his "Nationalism won over the hearts and minds)
3. They never question anything he says (regardless of how nonsensical or outrageous)
4. They actually believe he’s going to build a wall (and they believe it when he says Mexico will pay–we'll see huh?)
5. He blatantly treats his supporters like they’re ignorant and stupid (yeah, that's not me saying that, that's Trump, remember "I could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square and it would not cost me any votes")
But clearly since I'm not a Trump supporter, I lack the intelligence to grasp the nuances of what Trump is trying to communicate...my failure is that I'm taking the man at his words instead of grasping the metaphors.
Well, I've been righteously chastised and will serve my penance by obediently accepting my fate of being ruled by a malignant narcissist for the next four years because clearly I'm too f**king stooopid to realize that Trump is a wonderful man who only wants to Make America Great Again and help the little people for the first time in his miserable, money grubbing life.
My bad!
In point of fact, I grasp his metaphors just fine. I know dog whistles when I hear them...
Trump may be delivering the lines but it's the Stevie Twins (Bannon & Miller) who have their hands up his arse making his mouth move. After all, Trump is just a reality TV show host playing his role of a lifetime. I just wish the show would get cancelled so America and the rest of the world could get back to their lives!
-
List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration:
Goldman Sachs appointees
Sorry, Republican battlers, you have been sold down the drain.
To be honest, basically my philosophy is, "If it doesn't work, find another solution that does work".
Appointing a four time bankrupt and four senior executives from a company that was at the centre of the GFC is a recipe for disaster.
I'm resolved to see the crazy thing that is US politics. But Republicans, out of all the brilliant minds in the Republican Party, why have you voted for this dysfunctional lot? You have just voted in the people you most hate.
Good luck,
But wasn't that the point? The Republicans didn't win anything: they were hi-jacked by a movement. Or so I've seen it represented, but that might be post-truth news. I doubt it though, as few Republican politicians seemed to be enamoured of Mr T before he won. I guess they are just trying to make the best of it, as the UK Labour party is trying to do now, and for much the same reason: don't hang in there, and it may be all over for several decades at least.
Rob C
-
Yes, of course, Mr. Perfect ;)
Don't think it has anything to do with "perfect", just good enough would do but the order miserably failed that test.
It just makes good business sense to do it right from the start and I thought that Trump would have a chance because I assumed that is what he had, but unfortunately I think I got that wrong. I now hope that he will actually start governing when the first 100 days are over, the presidential campaign has take long enough and really doesn't need to be extended after the election is over. The time for campaigning is somewhere 2020, not now.
-
...5 Reasons Why...
All five flat out wrong.
-
All five flat out wrong.
proof of Confirmation Bias in action!!!
-
...since the US refugee programme began in 1975, more than 3.2m refugees have entered the US and only three have carried out a deadly terrorist attack. Those three were Cubans who committed their crimes in the 1970s...
What are you talking about!? Just off the top of my head, the Boston bombers were refugees.
I am sure you'd continue to play the definition game: refugees, asylum-seekers, immigrants, etc. Deadly attack, terrorist attack, rape or common crime, etc. Same difference. How about those attacks that didn't turn up deadly, either because of their incompetence or because of our competence to stop them.
But the major danger is not in terrorist attacks, it is in the Islamization of the Western civilization. Europe is already lost, Trump is trying to save America.
-
All five flat out wrong.
All five are wrong? Are you sure?
Nearly everything Trump says is true?
He doesn't push bigotry and racism?
Trump supporters question what he says and often disagree?
Trump supporters know he's not going to build the wall?
And he treats his followers as though they are educated and smart?
While we may live on the same planet, we live in different realities...
In my reality, Trump is a bad guy doing bad things for bad reasons.
Time will tell...I just hope we don't end up as radioactive dust.
-
But the major danger is not in terrorist attacks, it is in the Islamization of the Western civilization. Europe is already lost, Trump is trying to save America.
Ah, there it is... Islamophobia. Ironic that we've been fighting against radical Islam terrorists since Thomas Jefferson sent marines to fight the Barbary wars over 200 years ago. Know why marines are called "leather necks"? From the shores of Tripoli ring a bell?
We've been fighting radicalism and fundamentalism ever since America was founded but painting all muslims with the radical tourist brush won't solve anything–it hasn't for over 200 years.
Xenophobia is not a good thing...
-
Honestly, if you took a poll of all Americans today, if asked "Would you vote for an administration with a four time bankrupt as head and four ex Goldman Sachs senior executives in charge would you vote for them?
Crazy,
-
The problem, Jeff, in arguing with you, is that you simultaneously fire between five and 25 talking points, or more like blanket statements, each requiring almost their own thread in order to illuminate the issue from all angles, or at least a different angle. You apparently whipped yourself into a frenzy, giving you enough adrenalin to write multiple loooong and angry posts. I can't keep up with that. I am much cooler with what happened. And when I lose in life, I just move on. You seem to be stuck in the fifth stage of grief (shock or disbelief, denial, bargaining, guilt, anger). The next is depression, then acceptance. Come to think of it, it seems you (collective "you") skipped the fourth, guilt.
-
Honestly, if you took a poll of all Americans today, if asked "Would you vote for an administration with a four time bankrupt as head and four ex Goldman Sachs senior executives in charge would you vote for them?
And yet, they are all billionaires. What's not to like about it?
You think I would rather have a guy who never worked a day in his life? Never built something, never created jobs for anyone, never took risks, never learned how to make things work. Someone who made a career of bitching and moaning? I am talking about Bernie Sanders, of course.
-
Just off the top of my head, the Boston bombers were refugees.
The Tsarnaevs entered the US on tourist visas, in 2002, and later applied for political asylum - 2002 was George Bush's watch - just fyi !
-
The Tsarnaevs entered the US on tourist visas, in 2002, and later applied for political asylum - 2002 was George Bush's watch - just fyi !
Which makes them refugees.
-
What are you talking about!? Just off the top of my head, the Boston bombers were refugees.
Timothy McVeigh was not a refugee, the Columbine killers were not refugees, the Newtown School killer was not a refugee. This is just nonsense to say we are "protecting" America when there are numerous terrorist in waiting who are not or never have been Muslims at all. Xenophobia is fine as long as you call it that!!!
But the major danger is not in terrorist attacks, it is in the Islamization of the Western civilization. Europe is already lost, Trump is trying to save America.
Hmmmm, I wonder what my Islamic neighbors think of that statement. Please do tell me other than Bosnia, what European countries are Islamic. Trump is trying to save America????? Please tell me how he plans to achieve this and why America needs saving. In my eyes, the economy is pretty darn solid, there are lots of jobs available (maybe in the wrong locations and above the skill levels of lots of the Trump voters left behind but you cannot tell me the BLS numbers are wrong --- Oh wait a minute, those must be Fake Numbers, just as the unemployment numbers are wrong as the President often reminds us --- he actually said that there are 98 million people out of work in this country----Yup, that really is a true fact when you count up the "real" unemployed, along with all the retirees, and those too young to work (thanks to child labor laws) ---and bingo ---true fact there are 98 million people who are it should be properly said "not working")
So please tell me what is there that needs saving.
-
As for constitutionality, lower courts are not in position to determine that, only the Supreme Court,
Actually, no. All United States (i.e., federal) courts have the authority — and, in fact, the responsibility when a constitutional challenge is properly presented to them by a party with standing to sue — to determine whether an act by a state or another branch of the federal government is consistent with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court may hear appeals of lower court rulings relating to constitutionality. The justices typically have discretion to decide whether to do so. The Court is most likely to consider an appeal to a lower court ruling when there is a discrepancy between the rulings of two or more Circuit Courts of Appeal.
-
And yet, they are all billionaires. What's not to like about it?
You think I would rather have a guy who never worked a day in his life? Never built something, never created jobs for anyone, never took risks, never learned how to make things work. Someone who made a career of bitching and moaning? I am talking about Bernie Sanders, of course.
They also brought the world to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Tell that to your Republican voters. I'm not against billionaires, I'm against business men who screw the global economy, Goldman Sachs did just that.
I just want ethical, successful business men to be in charge of a Republican government. Your argument is so in contrast to what the people who voted for Trump want. They lost their homes, jobs because of the likes of Goldman Sachs executives.
Really,
-
And yet, they are all billionaires. What's not to like about it?
Because they are spinning dross just like their boss. Gary Cohn (ex-GS president) said the other day that there is a big problem with banks not loaning out money. Yet, surveys by the small business trade association have consistently stated over the past five years that access to capital is not a major problem for their members. Furthermore, the banks do not have as much money to loan as they have engaged in stock buy backs (takes money away from loans), excessive senior management compensation (takes money away from loans) and paying out higher dividends to shareholders than is warranted (and yes, I own some bank stocks, and yes it takes money away from making loans). The billionaires on the cabinet will be judged by their actions on trade policy, tax reform, and truth in budgeting. I have my fingers crossed but until they start talking the truth and not churning things about false trade wars and the need for a border tax, etc. I remain pessimistic. If Wilbur Ross, commerce secretary and leveraged buyout billionaire, gets behind eliminating corporate deduction of interest I will salute the flag and thank President Trump for his wisdom.
-
.. So please tell me what is there that needs saving.
You are all over the place, from mentally ill, to economy and unemployment. Stick to the issue you were quoting me: radical Islamic terrorism.
-
They also brought the world to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Tell that to your Republican voters. I'm not against billionaires, I'm against business men who screw the global economy, Goldman Sachs did just that.
Yes, and let's remember that Goldman had to convert itself from an Investment Bank to a bank holding company in order to get preferential treatment by the Federal Reserve. The Fed did not want Goldman or Morgan Stanley to fail in light of what happened the week before with Lehman.
-
... I just want ethical, successful business men...
Good luck with that.
-
You are all over the place, from mentally ill, to economy and unemployment. Stick to the issue you were quoting me: radical Islamic terrorism.
Are you calling me mentally ill? If so let me know RIGHT NOW AND I WILL NOTIFY THE MODS TO SHUT YOU DOWN!!!!
-
Are you calling me mentally ill? If so let me know RIGHT NOW AND I WILL NOTIFY THE MODS TO SHUT YOU DOWN!!!!
Calm down and read carefully what I said: your range of topics is: mentally ill (school shooters), economy, unemployment.
-
Which makes them refugees.
Perhaps in your post-truth version of reality - suggest you try and understand the difference between a refugee and someone seeking political asylum.
-
Perhaps in your post-truth version of reality - suggest you try and understand the difference between a refugee and someone seeking political asylum.
I usually check before I state something. But for your education, see the following:
"Asylum seeker" means a person who has applied for asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention on the Status of Refugees on the ground that if he is returned to his country of origin he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political belief or membership of a particular social group. He remains an asylum seeker for so long as his application or an appeal against refusal of his application is pending.
"Refugee" in this context means an asylum seeker whose application has been successful. In its broader context it means a person fleeing e.g. civil war or natural disaster but not necessarily fearing persecution as defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Source: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/70
Therefore, in the broader sense, in which you use the term, those fleeing wars are refugees, but those successful asylum seekers just as well.
-
Calm down and read carefully what I said: your range of topics is: mentally ill (school shooters), economy, unemployment.
I'm out of this discussion, xenophobia is not my cup of tea.
-
Good luck with that.
And that is why the world is up in arms about the Trump government.
Americans, please don't screw my retirement further, you've already done it once.
Cheers,
-
I'm out of this discussion, xenophobia is not my cup of tea.
Actually, too bad. I came late to this thread, but I've found it interesting because of (1) its multinational participants (although I'd like to hear from more Latin Americans and Asians) and (2) its generally civilized debate.
I'm more in agreement with you, Jeff and Bart than with Alan Klein and Slobodan, but I respect the latter two for standing their ground (probably a poor choice of words, given that phrase's currency with the gun lobby) against the majority of commenters, and I've learned something from reading their points-of-view because they are more articulate than many of the Trump supporters on cable TV.
-
I usually check before I state something. But for your education, see the following:
Source: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/70
Therefore, in the broader sense, in which you use the term, those fleeing wars are refugees, but those successful asylum seekers just as well.
And in a stricter sense Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a naturalized US citizen when his brother and he committed the terrible bombing and subsequent shooting in 2013. (The Tsarnaev family settled in Cambridge and became U.S. permanent residents in March 2007. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012, while in college).
Not that that proves anything, because the thousands of others like them didn't start bombing others. Thousands of others do get killed each year by gun violence though.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Try not to 'bomb' each other. As someone pointed out this has been a reasonably civilized discussion to this point.
There is no easy answer to the relations between religions and cultures.
If you feel inflamed or perhaps better yet in need of a good read, try Simon Sebag Motefiore's Jerusalem - The Biography (https://www.amazon.com/Jerusalem-Biography-Simon-Sebag-Montefiore/dp/0307280500/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) Highly recommended.
-
Therefore, in the broader sense, in which you use the term, those fleeing wars are refugees, but those successful asylum seekers just as well.
Which has bugger-all to do with the original Tsarnaev tourist visas and even less to do with the fact that Tsarnaev was a naturalized US citizen at the time of the Boston bombing. Now, if you can disprove my earlier statement
since the US refugee programme began in 1975, more than 3.2m refugees have entered the US and only three have carried out a deadly terrorist attack.
with an incontrovertible fact, then do so.
-
Beware of beds, lawnmowers and toddlers!
Link (http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/31/armed-toddlers-kill-twice-as-many-americans-each-year-than-terrorists)
Cheers,
-
... suggest you try and understand the difference between a refugee and someone seeking political asylum.
Manoli, you first tried to lecture me on the difference. I proved you wrong.
You then moved the goalposts to the progression tourist visa - refugee - naturalized citizen. As if becoming a naturalized citizen from a refugee status somehow annuls the fact they were let into the country (or allowed to stay in it) as refugees. Would I really care if they blow me into pieces one day before of one day after they change their refugee status?
-
Beware of beds, lawnmowers and toddlers!
Link (http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/31/armed-toddlers-kill-twice-as-many-americans-each-year-than-terrorists)
Cheers,
I suggest a compromise. Lets ask Trump to ban all armed toddlers from those Islamic states on his baddie list! 8)
-
Correct. At some point you'd expect people to accept that that's the way he speaks, that's his personality, broad-brush, big picture, intuitive. Or they can keep taking him literally and deliberately misinterpreting the context.
For PotUS? No, it's not acceptable. You don't get a pass on doing something wrong just because you do it a lot - usually, in business, when you keep doing something wrong the boss says, "YOU'RE FIRED!".
-
Exactly! That's the concern of most Australians.
I wouldn't say "most", Ray. It may be your concern, and it's certainly a concern of a significant number, but I've not seen anything to suggest that number was "most".
-
No, luckily we have higher courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Which the administration has chosen so far not to appeal to, but rather are preparing a revised EO. Perhaps they finally listened to someone with some legal training who told them the first attempt was rubbish? Let's be clear - if Trump thought he could win an appeal he'd go for it because it would make him look good.
-
And yet, they are all billionaires. What's not to like about it?
You think I would rather have a guy who never worked a day in his life? Never built something, never created jobs for anyone, never took risks, never learned how to make things work. Someone who made a career of bitching and moaning? I am talking about Bernie Sanders, of course.
You realise if Trump had invested his inheritance in an index fund it would have made more than he has with his businesses?
-
You realise if Trump had invested his inheritance in an index fund it would have made more than he has with his businesses?
I already debunked that in another forum, so if you'd be more specific, and quote which figures and time periods you have in mind, I'll work with that too.
But you realise that if everyone would put money in index funds, who would produce, build or create anything? You can't have a nation of investors, someone has to do something with that money. The fact that index funds are making any money is THANKS to people like Trump who DO something.
-
...Let's be clear - if Trump thought he could win an appeal he'd go for it because it would make him look good.
Winning via the Supreme Court might take years. He wants results now, hence the revision.
-
Winning via the Supreme Court might take years. He wants results now, hence the revision.
There's no way such an item would take years to get to the SCotUS and the hearings are generally very quick - usually 30 minutes oral argument each way.
The revision is not due to expediency.
-
I already debunked that in another forum, so if you'd be more specific, and quote which figures and time periods you have in mind, I'll work with that too.
But you realise that if everyone would put money in index funds, who would produce, build or create anything? You can't have a nation of investors, someone has to do something with that money. The fact that index funds are making any money is THANKS to people like Trump who DO something.
But he doesn't do much. He's not a manufacturer, he doesn't invent. He's not part of the index (his business isn't nearly large enough). If he invested in other, better businesses, he'd help to finance them to do more than he has been able to do himself.
It's OK that he's not part of the index or not above average, so long as he's not held out to be some sort of business whiz (because he's not).
Also, please link your debunking - I haven't seen it and would like to review it.
-
I wouldn't say "most", Ray. It may be your concern, and it's certainly a concern of a significant number, but I've not seen anything to suggest that number was "most".
I would suggest if the results of a recent poll are accurate, whereby 49% of respondents claim they would actually support a ban on Muslim immigration in general, not just a ban on Muslim refugees, then the general concern or worry about the Islamification of Australia is probably greater than 50% of the population because there will likely be a significant number of people who, although concerned, would not go so far as to support the extreme measure of banning all Muslim immigration.
"As revealed in The Guardian, polling service Essential asked "Would you support or oppose a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia?" They found that 49 percent of respondents would support it. Just 40 percent opposed it. Of the supporters, 40 percent claimed Muslims "do not integrate into Australian society", 27 percent cited "terrorist threat", and 22 percent said "They do not share our values".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/09/20/half-of-australia-wants-to-ban-muslim-migration-heres-why-that/
-
Meh - a single poll from 5 months ago commissioned by someone outside of Australia is not inspiring me with confidence in the results.
-
... Also, please link your debunking - I haven't seen it and would like to review it.
Unfortunately, not in this forum. It was my comment on a friend's friend link to an article on Facebook, a year ago, and now impossible to find.
It is also specific as to what numbers and time period one compares, so if you have a source, I'd try again.
-
There's no way such an item would take years to get to the SCotUS and the hearings are generally very quick - usually 30 minutes oral argument each way...
Last year, Obama's own executive order on immigration waited a whole year to come to the court.
-
Meh - a single poll from 5 months ago commissioned by someone outside of Australia is not inspiring me with confidence in the results.
Fair enough! It's a very expensive exercise to get an accurate assessment of public opinion on any issue.
That Essential Report poll could well have been flawed due to the limited choice of options presented by the questions. It was apparently requesting a 'yes or no' response. Do you support a ban on Muslim immigration? Yes or No.
The following ABC article addresses the issue.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-27/beware-survey-that-found-1-in-2-favour-muslim-immigration-ban/7880526
Personally, the only objection I would have to any religion is when the rules of the religion are imposed on me. I believe in the freedom to make my own choices
Islam has the reputation of imposing very strict rules, not only on its adherents, but also on infidels, as I'm sure you know.
-
You apparently whipped yourself into a frenzy, giving you enough adrenalin to write multiple loooong and angry posts. I can't keep up with that. I am much cooler with what happened.
Sorry you find my writing too taxing...I'll try to throttle down my enthusiasm–well, no, I won't :~).
As for being whipped into a frenzy, I didn't do that to myself. Trump has done that by being such incredible doofus since taking the oath of office.
You might be "cool" with what Trump has said and done but I'm not. I am not going to lay back and take it, I've been more politically energized since Jan 20th, 2017 than I've ever been. And I harken back to being a anti-Vietnam War protester and walking in marches in the early 1970's. Yeah that was at the end of the war but I learned a little something about standing up for what I believe.
And I'm not alone. Today was Not My President Day.Last Sunday Trump admin policies were protested by scientists (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/politics-wary-scientists-wade-into-the-trump-fray-at-boston-rally/) in Boston (fun signs BTW), last Thursday thousands of immigrants and their supporter's marched to protest Trump's immigration policies, thousands protested all over the world after the travel ban was announced. Heck the day after Trump's inauguration we saw the largest domestic and international march in support of women that the USA has ever seen.
Look around and smell the roses...Trump is doing poorly. He has no skills at diplomacy nor governing. He thinks that by signing a bunch of executive orders and looking busy meeting with business leaders will somehow magically Make America Great Again. When things get too hot in Washington because of having to fire Flynn and having a tragically weird press conference, he takes off to Florida to have a frigging campaign rally with Airfare One in the background. He calls the media an enemy of the people and forms his foreign policy by watch Fox News.
America is suffering and we all must examine what is transpiring to American society. I don't hate republicans. I don't hate blacks, Muslims, Christians or any minorities. I don't hate right to lifer's nor pro choice proponents. I don't hate immigrants.
I do hate prejudice and injustice. I hate it when people are mean and nasty for the sake of being mean and nasty. I hate white supremacists and xenophobia. I hate seeing suffering or fear or irrational anger. I hate people that hate people.
Sorry you find my writing too taxing...I'll try to throttle down my enthusiasm–well, no, I won't :~).
-
Beware of beds, lawnmowers and toddlers!
Link (http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/31/armed-toddlers-kill-twice-as-many-americans-each-year-than-terrorists)
Actually, beware of White Supremacists.
From a Time essay titled Another Donald Trump Failure: Not Calling White Supremacy 'Terrorism' (http://time.com/4671901/donald-trump-extremism-terrorism-muslims/)
"It was recently reported that the Donald Trump Administration plans to limit the focus of the Countering Violent Extremism anti-terror program. Instead of fighting all violent belief systems, the program would instead devote itself solely to combating radicals who are Muslims and list only "Islamic Terrorism" in its name. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the domestic terror threats facing our country."
Time also had an essay Donald Trump Is Spreading Racism — Not Fighting Terrorism (http://time.com/4658366/donald-trump-terrorism-racism/)
Counterterrorism may seem like a complicated, murky business. But practitioners agree on a few simple rules. Among them:
1. Be clear about who threatens you, and target them. Casting your net too widely creates new enemies.
2. Build strong alliances. Terrorism is a global problem that requires a global solution; you need capable, like-minded partners to collaborate on intelligence, law enforcement and military operations.
3. Counter and undermine your enemies’ narrative. Don’t confirm it.
4. Don’t drive away moderates; winning them over is key to defeating your enemies.
And, 5. Show efficiency and competence. Those qualities bolster deterrence.
In composing and implementing its executive order “Protecting the Nation From Terrorist Entry into the United States,” Donald Trump’s White House has shown a disregard for — or ignorance of — these precepts that is breathtaking. Despite claims by the White House that this is about making Americans safe from terrorism, less than two weeks into the new administration, the United States has:
1. Made the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims uncertain about the global superpower’s fundamental orientation toward them and their faith. This is a dramatic shift after successive Republican and Democratic administrations drew a clear line between a small group of extremists and ordinary believers.
2. Prompted the parliament of Iraq — our partner, whose army is the primary ground force fighting ISIS — to approve a reciprocal ban on Americans coming to Iraq and put Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in an impossible position.
3. Given ISIS propagandists a windfall to work with — which they are exulting about — just at the moment that the group is reeling from a series of major setbacks.
4. Profoundly unsettled patriotic American Muslims — who provide as many as 40% of the tips that domestic counterterrorism authorities receive — and undercut their efforts to work with U.S. law enforcement to prevent radicalization.
And, 5. Displayed perhaps the most shambolic performance of the Executive Branch since Hurricane Katrina. The White House blindsided the leadership of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and State by handing them an order that they had no time to evaluate or refine. Far less sweeping executive orders have historically required weeks or months of interagency consultation.
To put it bluntly: Trump’s Executive Order has nothing to do with counterterrorism.
The executive order was designed by people with no security background but a long history of being anti-immigrant: chief ideologist Steve Bannon, the former CEO of far-right conspiracy-theory mill Breitbart News, and policy adviser Stephen Miller. It aims to signal that Trump is not deviating from his Islamophobic, anti-immigration, pro-white campaign. So far, it’s working. The nation is following along.
So, Trump has announced that he will reissue an executive order, likely the same 7 nations that is supposed to corrected the previously poorly crafted language. We'll see. They got their asses handed to them in court and I suspect this order will be very, VERY well crafted. But even if it passes an anti-muslim stink test, the odds of it actually working to make us safer is unlikely. It will turn muslims through out the world against us.
Sorry...trying to keep the post specific. Trump is not really going to make us safer in the long run. It would be far better to work with muslims to help eliminate terrorists of all types.
-
But he doesn't do much. He's not a manufacturer, he doesn't invent. He's not part of the index (his business isn't nearly large enough). If he invested in other, better businesses, he'd help to finance them to do more than he has been able to do himself.
It's OK that he's not part of the index or not above average, so long as he's not held out to be some sort of business whiz (because he's not).
Also, please link your debunking - I haven't seen it and would like to review it.
Doesn't do anything? Isn't a manufacturer or inventor? Well neither is Walmart that does about $400 billion in sales each year. Trump? Well, he's basically a real estate developer, like his father. Trump Tower is an apartment building that he built. Remember the hotel he created out of the post office everyone's complaining about in Washington DC? He's got lots more as well as hotels, golf courses, etc. He's not in an index fund because you have to be a public corporation. Trump's companies are all privately held by him and his family. So he can hide his assets from the nosey public and Democrats who want to tear him apart.
-
And in a stricter sense Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a naturalized US citizen when his brother and he committed the terrible bombing and subsequent shooting in 2013. (The Tsarnaev family settled in Cambridge and became U.S. permanent residents in March 2007. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012, while in college).
Not that that proves anything, because the thousands of others like them didn't start bombing others. Thousands of others do get killed each year by gun violence though.
Cheers,
Bart
Arguing that more people get killed by gun violence doesn't do it. When you walk around areas like I do in New York City's Times Square, public transportation areas, or any heavily concentrated area, and see police wearing body armor and carrying machine guns to protect you against terrorism, and see posters that say, "If You See Something, Say Something" advising you to notify the authorities because you see an unattended package that might blow you up, you don't think about gun violence caused by crime. You think of what happened in the Florida club, Paris, Nice and other areas where parts of bodies went flying and dozens were killed at one time. People are scared. It's always in the back of your head especially if you live in targets like NYC Boston Paris etc. When the statistics show that most of the terrorists support ISIS Al Kaida and are Muslim and come from Muslim countries, you naturally are suspicious of these people. That makes you a scared person, not prejudiced. No one is saying that most Muslims are not good people, They are and I know and have worked with many of them. But we can chew gum and walk at the same time. As one Supreme Court justice said about our protected individual freedoms, "The US Constitution is not a suicide pact."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
-
People make bad decisions when they are scared or stressed.
Beware of any politician who makes a point of encouraging a sense of fear.
Fear, as history shows, can be a very powerful tool.
Decisions need to be made on Facts, not Fears; Evidence, not Emotions; Reason, not Reaction.
Time for one of my favourite quotes
These are dangerous times. When we are afraid, we want to be protected, and since we cannot protect ourselves against such horrors as mass murder by bombers, we are tempted to run to the government, a government that is always willing to trade the promise of protection for our freedom, which left, as always, the question: How much freedom are we willing to relinquish for such a bald promise?
Gerry Spence
-
Arguing that more people get killed by gun violence doesn't do it. When you walk around areas like I do in New York City's Times Square, public transportation areas, or any heavily concentrated area, and see police wearing body armor and carrying machine guns to protect you against terrorism, and see posters that say, "If You See Something, Say Something" advising you to notify the authorities because you see an unattended package that might blow you up, you don't think about gun violence caused by crime.
Besides that there is nothing wrong with being cautious, there is no rational reason to get hysterical about unlikely events. I feel sorry for those who are 'played' by governments or factions to become fearful enough to relinquish their freedoms. Fear mongering is what got the World following the USA into an Iraq war, the effects of which still dominate many lives today, e.g. from the terrorism it created in reaction. One would hope that, at least for a short period, lessons were learned, counterproductive activities not to be repeated.
You think of what happened in the Florida club, Paris, Nice and other areas where parts of bodies went flying and dozens were killed at one time. People are scared.
They are mostly made scared, not only by terrorism itself. The primary goal of terrorism is not to kill but to instill fear and destabilize society by provoking overreactions which feed more sympathy for terrorism.
Cheers,
Bart
-
People make bad decisions when they are scared or stressed.
Beware of any politician who makes a point of encouraging a sense of fear.
Fear, as history shows, can be a very powerful tool.
Decisions need to be made on Facts, not Fears; Evidence, not Emotions; Reason, not Reaction.
Time for one of my favourite quotes
These are dangerous times. When we are afraid, we want to be protected, and since we cannot protect ourselves against such horrors as mass murder by bombers, we are tempted to run to the government, a government that is always willing to trade the promise of protection for our freedom, which left, as always, the question: How much freedom are we willing to relinquish for such a bald promise?
Gerry Spence
+1
Cheers,
Bart
-
Manoli ... I proved you wrong.
Slobodan – you've proved nothing. All you've done is try to dodge the double standard you previously espoused (the one that started this exchange), indicated a predisposition to, if not 'ethnic cleansing', certainly racial profiling and played fast & loose with the 'actualité'.
Whose parents were immigrants. Same difference. The new immigrants just have not had their chance...yet.
So, on that basis, that makes you and your daughter .. what ?
Non-Muslim.
-
Winning via the Supreme Court might take years. He wants results now, hence the revision.
I will re-enter this discussion only to post "factual" comments. I also apologize for flying off the handle yesterday afternoon for misreading Slobadan's response back to me. this is absolutely not true. The Supreme Court can and does accept appeals on an expedited basis. This particular order was not appealed as it was going to lose in court and it was easier for the Administration to re-draft it so that it would not encounter legal difficulties (this was the statement from a friend who was a clerk to a Supreme Court justice before entering private practice).
-
But he doesn't do much. He's not a manufacturer, he doesn't invent. He's not part of the index (his business isn't nearly large enough).
Trump's business "was" (I used the past tense as he says he is not involved in running it anymore) real estate development. This business relies heavily on debt financing and is one reason he almost went bankrupt when his two casinos in Atlantic City and one hotel in NYC failed. He was able to negotiate some favorable loan conditions so that the main enterprise was not impacted though the hotels did enter bankruptcy. Real Estate developers do create construction jobs early on (assuming new or refurbished construction; purchasing existing real estate to take advantage of the depreciation tax laws creates very little job employment but is one of the main reasons you see hotel sites shift brands all the time) and may create a small or moderate number of ongoing jobs (maintenance or hotel staff depending on the use of the building). One can get job numbers from government databases on this industry but it doesn't provide the same economic impact as an industrial manufacturer who has high value added products.
-
I will re-enter this discussion only to post "factual" comments. this is absolutely not true. The Supreme Court can and does accept appeals on an expedited basis. This particular order was not appealed as it was going to lose in court and it was easier for the Administration to re-draft it so that it would not encounter legal difficulties (this was the statement from a friend who was a clerk to a Supreme Court justice before entering private practice).
Makes a lot of sense, if there was any chance of being admitted or winning at the supreme court Trump would have gone for it. His main goal is to look good in the eyes of his supporters and he is not interested in losing another one. Hence I don't think there is ever going to be an appeal on this executive order.
-
Actually, beware of White Supremacists.
There is a report in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/21/vandals-damage-dozens-of-headstones-in-jewish-cemetery-in-missouri?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=214319&subid=20912410&CMP=GT_US_collection) today on an anti-Semitic desecration of a Jewish cemetery in Missouri. this was the question the young Orthodox Jewish reporter tried to ask about at last Thursday's news conference before he was rudely treated by the President (who has yet to apologize about that incident). This is factual and I think this goes to the points that Jeff has tried to make.
-
Remember the hotel he created out of the post office everyone's complaining about in Washington DC? He's got lots more as well as hotels, golf courses, etc. He's not in an index fund because you have to be a public corporation. Trump's companies are all privately held by him and his family. So he can hide his assets from the nosey public and Democrats who want to tear him apart.
The hotel is subject to a lease held by the Government Services Administration and there is a legal question about whether Trump is violating the terms of the lease as it directly prohibits Federal office holders because of a conflict of interest (this is a fact). Yes Trump's companies are privately held and that's fine, there are lots of businesses in this country that are privately held. He is not hiding the assets of the real estate as they are all branded and everyone knows what they are. What he has not released are some of the debt financing that would be contained in his tax returns. He has the right to not release them but this will continue the endless conjecture that he is trying to hide something. We do know that Deutsche Bank (currently subject to a major fine negotiation with US authorities over improper banking practices in this country) hold a significant amount of Trump debt. Trump is lying when he says he cannot release his tax returns because they are subject to a IRS audit (that's a fact).
-
...The Supreme Court can and does accept appeals on an expedited basis...
I will repeat my previous post on the matter:
Last year, Obama's own executive order on immigration waited a whole year to come to the court.
-
I will repeat my previous post on the matter:
Last year, Obama's own executive order on immigration waited a whole year to come to the court.
That alone does not negate the factual statement that I posted. Wikipedia entry on Supreme Court review is HERE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States). Also remember back in 2000 how fast the Supreme Court acted in Bush v. Gore?
-
Riots erupt in Sweden’s capital just days after Trump comments:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/riots-erupt-in-swedens-capital-just-days-after-trump-comments/?utm_term=.e92a0f883f1e
Over four hours, the crowd burned about half a dozen cars, vandalized several shopfronts and threw rocks at police...A photographer for the newspaper was attacked by more than a dozen men
-
Last year, Obama's own executive order on immigration waited a whole year to come to the court.
I think we have to wait a whole lot longer (i.e. infinite) before this one even gets filed. And it's not because it would take too long to get through the system and have a verdict ;)
-
I think we have to wait a whole lot longer (i.e. infinite) before this one even gets filed. And it's not because it would take too long to get through the system and have a verdict ;)
I just updated my early post with a Wikipedia citation and the comment about how fast the court acted on Bush v. Gore.
-
That alone does not negate the factual statement that I posted.
Correct. But it doesn't mean that the court will inevitably treat Trump's apeal on expedited bases either. So, why take the risk to submit it to the court and than potentially wait a year?
Note that I am not getting into the debate whether the executive order is poorly written (possibly) and whether it would win or lose if submitted to the court (though I did read expert opinions that it would "easily" win, as I also read other experts that it wouldn't)
-
Riots erupt in Sweden’s capital just days after Trump comments:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/riots-erupt-in-swedens-capital-just-days-after-trump-comments/?utm_term=.e92a0f883f1e
this was no different from what has happened in Afro-American communities as a result of police actions (fact - look at Ferguson MO for recent example; look at several incidents in Los Angeles starting with Watts in 1966).
-
Correct. But it doesn't mean that the court will inevitably treat Trump's apeal on expedited bases either. So, why take the risk to submit it to the court and than potentially wait a year?
I think we can safely move on from debating this point and declare victory for both of us. the most expeditious thing to do is re-draft as they are donig.
-
Correct. But it doesn't mean that the court will inevitably treat Trump's apeal on expedited bases either. So, why take the risk to submit it to the court and than potentially wait a year?
Nothing stops him writing a new order and still claim a "win" a year from now and get a leg up on his critics. So it's not the risk of the long time that is stopping him continuing the battle, it's the risk of losing another one and look even more foolish then today.
-
this was no different from what has happened in Afro-American communities as a result of police actions...
Ah, those racist police forces... not letting honest criminals go about their business unimpeded.
-
Riots erupt in Sweden’s capital just days after Trump comments:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/riots-erupt-in-swedens-capital-just-days-after-trump-comments/?utm_term=.e92a0f883f1e
Since the riots erupted after the police arrested a suspect on drug charges, are you suggesting that Trump is involved with Drugs? Or does it even have anything to do with Trump?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ah, those racist police forces... not letting honest criminals go about their business unimpeded.
I do not like negroes (see, I even use almost an N word on purpose) but of course there is enough racism present in police forces at the same time... you are not seriously thinking that you are safe being black than white when facing a police ?
-
Riots erupt in Sweden’s capital just days after Trump comments:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/riots-erupt-in-swedens-capital-just-days-after-trump-comments/?utm_term=.e92a0f883f1e
Here's a post on another forum (https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1371327&start=1400) from a fellow that actually lives there. I think the narrative that Slobodan is promoting is that poor white peaceful Sweden is being corrupted by filthy brown violent muslims...and that the same will happen here in the US...ergo, #MAGA.
For the record: there was a riot in Rinkeby last night (hashtag #LastNightInSweden!), but calling it a migrant riot is incorrect. Police are reporting that the majority of the rioters were known to them and most of them are residents of Rinkeby or Tensta. I won't deny that suburbs like Rinkeby and Tensta in Stockholm, Biskopsgården in Göteborg and Rosengård in Malmö have problems, but the overwhelming majority of those problems are related to integration, not immigration. This is a case of children of immigrants, who have either been here for a long time or who were born here, feeling excluded from society (and in many cases they sadly are).
It's a real problem, but sites like Breitbart and newspapers like the Daily Mail, who are trying to present these areas as no-go zones for the police, are just spreading bullshit. Most cities around the world have or have had these problems.
I live in one of these Stockholm suburbs that Swedish right-wing sites like Avpixlat and Fria Tider are calling no-go zones ("Don't go there, it's Little Arabia", "lots of drug addicts", "police won't go there during the night", "several shootings in the last five years", "crime-ridden" etc.). I have never felt afraid or worried, I have no problems with letting my kids play outside in the park, my wife doesn't feel worried when she has to go to the store after sunset and so on. None of our local friends do. And we're all mostly middle class or working class from all parts of the world.
There are problems, but there is an immense amount of propaganda being spread by these sites who are pushing their right-wing agenda, where one of the most important things to do is to make people distrust the established media. It's hardly surprising that the US alt-right sites are getting their info from outlets direcly connected to representatives for the right-wing Sweden Democrats.
The fear is how they get to people and they know it.
-
Trump's business "was" (I used the past tense as he says he is not involved in running it anymore) real estate development. This business relies heavily on debt financing and is one reason he almost went bankrupt when his two casinos in Atlantic City and one hotel in NYC failed. He was able to negotiate some favorable loan conditions so that the main enterprise was not impacted though the hotels did enter bankruptcy. Real Estate developers do create construction jobs early on (assuming new or refurbished construction; purchasing existing real estate to take advantage of the depreciation tax laws creates very little job employment but is one of the main reasons you see hotel sites shift brands all the time) and may create a small or moderate number of ongoing jobs (maintenance or hotel staff depending on the use of the building). One can get job numbers from government databases on this industry but it doesn't provide the same economic impact as an industrial manufacturer who has high value added products.
...and your point is what? That we should shoot Trump and all other real estate developers because they don't create as many jobs as industrial manufacturer's. Well ask all the architects, engineers, electricians, steel workers, plumbers, and other tradesmen who build his buildings about your thinking of their jobs that feed their families.. Ask the thousands of workers who clean apartments and hotels, the concierges and others who support the running of his hotels and apartments, renovate them as tenants move in and out. What about the workers who work in the stores in the commercial portion of their buildings? They also have on-going jobs. Also what about the industrial manufacturers who have gone totally out of business losing all their jobs to China? Meanwhile, real estate developers are still building here in America providing American jobs. The hate of Trump so blinds people to thinking irrationally. Work is work.
-
Just to let you know that Trump paid plumbers in NYC about $55 per hour plus additional union benefits to build his buildings here. Other tradesmen make comparable wages. That's over $100,000 a year. Plumbers make double that when working overtime. Electricians make 1 1/2 times base rate for overtime. What do factory workers earn assuming they still have their jobs?
-
Since the riots erupted after the police arrested a suspect on drug charges, are you suggesting that Trump is involved with Drugs? Or does it even have anything to do with Trump?
Cheers,
Bart
Well at least we've moved on from the annoying and repetitive "well it's Bush's fault" during the last 8 years of Obama. So now it's "Trump's fault". Isn't it great that Obama never did anything wrong?
-
Just to let you know that Trump paid plumbers in NYC about $55 per hour plus additional union benefits to build his buildings here. Other tradesmen make comparable wages. That's over $100,000 a year. Plumbers make double that when working overtime. Electricians make 1 1/2 times base rate for overtime. What do factory workers earn assuming they still have their jobs?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/sweet-smell-of-money-for-plumbers.html
you don't assume that every single dude dealing with pipes was a full blown plumber though - a lot were apprentices ;)
-
Ah, those racist police forces... not letting honest criminals go about their business unimpeded.
there is a long history of this in Los Angeles and a lot of good journalism about how the emerging middle class blacks who worked in the aircraft industry in the area during WWII were prevented from buying property outside of the south central area of LA which turned into a de facto ghetto because of this. almost all real estate transactions contained racial covenants which were not illegal at the time. (as in aside my own area of Bethesda all houses built before about 1952 contained a racial covenant. There was always a toilet on the lowest level of the house, usually next to the laundry sink that was set aside for the "colored" help as they were not expected to use facilities on the main floors of the house) The enforced ghettoization and the extreme police methods that evolved in the post war era led to the riots. I'm speaking only of Los Angeles and not the other areas that erupted in the mid 1960s. Mike Davis's excellent history of Los Angeles, "City of Quartz", documents the rise of the quasi-police state in the city.
-
...and your point is what? That we should shoot Trump and all other real estate developers because they don't create as many jobs as industrial manufacturer's. Well ask all the architects, engineers, electricians, steel workers, plumbers, and other tradesmen who build his buildings about your thinking of their jobs that feed their families.. Ask the thousands of workers who clean apartments and hotels, the concierges and others who support the running of his hotels and apartments, renovate them as tenants move in and out. What about the workers who work in the stores in the commercial portion of their buildings? They also have on-going jobs. Also what about the industrial manufacturers who have gone totally out of business losing all their jobs to China? Meanwhile, real estate developers are still building here in America providing American jobs. The hate of Trump so blinds people to thinking irrationally. Work is work.
As I said in my early post, I am only posting facts and not engaging in any diatribes as I want to keep my temper. I most certainly take umbrage against your statement alluding that I "hate" Trump. I don't think I have ever said that. I was only pointing out "factually" that real estate development is different from manufacturing which constantly has to invent new and better products in order to stay in business. Once a hotel is built, the major sunk costs are over and the debt, if any, needs to be repaid. Ongoing maintenance costs that employ people are not as significant a cost. These are all facts. Contrast the Real Estate business with a company I have an equity position and just announced it's earnings this morning, Whirlpool. this company operates internationally, just as Trump enterprises does. It employs 95,000 people and has revenues of $21B. It is also in a highly competitive industry and if they don't come up with new products that consumers want they will slowly whither. My factual point is that real estate development or the owning of real estate (and I was an owner of an apartment building at one point in time) is far different from manufacturing.
I will make one opinionated statement here that I will not subsequently respond to (breaking my rule of only discussing facts). I believe is is easier to be successful in real estate than in manufacturing.
-
...and your point is what? That we should shoot Trump and all other real estate developers because they don't create as many jobs as industrial manufacturer's. Well ask all the architects, engineers, electricians, steel workers, plumbers, and other tradesmen who build his buildings about your thinking of their jobs that feed their families.. Ask the thousands of workers who clean apartments and hotels, the concierges and others who support the running of his hotels and apartments, renovate them as tenants move in and out. What about the workers who work in the stores in the commercial portion of their buildings? They also have on-going jobs. Also what about the industrial manufacturers who have gone totally out of business losing all their jobs to China? Meanwhile, real estate developers are still building here in America providing American jobs. The hate of Trump so blinds people to thinking irrationally. Work is work.
Again, the narrative spun by the Trump crowd is that he's a self-made man, a brilliant businessman, etc etc. Compelling arguments have been made that he is none of those things. When confronted with these things the Trump crowd shifts the goal posts...as you've done above. Sure, Trump employed some people. Big deal.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/sweet-smell-of-money-for-plumbers.html
you don't assume that every single dude dealing with pipes was a full blown plumber though - a lot were apprentices ;)
There is a rule that allows apprentices. For example, 1 apprentice for every 4 or 5 journeymen hired for a particular job. I'm not sure of the exact ratio. It takes 5 years as an apprentice to reach journeyman level and full pay. But still, why go to college? :)
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/sweet-smell-of-money-for-plumbers.html?_r=0
-
Just to let you know that Trump paid plumbers in NYC about $55 per hour plus additional union benefits to build his buildings here. Other tradesmen make comparable wages. That's over $100,000 a year. Plumbers make double that when working overtime. Electricians make 1 1/2 times base rate for overtime. What do factory workers earn assuming they still have their jobs?
there are also lots of reports that Trump stiffed workers and vendors. there is some ongoing litigation by parties here (fact: three current case against the Trump Hotel in DC) but also cases where small vendors were forced to settle for ten cents on the dollar as they could not afford prolonged court hearings (the best example was the piano supplier to one of the Trump casinos in Atlantic City who was stiffed and then settled).
Yes, electricians and other guilds that are involved in construction make good salaries but their jobs are gone once the construction ends. As a sobering analysis, look at what happened to these workers in areas where the housing boom abruptly cratered when the bubble popped. It was just as dire as a manufacturing worker losing his/her job when the factory closed.
-
There is a rule that allows apprentices. For example, 1 apprentice for every 4 or 5 journeymen hired for a particular job. I'm not sure of the exact ratio. It takes 5 years as an apprentice to reach journeyman level and full pay. But still, why go to college? :)
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/sweet-smell-of-money-for-plumbers.html?_r=0
An excellent point as there are good jobs in maintenance all over the place. Look at how much good HVAC people make, I have my furnace inspected in the fall and AC in the spring and the 10 minute call is costs $90 as I have a service contract. A plumbing or electrician visit to take care of a problem costs over $100. I try to do most of this myself to save on the call but there are times when I'm not up to the task. We need good vocational training as these jobs are never going to be automated. Similarly, good handymen can do quite well in our area where the houses are on the older side and things need to be repaired.
-
Again, the narrative spun by the Trump crowd is that he's a self-made man, a brilliant businessman, etc etc. Compelling arguments have been made that he is none of those things. When confronted with these things the Trump crowd shifts the goal posts...as you've done above. Sure, Trump employed some people. Big deal.
How many people have you employed? How much in salaries do you pay out every year?
-
How many people have you employed? How much in salaries do you pay out every year?
Another classic technique of the Trump supporter is use of the false equivalence. I am not claiming that I am a self-made, a brilliant businessman, or a job creator...nor am I running for political office using that as a basis for qualification. Comparing me to Trump serves no purpose and is literally and figuratively irrelevant.
My intent is to illustrate a pattern, as I did with a previous response to you, that the Trump and pro-Trump supporters engage in routinely: make a claim, and then shift the goalposts when that claim is shown to be false, a lie, BS, choose your adjective.
-
...Yes, electricians and other guilds that are involved in construction make good salaries but their jobs are gone once the construction ends. As a sobering analysis, look at what happened to these workers in areas where the housing boom abruptly cratered when the bubble popped. It was just as dire as a manufacturing worker losing his/her job when the factory closed.
Alan, you're original point about Trump's businesses, construction jobs are lost after the construction ends. So what. Does that make his businesses not worthy? That there is something wrong about being a real estate developer? That's what you were implying. Why not credit him for taking chances, developing buildings that create construction and other jobs that add to the economy? Instead, your arguments just try to diminish him as a person so you pick on real estate development as an unworthy profession.
-
Alan, you're original point about Trump's businesses, construction jobs are lost after the construction ends. So what. Does that make his businesses not worthy? That there is something wrong about being a real estate developer? That's what you were implying. Why not credit him for taking chances, developing buildings that create construction and other jobs that add to the economy? Instead, your arguments just try to diminish him as a person so you pick on real estate development as an unworthy profession.
I never said real estate development was unworthy (and certainly in this day one cannot discriminate thanks to the Civil Rights legislation of the LBJ era). I just said that it was different which is a factual statement. Developers have to take chances and there are lots of examples of real estate developers going bankrupt because they have misread the market and certainly Trump had a brush with this. I also complement him on building a global brand even though the brand generates licensing fees and employment is not as robust compared the real estate development. I hope this answer is satisfactory.
-
Another classic technique of the Trump supporter is use of the false equivalence. I am not claiming that I am a self-made, a brilliant businessman, or a job creator...nor am I running for political office using that as a basis for qualification. Comparing me to Trump serves no purpose and is literally and figuratively irrelevant.
My intent is to illustrate a pattern, as I did with a previous response to you, that the Trump and pro-Trump supporters engage in routinely: make a claim, and then shift the goalposts when that claim is shown to be false, a lie, BS, choose your adjective.
OK so let's skip the thousands of jobs he's created as a goalpost of his success. Forbes calculates he's worth over $3 billion. Is that a better goalpost?
Here's a breakdown of his wealth.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/09/28/the-definitive-look-at-donald-trumps-wealth-new/#459a88b87e2d
-
I never said real estate development was unworthy (and certainly in this day one cannot discriminate thanks to the Civil Rights legislation of the LBJ era). I just said that it was different which is a factual statement. Developers have to take chances and there are lots of examples of real estate developers going bankrupt because they have misread the market and certainly Trump had a brush with this. I also complement him on building a global brand even though the brand generates licensing fees and employment is not as robust compared the real estate development. I hope this answer is satisfactory.
Yes it is satisfactory. But if I may mention something that I noticed. When I read your parenthetical sentence, I thought you were saying that it's against Civil Rights legislation to say real estate people were unworthy. Now why would a nice guy like you say such a thing? So I read it again and realized you must be referring to other types of discrimination. But your conflating the two ideas was confusing at first.
That's what Trump does. All the time. He states two things and people just put it together like the issue of Sweden. OF course, I know you and like you so I try to figure out what you really meant. The media of course does not do that. They deliberately conflate two of his thoughts to be related in ways he did not mean just so they can create "fake news". But just like you were plainly speaking, so does he.
One suggestion. If you ever run for President, you'll have to stop conflating ideas like that. :)
-
OK so let's skip the thousands of jobs he's created as a goalpost of his success. Forbes calculates he's worth over $3 billion. Is that a better goalpost?
Here's a breakdown of his wealth.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/09/28/the-definitive-look-at-donald-trumps-wealth-new/#459a88b87e2d
I read this when it was published. It's most instructive to read the narrative attached to each of the real estate holdings. Some of these were new construction but a lot were just purchases of existing buildings. I always found the fact that he had to be bailed out by Chinese banks a little humorous given the anti-China rhetoric on the campaign trail and now in office. Some of the space owned are only lease rights or parts of buildings. The 'fact' is nobody should think that Trump owns lots of buildings as he does not. I'm unsure whether the ownership of 13 golf courses should be considered a productive use of money in terms of people employed as upkeep of a golf course does not require 100s of people. It also should be noted that the Stark property in South Carolina has an interesting history as President Trump had to bail out his son who originally bought the property perhaps not aware of the environmental contamination issues. Some more interesting history of this site is HERE (http://www.postandcourier.com/news/trump-s-north-charleston-company-not-getting-environmental-cleanup-agreement/article_3238bfc0-ee16-11e6-ab0b-1b8ac9745bd1.html).
-
Yes it is satisfactory. But if I may mention something that I noticed. When I read your parenthetical sentence, I thought you were saying that it's against Civil Rights legislation to say real estate people were unworthy.
There was no conflation but perhaps an awkward statement that many real estate developers discriminated against Blacks and other minorities prior to the Fair Housing Laws. In 1949 my late father was looking for land in San Diego to build a house for the family. His Greek partner in the architectural firm found a nice plot of land in La Jolla and suggested to my dad that he look there as well. Unfortunately Jews were not welcome in La Jolla and property could not be purchased there. This state of affairs pretty much continued until the late 1950 when a University of California campus and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies both located on the Torrey Pines bluff. A large number of Jewish scientists were recruited by both institutions and they wanted to live close by. this and a courageous real estate developer who broke ranks with his fellow La Jollans broke the ban. It's also worth noting that Trump and his father Fred were sued for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act in the early 1970s. Just as with the recent settlements with the banks that were responsible for the financial meltdown, this case was settled with no admission of guilt.
-
I read this when it was published. It's most instructive to read the narrative attached to each of the real estate holdings. Some of these were new construction but a lot were just purchases of existing buildings. I always found the fact that he had to be bailed out by Chinese banks a little humorous given the anti-China rhetoric on the campaign trail and now in office. Some of the space owned are only lease rights or parts of buildings. The 'fact' is nobody should think that Trump owns lots of buildings as he does not. I'm unsure whether the ownership of 13 golf courses should be considered a productive use of money in terms of people employed as upkeep of a golf course does not require 100s of people. It also should be noted that the Stark property in South Carolina has an interesting history as President Trump had to bail out his son who originally bought the property perhaps not aware of the environmental contamination issues. Some more interesting history of this site is HERE (http://www.postandcourier.com/news/trump-s-north-charleston-company-not-getting-environmental-cleanup-agreement/article_3238bfc0-ee16-11e6-ab0b-1b8ac9745bd1.html).
I think you now agreed that real estate development was an honorable profession. Ok so now you're saying that his golf course development is not honorable because it's "...not a productive use of money." Well, many golfers would disagree with you. Anyway it's not your money and who are you to decide what's a productive investment?
What investments have you made that are productive to America? You mentioned earlier you bought some Whirlpool stock. Well Whirlpool makes a lot of their products in foreign factories where foreigners, not Americans, are employed. Well that's your business and I'll defend it just as you should defend Trump's right to invest as he sees fit. This is America after all.
Regarding, Trump's "sleazy" business practices, I agree he does that. I had a small specialty contracting firm in NYC for 20 years mostly working in Manhattan. I once got stiffed by a real estate developer, not Trump. It taught me a lot in how to protect myself. He's also admitted to making contributions to people like the Clinton's for political protection so you can get things done when you need too. He plays in a rough and tumble business. The people who elected him understand this and wanted someone tough, who knows how to fight, not like Obama. Good practice for being President when you have to deal with terror regimes, killer leaders, the media and Democrats. :)
-
OK so let's skip the thousands of jobs he's created as a goalpost of his success.
One goal post is how many little people did he step on vs help on the road to achieve success?
Here's How Donald Trump Treats the Little People (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/heres-how-donald-trump-treats-little-people)
"In a masterstroke of financial maneuvering, and in a tribute to the sucker-born-every-minute theorem, [Trump] managed to take two of the Trump casinos—the Plaza and the Taj Mahal—public in 1995 and 1996, at a time when Donald was unable to make his bank payments and was heading toward personal bankruptcy. The stock sales allowed Donald to buy the casinos back from the banks and unload huge amounts of debt. The offering yanked Donald out of the financial graveyard and left him with a 25 percent stake in a company he once owned entirely."
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_trump_casinos_stock.jpg)
"…Just a few months after Trump Hotels absorbed the Taj, Donald sold his last Atlantic City casino, the Castle, to the public company. That is, Donald sold his own casino, with all of its heavy debts, to a public company he controlled. The $490 million price tag for the Castle was about $100 million more than analysts thought it was worth…sending the company's stock into a nosedive from which it never recovered."
And that's not to even mention all the little people who Trump told "sue me" when he or his companies refused to pay bills. From the venerable Wall Street Journal (that is ironically a bit left of center) Donald Trump’s Business Plan Left a Trail of Unpaid Bills (https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-business-plan-left-a-trail-of-unpaid-bills-1465504454).
"Donald Trump often boasts on the presidential campaign trail that hardball tactics helped make him a successful businessman, an approach many voters say they admire. Those tactics have also left behind bitter tales among business owners who say he shortchanged them."
So...is that the sort of man you want running the American government? Somebody whose ethics and morality is down in the slime? Trump supporters probably think that makes Trump smart...naw, it makes him dangerous to do business with.
-
What investments have you made that are productive to America?
I spent my working career in pharmaceutical regulatory affairs and drug safety. I helped start an Initiative (http://www.fnih.org/what-we-do/biomarkers-consortium) that is exploring how biomarkers can enhance drug development. I was the project director for a Partnership (http://omop.org/) that is using observational medical data to enhance the detection of adverse reactions as well as confirming new benefits of pharmaceuticals. For this latter organization I secured the initial $20M to get it started, recruited the executive director, and served on the advisory board for two years. Today, I manage a diversified portfolio that invests in American businesses.
You mentioned earlier you bought some Whirlpool stock. Well Whirlpool makes a lot of their products in foreign factories where foreigners, not Americans, are employed. Well that's your business and I'll defend it just as you should defend Trump's right to invest as he sees fit. This is America after all.
The same can be said of virtually every major US manufacturing company. Most manufacture product and/or source parts on a world wide market. No where did I comment on Trump's right to invest as he sees fit; his two sons were in the Middle East over the weekend at a Trump golf course which was opening up. I only commented, again factually, that golf courses employ fewer people than the vast majority of real estate ventures. Nothing wrong with that but if one is discussing employment numbers it is important. Leased space to a retail store in a Trump building generates more than a golf course in terms of jobs.
-
Interesting article in Wired magazine (don't know if tech media is considered #FAKE NEWS).
Astoundingly Complex Visualization Untangles Trump’s Business Ties (https://www.wired.com/2017/01/kim-albrecht-trump-data-viz/).
"BEFORE DONALD TRUMP was the president, he was a businessman. He came to office leading a vast business enterprise that includes real estate, casinos, and a lucrative branding operation. “The network is huge,” says designer Kim Albrecht, whose riveting data visualization Trump Connections attempts to untangle it all."
(https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_1536/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TrumpConnectionsHP.jpg)
"Albrecht used data from BuzzFeed’s TrumpWorld (https://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/help-us-map-trumpworld?utm_term=.rspEMM8B0j#.evyONNL9mv) investigation into the president’s 1,500-odd business connections to create two visualizations. The first places Trump at the center of an enormous web.
An interactive version (http://trump.kimalbrecht.com/#11) of the data viz lets you click on a name or business to view an expanded list of connections. For instance, clicking on Donald Trump brings up what seems like an endless list of corporations of which he is president. Albrecht organizes the data into a tree denoting the president’s relationship people in the organization.
Albrecht doesn’t offer any commentary on the data, only a means of making a massive dataset accessible to anyone interested in reaching their own conclusions. But the president’s byzantine business interests and his refusal to divest himself from them create a diversified portfolio of potential conflicts of interest. The man who promised to “drain the swamp” is himself a hub of potential corruption—as Albrecht’s visualizations so vividly illustrate."
-
Just saying... :)
-
...So...is that the sort of man you want running the American government? Somebody whose ethics and morality is down in the slime? Trump supporters probably think that makes Trump smart...naw, it makes him dangerous to do business with.
Exactly the man we need to negotiate with the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, North Koreans, and others who will give no quarter to take advantage of America and Americans. Being President isn't tiddlywinks. That's why his voters elected him. To be a pr**k in defending our country.
-
Just saying... :)
I don't think there's a danger of that...
Trump's pick for US health secretary has pushed to cut science spending (http://www.nature.com/news/trump-s-pick-for-us-health-secretary-has-pushed-to-cut-science-spending-1.21066)
Oh, wait...is nature (http://www.nature.com)–The International weekly journal of science #FAKE NEWS?
-
Being President isn't tiddlywinks.
He has no friggin' clue what being president is...
If you lay down with dogs, don't be surprised when you catch fleas.
-
...Albrecht doesn’t offer any commentary on the data, only a means of making a massive dataset accessible to anyone interested in reaching their own conclusions. But the president’s byzantine business interests and his refusal to divest himself from them create a diversified portfolio of potential conflicts of interest. The man who promised to “drain the swamp” is himself a hub of potential corruption—as Albrecht’s visualizations so vividly illustrate."[/i]
But the voters who elected him understood that he was this type of person. But he never was a politician. Hillary was and is. So the people had to compare her corrupt political ways against a non-politician businessman who promised to clean up the political swamp and get them jobs. If you were a person effected negatively by the economic situation, who would you vote for? The corrupt politician part of the hated elites in Washington who called you deplorable and forget about getting a job? Or the non-politician, manipulative, rich and pugilistic businessman who promises you to "fire" the political and business elites and make the country great again with good jobs?
Now it may turn out that Trump screws his voters by not keeping his promises and becoming part of the swamp. But Hillary already promised them no jobs and has been part of the swamp for decades. It was a no-brainer for people in Wisconsin, PA and the other states that swung the election to Trump.
-
That's why his voters elected him. To be a pr**k in defending our country.
Unfortunately for them he's just a pr**k.
-
This is a conversation I have been staying out of because it has been going in circles.
However, Alan's recent observation about real estate develop being less productive for the economy then other areas is only true if you look at only the number of jobs contributed to that particular project. Unfortunately, economics is never that simple.
Now, if you look at the overall effect a good development has on a neighborhood or community, it is clear his observation is wrong.
The world is truly shaped by good design, and the design of spaces and buildings can have a tremendous impact on how economically successful a particular area is, or is not. How willing we are to visit an area is directly related to the development of that area and the architecture employed.
Take for instance out door seating at a restaurant. You instantly feel safer to walk down a street with it, and will go out of your way to be there. So a good developer will build his buildings with this mind, making sure to get the right permits, etc. This then increases the economic success of the area and compounds on itself.
Sure, it makes the developer more, but also allows for greater returns for all other businesses in the area.
Of course, areas with little or sub-par development go the opposite direction, and the micro economy of that area suffers.
(Note, I am looking at this from the point of view of a city slicker. I will contest that suburban development has little effect on the economy, but I would never be caught dead living in suburbia.)
-
1. This is a conversation I have been staying out of because it has been going in circles.
(Note, I am looking at this from the point of view of a city slicker. I will contest that suburban development has little effect on the economy, but I would never be caught dead living in suburbia.)
1. Not only circles, but into walls that few seem able to see. I'm counting the dents, but the victims have gone numb and feel nothing and are like the creatures in the Duracell ads, running on until they fade...
2. When I was young, suburbia was a wonderful place for raising a family; maybe your sense of suburbia is different to mine, or the available suburbs are different. Now that I'm not quite young anymore, I would like to live in a city like Rome. Unfortunately, that damned lottery win keeps making mistakes and going to the wrong addresses, but when it gets its act together and becomes mine, I shall be able to afford Rome. Like any place worth being, if you can't do it properly, might as well just stay where you are. It's like a boat: if you can't afford one big enough, why bother? Because bother is all it will be.
;-(
Rob
-
2. When I was young, suburbia was a wonderful place for raising a family; maybe your sense of suburbia is different to mine, or the available suburbs are different. Now that I'm not quite young anymore, I would like to live in a city like Rome. Unfortunately, that damned lottery win keeps making mistakes and going to the wrong addresses, but when it gets its act together and becomes mine, I shall be able to afford Rome. Like any place worth being, if you can't do it properly, might as well just stay where you are. It's like a boat: if you can't afford one big enough, why bother? Because bother is all it will be.
;-(
Rob
If I was in my 30s when you were instead of now, I would be crazy to live where I live now; it was a war zone. Now though, the city is very nice, and I have been living in one, or another, almost my entire life.
And to be honest, I hate driving! Sure, I drive to my shoots because I have so much equipment to bring, but in suburbia in the USA, you need to drive everywhere for everything. I want to be able to walk to the store or the park or the pub when I want to.
Not to mention, everything in the suburbs is planned and non-organic. Most suburban towns don't even have villages or hamlets; they're just a collection of cookie cutter houses, shopping malls and asphalt. There ain't nothin special about that.
-
If I was in my 30s when you were instead of now, I would be crazy to live where I live now; it was a war zone. Now though, the city is very nice, and I have been living in one, or another, almost my entire life.
And to be honest, I hate driving! Sure, I drive to my shoots because I have so much equipment to bring, but in suburbia in the USA, you need to drive everywhere for everything. I want to be able to walk to the store or the park or the pub when I want to.
Not to mention, everything in the suburbs is planned and non-organic. Most suburban towns don't even have villages or hamlets; they're just a collection of cookie cutter houses, shopping malls and asphalt. There ain't nothin special about that.
Well my wife and I left NYC three years ago after living there all our lives. We retired moving to New Jersey where they grow corn around the corner and there are lots of horses, chickens, goats and other things people grow and farm. Of course there are strip malls, as well as more formal malls. We went to a nearby race track yesterday. It's safer too. I doubt if a terrorist could find this place. If we want to be daring and get our adrenaline going, we'd drive back to Manhattan about an hour away and take in a Broadway show or whatever. Best of both worlds.
-
This is a conversation I have been staying out of because it has been going in circles.
However, Alan's recent observation about real estate develop being less productive for the economy then other areas is only true if you look at only the number of jobs contributed to that particular project. Unfortunately, economics is never that simple.
Now, if you look at the overall effect a good development has on a neighborhood or community, it is clear his observation is wrong.
Development is in the eye of the beholder and as Jane Jacobs so well documented in "the Death and Life of Great American Cities" never all that simple. Of course Robert Caro also covered this in what some believe to be nauseating detail in "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York" Let me clarify, if we are talking about the overall impact on urban living and it's relationship to development I agree with Joe's remark. However, let us consider that Donald Trump, fresh out of U Penn, decides to go to work for Acme Widget and makes a nice career in the Widget industry eventually rising to CEO. Would the quality of life in New York be different today? I don't think so. The things that made New York (and of course we are speaking of Manhattan but it can probably also extend to parts of Brooklyn these days) were already laid out years before the first Donald Trump development. All the development in the loft space in Manhattan was underway before Trump and not impacted by his projects at all.
The world is truly shaped by good design, and the design of spaces and buildings can have a tremendous impact on how economically successful a particular area is, or is not. How willing we are to visit an area is directly related to the development of that area and the architecture employed.
Take for instance out door seating at a restaurant. You instantly feel safer to walk down a street with it, and will go out of your way to be there. So a good developer will build his buildings with this mind, making sure to get the right permits, etc. This then increases the economic success of the area and compounds on itself.
Sure, it makes the developer more, but also allows for greater returns for all other businesses in the area.
Of course, areas with little or sub-par development go the opposite direction, and the micro economy of that area suffers.
Let us also not ignore the impact on local industry and the community. Rochester NY had a lot of what you describe, great design, wonderful parks, and unfortunately a dependency on a couple of large companies that are no more. I would venture that a number of large cities in the US would not fit in this mold either. Certainly Los Angeles is a total mess, Houston is worse, downtown San Diego is nice but the rest of it is just big suburbia. Some of the most livable big cities are ones whose economies are centered around universities such as Pittsburgh and Boston.
(Note, I am looking at this from the point of view of a city slicker. I will contest that suburban development has little effect on the economy, but I would never be caught dead living in suburbia.)
Sometimes suburbia becomes suburbia no more. My area of Bethesda (6 miles or so from The White House) is undergoing citification (probably not a word but it sounds good) with new highrises going up every 3-4 months. I came here in 1978 when there were two buildings of 12 stories and now many more (haven't counted them lately). Marriott will have a 23 story world headquarters & hotel a mile down the road from where I live. Lots of multistory condos and apartment buildings built and being built (I don't know who can afford to live in them). The population density when all the building is done won't be as high as Manhattan but certainly be greater than any of the areas around here.
Interesting comments from Joe!!!! We've been having lots of fights in Bethesda over all the building and what is the right cityscape.
-
Ok, Quinn is gone and we have McMaster. So?
-
Alan, you make many good points as well. However, in the examples you cited and the overall decline of city can also be related to poor development and local political decisions.
Rochester is a nice area to live, but has quite the tax burden. Not as much as NYC, but NYC has the sex appeal! People are willing to pay fro NYC (for my specialities it is hard to get the work anywhere else), not so much for Rochester, especially from a business stand point.
Declines in other cities is exactly why what you cited, just a suburbia within a city limit. (Short cited development.)
The most livable and currently successfully cities have nothing to do with universities or colleges being nearby, but the walkability and the ability to development an efficient mass transit system. The East coast cities were largely developed prior to the automobile, and were built with these things in mind. Of course, they made room for cars, but the density is allowing for the easy return to walking and public transportation. Not to mention it is faster. Trying to get from Manhattan to Brooklyn via car during rush hour could take an hour or more, but on the subway, 20 to 30 minutes (so long as you're not going to Coney Island).
Anything West is in for serious trouble once gas goes back up.
Insofar as Bethesda, it had it coming for sure. It is sad to see so much more development then what was there before whenever I get down there, but gas is going up (in the long run at least). DC is a well designed city and those areas around it are positioned to progress nicely to a carless society.
I really don't see how Houston or LA is going to progress well.
-
Goldhammer:...However, let us consider that Donald Trump, fresh out of U Penn, decides to go to work for Acme Widget and makes a nice career in the Widget industry eventually rising to CEO. Would the quality of life in New York be different today? I don't think so. The things that made New York (and of course we are speaking of Manhattan but it can probably also extend to parts of Brooklyn these days) were already laid out years before the first Donald Trump development. All the development in the loft space in Manhattan was underway before Trump and not impacted by his projects at all.
============================================================
I think you ought to come to NYC from Maryland and check on these things before making such a statement.
Of course, no one person can change that much in such a large, established city like New York. However, Trump Towers Trump Plaza, Trump International and his other properties have made statements of quality that have forced other developers to compete in their buildings. Everyone's workmanship had to improve to compete in such an aggressive market. (Curious Joe, what do you do?)
Additionally, some his projects effected portions of the city that weren't developed at all. Such as the railroad yards on the west side that now have beautiful, multi- million dollar high-rise condos that overlook the Hudson River. These have changed the view of the Manhattan skyline when you approach from the new Jersey side. The city was forced to improve the parks, roads, walkways, bicycle paths, and access along the west side to accommodate such development. All a plus for the city. And the city has grown along with Trump properties or maybe because of them. There were 7 million people in NYC in the 1970's. Now there are 8 1/2 million plus a lot more illegals that the government doesn't count. Over 50 million people visited NYC last year many staying at Trump developed hotels.
Yet, you continue to read the Washington Post which tries to diminish his ability as a real estate developer. You're caught up in the Washington DC beltway echo-chamber where you live and listen to all the things that people there missed about him because they weren't listening or seeing.
-
I can't seem to get the quote and other italics, bold etc working. What am I doing wrong?
-
I can't seem to get the quote and other italics, bold etc working. What am I doing wrong?
Select text, then click relevant icon?
Affected text will be wrapped between opening [] and closing [/] markups.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump's companies are all privately held by him and his family. So he can hide his assets from the nosey public and Democrats who want to tear him apart.
They're private because he wants complete control (which is fine).
-
(Curious Joe, what do you do?)
I did not grow up in NYC, so I have little first hand knowledge of how the city progressed or what it was. However, I do give Trump, along with other developers, credit for making the city what it is today, along with Rudy G. (although his politics does not exacting line up with mine, I strongly disagree with "stop and frisk" and I absolutely hate the Disneyfication of Times Square. However, I have to give him credit for taking down the mob and with the overall policy of clean streets make clean neighborhoods.)
The fact is that good developments throughout Manhattan made even the least popular areas desirable. When I was in college, the idea of walking through the Village at night did not exist. Hells Kitchen was a hell of a place to live. Times Square was a sex and drug center (and I would go back to that to replace what it has become; did I mention I hate Times Square).
Good development fixed this and I have many clients (mainly architects) who would agree with me here. This has brought in a lot of money and investments into the city and made the economy boom.
Of course gentrification has become rampant, but Manhattan has always been expensive, so it really is not an concern or problem there just by default. Brooklyn & Queens is where the city has problems with that.
The problem with NYC though is it will eat you alive if you let it. There are so many things to do, and so many things to spend money on, you got to be careful not to go broke or become house poor.
-
Just to let you know that Trump paid plumbers in NYC about $55 per hour plus additional union benefits to build his buildings here. Other tradesmen make comparable wages. That's over $100,000 a year. Plumbers make double that when working overtime. Electricians make 1 1/2 times base rate for overtime. What do factory workers earn assuming they still have their jobs?
A lot less, since tradesmen are highly skilled and in demand and most factory workers are less skilled and in less demand.
-
I do not like negroes (see, I even use almost an N word on purpose)...
I can't believe I missed this (emphasis mine). WOW. Are you f'ing kidding me? While you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you and others like you are exactly what is wrong with this world. Heaven help us.
Thanks for sharing your racism...If this forum had an ignore list you'd be on it.
-
author=BartvanderWolf link=topic=116264.msg961894#msg961894 date=1487716377]
Select text, then click relevant icon?
Affected text will be wrapped between opening [] and closing [/] markups.
Cheers,
When I highlight the words, and hit Bold let's say, nothing happens. Is there something that's suppose to be set somewhere in Preferences or elsewhere?
-
Thanks for sharing your racism...If this forum had an ignore list you'd be on it.
At the lower right part of the message window is a Report to Moderator button and the moderator while reluctant to do so will ban members either temporarily or permanently. The button is there to use...
-
Donald J. Trump Verified account@realDonaldTrump Feb 17
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!
Sorry, but I'm not sure we've talked about this enough...(I haven't anyway)
Introducing the enemies of the American people: (http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/02/introducing_the_enemies_of_the.html#incart_river_home) By George Rodrigue, The Plain Dealer
(http://image.cleveland.com/home/cleve-media/width620/img/plain_dealer_metro/photo/22116541-mmmain.jpg)
A wall at The Newseum in Washington, D.C., commemorates the men and women who died while working as journalists. (Courtesy of The Newseum)
"Know your enemy" is a bit of wisdom that dates back to the 5th century B.C. President Trump has tweeted that journalists are "enemies of the American people." So, how can the American people better know their enemies?
Just down the street from the White House, at 555 Pennsylvania Avenue, The Newseum displays a list of more than 2,000 of them, stretching back more than a century.
–snip–
The nation's founders realized that journalists who told the truth would sometimes anger politicians, and perhaps even be put on enemies lists. They also knew that an attack on the press is an attack on an informed public. That's why the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and the press -- not for journalists, but for the people.
The image above is in stark contract with the image of Trump in front of the hundred and seventeen stars on the white marble Memorial Wall at C.I.A. headquarters where he had the gaul to blame any misunderstanding about what he had said about the intelligence community on the media. “They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth,” he said. (The official White House transcript notes “laughter” and “applause” here.)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/01/21/21/3C601EC500000578-4143474-image-a-2_1485035171788.jpg)
Photo: Olivier Douliery, Pool/European Pressphoto Agency)
Remember Trump also boasted about how many times he was on the cover of Time "the President noted that he had set an “all-time record” in Time magazine cover stories. “I’ve been on it for fifteen times this year. I don’t think that’s a record that can ever be broken.”
Hum, Obama was on the cover 31 times and Reagan 45 times. The all time winner in Time covers was Nixon...heck even Hillary beat Trump Trump with 18 times. In point of fact I only count 10 covers since the Aug. 31, 2015 issue of TIME and one cover Jan. 16, 1989 issue.
But of course, we aren't supposed to take Trump 'literally"...we just need to grasp to the big picture...the media is an enemy of the American people even if they have given their lives and the fallen officers in the CIA don't need mentioning because he was the Time Person of the Year and was on the cover a lot of times–probably a record, right? that's what people tell me...
Enemy of the people? Not according to Senator John McCain (a republican as I recall)
McCain defends free press, raises specter of dictatorship from Trump's attacks (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/19/donald-trump-john-mccain-media-enemy-of-the-people/98126656/)
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/866a2562ad6dad0b5ae520f0df8c88b000c653a5/c=0-68-4272-3284&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/GenericImages/2013/09/02/1378154495000-AP-Obama-US-Syria-002.jpg)
(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)
"If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free -- and many times adversarial — press," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaking on NBC's Meet The Press. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time — that's how dictators get started."
I think we need to think about this a little more and remember exactly what the 1st amendment says, what it means and how many people (journalists, spies, solders and civilians) have died trying to protect it...
The amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In case it's not clear to Trump, while it says Congress, that also means the President...and to think he swore an oath "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.". I think it's crucial we hold him to that oath or get rid of him.
-
Trump complained about the press and government before the election and was elected in part because many people agreed with him. As an aside, I remember decades when liberals hated the CIA because of their shadow government ways. And all the messes and wars they got us in.
-
When I highlight the words, and hit Bold let's say, nothing happens. Is there something that's suppose to be set somewhere in Preferences or elsewhere?
No settings required that I'm aware of.
Have you tried a different browser?
Otherwise, I'd ask the Forum support people.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I can't seem to get the quote and other italics, bold etc working. What am I doing wrong?
Don't know about you, but it happens to me occasionally: when previewing a draft response, especially a long one, or when quoting, I sometimes start highlighting (for bolding, italics, etc.) not inside the draft window, but inside the preview one. Highlighting works, but then nothing happens when trying to, say, bold it. I then have to move to the draft window and it works there, of course. But that's just me, you might have the same issue, or an intirely different one.
-
Trump complained about the press and government before the election and was elected in part because many people agreed with him.
Trump complains about, or sues, anybody who doesn't agree with him and might expose his errors. Of course, creating a common (abstract) enemy, like the dishonest press (who'd want that?), Iran (unknown is scary), Mexicans stealing your jobs (not the jobs you'd like to do, and at those wage levels), the 'political elite', etc, is one of the first things done to make people group together in support for 'their savior', and whatever (symbolic, or even counter-productive) solutions he presents.
Critical self-reflection is not Trump's strong suit, the only reflection he likes is from his mirror.
Of course, by spreading Alternative facts (AKA falsehoods) like in the Sweden riot case (he likes to believe propaganda that suits his agenda, facts be damned), someone is bound to reveal the lies and thereby becomes another attacking enemy that needs to be isolated and defeated by his supporters, AKA Trumpettes (who's only function is to cheer/vote for him, he couldn't care less for them otherwise because he only cares about himself).
As an aside, I remember decades when liberals hated the CIA because of their shadow government ways. And all the messes and wars they got us in.
Not sure what you are remembering, but maybe it makes sense to keep a tight reign on such organizations, to avoid some of the things (like spying on all citizens without a specific reason) that e.g. Edward Snowden revealed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Goldhammer:...However, let us consider that Donald Trump, fresh out of U Penn, decides to go to work for Acme Widget and makes a nice career in the Widget industry eventually rising to CEO. Would the quality of life in New York be different today? I don't think so. The things that made New York (and of course we are speaking of Manhattan but it can probably also extend to parts of Brooklyn these days) were already laid out years before the first Donald Trump development. All the development in the loft space in Manhattan was underway before Trump and not impacted by his projects at all.
============================================================
I think you ought to come to NYC from Maryland and check on these things before making such a statement.
We come up to NYC all the time. My wife's mother has a co-op two blocks off of Union Square that we have used when she is away on travel. My wife was born in Brooklyn.
-
They're private because he wants complete control (which is fine).
A number of the Trump real estate holdings are lease rights and minority shares. If you look closely at the Forbes Article that Alan Klein posted you also see that there were some joint ventures along the way. His company is complicated with a number of LLCs under the parent holding company. this is a common way of protecting liability and there is nothing wrong about it; numerous real estate developers do the same thing.
-
A lot less, since tradesmen are highly skilled and in demand and most factory workers are less skilled and in less demand.
Phil, salaries are going up for those that do computer assisted manufacturing. There is a pretty steep learning curve here; it's not the same as putting door panels on cars or riveting things on airplanes.
-
Phil, salaries are going up for those that do computer assisted manufacturing. There is a pretty steep learning curve here; it's not the same as putting door panels on cars or riveting things on airplanes.
http://www.iam-boeing-apprenticeship.com/PrepPack.pdf
now remind me how much plumber apprentice is paid ?
-
Introducing the enemies of the American people: (http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/02/introducing_the_enemies_of_the.html#incart_river_home) By George Rodrigue, The Plain Dealer
Yes, the final paragraph says it all:
The nation's founders realized that journalists who told the truth would sometimes anger politicians, and perhaps even be put on enemies lists. They also knew that an attack on the press is an attack on an informed public. That's why the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and the press -- not for journalists, but for the people.
"If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free -- and many times adversarial — press," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaking on NBC's Meet The Press. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time — that's how dictators get started."
True words from Sen. John McCain indeed.
Trump's rhetoric about Iran, is also alarming. Does he want to start a war to bolster earnings of the weapons industry, or is it just an instrument to create a common enemy for uniting the people (a WMD scenario)?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ok, Quinn is gone and we have McMaster. So?
Perhaps you mean Flynn?
While anyone can have detractors, it would appear that the choice of McMaster to NSA is being applauded by many on both sides of the political spectrum. The issue will be whether Trump puts his confidence in him, or continues to rely on Bannon for national security advice. McMaster and Bannon have a fundamentally different view of ISIS/ISIL and terrorism, for example. McMaster views ISIS and similar organizations as groups using a perversion of Islam to foment hatred, and justify violence against innocents. Bannon and others tend toward a radical anti-Islam world view (although it appears to be selective when economic interests are in play).
McMaster will also need to pull all the security and intelligence agencies together and restore their confidence. A tall order, especially if the President continues to "tweet" his mind.
-
Perhaps you mean Flynn?
While anyone can have detractors, it would appear that the choice of McMaster to NSA is being applauded by many on both sides of the political spectrum.
Yes, that seems to be the general consensus.
The issue will be whether Trump puts his confidence in him, or continues to rely on Bannon for national security advice.
We'll see whether McMaster will become a regular participant for the Security Update briefings. Sofar, not.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Preaching to the choir:
Statistician Nate Silver, editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight and a special correspondent for ABC News, published an in-depth analysis of the anti-Trump Woman’s March. In his report, Silver finds that “80 percent of march attendance came in states that Clinton won.” By comparison, 58 percent of the Tea Party protests were in states that Obama won in 2008.
How to use the above stats: according to each side's confirmation bias ;)
-
Preaching to the choir:
How to use the above stats: according to each side's confirmation bias ;)
But it is really not surprising at all and remember Clinton did win the popular vote! ;D I think a more interesting phenomenon is the current town hall meetings that Republican members are having to deal with. A fair number of them cancelled the meetings when they knew they would get hard questions on topics that they don't have answers for right now. This is really too sad as the members are first and foremost supposed to be responsive to their constituents. There was a story on the radio this afternoon about Congresswoman Ross-Lehtinen refusing to meet with constituents over the healthcare issue. We'll see what happens in the mid-term election in 2018 whether this has an impact.
-
Phil, salaries are going up for those that do computer assisted manufacturing. There is a pretty steep learning curve here; it's not the same as putting door panels on cars or riveting things on airplanes.
Of course - those are effectively trades. They're also not the majority and they are potentially at high risk of redundancy as the computers require less input (or can do more from the input of one operator).
-
The president isn't violating the constitution when he"attacks" the press unless he stations armed guards at their doors and prevents them from publishing. Just as you or I can criticize the press and call them liars, so can the president. He doesn't give up his 1st amendment rights of free speech after he's elected.
-
The president isn't violating the constitution when he"attacks" the press unless he stations armed guards at their doors and prevents them from publishing. Just as you or I can criticize the press and call them liars, so can the president. He doesn't give up his 1st amendment rights of free speech after he's elected.
Good point!
-
The president isn't violating the constitution when he"attacks" the press unless he stations armed guards at their doors and prevents them from publishing. Just as you or I can criticize the press and call them liars, so can the president. He doesn't give up his 1st amendment rights of free speech after he's elected.
Sure, he can criticize the press and sometimes they need to be criticized. I don't think there's any contention about that. But it misses the larger point.
What he's actually doing (intentionally?) is undermining the trust between the press and the citizenry...which will create a scenario where no one knows what to believe...which will make all rational discourse all but impossible. Of course, this is the fundamental issue between facts and alt-facts (lies, fabrications, untruths, conspiracy theories, etc), and why some people believe that Obama was born in Kenya.
-
...What he's actually doing (intentionally?) is undermining the trust between the press and the citizenry...which will create a scenario where no one knows what to believe...
Just as the press (and citizenry) should be rightly sceptical about government and politicians, citizenry should be sceptical of the press as well. There is no need to idolize anyone in this game, or demonize just one side. The press has itself to blame for the lost credibility as much as blaming Trump for it.
-
The press has always been leaning liberal and pro Democrat. What's happened is that Trump is the first politician willing to take them on and hit back at their bias giving no quarter. Rather than it being bad for Democracy, sharp debate is its essence.
-
The press has always been leaning liberal and pro Democrat. What's happened is that Trump is the first politician willing to take them on and hit back at their bias giving no quarter. Rather than it being bad for Democracy, sharp debate is its essence.
Are you calling what's going on now "sharp debate"? While evading a question, he points a finger and snears "fake news". That's what passes for debate now, is it?
-
Just as the press (and citizenry) should be rightly sceptical about government and politicians, citizenry should be sceptical of the press as well. There is no need to idolize anyone in this game, or demonize just one side. The press has itself to blame for the lost credibility as much as blaming Trump for it.
How exactly has the main stream press lost credibility? Other than trump saying so? please, specific examples demonstrating your assertion.
Politifact.com is a Pulitzer Prize winning organization. Do you think they are promoting an agenda?
-
And this the problem. Trump says the media is wrong, but doesn't provide any proof. When someone outright shows him he's wrong (claiming greatest EC victory), he just keeps shifting the goal posts until he eventually blames someone else. No admission of being wrong.
Of course you need to check sources and not accept the media just because it's the media, but you need to be able to actually show when and where they are wrong instead of just claiming it anytime you disagree with them. Trump's not used to having to tell the truth and even less used to having someone check and hold him to account.
-
The press has always been leaning liberal and pro Democrat.
You're just regurgitating conservative radio talking points. You believe this because you've been convinced that you're a victim, and that the liberals, and the press and the government and the immigrants and the minorities are all out to get you.
Off the top of my head:
Wall Street journal, Chicago tribune, Dallas morning news are traditionally conservative republican leaning.
The Arizona republic has backed every single republican presidential candidate since 1870...but not Trump.
The Dallas morning news backed every republican presidential candidate since 1940...but not Trump.
30 seconds of research...you should try it sometime.
-
How exactly has the main stream press lost credibility?...
You GOT to be kidding?!
-
You GOT to be kidding?!
I'll confess to being a complete moron. Educate me.
Burden of proof is on you, bro.
-
I'll confess to being a complete moron. Educate me.
Burden of proof is on you, bro.
Ok... for starters... for the first time in the history of journalism, mainstream media (led by CNN) publishes a denial right in the headline. For instance: "Trump claims that xyz is... it is NOT."
Another example. Although Trump did not use the word "attack," all of the mainstream media had headlines "Trump lies about/invents attack in Sweden." Now, his unfortunate sentence structure leaves it open to interpretations and conjectures, but how on earth is EVERY conjecture in the mainstream media coming to "attack"? If one is resorting to conjectures, they should, statistically speaking, fit on a bell curve, from benevolent ("he probably hand in mind Fox documentary from last night") to neutral ("what is he talking about") to malicious ("lying/inventing the attack").
-
Ok... for starters... for the first time in the history of journalism, mainstream media (led by CNN) publishes a denial right in the headline. For instance: "Trump claims that xyz is... it is NOT."
Another example. Although Trump did not use the word "attack," all of the mainstream media had headlines "Trump lies about/invents attack in Sweden." Now, his unfortunate sentence structure leaves it open to interpretations and conjectures, but how on earth is EVERY conjecture in the mainstream media coming to "attack"? If one is resorting to conjectures, they should, statistically speaking, fit on a bell curve, from benevolent ("he probably hand in mind Fox documentary from last night") to neutral ("what is he talking about") to malicious ("lying/inventing the attack").
Silly me, I thought you were going to provide...links to some real information, not just...anecdotes.
Here's my link:
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/
A Pew study examining trust, sources of news and political alignment. A key finding:
Those with consistently conservative political values are oriented around a single outlet—Fox News—to a much greater degree than those in any other ideological group
In other words conservatives tend to get their news from a single source and also tend not to trust other sources (color me shocked!). On the other hand liberals tend to get their news from multiple sources and tend to trust multiple sources of news.
This pretty much refutes your claim that the media has lost all credibility...and also illuminates what many in the real world already knew: that conservatives are an incurious lot and apparently can't stomach information that doesn't fit their world view...that they got from Fox.
It's ok to be skeptical of the media...but that's not an excuse to be blind to the truth.
-
Ok... for starters... for the first time in the history of journalism, mainstream media (led by CNN) publishes a denial right in the headline. For instance: "Trump claims that xyz is... it is NOT."
Another example. Although Trump did not use the word "attack," all of the mainstream media had headlines "Trump lies about/invents attack in Sweden." Now, his unfortunate sentence structure leaves it open to interpretations and conjectures, but how on earth is EVERY conjecture in the mainstream media coming to "attack"? If one is resorting to conjectures, they should, statistically speaking, fit on a bell curve, from benevolent ("he probably hand in mind Fox documentary from last night") to neutral ("what is he talking about") to malicious ("lying/inventing the attack").
The first example is basically what Trump has been doing - why aren't your lambasting him for it? There are, no doubt, examples of some press doing the wrong thing sometimes. That's a far cry from Trump doing the wrong thing most of the time.
Your second example - if that was the first stupid thing Trump had said, I bet that's the response you would have seen - but since he's made a habit of constantly saying and doing stupid things that are demonstrably wrong, well, it does flavour how you read what he says.
-
...why aren't your lambasting him for it?...
Because that wouldn't be fair? To Jeff...stealing his thunder? ;)
-
Silly me, I thought you were going to provide...links to some real information, not just...anecdotes.
Here's my link:
http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/
A Pew study examining trust, sources of news and political alignment. A key finding:
In other words conservatives tend to get their news from a single source and also tend not to trust other sources (color me shocked!). On the other hand liberals tend to get their news from multiple sources and tend to trust multiple sources of news.
This pretty much refutes your claim that the media has lost all credibility...and also illuminates what many in the real world already knew: that conservatives are an incurious lot and apparently can't stomach information that doesn't fit their world view...that they got from Fox.
It's ok to be skeptical of the media...but that's not an excuse to be blind to the truth.
/
Why am i shocked by the false narrative you present using a Pew study. My Pew study shows that 75% of people feel media is biased and basically one sided. My view is that if you watch MSNBC cable or read the New York Times or Washington Post, the readership and news is biased left and Democrat. Most of Fox is biased conservative and Republican. The point is the news is biased, most of it is anti Trump. And he is a guy who takes no prisoners and fights back.
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy
-
Because that wouldn't be fair? To Jeff...stealing his thunder? ;)
Fair enough :-)
-
He is a guy who lies and isn't used to being held accountable.
-
47 more months to go.
-
47 more months to go.
Not so sure he's gonna last. I suspect he'll either resign, get impeached or have a heart attack or stroke and die.
Any of the above works for me...
-
He is a guy who lies and isn't used to being held accountable.
The latter is probably true. I am not sure about the former. Someone who is more qualified than me in psychology would probably correct me if wrong, but my view is that lying presupposes a deliberate attempt to deceive. I don't think that is the case with Trump. I think he honestly believes that what he says is true. In a broad-brush, big-picture manner, of course. His speech is more like a stream of consciousness, i.e., "a style in which a character's thoughts, feelings, and reactions are depicted in a continuous flow uninterrupted by objective description or conventional dialogue."
-
Someone who is more qualified than me in psychology would probably correct me if wrong, but my view is that lying presupposes deliberate attempt to deceive. I don't think that is the case with Trump. I think he honestly believes that what he says is true.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I'm pretty sure Trump does not "honestly believe that what he says is true". I don't think he even thinks about it...I think he is either blatantly lying or just spewing forth bullshit. And I use the term bullshit because it popularly denotes what Trump engages in...and this is an adult forum and I'm not using the term to describe anybody here, I'm using it to describe what Trump does if he's not outright lying. So, can we be adult about using that word?
From The word LIE From Wikipedia. (oh, wait is that #FAKE NEWS?) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie)
Bullshit
Bullshit does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication. While a lie is related by a speaker who believes what is said is false, bullshit is offered by a speaker who does not care whether what is said is true because the speaker is more concerned with giving the hearer some impression. Thus bullshit may be either true or false, but demonstrates a lack of concern for the truth which is likely to lead to falsehoods.
So, what did he say when he was called on for claiming the widest margin of electoral votes since Reagan? He said "well, that's what somebody told me". In fact he often says things with a qualifier like "somebody told me" or "I've heard" or whatever lame-ass bullshit deflection or dodge.
But I think letting Trump off as a bullshitter is disingenuous. I honestly think he's a pathological lier...from the Lie article:
Pathological lying
In psychiatry, pathological lying (also called compulsive lying, pseudologia fantastica and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying. It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck. Although it is a controversial topic, pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime". The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies.
The bolding in the last sentence is mine...
You can not dispute that Trump, when fact checked by any reasonable manner repeatedly and consistently says things that are not true. Right? Can you in good conscience dispute that? So, then if we can agree that a lot of what Trump says isn't proven out to be true, we need to figure out why he can't be trusted to tell the truth.
Is he lying to intentionally deceive or is he just bullshitting? Does it really matter? If what Trump says turns out to usually be wrong then claims he makes like the media is the enemy of the American people should not be acceptable...allowing "alternative facts" or outright lies to be what comes out of Trump's mouth can not become the new normal.
-
/
Why am i shocked by the false narrative you present using a Pew study. My Pew study shows that 75% of people feel media is biased and basically one sided. My view is that if you watch MSNBC cable or read the New York Times or Washington Post, the readership and news is biased left and Democrat. Most of Fox is biased conservative and Republican. The point is the news is biased, most of it is anti Trump. And he is a guy who takes no prisoners and fights back.
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy
>>My Pew study shows that 75% of people feel media is biased and basically one sided
Had you not tacked on "and one sided" there would have been no disagreement between your summary and the result reported in the study. However by your add on you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding what was reported.
Of particular note is the fact that conservatives overwhelmingly believe the media is biased; liberals less so. Bias can be expressed in many different dimensions, not jut toward liberal or conservative political views, so it is not very surprising that people responded in this manner. It is also important to note that this study isn't reporting whether that bias supports one particular political perspective or another.
Also, notice the nuance used to differentiate between the 74% that think news media "tend to favor one side" and conservative republicans who are most likely to think that news media "are one sided." Those are very different statements. Of course, conservative media serve a steady diet of how conservatives are being attacked on all sides by the "liberal establishment" so it's no surprise to see conservatives parrot this view when asked. If conservatives feel left behind by a dynamic changing world, maybe they should try to catch up?
>>My view is that if you watch MSNBC cable or read the New York Times or Washington Post, the readership and news is biased left and Democrat. Most of Fox is biased conservative and Republican. The point is the news is biased, most of it is anti Trump.
Criticism does not imply opposition. Trump and his supporters would do well to learn the difference between the two. But, there are myriad reasons to oppose Trump, so I'll grant that this is probably a distinction without a difference in this case.
-
The latter is probably true. I am not sure about the former.
On the former....
In the 35 days so far, we’ve counted 133 false or misleading claims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/)
-
Everyone knows that business is best when the political climate is steady and calm.
When rules remain unchanged so companies are able to make plans for the future,
and that silent diplomacy works.
What Trump does is the opposite. He offends, disrupts, does not communicate, makes statements that his own ministers later have to weaken or deny. Damage control.
Maybe Trumps way of leading the US works to get the support from the people that voted for him, to show a strong America in a King Kong Fashion.
But internationally it will not work.
America First may become America Alone.
Take the relation with Mexico.
In his attempt to close the Mexican border he did not negotiate with the Mexican Government and without reason or function he offended Mexico’s national pride.
Just pure uncontrolled undiplomatic behaviour.
It forces the Mexican government to step up, not to lose face.
Now Mexico says it refuses to accept illegal immigrants from the US that are not Mexican.
A thing they accepted under Obama.
-
Just pure uncontrolled undiplomatic behaviour.
In deed Pieter. What worries me equally is the submissive brownosing of Germany and others when it comes to Trump demands concerning Nato and the political game to induce public fear of Russian aggression. In no time Minister for defense v.d. Leyen, and Finance Minister Schäuble agreed to more spending and moving Tanks and Troops within 100 kilometers to the Russian border.
Hey, if you want to declare war on Russia, there is an easier way I could suggest. Just twitter to Putin.
Intelligent diplomacy appears to be lost these day.
Oh, and Pineapple Pizza is sad. Total looser. Very sad! We will sort Pineapple out. Sort it. It will be great. ;) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/world/europe/pineapple-pizza-iceland.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/world/europe/pineapple-pizza-iceland.html?src=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)
-
Don't know about you, but it happens to me occasionally: when previewing a draft response, especially a long one, or when quoting, I sometimes start highlighting (for bolding, italics, etc.) not inside the draft window, but inside the preview one. Highlighting works, but then nothing happens when trying to, say, bold it. I then have to move to the draft window and it works there, of course. But that's just me, you might have the same issue, or an intirely different one.
Have you thought of progressing, and moving on from Mac?
;-)
Rob
-
You are welcome to your opinion, but I'm pretty sure Trump does not "honestly believe that what he says is true". I don't think he even thinks about it...I think he is either blatantly lying or just spewing forth bullshit.
I tend to agree, in many cases, he is just parroting what others say because he 'thinks' it supports his case. Take the recent Sweden riot case, where he saw a Fox propaganda show, mistook it for serious journalism and thought it supported his case where in actual fact it had little if anything to do with his point, maybe even proofs the opposite. A similar thing with crime rates by (illegal) immigrants in the USA, they are in fact lower than the crime rate by US citizens. But facts be damned if they are unraveling the phony fictions he has been peddling.
I've come across an interesting book, as far as the reviews suggest (I have it on order to read and form an opinion of it myself), called "What Is Populism" by Jan Werner Müller (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0812248988/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0812248988&linkCode=as2&tag=lsreofbo-21). This Professor of Politics at Princetown University, analyses the current rise of Populism in the USA and Europe and he tries to define it more clearly. His conclusions (plural), seem to point in the direction that populism is anti-democratic and leads to partisanship.
With the lessons learned from history, and although I'm not old enough to have personally suffered from WWII but my parents did, there are just too many parallels with events in those years to not be very concerned and worried. Any anti-democratic movement in society/politics raises big red flags with me, and that has nothing to do with political preferences because populists come in all flavors, left wing and right wing ... The only thing they have in common is that they are a threat to Democracy while claiming that they are speaking on behalf of the silent disenfranchised 'majority'. When in power, they further destroy social cohesion and they promote division and partisanship. They thrive on chaos because they can claim that 'the elite caused it' (no need t prove it, facts be damned) and only they can fix it (if they do not have to play by the rules their opponent have to). Absolute power leads to absolute corruption.
You can not dispute that Trump, when fact checked by any reasonable manner repeatedly and consistently says things that are not true. Right? Can you in good conscience dispute that? So, then if we can agree that a lot of what Trump says isn't proven out to be true, we need to figure out why he can't be trusted to tell the truth.
It looks from a distance that it is a mix of pathology and populism (inspired by his alt-right advisors). A dangerous cocktail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Cicero comes at no better time to re-read Bart.
I think that Trump may turn out to be a modern version of Publius Clodius Pulcher, another populist demagogue, who ultimately brought down the Republic of Rome. Another similarity, the more abusive and ridiculous he behaved, the more the public loved him.
Although he was killed, the forces he unleashed now favoured Gaius Julius Caesar, who engulfed
Rome in civil war 49 BC. With Caesar's murder, an autocratic empire came to power, and the Republic was gone forever.
http://classics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-1686 (http://classics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-1686)
Hopefully the civil war aspect does not repeat itself, having said that, it is somewhat scarey to consider the humongous shitload of weapons and ammo distributed in the US amongst your average family.
-
..."tend to favor one side" and ... "are one sided." Those are very different statements...
Oh, boy!
...so I'll grant that this is probably a distinction without a difference in this case.
Ah, ok then.
:)
-
... Intelligent diplomacy appears to be lost these day...
Indeed... after working wonders the last eight years.
-
The press has always been leaning liberal and pro Democrat. What's happened is that Trump is the first politician willing to take them on and hit back at their bias giving no quarter. Rather than it being bad for Democracy, sharp debate is its essence.
FACT: Trump received endorsements from just a handful of newspapers. Many very conservative newspapers endorsed Clinton and a couple Gary Johnson. One has to separate what appears on the Editorial page versus what appears in the news section.
-
On the former....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims/)
I just went through a bunch of those "fact checks." Almost every one is a lie, weaseling out, or a spin in itself.
-
FACT: Trump received endorsements from just a handful of newspapers. Many very conservative newspapers endorsed Clinton and a couple Gary Johnson. One has to separate what appears on the Editorial page versus what appears in the news section.
The problem though Alan, is that we have entered into a era of all news being biased, one way or the other.
I remember watching a video (long before this past election season) of the dean of journalism at Columbia (I believe) pick apart so-called news stories, on what we would perceive as being un-biased sources, by pointing out how biased they are. The obvious ones are easy for anyone to point out, but he was looking at clips from "very reliable" sources.
The subtlety in the diction used was so well hidden that you did not pick up on it, until he started to pointing out words in the story that should not be used. Words that clearly showed how biased (for or against) the reporter is once you started to think about it.
It's not just about whether the story is true or false, but also what diction is used. Is the diction neutral, like true reporting should be, or is it positive or negative?
Basically, he was pointing out how almost all news stories today (or at least what "news" is consumed today) are nothing more then opinion pieces and commentary on what happened, instead just stating what happened like it used to be. (Or at least was from when Joseph Pulitzer instilled standards into the industry to, I'd say, about 8 or 10 years ago.)
-
I just went through a bunch of those "fact checks." Almost every one is a lie, weaseling out, or a spin in itself.
And this is precisely why you folks are so hopeless: you simply refuse to acknowledge reality and therefore can't engage in a rational debate. At the end of the day all you're able to do is call people names or slap labels on things. It must take extraordinary effort to navigate within a world where down is up and everything you don't agree with is a lie.
Meanwhile, more bad news for Trump; new poll finds more people trust the media than trust him.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2431
And voters trust the media more than Trump 52 - 37 percent "to tell you the truth about important issues."
"The media, so demonized by the Trump Administration, is actually a good deal more popular than President Trump," Malloy said.
-
FACT: Trump received endorsements from just a handful of newspapers. Many very conservative newspapers endorsed Clinton and a couple Gary Johnson. One has to separate what appears on the Editorial page versus what appears in the news section.
If you follow the NY Times, you'll find that their news section is biased. I've been reading it for over 50 years and is gotten more biased to the left as the years have passed. I'm not refering to their editorial section which one can accept to be their political point of view. The Washington Post is more obviously biased in their news section. I don't bother reading their editorial section. Why bother? You know what they feel reading their news section.
-
... you folks are so hopeless: you simply refuse to acknowledge reality and therefore can't engage in a rational debate. At the end of the day all you're able to do is call people names or slap labels on things. It must take extraordinary effort to navigate within a world where down is up and everything you don't agree with is a lie...
I think that is known in psychology as "projection." Like calling everyone you don't agree with "racist, sexist, bigot, xenophobe, etc."
Since you are responding to me, please quote where I called people names?
-
The problem though Alan, is that we have entered into a era of all news being biased, one way or the other.
I remember watching a video (long before this past election season) of the dean of journalism at Columbia (I believe) pick apart so-called news stories, on what we would perceive as being un-biased sources, by pointing out how biased they are. The obvious ones are easy for anyone to point out, but he was looking at clips from "very reliable" sources.
The subtlety in the diction used was so well hidden that you did not pick up on it, until he started to pointing out words in the story that should not be used. Words that clearly showed how biased (for or against) the reporter is once you started to think about it.
It's not just about whether the story is true or false, but also what diction is used. Is the diction neutral, like true reporting should be, or is it positive or negative?
I think that pertained to broadcast news IIRC. There is no doubt that there is some degree of bias in almost anything other than some of the laws of natural science. If the temperature outside is 70F, that's a fact.
Let's take an example where there is lots of controversy, global warming. The evidence says pretty clearly that the earth has been warming in recent years. It's a fact that the arctic and antarctic are seeing unprecedented degrees of melting (we also have to caveat this as we don't have a complete historical record that would point to something cyclical taking place). We also know a lot about green house gases and atmospheric photochemistry. Does this allow one to say that this is exclusively a result of human intervention? Maybe yes and maybe know. Some years ago I was doing some research on this for a work related project. One of the worst greenhouse gases is methane some of which is natural seepage, and a fair amount that is a result of oil drilling and natural gas fracking. However, often ignored is the large amount that comes from ruminants and the incomplete digestion of foods. There is a lot more cattle being raised for food today than 100 years ago so one can attribute the increase in the source of methane to humans.
Basically, he was pointing out how almost all news stories today (or at least what "news" is consumed today) are nothing more then opinion pieces and commentary on what happened, instead just stating what happened like it used to be. (Or at least was from when Joseph Pulitzer instilled standards into the industry to, I'd say, about 8 or 10 years ago.)
I think in print journalism this is not happening to the degree in broadcast.
-
If you follow the NY Times, you'll find that their news section is biased. I've been reading it for over 50 years and is gotten more biased to the left as the years have passed. I'm not refering to their editorial section which one can accept to be their political point of view. The Washington Post is more obviously biased in their news section. I don't bother reading their editorial section. Why bother? You know what they feel reading their news section.
The Washington Post has the most balanced set of Op-Ed columnists of any paper in the country. Kathleen Parker, Michael Gerson, Jennifer Rubin, Charles Krauthamer, Ed Rogers, and a couple of others whose names don't come to me right now are all reliable conservative voices. Most have been extraordinarily critical of Trump.
I'm most interested to understand what people perceive to be the bias in print news stories. Specific examples would be useful.
-
Trump received endorsements from just a handful of newspapers. Many very conservative newspapers endorsed Clinton and a couple Gary Johnson. One has to separate what appears on the Editorial page versus what appears in the news section.
As someone who once was guilty of committing journalism, let me add that (at least for those of us in the United States; I don't have sufficient experience with news media in other countries to generalize) it's important to distinguish between the way the traditional print press covers Trump and the way the all-news cable TV channels do. With a few notable exceptions at the extremes of the political spectrum, almost all of the former have a review process in which editors try to remove any obvious bias from straight news reporting before a piece is published. In some cases—the New York Times is a notable example—there typically will be multiple levels of editing before a story about government or politics makes it into print. The need to feed online news sites has truncated this editorial process to some extent by tightening deadline cycles, but even there the requirement for a review by an editor mostly remains intact.
All-news cable TV is a very different kind of medium. First, the reporter often speaks directly and extemporaneously to the audience, in real-time; other than a quick chat with a director in a central studio, there is no opportunity to review what the reporter is about to say, and no doubt afterwards many of them cringe at the way their words came out. Even when a report is contained in a video that is produced prior to airtime, the editorial review, such as it is, typically consists of nothing more than a hurried edit by a field producer (basically another reporter who doesn't appear on camera), and these days, given budget constraints that limit the size of television crews, often not even that. Second, cable TV outlets in this country mostly fill their airtime with commentary by either their own staff members or guests—sometimes paid consultants, sometimes public figures who want the exposure—who are selected to represent particular points-of-view. These news media function more like the opinion pages of a newspaper than the news columns.
Trump presents a novel problem for everybody in the news business. He often says things that are probably or demonstrably untrue. It isn't always clear what his motives are. Sometimes he appears to be repeating what "somebody" told him. Sometimes he seems to be conjuring up an example to fit his narrative. Sometimes he apparently doesn't have any information on a particular subject and blurts out the first random thought that pops into his head. Occasionally, it sounds as though he is delusional. And probably sometimes he is lying. If you're a conscientious reporter, the only easy case is when he says something that might be true but for which he offers no evidence; then you can simply write or say that. When what he says is obviously false, you're faced with a difficult decision about how to characterize it. That's where it's very useful to have a second (or third, etc.) pair of eyes and—preferably—enough time prior to deadline to make a considered decision.
-
If you follow the NY Times, you'll find that their news section is biased. I've been reading it for over 50 years and is gotten more biased to the left as the years have passed. I'm not refering to their editorial section which one can accept to be their political point of view. The Washington Post is more obviously biased in their news section. I don't bother reading their editorial section. Why bother? You know what they feel reading their news section.
So then what, your only source of information becomes Breitbart or Foxnews propaganda?
I don't mind reading opposing biases, and make up my own mind based on multiple sources with facts and well-presented analyses if time permits to read all that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think in print journalism this is not happening to the degree in broadcast.
This is why I added "being consumed." I think (it was) Dan Rather that said, I try to do the best I can on air, but I wish more people would read newspapers, or something to that effect.
-
Meanwhile, more bad news for Trump; new poll finds more people trust the media than trust him.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2431
Where's Kellyanne Conway, when you need her? I admired her confidence and frankness with which she defended the impossible. Caught too many times on too many Alternative facts, or has she made a career switch to now officially promote Ivanka Trump's fashion line, or was CPAC 2017 more important than the work for the Trump Administration, or ...?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Where's Kellyanne Conway, when you need her? ...
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/americans-overwhelmingly-say-lives-have-improved-since-kellyanne-conway-went-away?mbid=social_facebook
According to the poll, Americans have been sleeping more, eating better, and enjoying a markedly greater sense of well-being following Conway’s sudden departure.
“I had lost my zest for life,” Carol Foyler, a poll respondent, said. “Now that Kellyanne Conway is gone, I greet every day with a smile, I feel my energy coming back, and I want to have sex again.”
-
Neither side is going to change its mind about the bias in news. What Trump has to do is execute his campaign agenda. Reduce taxes, improve trade to make it "fairer", secure the borders and correct immigration policies, strenghthen America's position on the world and it's military, increase employment and wage levels, replace Obamacare. Did i miss anything? If he does that, he will be reelected. The unfair press won't matter. If there is a recession, all bets are off.
-
Oh, install his Supreme Court pick.
-
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/americans-overwhelmingly-say-lives-have-improved-since-kellyanne-conway-went-away?mbid=social_facebook
Funny. I haven't felt hornier.
-
If there is a recession, all bets are off.
Too bad, I wanted to bet that he'll blame the media ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not so sure he's gonna last. I suspect he'll either resign, get impeached or have a heart attack or stroke and die.
Any of the above works for me...
I was worrying that we won't last.
-
Funny. I haven't felt hornier.
About that... have you tried looking at the first lady? I heard it can do all kind of wonders. If it can "cure gays", I am sure it could do something for straight guys too, instead of testosterone patches or gels. ;)
http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news/pat-robertson-%E2%80%9Cjust-staring-our-first-lady-can-heal-gays%E2%80%9D
P.S. This post is a lighthearted joke, no intention to offend or direct at anyone in particular
-
What Trump has to do is execute his campaign agenda. Reduce taxes, improve trade to make it "fairer", secure the borders and correct immigration policies, strenghthen America's position on the world and it's military, increase employment and wage levels, replace Obamacare. Did i miss anything?
Yes. You did forget a few things. In addition to your list, he says he'll increase military expenditure, stop China, repair and rebuild the infrastructure, balance the budget and reduce debt. That will prove difficult. Because arithmetic.
-
Yes. You did forget a few things. In addition to your list, he says he'll increase military expenditure, stop China, repair and rebuild the infrastructure, balance the budget and reduce debt. That will prove difficult. Because arithmetic.
Ah, but that's easy to prove, just use Alternative math: 1+1+1+0 = -3, see, debt is reduced.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ah, but that's easy to prove, just use Alternative math: 1+1+1+0 = -3, see, debt is reduced.
Cheers,
Bart
They are already doing this. They want to use dynamic scoring to assess budget impact so that 3% GDP growth is assumed to take place because of the tax cuts and regulatory reform.
-
Ah, but that's easy to prove, just use Alternative math: 1+1+1+0 = -3, see, debt is reduced.
Cheers,
Bart
The inner mathematician in me must ask, which base are you in? ;)
-
Report today from the BBC - UK - is that Trump is planning to eject immigrants, who have been unemployed in excess of three months, back to the country of their birth. :( :-[
-
In another report on cyberwarfare from the BBC, something even more pertinent than arithmetic idiocy:
"Unlike in Soviet times, disinformation from Moscow is primarily not selling Russia as an idea...
Instead, it has as one aim undermining the notion of objective truth and reporting being possible at all," ...
Sound familiar?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39062663
-
The inner mathematician in me must ask, which base are you in? ;)
Well, I'm sure it's true, somebody handed it to me on a piece of paper.
So it's black on white truth. Saw it with my own eyes.
It's true, really true. Very.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Report today from the BBC - UK - is that Trump is planning to eject immigrants, who have been unemployed in excess of three months, back to the country of their birth. :( :-[
No rest for Schrödinger's Immigrant: Too lazy to work, while simultaneously stealing jobs from americans. ::)
Joke aside: would you care to provide a link for this? I just don't trust comments on the internet the way I used to.
-
Report today from the BBC - UK - is that Trump is planning to eject immigrants, who have been unemployed in excess of three months, back to the country of their birth. :( :-[
In fact in the local Dutch news of yesterday it was reported that they apparently want only to eject dangerous criminal immigrants, so they will extend the definition of criminal to include those who ever got a parking ticket or were caught shoplifting.
AFAIK, the last time unemployment was a crime, was under Idi Amin. He used to say that there was no unemployment in Uganda, because it was not allowed ...
The new version of the Muslim ban is apparently postponed to sometime next week.
Obama's Federal guidelines about gender neutral toilets are revoked:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/23/donald-trump-revokes-barack-obama-guidelines-transgender-bathrooms/.
But still no news about the reopening of the coal mines.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-ceos-idUSKBN162209
Trump wants to expand U.S. nuclear arsenal:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN1622IF?il=0
And from the beginning of the month: Reuters says journalists should be prepared to treat US under Trump 'like Iran or Zimbabwe'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-media-dishonest-cnn-new-york-times-concerns-treatment-reuters-iran-turkey-zimbabew-a7557886.html
Cheers,
Bart
-
... would you care to provide a link for this?...
Indeed. Quick googling did not return anything of the sort.
Then again, it's been a rule the last 10-20 years already, that if you are on a work visa and you lose a job, you have a limited amount of time to either find a new job or change your visa status. The time period was typically around 30 or 60 days, after which you are supposed to leave the country.
-
would you care to provide a link for this? I just don't trust comments on the internet the way I used to.
The full texts of Monday's deportation memorandums are available online. One is a policy implementation memo (https://www.dhs.gov/publication/implementing-presidents-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvement-policies) for the executive orders on immigration enforcement (these were separate from the executive order restricting travel from specified countries that has been blocked by a court injunction) and the other provides guidance to employees of the U.S. immigration agencies (https://www.dhs.gov/publication/enforcement-immigration-laws-serve-national-interest) within the Department of Homeland Security.
-
The full texts of Monday's deportation memorandums are available online...
I think we are looking for a different link, the one from BBC and the claims about unemployed immigrants.
-
I think we are looking for a different link, the one from BBC and the claims about unemployed immigrants.
Understood. I thought some of the viewers of this thread might want to see the actual source of the news reports so they could draw their own conclusions. Interpreting documents of this kind is a non-trivial exercise. Many Washington-based reporters for U.S. news organizations find it difficult unless they are specialists who have a legal or immigration beat. It's even more of a challenge for reporters working for foreign news organizations, even such highly respected ones as the BBC, because they tend to be generalists.
-
Indeed. Quick googling did not return anything of the sort.
Then again, it's been a rule the last 10-20 years already, that if you are on a work visa and you lose a job, you have a limited amount of time to either find a new job or change your visa status. The time period was typically around 30 or 60 days, after which you are supposed to leave the country.
Correct and I've seen visiting scientists working hard to find another position when their employment (usually a post-doctoral temporary appointment) was set to expire.
EDIT: These people already have/had jobs and are on the payroll records. This is a totally different issue. I think one needs to be careful in the use of language as well. Visiting scientists have work visas and are really not 'immigrants.' IMO, immigrant denotes legal status whereas the Trump EOs are concerned with foreigners who are in the US illegally. They may want to 'immigrate' to America but as we know that is a legal process.
-
Report today from the BBC - UK - is that Trump is planning to eject immigrants, who have been unemployed in excess of three months, back to the country of their birth. :( :-[
What do they do in Europe if you're on a work visa and lose your job? Who supports them while they're out of work? Does the BBC give them a job?
-
No rest for Schrödinger's Immigrant: Too lazy to work, while simultaneously stealing jobs from americans. ::)
Brilliant
-
Indeed. Quick googling did not return anything of the sort.
Then again, it's been a rule the last 10-20 years already, that if you are on a work visa and you lose a job, you have a limited amount of time to either find a new job or change your visa status. The time period was typically around 30 or 60 days, after which you are supposed to leave the country.
as usual the devil is in the details and a lot of it - let us consider for simplicity a non-immigrant visa status like H-1B... if your employer-sponsor fires you, then it technically ("legally") must file a request with USCIS to withdraw its H-1B petition (or it owes you your wages) and you indeed need either to
1) find a new H-1B visa sponsor which will petition USCIS to extend your visa status (even if withdrawal request was filed and even approved)... this is popuraly known as "/H1/ visa transfer".. or may be your have your I-485 petition (to adjust your non immigrant visa status to a permanent resident) filed already, then you can simply find a new "GC" employer-sponsor ("H1 sponsor" and "GC sponsor" are not the same, they typically are the same company - at least initially, but legally they can be different companies and along the way you can change either, etc, etc) and work on EAD card w/o going back to H-1B visa status...
or
2) leave the country / and within a certain time frame to possibly avoid possible penalties ( like being barred from re-entry, etc, etc ) if you ever attempt to seek some immigrant/non-immigrant visa in the future - but then with both federal laws and internal USCIS / Dept. of State instructions changing a lot all the time this is like a lottery /
or
3) attempt to change your H-1B non-immigrant visa status to some other possible for you non-immigrant visa status (for example H4 if you are married and your spouse has H-1B or go to college)
or
4) attempt to get into some protected status based for example on asylum petition or file a petition to apply for an immigrant status or whatever - point is while your attempt is making rounds within the system you can sit here legally
----
but in real life it is not what happens for H-1B... if your employer-sponsor is a bodyshop (specifically a small time bodyshop vs a big public company, like where I work for last couple of decades) it can stop paying you wages (not legal, yes - but when both sides are interested this stays between them) and not do anything about your petition - they can find you another contract (even like 6 month later) or you can find it yourself on C2C and they can start paying you wages again (even w/o paying you back wages owed - again not legal but with both sides interested this stays between them)... or you can do nothing from above and still find another H1 sponsor (again that probably will be a bodyshop to take case like yours) and once they file a petition for "H1 visa transfer" (yes, they can even knowing for certain that you are out of status, but this is the real life vs the law) you can start working for them right away...
meanwhile USCIS might {A} question the petition by sending RFE for your paystubs (prove that you were in H-1B status = your prev. sponsor paid you) - new sponsor simply answers that no paystubs available and cases goes to options B, C, D listed further - more often D in real life __OR__ {B} /worst case scenario/ simply reject a petition if H-1B petition withdrawal was filed by prev. H-1B sponsor and already approved by USCIS quite some /based on current USCIS instructions about the time frame/ time ago __OR__ {C} petition can be approved with status extension (yes, as it is a decision made by a human in the end) __OR__ {D} petition can be approved w/o extending the status ( then you need to do a round trip and get your H-1B status when you re-enter the country with valid H-1B visa stamp and H-1B petition approval notice... readers shall know that H-1B visa stamp, H-1B petition, H-1B petition approval notice, H-1B visa status /in your I-94/ are 4 different things )... along the way if you are valuable enough /you bring enough money in the house/ for a new sponsor their immigration lawyer can get involved to fight USCIS in case of B and meanwhile you continue to work "legally" / in real life feds are simply not going to court to prove that you and your sponsor conspired to defraud from the very beginning - albeit they can for example use live baits to entrap and so scare even small bodyshops from doing that /
-
No rest for Schrödinger's Immigrant: Too lazy to work, while simultaneously stealing jobs from americans. ::)
Joke aside: would you care to provide a link for this? I just don't trust comments on the internet the way I used to.
It was a newsreader I heard.
-
What do they do in Europe if you're on a work visa and lose your job? Who supports them while they're out of work? Does the BBC give them a job?
That may differ from country to country (European countries/member states do have a certain level of autonomy, I suppose similar to the different states in the USA). In my country, and assuming one wants/needs to stay longer than 90 days in the country, then a visa is not adequate. Staying longer than 90 days (there are some exceptions) requires a combined work and resident's permit. When the employment ends, the permits stops, but one can apply for a permit to seek new employment for a period of one year.
When visa/permits expire, one is supposed to leave the country (actually the Schengen region), but there is usually no Gestapo sent to find you. However, in our organized society, it's hard to live without proper registrations, and outstaying one's welcome without a good reason will 'reduce the possibility' to successfully re-apply for a new visa / work permit / resident's permit, for a prolonged lock-out period (e.g. 5 years). So that may even prohibit any future vacation in any of the Schengen countries (where there is freedom of movement without border checks), or seeking new employment.
People who work (and their employer) will pay taxes, and that will be used to build up social security rights over time. But with rights also come obligations (like actively seeking for a new job, or the money stops), so there is no free lunch.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Report today from the BBC - UK - is that Trump is planning to eject immigrants, who have been unemployed in excess of three months, back to the country of their birth. :( :-[
That's a hairy one to get into!
I think I shall abstain from comment. Spanish Internet showed a great clip of Lady Mel smiling at Lord T as he looks at her, and her expression turning to disgusted stone a split second after he turns his head away. I must see if I can find it again.
http://informalia.eleconomista.es/informalia/actualidad/noticias/8105041/01/17/Melania-Trump-su-sonrisa-forzada-se-hace-viral.html
Scroll down below the first pair of snaps to the video.
Rob
Obviously, a fine example of it never happened, folks, I'll fix it; it's what I do: fix things...
(Strange thing: for months now, every time I type out things it turns out thongs. I wonder why?)
-
Brilliant
Not mine though, but I agree ;)
-
Another view. (https://chartwellwest.com/2017/02/05/the-trump-trilemma/)
-
Looks like some in the fake media realized the danger of losing whatever confidence the public still has in their objectivity and started to take action to restore it:
http://www.robertfeder.com/2017/02/23/abc-7-suspends-mark-giangreco-lunatic-trump-tweet/
WLS-Channel 7 has slapped sports anchor Mark Giangreco with a multi-week suspension for a tweet in which he called President Donald Trump a “cartoon lunatic” and referred to Trump voters as “simpletons.”
Management of the top-rated ABC-owned station released the following statement Thursday: “Mark Giangreco’s Twitter comments are not in line with ABC 7 Chicago’s non-partisan editorial standards.
-
That may differ from country to country (European countries/member states do have a certain level of autonomy, I suppose similar to the different states in the USA). In my country, and assuming one wants/needs to stay longer than 90 days in the country, then a visa is not adequate. Staying longer than 90 days (there are some exceptions) requires a combined work and resident's permit. When the employment ends, the permits stops, but one can apply for a permit to seek new employment for a period of one year.
When visa/permits expire, one is supposed to leave the country (actually the Schengen region), but there is usually no Gestapo sent to find you. However, in our organized society, it's hard to live without proper registrations, and outstaying one's welcome without a good reason will 'reduce the possibility' to successfully re-apply for a new visa / work permit / resident's permit, for a prolonged lock-out period (e.g. 5 years). So that may even prohibit any future vacation in any of the Schengen countries (where there is freedom of movement without border checks), or seeking new employment.
People who work (and their employer) will pay taxes, and that will be used to build up social security rights over time. But with rights also come obligations (like actively seeking for a new job, or the money stops), so there is no free lunch.
Cheers,
Bart
What we're trying to do here in America is clean up 30 years of government dereliction when they didn't bother to check anyone. They just let it go because it was economically and politically expedient to allow illegals immigrant to remain, whether they had a job or not. Frankly, if the economy was great and citizens had great jobs, no one would care even today. Because of the jobs problem though, government is getting tough to respond to political pressure like with Brexit and suppose soon in other European countries like France and Germany. But we have Immigration cops and Border Patrol police who follow the law, not Gestapo like you have.
-
... her expression turning to disgusted stone...
No story here, Rob, she just has a "Resting B*tch Face" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resting_bitch_face), like many others, myself included (though much uglier).
-
Another view. (https://chartwellwest.com/2017/02/05/the-trump-trilemma/)
Thanks for that link.
-
Then again, if nothing else works against Trump, not even the Russian connection, THIS will certainly do:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/24/witches-unite-cast-binding-spell-trump-followers/
A group of witches is attempting to use black magic to neutralize U.S. President Donald Trump by casting a “binding spell” to prevent him from governing.
;)
-
A group of witches is attempting to use black magic to neutralize U.S. President Donald Trump by casting a “binding spell” to prevent him from governing.
I think that's a bad idea, I prefer Trump governing rather then to continue his election campaign ;)
-
What we're trying to do here in America is clean up 30 years of government dereliction when they didn't bother to check anyone. They just let it go because it was economically and politically expedient to allow illegals immigrant to remain, whether they had a job or not.
Fact: According to the Department of Homeland Security, from 2009 through 2014 2.4 million illegal immigrants were removed from the US under Obama. Even Trump used this number during one of the debates. Hardly a sign of dereliction of duty.
-
This just in: Reporters from The NY Times, BuzzFeed News, CNN, The Los Angeles Times and Politico were not allowed to enter for the briefing in West Wing office of the press secretary.
Like Fidel Castro used to say back in the day: 'To those with the Revolution, everything. To those against, nothing'. In the end it was nothing for everyone.
Weird times.
-
Fact: According to the Department of Homeland Security, from 2009 through 2014 2.4 million illegal immigrants were removed from the US under Obama. Even Trump used this number during one of the debates. Hardly a sign of dereliction of duty.
So it must have been the 22 years before Obama being referred to then?
Confusing, all those Alternative facts and Actual truths.
But not to despair, since now selected news agencies are no longer invited to the White House news briefings (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321049-white-house-hand-picks-select-media-for-briefing), all news will be unchallenged Alternative news and thus none of it is true.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Let's all give the USA a big welcome to the list of countries that censor and control the press like China, Russia and North Korea.
-
Remember the quaint old days when everyone made fun of Italian politics?
-
Fact: According to the Department of Homeland Security, from 2009 through 2014 2.4 million illegal immigrants were removed from the US under Obama...
Officially. Confused. Me.
If there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants, and 2.5 million are deported (or even 3, as I heard recently), that means that about 25-30% of illegals are SERIOUS criminals. Remember, Obama's policy was that only the most serious criminals are deported.
How does that number jive with the often repeated "fact" that only 1% of illegals are involved in crime? Or that illegal immigrant crime rates are lower than for citizens?
-
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html
Still supportive of this decision Alan?
You are a smart person, what more evidence do you need about where this is going?
You have a president who:
- gets some of his facts on Fox
- blocks out objective media outlets
- broadcasts emmotional tweets about world politics
- proposes illegal laws that go against the most fundamental republican values
- lied to his voters about his agenda on several key topics starting with his links with Wall Street
- ...
And yet you are apparently willing to keep supporting that person just because he was smart enough to tag himself a Republican? If this is not the reason for your support, what is it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Officially. Confused. Me.
If there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants, and 2.5 million are deported (or even 3, as I heard recently), that means that about 25-30% of illegals are SERIOUS criminals. Remember, Obama's policy was that only the most serious criminals are deported.
How does that number jive with the often repeated "fact" that only 1% of illegals are involved in crime? Or that illegal immigrant crime rates are lower than for citizens?
Well, obviously Obama was lying, and he did more than he said he did ...?
Cheers,
Bart
-
But not to despair, since now selected news agencies are no longer invited to the White House news briefings (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321049-white-house-hand-picks-select-media-for-briefing), all news will be unchallenged Alternative news and thus none of it is true.
It seems so astonishing that these clowns think that they can shut down the free press in the USA by not inviting them to a meeting. How clueless can someone be? Do they think that the press is somehow part of the marketing department? The country is not a corporation. The President is not a CEO, he's a public servant. Is it possible that they don't comprehend this?
-
If this is not the reason for your support, what is it?
Because otherwise, before long, he will nuke you to show that it's not just a compensation for his small, ehm, hands but that he doesn't think blink twice before using them.
Cheers,
Bart
-
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html
Still supportive of this decision Alan?
You are a smart person, what more evidence do you need about where this is going?
You have a president who:
- gets some of his facts on Fox
- blocks out objective media outlets
- broadcasts emmotional tweets about world politics
- proposes illegal laws that go against the most fundamental republican values
- lied to his voters about his agenda on several key topics starting with his links with Wall Street
- ...
And yet you are apparently willing to keep supporting that person just because he was smart enough to tag himself a Republican? If this is not the reason for your support, what is it?
Cheers,
Bernard
Too optimistic.
I have yet to meet Trump supporter who is not happy with the current state of affairs, I don't see why this should make the difference. They want to shake everything, build from scratch. In the words of Steve Bannon: 'Create a new political order'. Well this is shaking indeed.
-
Too optimistic.
I have yet to meet Trump supporter who is not happy with the current state of affairs, I don't see why this should make the difference. They want to shake everything, build from scratch. In the words of Steve Bannon: 'Create a new political order'. Well this is shaking indeed.
No way that the 25% of the US population who voted for Trump want chaos and to be deprived of their most fundamental liberties.
They are decent and intelligent people who have simply been lied to by a smart populist.
Every single one of them has the opportunity to change his/her mind every second that passes by because they are, still, free to do so.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Here is a good explanation of recent deportations:
https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2016
A few factoids:
- Roughly 300K deportations per year over last 8 years
- This includes many deportations right after border crossing
- Most other (interior) deportations were criminals
-
Nobody so far seems to challenge my math that
20-30% of illegals ARE SERUOUS CRIMINALS? Come on, purveyors of fake news, spin that!
-
Nobody so far seems to challenge my math that
20-30% of illegals ARE SERUOUS CRIMINALS? Come on, purveyors of fake news, spin that!
It might help to define 'Serious', and 'Criminals', before addressing the larger task of defining 'Serious Criminals'.
Do parking/speeding tickets or shoplifting, help to qualify? Just asking, because I read that under the upcoming new executive order those would be criteria for deportation, and we do want to compare apples to apples, don't we?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, we are talking about Obama stats and criteria only. By the way, the only highlight of his years.
-
Bart, we are talking about Obama stats and criteria only. By the way, the only highlight of his years.
But Slobodan, don't you want to be able and compare the dishonest Obama stats to the progress made by the honest Trump stats?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fact: According to the Department of Homeland Security, from 2009 through 2014 2.4 million illegal immigrants were removed from the US under Obama. Even Trump used this number during one of the debates. Hardly a sign of dereliction of duty.
But there are at least 12 million illegals. And this situation pre-dated Obama by at least 30 years. My point is the government has been doing very little. Obama got some of the criminals out and most of the other were those who were caught at the border. The fact is no one on any side really wants to stop the problem.
It's really very simple to fix. We have laws on the books that it's a criminal offense to hire an illegal. Arrest two or three employers who have done this. Prosecute them. Send them to jail and fine them big time. And all the other employers will stop using illegals. The jobs for them will dry up. They'll all go home back to their countries. We won't have to round them up and deport them. We won't have to build a wall. Mexico will save their money. We won't need those extra 15000 ICE and Border Patrol guards and millions of American citizens will get jobs currently filled by illegals in restaurants. landscaping, farming, and construction.
-
Read in my local media that:
"Journalists are not allowed to use undisclosed information sources", the president declared. Despite the use of anonymous sources by journalists residing under the freedom of press as warranted under the US constitution.
It was a new attack on the media, at whom the American President already aimed his arrows the last weeks. Trump repeatedly claims that newspapers report 'fake news' and has declared prominent media as Enemies of the People.
The President emphasized he was not talking about all media, but only against the 'fake news media and press'. "I'm against people that make up stories and make up sources", according to the President. "They are not telling the truth. They do not represent the people. I do. And I'm going to address that".
End of translated citation.
Well, good luck to the United States America, who are frankly looking more like a banana republic as the days (a little over one month now) pass. Trump defenders will share the responsibility.
Cheers,
Bart
BTW, Trump claimed there were lines going back 6 blocks (to attend the CPAC gathering), can anyone confirm that?
-
Presidents have been complaining about news' bias for years. Obama complained that Fox news made him look bad. I guess he was happy the way CNN, MSNBD, ABC, CBS, NBC and all the other (liberal) stations treated him, the opposite with Trump. Liberals and Democrats once tried to use the FCC under Obama to shut down Fox and take their license to broadcast away, saying they were biased. It appears freedom of the press only applies to Liberal media.
-
Nobody so far seems to challenge my math that
20-30% of illegals ARE SERUOUS CRIMINALS? Come on, purveyors of fake news, spin that!
First, your injection of the word "serious" is found nowhere in the ICE report. They make distinction between convicted criminal and non criminal deportations, nothing more. However, we can certainly differentiate between violent and non violent crime...which you may consider "serious."
2011 saw the most deportations in US history, nearly 400,000. During that year 55% of these deportations were of convicted criminals. Of those, almost 95% were non-violent (drug or traffic related). Taken together that means there were roughly 7000 violent convicted criminals deported out of 400,000 deportations, or 1.7%. For context that's 1.7% of a given year, not 1.7% of the estimated 11-12 million illegal aliens currently estimated to be living in the US.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Deportation
I'd say that pretty much torpedoes you assertion. But don't take my word for it....A multi year, multi sourced study concludes:
With few exceptions, immigrants are less crime prone than natives or have no effect on crime rates. As described below, the research is fairly one-sided.
Source:
https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says
I've provided my sources, reasoning, and links to peer reviewed studies. Q.E.D.
-
Presidents have been complaining about news' bias for years. Obama complained that Fox news made him look bad. I guess he was happy the way CNN, MSNBD, ABC, CBS, NBC and all the other (liberal) stations treated him, the opposite with Trump. Liberals and Democrats once tried to use the FCC under Obama to shut down Fox and take their license to broadcast away, saying they were biased. It appears freedom of the press only applies to Liberal media.
Sources?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sources?
Several, easy to google. But since you trust only the left-wing ones, here it is, from HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/fcc-rupert-murdoch-fox-broadcast-licenses_n_1514415.html
-
Bart on Trump:
...they will extend the definition of criminal to include those who ever got a parking ticket...
ppmax2 on Obama:
...almost 95% were non-violent (drug or traffic related)...
Damn, looks like Obama pre-empted Trump's move, stealing his thunder... or it seems so, according to our anonymous friend ppmax2 ;)
-
Several, easy to google. But since you trust only the left-wing ones, here it is, from HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/fcc-rupert-murdoch-fox-broadcast-licenses_n_1514415.html
Thanks for providing 1 (of several?) presumed sources. BTW, I'm not sure, but are you suggesting that you, or Alan, endorse the hacking of the email account of 13-year old Milly Dowler in March 2002 (who later turned out to be a suicide victim) and deleting of voicemails which interfered with police inquiries, and led to subsequent bribery of the parents, without consequences for the Rupert Murdoch empire's 'News of the World' tabloid that perpetrated that?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Presidents have been complaining about news' bias for years. Obama complained that Fox news made him look bad. I guess he was happy the way CNN, MSNBD, ABC, CBS, NBC and all the other (liberal) stations treated him, the opposite with Trump. Liberals and Democrats once tried to use the FCC under Obama to shut down Fox and take their license to broadcast away, saying they were biased. It appears freedom of the press only applies to Liberal media.
So, some group nobody has ever heard of requesting that the FCC do something is the same as the President of the United States actually doing it? Alan, to be honest, your mental contortions in defending Trump don't do you any favours.
-
So, some group nobody has ever heard of requesting that the FCC do something is the same as the President of the United States actually doing it? Alan, to be honest, your mental contortions in defending Trump don't do you any favours.
Is he defending Trump or defending the Republican party? Some people will put up with anyone in charge as long as the party they support is in power. :(
-
Is he defending Trump or defending the Republican party? Some people will put up with anyone in charge as long as the party they support is in power. :(
You are 100% right!
It's part of the moral decline of mankind. We reached an apotheosis some decades ago and are now on the opposite side of the pendulum's swing. Macmillan was right: we never did have it so good, but the error we mostly all made was to measure that good in terms of money. As is almost always the case where Mammon rules, disaster follows like night doth the day. We see it in states, in dynasties both private and corporate, in "normal" families and even within ourselves.
We encounter and embrace complacency, and forget morality at our peril.
-
The press isn't doing itself a favour by complaining so much they were kept out of a press briefing. In actual fact it wasn't even a press briefing but a gaggle in which it happens a lot more that only selected news media get invited. So in my mind this is really a storm in a teacup
So Trump wins again, the whole press is up in arms and can't talk about anything else then the "boycot" while the real newsworthy matter at hand is the revelations that his chief of staff spoke with top officials at the FBI about the bureau’s investigation into potential links between the president’s associates and Russia. The White House lambasted the reports but in doing so confirmed the conversations between Reince Priebus, the FBI director, James Comey, and his deputy, Andrew McCabe.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but the press spending more time on their "unfair treatment" vs. the real issues isn't going to help.
-
So, some group nobody has ever heard of requesting that the FCC do something is the same as the President of the United States actually doing it? Alan, to be honest, your mental contortions in defending Trump don't do you any favours.
Your post is an example of the"fake news" Trump complains about. He never petitioned the FCC to shut down liberal news outlets like liberal groups tried to shut down Fox. Also, you never addressed my point that Obama bitched about the conservative bias coming from Faux Fox. You've proven my point that liberals are only concerned with free speech from liberal presidents and free press for liberal news media. Suddenly, you become "holier than thou." Finally we have a Republican conservative president willing to take on the liberal biased press. It's about time.
-
So, some group nobody has ever heard of requesting that the FCC do something is the same as the President of the United States actually doing it? Alan, to be honest, your mental contortions in defending Trump don't do you any favours.
Broadcast licenses must be renewed periodically. It is not uncommon for groups to petition the FCC regarding the ownership of such licenses. I cannot remember the FCC ever suspending or not renewing a license as the result of petition(s). One also needs to be aware that the majority of AM radio stations today are controlled by a relatively few companies. Most 'talk' radio is very conservative in orientation with hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and others. I don't particularly care for this and sometimes listen to see what they are saying (one local host believes that there is a secret Obama cabal plotting to overthrow the Trump administration). I have not nor intend to file an FCC complaint about this as they are entitled to free speech.
Regarding Obama's dislike for Fox news, he did complain about them, but never went off on a lengthy tirade or called them out endlessly as the purveyor of 'fake news.'
-
I'm not a Trump supporter, but the press spending more time on their "unfair treatment" vs. the real issues isn't going to help.
I read both the Washington Post and NY Times every morning. It was single story in both papers amidst numerous other stories about all the other issues related to the Trump administration. Whether it was a gaggle or not, the story was newsworthy as is the singling out of certain news organizations by the President as purveyors of fake news. There was a story today that this is not working particularly well with some Trump voters in Michigan who think the President is being silly and petulant.
I will let you draw your own conclusions but earlier in the week, the Washington Post adopted "Democracy Dies in Darkness" as the logo to it's on-line website.
-
For those interested, the issues about Fox, MSNBC (yes, there have been Conservatives that have filed petitions against this 'liberal' network) and other broadcast news outlets, the issue relates to the Fairness Doctrine. There is a particularly good discussion of THIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) on Wikipedia.
-
The press isn't doing itself a favour by complaining so much they were kept out of a press briefing. In actual fact it wasn't a press briefing but a gaggle in which it happens a lot more that only selected news media get invited. So in my mind this is really a storm in a teacup
I strongly disagree. The selective exclusion (because they wanted to push back at those selected media) of members of the free press / media to partake in an exchange of firsthand information is a step in undermining parts of the constitution. That is a big deal!
The more informal setting of a so-called gaggle (I thought only birds like geese gaggle) was because they didn't want to draw video coverage away from Trump's performance on CPAC. The White House has a core pool of media that covers press briefings and then those media are asked to share that news with other media
Sean Spicer expanded the number of invited media and then (oh what a surprise) there was not enough room for all to attend, so he selectively excluded some of the core group. This is unprecedented.
So Trump wins again, the whole press is up in arms and can't talk about anything else ...
The press do also speak about other subjects, but this is a major change in how the government communicates with the people of the USA, through selected media. It is an attempt at censorship, in the assumption that media will become less critical in the hope of getting invited next time.
Even Foxnews propaganda was surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOAD0_Ito8E
Cheers,
Bart
-
I strongly disagree. The selective exclusion (because they wanted to push back at those selected media) of members of the free press / media to partake in an exchange of firsthand information is a step in undermining parts of the constitution. That is a big deal!
The more informal setting of a so-called gaggle (I thought only birds like geese gaggle) was because they didn't want to draw video coverage away from Trump's performance on CPAC. The White House has a core pool of media that covers press briefings and then those media are asked to share that news with other media
Sean Spicer expanded the number of invited media and then (oh what a surprise) there was not enough room for all to attend, so he selectively excluded some of the core group. This is unprecedented.
The press do also speak about other subjects, but this is a major change in how the government communicates with the people of the USA, through selected media. It is an attempt at censorship, in the assumption that media will become less critical in the hope of getting invited next time.
Even Foxnews propaganda was surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOAD0_Ito8E
Cheers,
Bart
No, Bart, it is censorship.
-
So, some group nobody has ever heard of requesting that the FCC do something is the same as the President of the United States actually doing it? Alan, to be honest, your mental contortions in defending Trump don't do you any favours.
As your reading skills don't do you any favors, apparently. He said "UNDER Obama," meaning during his administration.
-
Finally we have a Republican conservative president willing to take on the liberal biased press. It's about time.
I would have no problem with it if he would use logical arguments. Every story has a counter story. But he's using fake news, alternative facts, lies, dodging the real questions and bullying. Very unworthy of the US commander in chief.
-
Whether it was a gaggle or not, the story was newsworthy as is the singling out of certain news organizations by the President as purveyors of fake news.
I'm not saying it's not newsworthy, it is. But the ratio of what makes it to the European news vs. the real issues is out of wack. Fortunately the papers you cite seem to have struck a better balance.
-
I strongly disagree. The selective exclusion (because they wanted to push back at those selected media) of members of the free press / media to partake in an exchange of firsthand information is a step in undermining parts of the constitution. That is a big deal!
The more informal setting of a so-called gaggle (I thought only birds like geese gaggle) was because they didn't want to draw video coverage away from Trump's performance on CPAC. The White House has a core pool of media that covers press briefings and then those media are asked to share that news with other media
Sean Spicer expanded the number of invited media and then (oh what a surprise) there was not enough room for all to attend, so he selectively excluded some of the core group. This is unprecedented.
The press do also speak about other subjects, but this is a major change in how the government communicates with the people of the USA, through selected media. It is an attempt at censorship, in the assumption that media will become less critical in the hope of getting invited next time.
Even Foxnews propaganda was surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOAD0_Ito8E
Cheers,
Bart
Maybe you're right, but previous administrations have also selectively invited media organizations to these informal gaggles (maybe you're analogy with geese is right "birds of a feather flock together ;) ) . Let's see if the ones excluded now also get dis-invited to the official White House press briefings, if that happens you're right, that is unprecedented and it's a step in the direction of censorship.
-
How memories tend to fade. Or is it fairer to say how partisan our memories are? Nobody seems to remember how Obama was doing the same thing to Fox, or preferring to "gaggle" with the lefties?
-
Actually, I think it could plausibly be argued that Trump has made the mainstream American News Media Great Again. He is responsible for a surge in newspaper subscriptions and a spike in television news viewership. (Admittedly, that's just a metaphorical drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what he has done for late-night TV comedy programs. . . . )
-
Actually, I think it could plausibly be argued that Trump has made the mainstream American News Media Great Again. He is responsible for a surge in newspaper subscriptions and a spike in television news viewership. (Admittedly, that's just a metaphorical drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what he has done for late-night TV comedy programs. . . . )
Hey, he did promise to protect American jobs ;)
-
Actually, I think it could plausibly be argued that Trump has made the mainstream American News Media Great Again. He is responsible for a surge in newspaper subscriptions and a spike in television news viewership. (Admittedly, that's just a metaphorical drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what he has done for late-night TV comedy programs. . . . )
Yes, that is correct. New York Times has reported numbers as they are a publicly held company. Also, contributions to The Guardian, ProPublica, and other reporting sites has increased as well.
-
How memories tend to fade. Or is it fairer to say how partisan our memories are? Nobody seems to remember how Obama was doing the same thing to Fox, or preferring to "gaggle" with the lefties?
Could you help me with finding sources that point to selectively excluding certain media that were included before, just because they are critical? I don't think that the 'gaggling' itself is controversial, but the censorship is.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Another interesting personal story. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/rumana-ahmed-trump/517521/)
-
...Regarding Obama's dislike for Fox news, he did complain about them, but never went off on a lengthy tirade or called them out endlessly as the purveyor of 'fake news.'
That's because the rest of the media supported Obama. He only had Fox against him. The situation is reversed for Trump and past conservative and Republican politicians. They have 90% of the press against them.
-
An interesting (but not free) personal documentary. (https://vimeo.com/ondemand/thebrainwashingofmydad)
-
I read both the Washington Post and NY Times every morning....
Why bother? Their bias to the left is the same. You're getting the same slant. It might be helpful to read a conservative newspaper along with a liberal one. Do you only watch CNN and MSNBC?
-
I would have no problem with it if he would use logical arguments. Every story has a counter story. But he's using fake news, alternative facts, lies, dodging the real questions and bullying. Very unworthy of the US commander in chief.
The liberal press isn't use to politicians taking them on. His supporters appreciate that finally someone they support is willing to do so. That's why he won the election. After Obama's weakness, we need a Commander-in Chief who defends America and is willing to kick ass. Foreigners may not like it, but they don't vote.
-
Actually, I think it could plausibly be argued that Trump has made the mainstream American News Media Great Again. He is responsible for a surge in newspaper subscriptions and a spike in television news viewership. (Admittedly, that's just a metaphorical drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what he has done for late-night TV comedy programs. . . . )
That's a great point. All the news media, on all sides, are making more money than ever with viewership and readership hitting records.
Which brings up another theory I have. That individual outlets really don't care about their political viewpoints any longer. They stick to left or right because that's what their viewers expect. If they added balance, they would lose customers. So they continue to slant they way their viewers want them too, maybe more so, to keep the hype going. And we cheer on like Romans at the games demanding more blood.
-
I've despised the man for over 30 years. No amount of Russian influence can change that.
-
I've despised the man for over 30 years. No amount of Russian influence can change that.
He used to be in ¡Hola! with the other wife of earlier days - Ivana: Czech lady; the latest iteration, Melania is from Slovenia... What is it with all this un-American attraction? Will Putin go on to make it a whole new kinda love?
Stay tooned foks, stay tooned!
Rob
-
Why bother? Their bias to the left is the same. You're getting the same slant. It might be helpful to read a conservative newspaper along with a liberal one. Do you only watch CNN and MSNBC?
The only thing I watch on television is European football (soccer). I don't watch television news. Washington Post has the largest roster of conservative op ed writers of any newspaper that I am aware of and I read all their columns, especially Jennifer Rubin's 'Right Turn' blog. I do not believe the news articles in either paper your cite are biased in the sense they are taking a partisan position. Both have made extensive efforts to understand the Trump voter in many of the battle ground areas.
You can and probably will take what I have said with a grain of salt as I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Republicans I have voted for (been voting since the 1968 election and have never missed voting even in local elections).
-
An interesting (but not free) personal documentary. (https://vimeo.com/ondemand/thebrainwashingofmydad)
I only watched the trailer which makes the point that Fox changed many people's liberal viewpoints and see the other side. That's true. But what's bad about that? For decades, when there was only broadcast TV and no cable, the media favored mainly liberal and Democrat viewpoints. Along came cable which gave a chance for the other side to present their conservative views. That's democracy and freedom of speech and freedom of the press at work. So we should go back to when only one side is presented? That's what the whole discussion about the FCC banning Fox news was all about. Liberals attempt to silence the other side. Only liberal news is authentic. Only liberal thought is pure.
You see that on the campus today with colleges shutting down conservative thought, conservative conferences, etc under the guise that people are getting hurt, that somehow it's just plain wrong. Like with the liberal media, only liberal thought is proper, that political correctness excludes conservative viewpoints. That we all have to march to liberal group think like Soviet news organs. Well, the conservative right has awaken. And they have Trump as their champion. Malapropisms, dangling modifiers, hyperbole, orange hair and all.
-
Could you help me with finding sources...
I can, but then you'd dismiss it because they'd be, in your opinion, "fake news" or right-wing propaganda.
-
...the other wife of earlier days - Ivana: Czech lady; the latest iteration, Melania is from Slovenia... What is it with all this un-American attraction?...
Further proof that immigrants are taking American jobs! ;)
-
Further proof that immigrants are taking American jobs! ;)
Ironic?
-
Further proof that immigrants are taking American jobs! ;)
My east European house cleaner doesn't look like either of them! Czech. Hmm. Slovenia. Hmm.
-
Another interesting personal story. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/rumana-ahmed-trump/517521/)
Robert, a kind and friendly request to state what the point of a link you refer to is, or what it is about, including a key quote from the article perhaps?
-
Further proof that immigrants are taking American jobs! ;)
-
The liberal press isn't use to politicians taking them on. His supporters appreciate that finally someone they support is willing to do so. That's why he won the election. After Obama's weakness, we need a Commander-in Chief who defends America and is willing to kick ass. Foreigners may not like it, but they don't vote.
I think it's more Trump not being used to being taken on. As a CEO he can easily shut up and fire any of the people who don't agree with him and that's much more difficult as US president. I don't find him kicking ass, he's more behaving like a kindergarten boy kicking around in a tantrum, while his ass is being kicked left, right and center (including by his own cabinet members). He didn't win the election because the majority of the US population supports his views, he won because the other candidate was perceived as being even worse.
-
I can, but then you'd dismiss it because they'd be, in your opinion, "fake news" or right-wing propaganda.
So I can only conclude that there is no news to support your claim.
Thanks, it saved me from searching in vain, so I can start reading my newly arrived book by Princeton Prof. Jan Werner Müller, "What is Populism?". EDIT: link to the book (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0812248988/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0812248988&linkCode=as2&tag=lsreofbo-21) on one outlet, I got my copy locally.
Müller has written many articles about the phenomenon, with recent examples in Europe and also in the Americas, culminating in that latest essay.
Here is a link to an article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/donald-trumps-warning-sign-populism-authoritarianism-inauguration) by Professor Müller about Trump:
"It is actually in Trump’s interest to see clashes on America’s streets; it is in his interest to face stiff opposition, as long as he can successfully portray the latter as “un-American” to his supporters. For Trump, “the people” is only a homogeneous Trump people. Divisiveness will continue, since populists rule by dividing. American democracy faces a true threat."
All the more reason to defend democracy.
Cheers,
Bart
-
"The president has declared war on the First Amendment"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/white-house-radical-attack-first-amendment-cnn-new-york-times
Thank goodness he thinks that the USA doesn't have enough Nuclear weapons to use them against his own country.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-nuclear-idUSKBN1632L4
Cheers,
Bart
-
So I can only conclude that there is no news to support your claim.
Thanks, it saved me from searching in vain, so I can start reading my newly arrived book by Princeton Prof. Jan Werner Müller, "Populism".
Müller has written many articles about the phenomenon, with recent examples in Europe and also in the Americas, culminating in that latest essay.
Here is a link to an article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/donald-trumps-warning-sign-populism-authoritarianism-inauguration) by him about Trump:
"It is actually in Trump’s interest to see clashes on America’s streets; it is in his interest to face stiff opposition, as long as he can successfully portray the latter as “un-American” to his supporters. For Trump, “the people” is only a homogeneous Trump people. Divisiveness will continue, since populists rule by dividing. American democracy faces a true threat."
All the more reason to defend democracy.
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks for the link and the book notation. I've just started reading "Age of Anger: A History of the Present," by Pankaj Mishra.
-
So I can only conclude that there is no news to support your claim...
Yes, I am known for inventing things.
THE NEW YORK TIMES article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html
...In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Thursday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks...The first real shot from the White House, however, came when aides excluded “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace” — which they had previously treated as distinct from the network — from a round of presidential interviews with Sunday morning news programs in mid-September...
Judicial Watch article:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-show-obama-white-house-attacked-excluded-fox-news-channel/
...Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest bluntly described the White House’s position on Fox News Channel in an October 23, 2009, email to LeCompte:
“We’ve demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews…”
CBS Evening News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obamas-feud-with-fox-news/
...So why is the White House out to "de-legitimize" FOX? Not because it has opinions, but because its opinion voices are so hostile to Mr. Obama - and because FOX News is, as it has been for a decade, by far the most watched of the cable news networks...
And, for a good measure, something from BREITBART:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/24/fake-news-media-outrage-white-house-exclusion/
...New York Times itself reported in 2015, President Barack Obama met privately with liberal reporters and columnists frequently throughout his tenure in office — “more than a dozen” times. And although he occasionally invited conservative columnists, “Liberal-leaning columnists from newspapers tend to dominate at Mr. Obama’s secret sessions.”
Obama’s private briefings for liberal members of the media, which excluded conservatives, were well-documented. A few:
December 2012: Several journalists reported that MSNBC hosts were meeting privately with President Obama to discuss the impending “fiscal cliff” fight.
May 2013: NPR’s Ari Shapiro reported that President Obama was meeting privately with “lefty columnists,” but hastened to add that there was “nothing nefarious” about it.
November 2013: President Obama met again with liberal journalists, as Obamacare struggled with the failure of healthcare.gov and other problems.
March 2015: Politico’s media reporter, Hadas Gold, reported that “a group of journalists and columnists,” all on the left, met privately with President Obama, but the White House refused to say “who else was at the meeting or what was discussed.”...
-
...So why is the White House out to "de-legitimize" FOX?
"Rupert Murdoch’s legacy will forever be tarnished by the phone-hacking scandal that has engulfed British journalism for a decade".
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-british-scandal-murdoch-20150611-story.html
Rupert has done a great job at "de-legitimizing" FOX himself.
Cheers,
-
... "Rupert Murdoch’s legacy will forever be tarnished by the phone-hacking scandal that has engulfed British journalism for a decade"...
You mean we should somehow care what a British tabloid did?
-
You mean we should somehow care what a British tabloid did?
Yep, FOX, is FOX, is FOX.
Take your blinkers off. FOX represents right wing tabloid journalism.
Murdoch is an embarrassment to Australia, luckily he is now a US citizen.
Good luck,
-
... 2011 saw the most deportations in US history, nearly 400,000. During that year 55% of these deportations were of convicted criminals. Of those, almost 95% were non-violent (drug or traffic related)...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
Let's see:
"91% of deported in 2015 previously convicted of a crime"
What kind of crime:
...The administration made the first priority "threats to national security, border security, and public safety." That includes gang members, convicted felons or charged with "aggravated felony" and anyone apprehended at the border trying to enter the country illegally.
In 2015, 81 percent, or 113,385, of the removals were the priority one removals.
What is then "second priority"?
"aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic" violations, as well as those convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse, burglary, DUIs or drug trafficking.
-
THIS (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/25/who-is-nils-bildt-swedish-national-security-advisor-interviewed-by-fox-news-is-a-mystery-to-swedes/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e57b5cd20de1) for all of you who take Fox News seriously! To quote our President, "Fake News! SAD!" and I don't even use Twitter! ;D
-
I think it's more Trump not being used to being taken on. As a CEO he can easily shut up and fire any of the people who don't agree with him and that's much more difficult as US president. I don't find him kicking ass, he's more behaving like a kindergarten boy kicking around in a tantrum, while his ass is being kicked left, right and center (including by his own cabinet members). He didn't win the election because the majority of the US population supports his views, he won because the other candidate was perceived as being even worse.
After Obama's fecklessness, weakness, and disrespect for his own country's place in history, Trump campaigned on making America great again, respected in the world, with a richer economy, stronger military, and more jobs especially in the swing states that have particularly suffered. Hillary represented more of Obama as well as the corrupt political elite. So in that sense you're right that she was the worse candidate. But we really have to get on with it. The election is over. And as VP Pence recently said that when you're a passenger in a plane you don't root against the pilot.
-
when you're a passenger in a plane you don't root against the pilot.
Why would anyone board a plane commanded by a pilot who's never even taken flying lessons?
-
Why would anyone board a plane commanded by a pilot who's never even taken flying lessons?
Gold.
-
After Obama's fecklessness, weakness, and disrespect for his own country's place in history, Trump campaigned on making America great again, respected in the world, with a richer economy, stronger military, and more jobs especially in the swing states that have particularly suffered. Hillary represented more of Obama as well as the corrupt political elite. So in that sense you're right that she was the worse candidate. But we really have to get on with it. The election is over. And as VP Pence recently said that when you're a passenger in a plane you don't root against the pilot.
Alan, I'm not on the plane so have no problems to root against the pilot, but I do feel very sorry for about half of the passengers who boarded it against their will. ;)
Also I don't share your opinion on Obama and I think Trump is failing to gain respect in the world. His immigration ban is still in limbo, he's given in to China vs. Taiwan and his cabinet members constantly have to mop up the mess he created. That's no way to get respect as a leader. But hey, I realize I won't convince you but equally you don't convince me with your support for Trump. We'll see how it goes and I hope one day he will surprise me by starting to behave like a true leader rather then as a divisive/populist campaign beast, but I'm not holding my breath.
-
Further proof that immigrants are taking American jobs!
Not only that! That high-quality job has been just changed to a part-time position.
-
Yes, I am known for inventing things.
THE NEW YORK TIMES article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html
Judicial Watch article:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-show-obama-white-house-attacked-excluded-fox-news-channel/
CBS Evening News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obamas-feud-with-fox-news/
Thanks for supplying the links, I knew you could do it. It also answered my question of why it was difficult to find, all three articles seem to refer to a single incident.
I find it difficult to see how you'd want to compare that incident with what's going on right now though.
What happened before was that under a barrage of defamatory and made up propaganda, the White House decided that they were not dealing with a news agency, but more of a propaganda machine against the government. Like the network’s heavy coverage of some of the more intensely anti-administration activity at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
To make it clear once more, FoxNews is not a news agency. It's more akin to Talkradio. So when it came to a series of presidential interviews, it was decided by WH aids to exclude “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace” — which they had previously treated as distinct from the network. “We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,”
I'm not sure if that was a wise choice, but I can imagine that one would prefer serious journalists for such interview sessions, instead of talk-show hosts.
However, it seems to escape some folks what the difference is with what is happening now; the exclusion of serious news networks. It seems like perception bias is getting in the way of seeing things for what they're worth; Censorship, and a deliberate attack on the First Amendment.
I do not have too much of a problem with some of the news agencies that exhibit some bias in their reporting (by accentuating certain events, and keeping a low profile on covering others). That's how the (American) commercialized system works. One can only hope, maybe against better judgment in an entrenched and growing community divide, that people make an effort to inform themselves by following different information sources.
But I do have a problem with penalizing networks for exposing falsehoods, especially when coming from the President and his aides/advisors. All serious networks are exposing them, but some get selectively cut off from asking for firsthand clarification, and pose questions that others may not want to (to keep sponsors happy). All the more troubling because what does come out later officially is riddled with falsehoods, which proves that there is A NEED for a free press.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I only watched the trailer which makes the point that Fox changed many people's liberal viewpoints and see the other side. That's true. But what's bad about that?
In itself, nothing, but if those minds are being changed because they now believe something that is a pack of lies, then the consequences are serious. As you will shortly find out.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/25/fox-news-interview-fake-expert-sweden-baffles-swedes/
-
In itself, nothing, but if those minds are being changed because they now believe something that is a pack of lies, then the consequences are serious. As you will shortly find out.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/25/fox-news-interview-fake-expert-sweden-baffles-swedes/
Indeed, as was mentioned earlier. This again demonstrates that FoxNews propaganda is not to be mistaken for journalism, or news (other than inventing it, AKA Fake news).
One can only hope that people will come to realize, sooner than later, that the toxic cocktail of Populism and a Narcissistic personality with little know-how of running a pluriform Nation like the USA, is going to hurt everybody.
Populism is anti-democratic.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. “Bill O’Reilly will further address this on Monday night’s The O’Reilly Factor.”
Oh, this is going to be as much fun as when Bill was confronted with his moronic depiction of Amsterdam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpU0NxPhA78
-
Thanks for supplying the links, I knew you could do it. It also answered my question of why it was difficult to find, all three articles seem to refer to a single incident.
I find it difficult to see how you'd want to compare that incident with what's going on right now though.
What happened before was that under a barrage of defamatory and made up propaganda, the White House decided that they were not dealing with a news agency, but more of a propaganda machine against the government. Like the network’s heavy coverage of some of the more intensely anti-administration activity at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
To make it clear once more, FoxNews is not a news agency. It's more akin to Talkradio. So when it came to a series of presidential interviews, it was decided by WH aids to exclude “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace” — which they had previously treated as distinct from the network. “We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,”
I'm not sure if that was a wise choice, but I can imagine that one would prefer serious journalists for such interview sessions, instead of talk-show hosts.
However, it seems to escape some folks what the difference is with what is happening now; the exclusion of serious news networks. It seems like perception bias is getting in the way of seeing things for what they're worth; Censorship, and a deliberate attack on the First Amendment.
I do not have too much of a problem with some of the news agencies that exhibit some bias in their reporting (by accentuating certain events, and keeping a low profile on covering others). That's how the (American) commercialized system works. One can only hope, maybe against better judgment in an entrenched and growing community divide, that people make an effort to inform themselves by following different information sources.
But I do have a problem with penalizing networks for exposing falsehoods, especially when coming from the President and his aides/advisors. All serious networks are exposing them, but some get selectively cut off from asking for firsthand clarification, and pose questions that others may not want to (to keep sponsors happy). All the more troubling because what does come out later officially is riddled with falsehoods, which proves that there is A NEED for a free press.
Cheers,
Bart
What you want to do is silence free speech that you don't agree with. And that includes the President pushing back. Having a boisterous, loud, and intense debate is exactly what our Constitution wanted when it included Article 1 in our Bill of Rights. During Obama, only Fox and a few others criticized him. The rest were in his corner swooning over him and supporting his policies regardless off how damaging they might be. Better to have a critical press and a lot of noise.
-
THIS for all of you who take Fox News seriously!
You do realize that Bill O' Reilley show is an opinion segment of Fox, not news? It is like mistaking the Borowitz Report for the New York Times news section.
-
You do realize that Bill O' Reilley show is an opinion segment of Fox, not news?
Isn't the real question, does Donald Trump know the difference?
Cheers,
Bart
-
You do realize that Bill O' Reilley show is an opinion segment of Fox, not news? It is like mistaking the Borowitz Report for the New York Times news section.
Yes, but Fox News is an oxymoron. Also, you need to read more. Andy Borowtiz is a New Yorker writer, not New York Times (this is a fact).
-
Yes, but Fox News is an oxymoron. Also, you need to read more. Andy Borowtiz is a New Yorker writer, not New York Times (this is a fact).
Correct, my bad. But the point stands. I remember there was recently a case when his satire was mistaken for a real news and caused a twitter storm and numerous reposts.
-
I just noticed there are 47 pages of posts where I believe no one has changed the other sides' positions. So is news, especially political, really like the aesthetics of a photo where opinion is what matters because the facts are beside the point? Certainly we can say that the photo is too dark or too light. Those are facts. But when we say what the image does to our souls, all bets are off. The resultant comments are what and who we are rather than what we see? And the inability to see what's actually there beyond what we feel blinds us.
-
I just noticed there are 47 pages of posts where I believe no one has changed the other sides' positions. So is news, especially political, really like the aesthetics of a photo where opinion is what matters because the facts are beside the point? Certainly we can say that the photo is too dark or too light. Those are facts. But when we say what the image does to our souls, all bets are off. The resultant comments are what and who we are rather than what we see? And the inability to see what's actually there beyond what we feel blinds us.
Why don't you admit that you are really a democrat and you have in reality been stirring it? ;) :(
-
Why don't you admit that you are really a democrat and you have in reality been stirring it? ;) :(
Shucks! I've been caught. OK the truth is Trump is an orange-haired tyrant. The people who voted for him lost their way. The media like MSNBC, CNN, NY Times and the Washington Post have on-board the smartest, most clairvoyant staff who place country before politics, who see through Trump and the alt-right's misogyny and bigotry. And those brainwashed miscreants at Fox who wouldn't know a 2 by 4 board if it hit them on the head, and continue to support Fascists and other fellow travelers. They should all be locked up. If I wasn't such a fair-minder lad, I would really let them have it.
Wow, I feel better already. :)
-
Interesting read: the funding (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
-
What you want to do is silence free speech that you don't agree with.
Eh? You seem to have mixed up Bart with Trump - this is exactly what he wants - to silence the press who are looking at the facts and replace them with the endless blaring noise from Breitbart and Fox. Then he will have emulated his hero Putin, who is "democratically" elected time after time and presides over the enrichment of a small group of cronies at the expense of the country, while the populace is fed a non-stop diet of fabricated news, which they know to be false but are powerless to combat. An inspiring achievement.
-
Interesting read: the funding (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
Yes, fascinating and scary. I've mentioned Cambridge Analytica in this post (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116264.msg959685#msg959685).
And the sheeple still think they have not been, and are not being, played ...
It's '1984' all over, but this time it's not fiction.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I just noticed there are 47 pages of posts where I believe no one has changed the other sides' positions. So is news, especially political, really like the aesthetics of a photo where opinion is what matters because the facts are beside the point? Certainly we can say that the photo is too dark or too light. Those are facts. But when we say what the image does to our souls, all bets are off. The resultant comments are what and who we are rather than what we see? And the inability to see what's actually there beyond what we feel blinds us.
I think you're right Alan, but I've also noticed that in these 47 pages we haven't seen many ad-hominem attacks. The discussion has been on facts, alternative fact and opinions about these. I think that is valuable by itself, and a key attribute why I am still interested in following the thread. We might not agree but we hopefully understand this whole complex matter a little better and the many links and references given have mostly been interesting (even if I don't agree with all of them).
-
.....Having a boisterous, loud, and intense debate is exactly what our Constitution wanted when it included Article 1 in our Bill of Rights. ....... Better to have a critical press and a lot of noise.
I agree, but while we have a critical press and a lot of noise I don't see a boisterous, loud, and intense debate. I see a US president bullying and shutting out a lot of mainstream media and I think that's very unhealthy and only leads to more problems.
-
There's never been so much debate as there has since Trump. Everyone is taking a renewed interest in politics. Nothing is being shut down. Stop listening to the biased press and think for yourself.
-
“Bill O’Reilly will further address this on Monday night’s The O’Reilly Factor.”
Oh, this is going to be as much fun as when Bill was confronted with his moronic depiction of Amsterdam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpU0NxPhA78
Been there. Definitely a swamp. Canals. Too much water. Needs to be drained. Sad.
-
Isn't the real question, does Donald Trump know the difference?
A good one, Bart :)
-
Stop listening to the biased press and think for yourself.
Alan, here I disagree with you. All press is biased, left, right, mainstream etc. You have to read/listen to both sides and then think for yourself. Shutting out one side is the first step of becoming brainwashed. Are you sure that's not what happened to you?
-
I think you're right Alan, but I've also noticed that in these 47 pages we haven't seen many ad-hominem attacks. The discussion has been on facts, alternative fact and opinions about these. I think that is valuable by itself, and a key attribute why I am still interested in following the thread. We might not agree but we hopefully understand this whole complex matter a little better and the many links and references given have mostly been interesting (even if I don't agree with all of them).
Nothing to understand: it's glaringly obvious that another dream's been bought, and as with all of them that deny that life is about winning and losing, it will inevitably turn to dust shortly after it turns sour.
Democracy selling equality is as absurd as communism doing it.
Survival of the fittest is why we exist today; it's a scheme not about to be altered by any election: it's how it always was, is, and shall remain.
Rob C
-
Been there. Definitely a swamp. Canals. Too much water. Needs to be drained. Sad.
LOL. As a matter of fact, it is being drained continuously, although with care for the consequences (which apparently would be a novel concept for the Trump administration).
Lots of the original (brick) buildings, since the first half of the 13th century, were built on a wooden pole foundation. For a more 'recent' example, the Palace on the Dam square was built in 1665 on 13659 wooden poles as foundation. To avoid wood rot and fungus, the waterlevels are continuously being monitored and adjusted.
So draining the swamp without care for earlier achievements will result in collaps. We've known that for ages.
Facts carry weight. They provide a much better foundation than Falsehoods could ever do.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... life is about winning and losing...
Yep ... and he won.
-
The culture war (http://consequenceofsound.net/2017/02/donald-trump-moving-forward-with-plans-to-kill-national-endowment-for-the-arts-pbs-and-npr/) rages on.
Better hurry and get some pictures of the Rockies, they'll be covered in advertising billboards soon. :)
-
Trump seems to be acting like a bully.
He has no problem dishing it out, but when the press says something bad about him, all of a sudden he is triggered and needs a safe space.
Being president is not like being the CEO of a family owned business where people pretend to like you. Politics ain't like that.
He has a lot to learn and not a lot of time to do it.
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-think-news-media-has-been-too-critical-of-trump/
...Over half, 53 percent, also said they think that the “news media and other elites” are exaggerating problems by the Trump administration because they feel uncomfortable and threatened by the changes Mr. Trump represents. By contrast, 45 percent said they disagreed with that assessment...
-
Alan, here I disagree with you. All press is biased, left, right, mainstream etc. You have to read/listen to both sides and then think for yourself. Shutting out one side is the first step of becoming brainwashed. Are you sure that's not what happened to you?
I guess I didn't make my point clear. My point was that you shouldn't listen to the part of the press that claims Trump is shutting down news, that he's silencing the media. That's not happening. Sure he's railing against the press as is his right of freedom of speech. But look around. We're up to page 48. And this is Trump II.
Today, more than ever before, you can listen to all sides, as I do listening to the CNN's and MSNBC's as well as Fox's as well as photo forums. He's not taking away free press. I think more people are involved more in political discussions than ever before. I can't get together with a group of people where "fights" don't break out. People are energized on all sides and that's good for democracy. Although, it's starting to get "old". I feel like I'm going to burn out on this stuff. There are more important things in life.
-
There are more important things in life.
Alan, there's a thing we can wholeheartedly agree on. I took some nice shots today, despite the ugly weather here. Very rewarding 8)
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-think-news-media-has-been-too-critical-of-trump/
Thanks, interesting read, allthough I'm a bit surprized about the small sample size (only 1000 people). Would be interesting if they had also asked the reverse question, how many people think Trump is too hard on the media and find his statement about the "enemy of the people" too exaggerated.
-
Alan, there's a thing we can wholeheartedly agree on. I took some nice shots today, despite the ugly weather here. Very rewarding 8)
Well I'm glad you did that. I have to get out sometime soon and take some pictures. Today I have to go to the doctor with my wife. So we leave politics behind and handle the regular, important things in life. All these posts and I changed no one's mind. Did any of us? What a waste of time.
-
... I'm a bit surprized about the small sample size (only 1000 people)...
If my memory serves me well from my statistics classes, it only takes about 1000 well-selected samples to reasonably well represent the statistical pool. Going over wouldn't significantly alter the results (sort of a parallel with hifi music or digital back/large format photography - it costs exponentially more to obtain a smaller and smaller increase in quality).
-
... All these posts and I changed no one's mind. Did any of us? What a waste of time.
It is not always about changing minds. It is more about expanding horizons.
Even if within the same frame of mind, expanding one's understanding with nuances, different angles, and, yes, alternative facts, and alternative opinions, is not necessarily a waste of time. Even if just better understanding the other side's arguments, without necessarily agreeing with them, is not a waste of time.
-
If my memory serves me well from my statistics classes, it only take about 1000 well-selected samples to reasonably well represent the statistical pool. Going over wouldn't significantly alter the results (sort of a parallel with hifi music or digital back/large format photography - it costs exponentially more to obtain a smaller and smaller increase in quality).
Correct for this type of survey which is designed to give a general perception of what is going on. In the area of drug safety (my area of expertise), it is way to small to measure important adverse events.
-
Correct for this type of survey which is designed to give a general perception of what is going on. In the area of drug safety (my area of expertise), it is way to small to measure important adverse events.
Actually the threshold is variable depending on the study and coverage. With a survey such as this, the number is not as important as making sure the sample space was stratified. Meaning if 30% of the overall population identify as conservative, 30% of the sample space need to identify as conservative; if 15% of the population is black, then 15% of the sample space must be black; etc.
Collecting a sample space such as this is usually more difficult and time consuming since you need to collect more then what you need. Then put in place an effective but random system of eliminating participants until you reach a stratified state.
I did not look at the study, so I have no idea if this was applied here.
Another great statistical tip, there are three types of averages, the mean, medium and mode. Unless you know which one is being referenced, knowing the average does not tell you much. Also, knowing the mean does not give much either unless you also know the standard deviation, assuming the distribution simulates a standard bell.
-
... In the area of drug safety (my area of expertise), it is way to small to measure important adverse events.
Speaking about health issues, this election indeed produced adverse effects for at least half the population: shock, derangement, anger, anxiety, uncontrollable sobbing, clinical depression, etc. I think the next elections should come with a Surgeon General warning ;) ;D
-
Speaking of averages reminds me of the joke about the non swimmer who drowned in a lake that had an average depth of 2 feet. His luck was he stepped into the only spot that was 15 feet deep.
-
Despite all the money we put into education, almost half of the students continue to be below average.
-
Speaking about health issues, this election indeed produced adverse effects for at least half the population: shock, derangement, anger, anxiety, uncontrollable sobbing, clinical depression, etc. I think the next elections should come with a Surgeon General warning ;) ;D
Another point you and I both agree on!!!
-
well-selected samples
how do u do well selection nowadays ? do they still poll land lines and not from DNC list ?
-
how do u do well selection nowadays ? do they still poll land lines and not from DNC list ?
Polling through the phone has always been a bad way to do any polling, past or present. If you don't pay the participants, and give them an easy way to end the survey (hanging up), you will end up with some degree of participation bias. Only those with strong interests will participate, skewing your results.
On top of that, it is very difficult for someone to non-biasly read the questions (think tempo, pitch and tone of the voice, etc.) Then throw in the fact that it is widely known conservatives dislike polling more then liberals and you are pretty much guaranteed a false result for anything political.
It always amazes me how much credence is put into phone polling.
-
how do u do well selection nowadays ?...
Always a good question.
Given that the survey was done by the Wall Street Journal/NBC News, both of which are (still) supposed to be respectable and professional news organizations, one can only assume/hope they know how to make a selection without a (deliberate) bias.
-
... Would be interesting if they had also asked the reverse question, how many people think Trump is too hard on the media and find his statement about the "enemy of the people" too exaggerated.
Here is another challenge to the results of the poll:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/27/among-otherwise-mediocre-poll-results-a-big-gift-to-president-trump/?utm_term=.efd5c6a3a93c
The major objection (to the section I quoted earlier - bold mine):
Except you’ll note that the question isn’t actually about the media. It’s about the media “and other elites.”
As it turns out, the question is even more bizarrely lopsided than just that. In full, it asked people whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “The news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems with the Trump administration because they are uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents.”
-
Always a good question.
Given that the survey was done by the Wall Street Journal/NBC News, both of which are (still) supposed to be respectable and professional news organizations, one can only assume/hope they know how to make a selection without a (deliberate) bias.
Yes, that's my take on it until proven otherwise. I did wonder about your initial link, and thought that perhaps a lot of information was 'lost in translation' for that publication ("A majority of people in the United States say " without an immediate disclaimer about sample size and methodology). So I decided to wait for the actual survey to become available.
Unfortunately, the potential order of questions and wording of this particular question is actually worse than I had imagined (based on the second link).
“news media and other elites” is already strange, and more so after the earlier questions. "And other elites"? I thought, what was the survey about then, the media, which elites, both?? "Exaggerating"? What do they mean? Too much coverage, or inflating the numbers, or ...? "because they are uncomfortable", is it about being uncomfortable? "and threatened", what about uncomfortable but not threatened or vice versa? "kind of change" could mean different things to different respondents. "that Trump represents", he does represent more than change alone, given his locker room talk and the violation claims by multiple women, to name only one aspect of his personality.
And then the length of the multiple interpretable question, was is asked by phone, as a written interview, response cards, in the street?
Strange, strange, strange.
Cheers,
Bart
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-majority-think-news-media-has-been-too-critical-of-trump/
"News media and other elites". So we know that poll was biased to begin with.
-
Didn't the polls conclude that Trump would never win the republican nomination by a long shot? Didn't the polls concur that Hillary had a 89% chance of winning or to put it another way, Trump had only an 11% chance of winning?
Also remember that the polls didn't reflect the breakdown of the electoral distribution. They also didn't give much weight to the very people would swing the election for Trump. So unless the polls are talking to the swing people, the results really have no point. Who care what the people in California think, for example. You know they're going to vote Democrat in 2020. The
-
(continued)... The question is what do the swing voters in those states and election districts think? How has their position changed or remanded the same? Are the Democrats or Republicans doing anything that's changing who they support? Are there any polls that analyze these truthfully and accurately?
Something I noticed in the last few days since Perez became Chairman of the Democrat National Committee. He, and Schumer and Pelosi have started to speak with new campaign words like "Democrats support workers" and "More jobs". They have finally acknowledged by their new political speech, why they lost even if the media and others are still chasing the Russian "Connection." The race is on for 2018 to see which party will offer the most to these people. In the process, the Democrats will try to block any legislation that might help the economy which could give advantage to the Republicans. Unless Trump and the Republican Congress can help the economy and create jobs, they have a good chance of losing these people back to the Democrats.
-
It is more about expanding horizons.
Well, my horizons are expanded...in my attempt at finding new and not #FAKE NEWS sources, I've been reading The Moscow Times (https://themoscowtimes.com/) and low and behold what I find is a story about the next New Yorker cover.
The New Yorker's Latest Magazine Cover Features a Cartoon Putin and a Russian Title (https://themoscowtimes.com/news/new-yorker-magazine-goes-russian-in-next-issue-57266). They don't say much about it other than noting the Cyrillic headline.
Interesting times when the Moscow Times is noting The New Yorker cover...
:~)
(http://www.adweek.com/core/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NewYorkerMarch6Issue.jpg)
The actual cover story is, well kinda scary...
TRUMP, PUTIN, AND THE NEW COLD WAR (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war)
What lay behind Russia’s interference in the 2016 election—and what lies ahead?
From the article:
The 2016 Presidential campaign in the United States was of keen interest to Putin. He loathed Obama, who had applied economic sanctions against Putin’s cronies after the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of eastern Ukraine. (Russian state television derided Obama as “weak,” “uncivilized,” and a “eunuch.”) Clinton, in Putin’s view, was worse—the embodiment of the liberal interventionist strain of U.S. foreign policy, more hawkish than Obama, and an obstacle to ending sanctions and reëstablishing Russian geopolitical influence. At the same time, Putin deftly flattered Trump, who was uncommonly positive in his statements about Putin’s strength and effectiveness as a leader. As early as 2007, Trump declared that Putin was “doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period.”
So, why is it the Trump seems to want to cozy up to Putin? Just a "bromance"? Or is Trump a stooge for Putin and a victim of "active measures"?
Talk almost yourselves for a while. I'm in Florida laying on a beach and soaking the rays (and shooting sunsets, maybe a sunrise).
I'll tune in later in the week, or not :~)
-
The race is on for 2018 to see which party will offer the most to these people. In the process, the Democrats will try to block any legislation that might help the economy which could give advantage to the Republicans. Unless Trump and the Republican Congress can help the economy and create jobs, they have a good chance of losing these people back to the Democrats.
Ah, already making excuses, even through the GOP controls both houses.
-
I think Trump respects Putin as a patriot who fights for his country and who wants Russia to be great again. Much what Trump considers himself to be and what he would like to be seen in America. Just to be clear, not the despot ways Putin acts.
Trump thinks that he can trade off on Putin's desires to work with Russia for America's gain. He may also see Russia as a partner against an expansionist China. Certainly we can't afford to challenge both Russia and China to keep them at bay. While Europe may see Russia as the enemy, for America who has major interests in the Pacific as well, China presents a more direct challenge to us in the future.
-
Ah, already making excuses, even through the GOP controls both houses.
Many Republicans are conservative. They don't like deficit spending and border tax trade policies that Trump wants and could vote against Trump. Also, the Senate has rules that allow filibusters. It means that Democrats can block legislation even though the Republicans have a majority. Additionally, the policies Trump wants to institute may not do anything for jobs. Or there could be a recession. Anyone who predicts the future with certainly is a fool. Didn't we all learn that in the presidential election?
-
... Interesting times when the Moscow Times is noting The New Yorker cover...
Not really. Ok, the times are interesting, but not because of what the Moscow Times is noting. The MT is a publication established by (American) expats for expats in Moscow, so they cover both countries.
And, to follow Allen's line of reasoning, it is a free publication, distributed in metro stations, restaurants, shops, etc. Which does not mean it is "cheap" or not worthy of a serious consideration. I was a regular reader, back in the 90's.
-
(continued)... The question is what do the swing voters in those states and election districts think? How has their position changed or remanded the same? Are the Democrats or Republicans doing anything that's changing who they support? Are there any polls that analyze these truthfully and accurately?
There is field reporting by both the Washington Post and the New York times who have been interviewing Trump supporters in the past several weeks to get their take on the President's performance. Most continue to want to see him have a chance to enact his agenda but there are some that are critical of some of the evolving positions and his erratic behavior. It is an open question whether the majority of Trump supporters regret their vote and I don't see that the current polarization has shifted much at all. Until we see legislative changes, there is really no way to judge President Trump's performance.
-
I think Trump respects Putin as a patriot who fights for his country and who wants Russia to be great again. Much what Trump considers himself to be and what he would like to be seen in America. Just to be clear, not the despot ways Putin acts.
I don't think that one can decouple the despot from the patriot and Trump doesn't really understand this.
-
Too funny, our President now thinks (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/28/donald-trump-accuses-barack-obama-orchestrating-protests-leaks?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=215357&subid=20912410&CMP=GT_US_collection) that President Obama is behind all the protests that are going on right now. It's an interview up on the only 'truthful' news source, Fox and Friends!!!
-
I don't think that one can decouple the despot from the patriot and Trump doesn't really understand this.
There is a huge difference between the two countries. Submission to authority is almost in Russian genes, given the long history: church, tzar, communists. The U.S. on the other hand, is quite the opposite. Putin has to deal with the (historical) hand he is dealt with; Trump too. Hence their ways about it can not possibly be the same.
-
Too funny, our President now thinks (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/28/donald-trump-accuses-barack-obama-orchestrating-protests-leaks?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=215357&subid=20912410&CMP=GT_US_collection) that President Obama is behind all the protests that are going on right now. It's an interview up on the only 'truthful' news source, Fox and Friends!!!
Well, if you have to believe this leaked phone call (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCZV4b9I26w) between Trump and Obama ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
There is field reporting by both the Washington Post and the New York times who have been interviewing Trump supporters in the past several weeks to get their take on the President's performance. Most continue to want to see him have a chance to enact his agenda but there are some that are critical of some of the evolving positions and his erratic behavior. It is an open question whether the majority of Trump supporters regret their vote and I don't see that the current polarization has shifted much at all. Until we see legislative changes, there is really no way to judge President Trump's performance.
Well we finally agree on something. :)
-
There is a huge difference between the two countries. Submission to authority is almost in Russian genes, given the long history: church, tzar, communists. The U.S. on the other hand, is quite the opposite. Putin has to deal with the (historical) hand he is dealt with; Trump too. Hence their ways about it can not possibly be the same.
You city boys have led a sheltered life.
My boarding school in India was run by US, Canadian and Oz missionaries. Why do you think there's a Bible Belt, and why do you think it has the political influence that it does? Who do you imagine was deported from Britain and parts of broader Europe and started it off? Sects, sects and more disruptive sects.
Dig under the skin, and in my opinion, the US can be as crazy as is the Middle East and swathes of Asia.
-
You city boys have led a sheltered life.
My boarding school in India was run by US, Canadian and Oz missionaries. Why do you think there's a Bible Belt, and why do you think it has the political influence that it does? Who do you imagine was deported from Britain and parts of broader Europe and started it off? Sects, sects and more disruptive sects.
Dig under the skin, and in my opinion, the US can be as crazy as is the Middle East and swathes of Asia.
My brother and I have been saying this for years. We don't see any difference between the batsh*t crazy bible-belters and "radical" islamists, whatever "radical" means anymore.
I recommend Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis.
-
... We don't see any difference between the batsh*t crazy bible-belters and "radical" islamists...
And that's a problem in itself, because the difference us yuuuge.
-
And that's a problem in itself, because the difference us yuuuge.
No kidding there, by far the most terrorist acts in the US since 9/11 have been done by bible-belters...
-
No kidding there, by far the most terrorist acts in the US since 9/11 have been done by bible-belters...
Any support for that?
-
My brother and I have been saying this for years. We don't see any difference between the batsh*t crazy bible-belters and "radical" islamists, whatever "radical" means anymore.
I recommend Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis.
and of course we also have the wonderful 'Church' of Scientology which started off as a prank by L. Ron Hubbard.
-
Too funny, our President now thinks (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/28/donald-trump-accuses-barack-obama-orchestrating-protests-leaks?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=215357&subid=20912410&CMP=GT_US_collection) that President Obama is behind all the protests that are going on right now. It's an interview up on the only 'truthful' news source, Fox and Friends!!!
So President Trump does not think that journalists should be able to publish stories unless their sources are identified, but he can make statements about what he heard, or someone told him without producing evidence. I don't think it works like that.
-
Poor old democracy. I think Trump and his wealthy supporters would be much more comfortable with a wealth-based oligarchy (are they working hard towards that? some would argue yes). I think there are aspects of the Russian reality that quite appeal to him. He may also see Russia as a vast untapped market for American goods or investment (no, wait, America first). I remember hearing similar things about China once.
Many fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would support a theocracy or ecclesiocracy. But which one? Christianity or Islam? Catholic or Protestant? Sunni or Shia? Evangelicals or Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy) or Dispensationalism? Qutbism or the Salafi movement? It's interesting how the Christian evangelical "revivals" (the first and second great awakenings), sound eerily like Islamic revivalism (Islamic awakening) which is a key underpinning of jihadism. So far, the militant movements in the Islamic world have found more traction than the ones in the predominantly Christian world. IMO, xenophobic rhetoric serves to give traction to both.
Oh yes – let's not forget the Scientologists and the "Moonies", and, and... Of course, Thomas Jefferson had a different idea.
Pluralism will always have a fight on its hands – a fight in which far too many suffer and die.
-
Poor old democracy. I think Trump and his wealthy supporters would be much more comfortable with a wealth-based oligarchy (are they working hard towards that? some would argue yes). I think there are aspects of the Russian reality that quite appeal to him. He may also see Russia as a vast untapped market for American goods or investment (no, wait, America first). I remember hearing similar things about China once.
Many fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would support a theocracy or ecclesiocracy. But which one? Christianity or Islam? Catholic or Protestant? Sunni or Shia? Evangelicals or Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy) or Dispensationalism? Qutbism or the Salafi movement? It's interesting how the Christian evangelical "revivals" (the first and second great awakenings), sound eerily like Islamic revivalism (Islamic awakening) which is a key underpinning of jihadism. So far, the militant movements in the Islamic world have found more traction than the ones in the predominantly Christian world. IMO, xenophobic rhetoric serves to give traction to both.
Oh yes – let's not forget the Scientologists and the "Moonies", and, and... Of course, Thomas Jefferson had a different idea.
Pluralism will always have a fight on its hands – a fight in which far too many suffer and die.
This is off-topic, sorry, but years ago there was a call here in Ontario Canada for sharia law to be incorporated into what is called Family Law here. The talk surfaced for discussion for a while, until whoever was the premier at the time shut the entire discussion down, by essentially saying that the law is not an arm of any religion. The most interesting to me at the time was how receptive to the idea were clergy from other religious groups. I remember watching a TV discussion panel where the various men of cloths were almost slobbering at the mouth for a chance at some more power to control the daily lives of their flock. Among the most receptive were religious leaders from groups who aren't keen on equality for women, I remember. Same old, same old. The old bearded geezers just can't let go, they still think they're in charge.
-
Any support for that?
I have seen the numbers mentioned many times recently. Do you not follow the news?
https://news.vice.com/story/10-plots-and-attacks-by-white-people-the-white-house-left-off-its-terrorism-list
or maybe it is just another lie...
-
This is off-topic, sorry, but years ago there was a call here in Ontario Canada for sharia law to be incorporated into what is called Family Law here. The talk surfaced for discussion for a while, until whoever was the premier at the time shut the entire discussion down, by essentially saying that the law is not an arm of any religion. The most interesting to me at the time was how receptive to the idea were clergy from other religious groups. I remember watching a TV discussion panel where the various men of cloths were almost slobbering at the mouth for a chance at some more power to control the daily lives of their flock. Among the most receptive were religious leaders from groups who aren't keen on equality for women, I remember. Same old, same old. The old bearded geezers just can't let go, they still think they're in charge.
Yes, "freedom of religion" interpreted as the power to make some less free. Watching the presidential debates, the "defense of religious freedom" kept coming up. This appeared to be mostly a question about letting individual states decide about LGBT and other rights.
Edit: Found it – an analysis of the original debate (https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2010/09/14/one_law_for_all_ontarians.html) in Ontario five years afterwards. For an editorial opinion, it's remarkable free from a siloed viewpoint.
-
In some ways, that's why my personal take on God has little to do with organized religions.
I settled long ago for a feeling, a sense of some kind of natural emotional instinct telling me that things do have a sort of intended path - much as outlined in the saying that what's for you won't go past you. I've found that to have held true in my own life, where things I had tried hard to achieve never did come my way, but others just fell into my lap, largely the product of having been somewhere and meeting one person who, ages later, would lead me to another and, thus, good things. Even the way I met my wife-to-be was quite extraordinary, IMO. It's as if we are plugged into our own predestined network, one we can't really work.
That there's not some broader deal going down seems too far from my observed reality. It's all I need to keep me assured.
Rob
-
I have seen the numbers mentioned many times recently. Do you not follow the news?
https://news.vice.com/story/10-plots-and-attacks-by-white-people-the-white-house-left-off-its-terrorism-list
or maybe it is just another lie...
I do follow the news, both left and right, hence a few counter-argument articles:
http://ijr.com/2016/01/518045-a-study-showed-right-wing-extremism-kills-more-than-islamic-terrorism-then-a-real-researcher-looked-into-it/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/debunking-the-left-wing-myths-about-right-wing-extremist-christians/article/577384
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/12/the-myth-of-the-right-wing-extremist/
-
I do follow the news, both left and right, hence a few counter-argument articles:
http://ijr.com/2016/01/518045-a-study-showed-right-wing-extremism-kills-more-than-islamic-terrorism-then-a-real-researcher-looked-into-it/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/debunking-the-left-wing-myths-about-right-wing-extremist-christians/article/577384
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/12/the-myth-of-the-right-wing-extremist/
The tone of these counter arguments is a bit "Foxy", which doesn't help their credibility.
Also they're not saying anything about the incidents mentioned in the original link, they're mainly trying to talk down the seriousness of the right wing attacks in general vs. other attacks.
-
The tone of these counter arguments is a bit "Foxy", which doesn't help their credibility.
Also they're not saying anything about the incidents mentioned in the original link, they're mainly trying to talk down the seriousness of the right wing attacks in general vs. other attacks.
Yes, the problem with most of such links, is that they attempt to stick simple explanations to complex issues. The 'religion label' is only too easily used to denigrade complete groups, while there only some deranged/frustrated individuals who see no better solution than murder. It's usually amongst those who hold very dogmatic believes that a number of them derail. But this is then usually not more than a symptom for other root causes of intolerance.
The solution is not a simplistic one like suggested by Trump's Muslim ban, in fact it only feeds more people in their believes that destruction is the only way to retaliation and achieve a better life (here or in afterlife).
It seems that Iran is taken off of the to be released new list of affiliations to be banned, so it either was a mistake, or financial gain dictated a different (geopolitical) route. So much for principles. Besides, it would probably still miss the mark at solving issues, since most terrorist attacks are home grown. People entering the USA with Visa, have already been vetted at the time of application, so why ban them???
Cheers,
Bart
-
It seems that Iran is taken off of the to be released new list of affiliations to be banned, so it either was a mistake, or financial gain dictated a different (geopolitical) route.
Not Iran, but Iraq.
"Four officials told The Associated Press that the decision followed pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which had urged the White House to reconsider Iraq’s inclusion on the list given its key role in fighting Daesh." (Toronto Star)
Trump dialed back the pugnacious quality of his rhetoric quite a bit last night. So, are the usual confrontational tweets and comments a deliberate act or was his speech a deliberate attempt to rein in his natural proclivities?
-
Not Iran, but Iraq.
"Four officials told The Associated Press that the decision followed pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which had urged the White House to reconsider Iraq’s inclusion on the list given its key role in fighting Daesh." (Toronto Star)
Ah, indeed. It didn't make much sense, not that the first version of the EO did anyway. Looking forward to what will actually be presented (today...) .
Trump dialed back the pugnacious quality of his rhetoric quite a bit last night. So, are the usual confrontational tweets and comments a deliberate act or was his speech a deliberate attempt to rein in his natural proclivities?
Well, without support from the Republican majority, nothing gets implemented. Anything that does get implemented will stick to the GOP like nothing before. The repeal of Obamacare, which was supposed to be effectuated on day one, is an example. It turns out to be harder to put something better in its place.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump pivoted and became President. The Democrats walked out and had a retired governor give the contra speech.
-
Someone wrote him a nice speech and he basically stuck to it. See what happens in another 30 days.
-
OK We'll see.
-
Of course, some people who voted for him are not happy that he may be changing course or backing off (if the speech is to be believed) on some issues.
-
He is compromising on some issues. But that's in line with his negotiation process where he starts off asking for the world. So when he backs off, it seems that he suddenly has become so reasonable that you're willing to settle where he wanted you to settle in the first place. No one really cares if he doesn't build a great wall as long as he can stop illegal immigration. He doesn't want to get out of NATO. He just said he wanted to so he can get Europe to pay more than they have and be willing to use more of their soldiers in problems rather than Americans. He bargains down from positions of strength that are beyond what he knows he can get.
His supporters won't care about his compromises as long as the results supports his main objectives. I think people are smart enough and realize he has to deal with Congress, other countries, and other stakeholders who have their own interests. Also, when your guy won, you just give him slack because you're so happy to be on the winning side and realize how worse it would be if the other side won.
-
Those are very orange coloured glasses, Alan ;-)
-
He is compromising on some issues. But that's in line with his negotiation process where he starts off asking for the world. So when he backs off, it seems that he suddenly has become so reasonable that you're willing to settle where he wanted you to settle in the first place. No one really cares if he doesn't build a great wall as long as he can stop illegal immigration. He doesn't want to get out of NATO. He just said he wanted to so he can get Europe to pay more than they have and be willing to use more of their soldiers in problems rather than Americans. He bargains down from positions of strength that are beyond what he knows he can get.
How easily he fools his own constituents into believing it is all due to him. Most of the 'extra' jobs with Boeing/Ford/Dakota pipeline/etc. were largely already planned, or are temporary jobs. The increase in NATO contributions for those under the 2% GDP guideline had already been agreed upon and many countries had already been budgeted for that (over a period of 10 years starting in 2014, as agreed in the The Wales Declaration on the Transatlantic Bond (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112985.htm)). And some of that will benefit the USA military industry, we see the connection to that self-interest for Trump, but again most was already in the pipeline (also thanks to Obama who stressed the importance).
It is true that his bargaining tactics are transparent, over-ask and then pull back a bit in the hope to end higher (as if others don't see right through that).
His supporters won't care about his compromises as long as the results supports his main objectives.
Who knows what his real objectives are, besides an ego trip now that he got the job, and improve the financial situation for himself and his cronies. People keep mistaking their own objectives with those of Trump. Too much Kool-Aid?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I always get a chuckle when I hear the President refer to the 94 million people in the US who are out of work. Just for the record, I am one of those 94 million as are all the other retirees who are voluntarily not working, along with students, those on disability, etc. He also used this during the campaign. I don't know why he keeps putting up this phony stuff. He would really do a lot better if he stuck to the facts. I don't know if this was unscripted or not but the speech writer really should have known better. This was one of the first thing the fact checkers nailed him on.
-
... Too much Kool-Aid?
Yeah...says the analyst from the other side of the ocean, whose only source is the lefty press, and everything else is "propaganda."
-
Yeah...says the analyst from the other side of the ocean, whose only source is the lefty press, and everything else is "propaganda."
We'll see what happens with health care and tax reform. I think these are the two big issues that Trump will be judged on. I think some of his supporters really want a wall to be built but that's just theater if you ask me. Health care and tax reform affect everyone's bottom line and he has explicitly promised that these reforms will be tremendous. It appears that Congress is all over the place on both issues and it might be that nothing gets done as they don't have the votes in the Senate to do anything unless there is bipartisan agreement.
EDIT: it looks like things are getting sticky regarding Russia as Attorney General Sessions may have lied to Congress about contacts with Russia diplomats during the campaign when he was an advisor to Trump. This is the sort of thing that brings people down and fast.
-
Worth remembering:
-
We'll see what happens with health care and tax reform. I think these are the two big issues that Trump will be judged on. I think some of his supporters really want a wall to be built but that's just theater if you ask me. Health care and tax reform affect everyone's bottom line and he has explicitly promised that these reforms will be tremendous. It appears that Congress is all over the place on both issues and it might be that nothing gets done as they don't have the votes in the Senate to do anything unless there is bipartisan agreement.
Another biggy is the Balance of Trade, which seems to only grow into a larger deficit if Trump's plans were to materialize (unless he manages to almost stop all imports). It looks unrealistic that the USA will export (create a Trade Surplus) enough to compensate for the increased cost of 'doing business at home', but we'll see.
EDIT: it looks like things are getting sticky regarding Russia as Attorney General Sessions may have lied to Congress about contacts with Russia diplomats during the campaign when he was an advisor to Trump. This is the sort of thing that brings people down and fast.
Well, his excuse appears to be that his contacts (with the Russian ambassador?) were in his prior role as Senator for Alabama, so that's why he denied having them to the committee.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I always get a chuckle when I hear the President refer to the 94 million people in the US who are out of work. Just for the record, I am one of those 94 million as are all the other retirees who are voluntarily not working, along with students, those on disability, etc. He also used this during the campaign. I don't know why he keeps putting up this phony stuff. He would really do a lot better if he stuck to the facts. I don't know if this was unscripted or not but the speech writer really should have known better. This was one of the first thing the fact checkers nailed him on.
Of course, by parroting the liberal cable news (I saw that too on TV), you found that one fact that is partially incorrect. Meanwhile you missed his overall message that the economy stinks for millions of workers within the 94 million that are out of work and would like to have a job. Another "gotcha" news factoid. The fact is the employment rate is the lowest it has been since the 1970's. The unemployment rate is a lie because they don't count so many people not looking for jobs or who have marginal jobs. Your "gotcha" argument misses the reason he won Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Even the Democrats are finally acknowledging they ignored these people and are changing their position. He won because of the jobs.
-
...Well, his excuse appears to be that his contacts (with the Russian ambassador?) were in his prior role as Senator for Alabama, so that's why he denied having them to the committee.
Cheers,
Bart
So suddenly this story comes up right after Trump's successful speech to Congress which has now disappeared from the headlines. Change the message. Like no one at the Times knew about this for the last six months. All part of the same campaign to delegitimize Trump. One has to believe that Sessions, a lawyer, conspired with Russia and violated Federal statutes that could send him to jail for years by asking them to hack the DNC . "Oh, Ambassador Kisylak, while you're at it, do you think you could also help us with Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania?"
-
Worth remembering:
As long as this keeps up (which it won't), I'm a happy camper. Truth be told, my portfolio was really smiling during the Obama years! ;)
-
Of course, by parroting the liberal cable news (I saw that too on TV), you found that one fact that is partially incorrect. Meanwhile you missed his overall message that the economy stinks for millions of workers within the 94 million that are out of work and would like to have a job. Another "gotcha" news factoid. The fact is the employment rate is the lowest it has been since the 1970's. The unemployment rate is a lie because they don't count so many people not looking for jobs or who have marginal jobs. Your "gotcha" argument misses the reason he won Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Even the Democrats are finally acknowledging they ignored these people and are changing their position. He won because of the jobs.
I never questioned that. The difficulty is that he has made promises that are almost impossible to keep. Do you think coal is going to come back any time soon? It really doesn't matter as the number of employees in the coal industry is small to begin with. Look at the manufacturing sector which he has highlighted. Lots of job losses resulting from automation, neglecting to automate resulting in bankruptcy (most of the steel industry over the years), and forced job attrition because of hedge fund managers pushing otherwise healthy companies into mergers or downsizing. Look at what his good friend and advisor, Carl Icahn, has done over the years. Lots of investments where he has 'greenmailed' management into making changes that were not in the best interest of the company. Some industries are gone because labor is less expensive overseas. I don't think the textile industry is returning to the US. These are all long term trends and I don't think they can be turned around.
-
So suddenly this story comes up right after Trump's successful speech to Congress which has now disappeared from the headlines. Change the message. Like no one at the Times knew about this for the last six months. All part of the same campaign to delegitimize Trump. One has to believe that Sessions, a lawyer, conspired with Russia and violated Federal statutes that could send him to jail for years by asking them to hack the DNC . "Oh, Ambassador Kisylak, while you're at it, do you think you could also help us with Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania?"
Richard Nixon was a able lawyer as well and you see what happened there. Perhaps all of this was innocent conversation and that's just fine but don't cover it up.
-
I never questioned that. The difficulty is that he has made promises that are almost impossible to keep. Do you think coal is going to come back any time soon? It really doesn't matter as the number of employees in the coal industry is small to begin with. Look at the manufacturing sector which he has highlighted. Lots of job losses resulting from automation, neglecting to automate resulting in bankruptcy (most of the steel industry over the years), and forced job attrition because of hedge fund managers pushing otherwise healthy companies into mergers or downsizing. Look at what his good friend and advisor, Carl Icahn, has done over the years. Lots of investments where he has 'greenmailed' management into making changes that were not in the best interest of the company. Some industries are gone because labor is less expensive overseas. I don't think the textile industry is returning to the US. These are all long term trends and I don't think they can be turned around.
I agree with many of your points. I think many of the unemployed in those industries agree with you as well. They're not stupid. They can read the handwriting on the wall. However, what Trump did during the campaign is give hope to many people in middle America that Hillary and the Democrats ignored. These people were their traditional base who voted for Obama and Democrats for years. Even if Trump can only get a few of their jobs back, it's important for people to feel that their leaders have not forgotten them. The arguments Trump makes about Ford and Carrier jobs not going to Mexico are not substantial in quantity. But they are symbolic. People feel he continues to care and is trying the best he can to help. That's important to them.
If Trump can get the economy going, beside helping with your market investment which I think is great, better and more jobs will flow to all Americans. At least if you're an unemployed ex-steel worker, that will be good for your kids if not for you personally. What I fear is that the deficit, debt, printing money, public demand for more services, and stupid way we do things economically are so entrenched, that we won't be able to overcome the mess we're in. And we're due for another recession. The stock market is in a bubble and investors are putting all their faith that Trump will deliver. He better. For him and us.
-
Lots of job losses resulting from automation
CBC Article: (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/automation-job-brookfield-1.3636253) 42% of Canadian jobs at high risk of being affected by automation, new study suggests. The Brookfield Institute for Innovation + Entrepreneurship at Toronto's Ryerson University said in its report that automation previously has been restricted to routine, manual tasks. However, breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and advanced robotics now means that automation is moving into "cognitive, non-routine tasks and occupations, such as driving and conducting job interviews."
As well or better than humans: (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/automation-jobs-canada-computers-white-collar-1.3982466)Automation set for big promotions in white-collar job market. "We are starting to see in fields like medicine, law, investment banking, dramatic increases in the ability of computers to think as well or better than humans. And that's really the game-changer here. Because that's something that we have never seen before."
Just two recent ones of many such predictions. I've been peripherally following this since the 1980's (the AI bit). This will be a world wide issue.
-
I worked for Univac Computer Division of Sperry Rand in the late 1960's. That's 50 years ago. Back then people were also worried about all the jobs computers would replace. So, nothing new. The fact is as long as the economy is humming, there will be jobs. Of course, there will be displacement, and re-training may be required, but computers, high tech, software, AI, etc. will just create new opportunities for different kinds of work.
As long as we have free markets where the government gets out of the way, the jobs will be there. I was just reading a story about New York City. The financial district downtown lost 14 million square feet of office space in 2001 because of the 911 terrorist attacks. Since then, that area has built 34 million square feet of new office space, over two times that lost. This doesn't include the midtown area which has also built new office buildings. NYC grew from 7 million people in the 1970's during the last economic crisis there, to 8 1/2 million today. Who knows how many more illegals there are? There are 1 1/2 million office workers, more than ever before. (Remember all the secretaries there use to be and now we've become our own secretaries with our laptops. So the office workers are doing different things.) Computers have made us more productive as well. OK, NYC isn't the rust belt. And there will be displacement. But as we advance technologically, people learn the new ways. After all, what were the steel workers doing before steel?
-
I was just reading about that new discovery of seven new planets around a single star that may be like Earth. I think they were discovered by the same climatologists who discovered global warming. Trump should add these seven planets to the list of seven countries. Just in case. Who needs more illegal aliens who aren't vetted properly. Anyone coming should be searched for ray guns.
-
As I said before, when everything else fails (in explaining the crushing defeat of the Democrats), blame Russia. This article, by the former Congressman Ron Paul (and presidential candidate - in the primaries) explains, from his perspective, why:
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/enemy-of-the-year-why-russia
-
As I said before, when everything else fails (in explaining the crushing defeat of the Democrats), blame Russia. This article, by the former Congressman Ron Paul (and presidential candidate - in the primaries) explains, from his perspective, why:
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/enemy-of-the-year-why-russia
I think the Democrats finally acknowledge at least to themselves that it was the loss of Democratic voters in Wisconsin and the other swing states as the reason Hillary failed. Russia hacking the DNC is beside the point. Of course they will continue to use it to try to delegitimize him. Also, Russia is just a way of taking the excitement off the Trump pivot at the speech to Congress where he was Presidential and kept to the script. I just saw him make a speech on the new aircraft carrier in Virginia where he again stuck to the script of expanding the military, buying ships and planes cheaper, and supporting the troops. He continued to look Presidential yet behave as one of the guys, a powerful leader who cares about the troops. No oddball tweets in two days either. The Democrats are going to have to come up with a new way to try to diminish him since complaining "he's not fit to be President" won't sell anymore. Everyone underestimates his intelligence and ability to adapt as well as sell himself. He's a quick study.
-
I think the Democrats finally acknowledge at least to themselves that it was the loss of Democratic voters in Wisconsin and the other swing states as the reason Hillary failed. Russia hacking the DNC is beside the point. Of course they will continue to use it to try to delegitimize him. Also, Russia is just a way of taking the excitement off the Trump pivot at the speech to Congress where he was Presidential and kept to the script. I just saw him make a speech on the new aircraft carrier in Virginia where he again stuck to the script of expanding the military, buying ships and planes cheaper, and supporting the troops. He continued to look Presidential yet behave as one of the guys, a powerful leader who cares about the troops. No oddball tweets in two days either. The Democrats are going to have to come up with a new way to try to diminish him since complaining "he's not fit to be President" won't sell anymore. Everyone underestimates his intelligence and ability to adapt as well as sell himself. He's a quick study.
Give us a break, you are a Trump supporter we get that, the rest of the world hopes that he doesn't drag us into a G W Bush GFC or some trillion dollar war.
Head smack,
-
Give us a break, you are a Trump supporter we get that, the rest of the world hopes that he doesn't drag us into a G W Bush GFC or some trillion dollar war.
Head smack,
Tom, I assume you're Australian from your web address. Should we cancel our ANZUS Treaty? Australia and New Zealand would have to defend itself against China expansion on its own. We could pull out of NATO too and let Europe deal with Russia by itself. There are a lot of Americans, led by Trump, who frankly are tired of Americans bleeding and spending trillions for others who only complain about America. Trump really has no interest in getting into foreign adventures, other than ISIS, and would probably abandon ANZUS and NATO if he wasn't pressured by people in his own party. He wants to make nice with Russia but others are pushing him into belligerency. Trump's an isolationist.
-
Isn't it amusing how they simultaneously accuse him of being friendly with Russia (or even a "puppet") and... wanting to start a WW3!?
-
Isn't it amusing how they simultaneously accuse him of being friendly with Russia (or even a "puppet") and... wanting to start a WW3!?
You get that the theory is that Bannon and those of his ilk see Russia as the ally in an east/west ethno-nationalist conflict against Islam and/or China, right?
-
Isn't it amusing how they simultaneously accuse him of being friendly with Russia (or even a "puppet") and... wanting to start a WW3!?
Trump will never win no matter what he does. This is going to go on for the next four years. I hope he's strong enough to stand up to his own Republican party and even his own Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisors. I remember when the Soviet Union collapsed around 1990. We immediately expanded into East European countries right next to Russia. I thought that was crazy. Why are we doing that? The Cold War is over. It's only antagonizing the Russians and making them fearful. Their expansionism in response is more about creating a protective buffer zone rather than imperialism. I remember how angry I was when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba in 1962. Well, the Russians must have felt the same thing when NATO expanded next to their border.
On the other hand, weakness promotes bullying. So NATO has its advantages. So, why doesn't Europe defend itself? They're big enough. They have a GDP that matches the US. They have more people than us. They have nuclear weapons. They're just cheap. They rather spend their money on national health care than armaments and laugh at us for not having national health while we spend our money on defending them. Let them defend themselves. Let them dig into their own pocketbooks. The extra money we save can pay for our health and infrastructure. I'm for lowering our taxes. On the other hand, I think some strategic American thinkers are concerned that a Europe without NATO might go to war with itself quicker than it would break out with Russia. With the EU falling apart, old animosities might arise like we saw play out twice big time in the 20th Century. Throw in a economic collapse, and it could reach a boiling point very quickly. With NATO, America might be able to keep the lid on.
-
You get that the theory is that Bannon and those of his ilk see Russia as the ally in an east/west ethno-nationalist conflict against Islam and/or China, right?
I agree that they see China as the future adversary. You don't want to tie up forces in Europe at the same time against a belligerent Russia. So, working with Russia allows you to concentrate forces in the Pacific. If you work it right, that will make China concerned about their northern borders with Russia tying up Chinese forces worrying about the bear.
The problem with guys like McCain and all the old warrior class, they're still fighting the Cold War or the last war. They don't think out of the box like Trump. He is a strategic thinker and that's why he won the election. While all the old hands campaigned the old way, he thought out of the usual ways and beat them all. His yelling and screaming and insults got him noticed against a field of 16 midgets including Bush. Bush, the bother and son of two former presidents with $100 million campaign fund got, what, 5% of the vote. Trump made him into a joke. And he made Republican voters out of Democrat workers in swing states while Hillary met with the Hollywood elites and yucked it up on Saturday Night Live. So now Trump is pivoting to "normal" behavior because he is, well, the President. It's actually fascinating. He's always one step in front. The competition can't catch up to him.
-
You get that the theory is that Bannon and those of his ilk see Russia as the ally in an east/west ethno-nationalist conflict against Islam and/or China, right?
It's a complex world. Trump has actually walked way back on his initial stance on China, during a conversation with China's Xi Jinping. Trump's supporters hint that it's because he must have gained concessions from the Chinese in order to agree to support the existing 'one China' policy. Some Chinese analysts agree, and are concerned that China has been weak. Others take the opposite stance: “Mr. Trump humiliated himself” and damaged U.S. credibility, said Guoqi Xu, a historian of Chinese international relations at the University of Hong Kong. Moderates from both countries agree that a stable relationship benefits both countries. Taiwan?
Ironically, China and the US may have some common ground in the enemy of ISIS, which recently released a video featuring Uighur fighters in the region. The Uighurs are a Turkic-speaking ethnic minority based in western China that have long chafed at Beijing's control. And Russia? Interesting that they defended Iran when Trump was tweeting aggressively about that country. And they also signed a deal with Iran for oil.
Bannon has real ideological goals (scary ones, IMO). Trump agrees with some of it, but, in the end, I think you have to follow the money with Donald.
Speaking of money (and those that have it), according to Bloomberg:
Since Trump's November 8 win, the 36 Chinese billionaires tracked by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index have seen their wealth climb 13.2%, a $39.2 billion bump that puts their combined wealth at $336 billion. Jack Ma is China's richest, with a net worth of $35.7 billion. The 28 Russian billionaires tracked on the index have increased their wealth by 10.5%, raising their aggregate fortunes by $24.4 billion to $256 billion. They've benefited from currency and commodities gains. The 171 US billionaires on the index have seen their combined net worth rise by about 4.7% since the election, adding $85 billion for a combined $1.9 trillion. Gosh, that's just 235 people worth almost $2.5 trillion dollars. Poor old Mexico's billionaires lost out, though, having their fortunes diminished by 5.1%.
-
You get that the theory is that Bannon and those of his ilk see Russia as the ally in an east/west ethno-nationalist conflict against Islam and/or China, right?
No, I do not get it. There is nothing to justify your "and/or."
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/asia/australia-isis-arrest/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/asia/australia-isis-arrest/)
Give us a break, you are a Trump supporter we get that, the rest of the world hopes that he doesn't drag us into a G W Bush GFC or some trillion dollar war...
Thanks Tom and Australia for helping Trump fight the scourge of the 21st century (a.k.a. Obama's legacy):
Australian arrested for helping ISIS develop long-range missile technology (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/asia/australia-isis-arrest/)
-
No, I do not get it. There is nothing to justify your "and/or."
Bannon is on record about his expectation for a China/Western conflict. And your Islamophobia is ugly.
-
Oh good grief! Even camera calibration has gotten political.
Several days ago I noticed both MSNBC and CNN showing Sean Spicer with the most ashen coldest blue skin tone while Fox has his skin close to Xrite Color Checker Caucasian Lab numbers.
Just a coincidence? I mean this is getting ridiculous. All the cameras are shooting under the same conditions. It's not like this is the camera man's first rodeo.
-
Bannon is on record about his expectation for a China/Western conflict. And your Islamophobia is ugly.
Was there any quote, by Trump or Bannon, that implicates Russia in that China/Western hypothetical conflict? Using Russia's help against ISIS is one thing, potential China/Western conflict quite another.
By the way, you don't agree with me that ISIS is the scourge of the 21st century?
-
Tom, I assume you're Australian from your web address. Should we cancel our ANZUS Treaty? Australia and New Zealand would have to defend itself against China expansion on its own. We could pull out of NATO too and let Europe deal with Russia by itself. There are a lot of Americans, led by Trump, who frankly are tired of Americans bleeding and spending trillions for others who only complain about America. Trump really has no interest in getting into foreign adventures, other than ISIS, and would probably abandon ANZUS and NATO if he wasn't pressured by people in his own party. He wants to make nice with Russia but others are pushing him into belligerency. Trump's an isolationist.
Australia is the ONLY country that has always fought alongside the US every single time you've asked. Without fail. Without exception.
ANZUS is in the interests of the US and always has been. It's beneficial to all parties, not just us. These sorts of "I'm taking my bat and ball home and don't want to play anymore" comments are awfully Trumpish.
-
Trump will never win no matter what he does.
Same happened to Obama, but by the other part of the population. It seems asking for some sensible bipartisan collaboration is a long way off. I think that's the heart of the problem, no will to compromise, so nothing (or little) of what's really needed gets done.
-
The problem with guys like McCain
the problem was that our missile didn't kill that SOB... what a pity.
-
I remember how angry I was when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba in 1962.
but you did not feel angry when US put Jupiters in Turkey and Italy in 1961, no ;D ?
-
"Give us a break, you are a Trump supporter we get that, the rest of the world hopes that he doesn't drag us into a G W Bush GFC or some trillion dollar war."
Alan, I was alluding to the four trillion dollar global meltdown caused by unregulated American businesses. One of Trump's first actions was to once again deregulate American businesses. He also also appointed four executives from one of the companies that caused the meltdown.
The rest of the world is worried that this four time bankrupt is in charge of the world's largest economy.
One of the Donald's recent gaffs.
"It was a moment greeted with loud cheers from a crowd, many of whom were sporting the billionaire’s trademark ‘Make America Great Again’ baseball caps.
However, many of them didn’t realise those hats were made in China, Vietnam and Bangladesh." Truely an insulting gesture.
Trump is an isolationist:
"In his most recent financial disclosures, Trump listed 144 individual companies that have had dealings in at least 25 countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, South America and North America, among other companies with regional international interests, according to a CNN review." Sure he's isolationist.
Yep we worry, when America sneezes we all catch the flu. Which is why we worry when Trump can't get his basic messages right, how can he govern the "free world".
Worried,
-
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/putin-starting-to-wonder-if-his-puppets-are-smart-enough-to-pull-this-off 😊
-
What we're trying to do here in America is clean up 30 years of government dereliction when they didn't bother to check anyone.
...
It would seem that from the mass shootings, etc, the problem isn't people emigrating TO America but those that are born IN America (notable exceptions aside.)
I think that's a bad idea, I prefer Trump governing rather then to continue his election campaign ;)
He's already officially nominated for the 2020 so technically speaking, everything from now until 2020 *is* part of his election campaign.
Should we cancel our ANZUS Treaty? Australia and New Zealand would have to defend itself against China expansion on its own.
Or Australia & New Zealand would deal in diplomacy. China would have to march through Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc, first - but Japan did that in WWII. If ANZUS were to be canceled and there is a divorce between Australia and the USA, then Pine Gap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap)) would close. If it broke up with New Zealand, it would lose Waihopai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waihopai_Station (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waihopai_Station)).
I just saw him make a speech on the new aircraft carrier in Virginia where he again stuck to the script of expanding the military, buying ships and planes cheaper, and supporting the troops.
Which means that the military expansion is really a government employment/welfare program. That was tried by another notable country in the first half of the 20th century...
Oh good grief! Even camera calibration has gotten political.
Several days ago I noticed both MSNBC and CNN showing Spencer with the most ashen coldest blue skin tone while Fox has his skin close to Xrite Color Checker Caucasian Lab numbers.
Just a coincidence?
Not likely. In election TV advertising against Obama, the GOP made sure that Obama was represented to be blacker than he really was.
He is a strategic thinker and that's why he won the election. While all the old hands campaigned the old way, he thought out of the usual ways and beat them all.
Two things. (1) She was just more unelectable than he was. That's the DNP's fault for inbreeding. Had it been Bernie vs Donald ... DNP got what it deserved. (2) Trump appears to the LCD in people and then there was this http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/26/how-trumps-campaign-used-the-new-data-industrial-complex-to-win-the-election/ (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/26/how-trumps-campaign-used-the-new-data-industrial-complex-to-win-the-election/), https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win). You are a statistic. You are a metric. They know who you are, how you think and how to push your button(s).
So, why doesn't Europe defend itself? They're big enough.
Much of Europe has been gun-shy after beating itself up in the first half of the 20th century. Maybe time has worn on enough for that to be forgotten now? Maybe not. They've been trying this "Euro" experiment to try and make countries rely upon the well being of other countries as the means to avoid war. So far it has worked...
-
but you did not feel angry when US put Jupiters in Turkey and Italy in 1961, no ;D ?
You obviously missed the point I was making that all countries worry when potential adversaries put forces on their border. Anyway, the missiles were 55 years ago in the middle of the Cold War which is now over 25 years. There's no reason America and Russia shouldn't respect one another and get along; they have some common interests as well such as Islamic terrorists. This is something Trump has indicated he wants to do. Unfortunately, many in the American and European elite want him to take a belligerent position against Russia because of Russia's move into Crimea and Ukraine and Georgia. The Baltic states are worried they're next. Certainly the Russians didn't help Trump or themselves with their hacking of the DNC. It pissed off Republicans as well as Democrats and is forcing Trump's hand to be tougher on Russia. You should have stayed out of our election.
-
By the way, you don't agree with me that ISIS is the scourge of the 21st century?
ISIS is yet another example of just how depraved humans can become while cloaking themselves in the "righteousness" of a malignant form of religion, ethnic pride or nationalism. The challenge is to separate the malignancy from the whole. Are all Muslims ISIS? Were all Bosnian Serbs involved in the rape, genocide, ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims (and Croats)?
My wife claims that I have been depressed since 9/11, and she may well be right. Though I had no personal connection (as in friends or family lost), they were the most shocking and disturbing events to have happened in my lifetime. The ideology behind jihadist terrorism and ISIS is completely alien and repugnant to me. But I also know from personal experience working with Muslims, that they viewed al-Qaeda then, and ISIS now, as a perversion of their faith, and they are equally appalled.
I was 5 or 6 the first time I witnessed uncompromising hatred. An English neighbour of ours openly despised everyone and everything German. He had been a British foot-soldier in World War II, and a prisoner of war. He talked proudly about provoking “the Hun, krauts, squareheads, boche, jerry” every chance he got in the POW camp. And he suffered greatly for his efforts, being beaten regularly. I cannot imagine what he went through. Curiously, though, he almost never used the word Nazi, was “tight-lipped” about Jews, and more openly derisive of any "non-white".
My father also fought in WWII (Canadian Artillery), first in Sicily and later in the liberation of Holland. And my mother served with the British Women’s Air Corps as a radio operator at Hemel Hempstead. They experienced the Blitz together, and lost friends and loved ones during the war. But neither carried a sense of bitterness forward. My father talked about the Germans who were surrendering to his unit near the end of the war. By this time, many were boys and old men who had been pressed into service. He noticed their belt buckles, which read “Gott mit uns” (God with us). He spoke about how, if he had been born in Germany, he might well have been swept up in the fever, and joined the Hitler Youth. He cautioned me about the perils of nationalism, but supported the notion that war was, at times, necessary.
I know that my perspective is the culmination of my life's experiences and environment. Were I to have grown up in the Middle East, for example, I might think about things differently. Nonetheless, to me, the scourge of any century has been bigotry and fear. It's what ISIS promotes, and if we respond in kind, then they have succeeded in making us more like them. By all means, target ISIS and like organizations as a genuine and serious threat. But, please, let us step back from the edge of prejudice and bigotry, and the rhetoric that promotes it.
-
I know that my perspective is the culmination of my life's experiences and environment. Were I to have grown up in the Middle East, for example, I might think about things differently. Nonetheless, to me, the scourge of any century has been bigotry and fear. It's what ISIS promotes, and if we respond in kind, then they have succeeded in making us more like them. By all means, target ISIS and like organizations as a genuine and serious threat. But, please, let us step back from the edge of prejudice and bigotry, and the rhetoric that promotes it.
+1
Cheers,
Bart
-
Was there any quote, by Trump or Bannon, that implicates Russia in that China/Western hypothetical conflict? Using Russia's help against ISIS is one thing, potential China/Western conflict quite another.
By the way, you don't agree with me that ISIS is the scourge of the 21st century?
Implicates is too strong of a word, but there are quotes aplenty that show that conflict is expected (desired?) with China, and ISIS is self-evident. It's also known that Russia and China had been tightening relations, but now may be drifting apart somewhat, and it's only logical that if conflict with China is seen as inevitable, the more distance that can be put between Russian and China, whatever the cost, would be seen as beneficial.
With regard to ISIS being the scourge of the 21st century, no, I don't agree with that. For one, the century is young. Would you have said in 1917 that Prussians were the scourge of the 20th? Maybe a case could be made for the Bolsheviks early in the century, but then the Nazis came along, and then fundamentalist regimes came to power in the latter part of the century, giving rise to Muslim extremism that we are now calling the scourge of our time. So who knows? On the whole, though, I'm personally a lot more concerned about North Korea doing something stupid, Russia threatening Europe, or an unnecessary stand being taken in Taiwan, for example, than I am a bunch of lone wolf one-off attacks by nut jobs that draw inspiration from ISIS. (I find it interesting, by the way, that certain elements are so willing to write off Russian expansion, while considering Chinese expansion a thrown gauntlet).
JNB, just above me, really sums it up well, I think. *Of course* radicalism is a threat, but to give the fear of it such power is the wrong path IMO.
-
No one suggests we prostrate ourselves in fear because of ISIS, Al Khaida and other terrorists. However, taking reasonable precautions is smart. We did lose a few thousand Americans due to terrorism. That's real. Unfortunately, extreme positions on both sides have been staked out in America for local political reasons.
-
Or Australia & New Zealand would deal in diplomacy. China would have to march through Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc, first - but Japan did that in WWII. If ANZUS were to be canceled and there is a divorce between Australia and the USA, then Pine Gap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Gap)) would close. If it broke up with New Zealand, it would lose Waihopai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waihopai_Station (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waihopai_Station)).
As well as earth stations for satellite communications, logistical support for operations in the Pacific and Indian oceans and Antarctica, the marines stationed in Darwin, access to intel, access to information from the Jindalee OTHR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network), and so on.
China is also unlikely to be able to sustain an invasion of Australia - the lines of supply (as Dreed notes) would have to extend through many countries. If you actually land in the north of Australia, you're basically walking into another Vietnam through the jungles, deserts, and vast amounts of nothing. No easy supplies, no sustainable supply lines, easy evacuation of the population, and a military force specifically designed to defend in those conditions. It would be very costly and drawn out. Attempting to head further south exposes your supply lines further and maritime forces against land-based air and coastal naval forces will struggle. China doesn't have the required naval power projection nor the capacity to bring any significant portion of their military here and support it. Even the US, easily the strongest in these areas, would be at their limits. The only real risk is nuclear.
So if you want to tear up a treaty that has historically benefitted the US the most just because of some disagreements, then that speaks volumes.
-
As well as earth stations for satellite communications, logistical support for operations in the Pacific and Indian oceans and Antarctica, the marines stationed in Darwin, access to intel, access to information from the Jindalee OTHR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network), and so on.
China is also unlikely to be able to sustain an invasion of Australia - the lines of supply (as Dreed notes) would have to extend through many countries. If you actually land in the north of Australia, you're basically walking into another Vietnam through the jungles, deserts, and vast amounts of nothing. No easy supplies, no sustainable supply lines, easy evacuation of the population, and a military force specifically designed to defend in those conditions. It would be very costly and drawn out. Attempting to head further south exposes your supply lines further and maritime forces against land-based air and coastal naval forces will struggle. China doesn't have the required naval power projection nor the capacity to bring any significant portion of their military here and support it. Even the US, easily the strongest in these areas, would be at their limits. The only real risk is nuclear.
So if you want to tear up a treaty that has historically benefitted the US the most just because of some disagreements, then that speaks volumes.
Phil, No one is suggesting we tear up our treaty. We gain by it as you do and we are friends. But it seems rather short sited to argue that the Chinese can't eventually do what the Japanese did? WWII proved that you're not protected by yourself from invasion. While getting some intelligence bases out of the treaty is good, let's face it. One of the treaty's main purpose is to protect Australia from attack and invasion and to keep your trade routes open. Your military in return acts as a force multiplier to us so that helps us in the Pacific and other places where you've fought WITH us.
But the treaty does more than a common defense. It puts you in a strong position to not have to give up things when China applies pressure. Without America as a backstop, you might start to make bad economic and trade deals with them that would not be so advantageous to you just to keep them happy.
-
But you were, essentially, posing the threat of tearing up the treaty as part of your argument.
WWII didn't prove anything of the sort. The Japanese bombed Darwin and a min-sub was caught in Sydney harbour. They never had the capacity, or the intent, to invade Australia (the navy wanted to do it, but the army and government opposed the idea and no plans were actually created - they adopted a strategy of trying to isolate Australia to minimise the advantage that it gave to the US). Australia was already heavily engaged in the war in Europe at the time (we had been in WWII for 2 years before the US).
By the end of WWII, Australia had the 4th largest air force in the world behind the US, Russia, and the UK - 25% of which was operating still in Europe and not the Pacific. This did not include Australian personnel operating with the RAF.
The ANZUS treaty has almost zero impact on our trade relations with China - if anything, it probably presents a possibly negative aspect, but even then, I doubt it actually flows into anything tangible. We have extremely good trade relations with China that are mutually advantageous. America as a "backstop" (and it isn't, as I said), offers nothing on trade.
ANZUS was created in 1951 as a response to growth of communism and due to pressure from Australia and New Zealand regarding a peace treaty with Japan (the US wanted to normalise relations with Japan and Australia and New Zealand were not keen).
Could China work its way south? At the moment, no. They literally do not have the capacity to do it. They are working on the power projection, but like the Japanese army and government, they would readily identify the extreme difficulty of doing that today.
I think you are grossly over estimating the ability of China, under estimating the capacity of Australia and New Zealand (and other allies, local and elsewhere), and the dependence on the US - but most of all, you're lacking a serious understanding of the tactical implications of what you're suggesting as a possible threat. Short of nuclear weapons (which wouldn't be a prelude to invasion), the threat is very, very limited for an attack of such a scale.
-
So what's the purpose of ANZUS today?
-
Why did Trump just send a carrier task force to sail around the South China Sea if China is no threat? What is the purpose of those islands that China just fortified militarily while our last President was asleep at the switch? Are the American taxpayers wasting our money? Should we pull back or bases and fleet and end ANZUS? Why did the Japanese prime minister rush to play golf with Trump after trump suggested Japan defend itself? Why did the European leaders s**t in the pants when trump originally said that NATO was obsolete? Why do so many (europeans mainly) criticize us until they need us?
-
Why did Trump just send a carrier task force to sail around the South China Sea if China is no threat? What is the purpose of those islands that China just fortified militarily while our last President was asleep at the switch? Are the American taxpayers wasting our money? Should we pull back or bases and fleet and end ANZUS? Why did the Japanese prime minister rush to play golf with Trump after trump suggested Japan defend itself? Why did the European leaders s**t in the pants when trump originally said that NATO was obsolete? Why do so many (europeans mainly) criticize us until they need us?
Honestly, you should get your facts right, the conflict in the South China Sea is not about military expansionism. It's about oil and gas.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/02/02/rex-tillerson-south-china-sea-exxon-russia-offshore-oil-gas
-
Honestly, you should get your facts right, the conflict in the South China Sea is not about military expansionism. It's about oil and gas.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/02/02/rex-tillerson-south-china-sea-exxon-russia-offshore-oil-gas
So what does ANZUS do? What about oil and gas-explain your point. If it's not about military expansionism, what's the purpose of those islands a thousand miles from the China border that they just militarized?
-
Why do so many (europeans mainly) criticize us until they need us?
No need to see everything black and white nor is there any need to generalize. What's the problem with criticizing some aspects of US policy while agreeing on others. Think about the mantra Slobodan shows with every post: "When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks", the world is lot more complex then simple black and white, "good" and "bad", we did away with that after the cold war was over.
-
... what's the purpose of those islands a thousand miles from the China border that they just militarized?
To claim the oil and gas resources under those (artificial) islands.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So what does ANZUS do? What about oil and gas-explain your point. If it's not about military expansionism, what's the purpose of those islands a thousand miles from the China border that they just militarized?
China is in the South China Sea because there are billions of dollars worth of oil and gas there. Russia and America are eyeing it off too. Nothing to do with militarisation. More to do with territorial waters and exploitation of natural resources. Did you read the article?
Come on,
-
It's foolish to believe that China's imperialistic designs will end with a few sandy islands and some nearby oil. When Obama stopped transit of u.s. Naval vessels from 2012 to 2015, China used that weakness as an opportunity to build up the islands. Xi promised Obama he would not militarize them. That was a lie. Why do you think they will stop now? Once the Chinese Navy outclasses American Navy in that area, who's going to stop them?
No one answered my question why ANZUS Treaty makes sense. What is it's purpose?
-
No need to see everything black and white nor is there any need to generalize. What's the problem with criticizing some aspects of US policy while agreeing on others. Think about the mantra Slobodan shows with every post: "When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks", the world is lot more complex then simple black and white, "good" and "bad", we did away with that after the cold war was over.
You're right. The Cold War is Over. Europe is big enough and rich enough to defend itself. America should go home. You deal with the Russians.
-
You're right. The Cold War is Over. Europe is big enough and rich enough to defend itself. America should go home. You deal with the Russians.
Laughable if it were not that stupid to even consider.
It would not only wreck the US intelligence capacity, but also the US economy. Trade will collapse, also in the USA. Some 12% of all US exports are going to Europe, which would hit the revenue of many American companies and lead to unemployment, alternative goods will be more expensive, if at all available from other regions. Also, some 14% of US imports are from Europe, so more businesses and consumers will not have access to those products anymore. That's only trade economy. There is a shitload of additional consequences, but you would apparently not care since you already don't care about your economy.
Not even Trump would be so stupid, but some of his supporters seem to be brainwashed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
We can ask Trump to join the discussion...
he is on the same level... and apparently has nothing else to do ..
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you. https://t.co/lEVscjkzSw
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) March 4, 2017
-
You're right. The Cold War is Over. Europe is big enough and rich enough to defend itself. America should go home. You deal with the Russians.
C'mon Alan, as Bart said, too stupid to consider. Trump is peddling back because he's starting to understand that some things he was against are actually in the US interest and now you're suggesting to throw away those gains?
-
We can ask Trump to join the discussion...
he is on the same level... and apparently has nothing else to do ..
He should put the same standard on himself as he's asking from the media, no tweets without sources or proof. But I guess that's asking too much :P
-
C'mon Alan, as Bart said, too stupid to consider. Trump is peddling back because he's starting to understand that some things he was against are actually in the US interest and now you're suggesting to throw away those gains?
And talking about peddling back, wasn't the new Muslim ban to be announced last Wednesday, or did I miss the announcement? Have the mines already been re-opened? And when does day-one end, as far as repealing the Affordable Care Act is concerned?
To name a few other gulps of Kool-Aid.
Ah, the President of the USA is too busy criticizing Arnold Schwarzenegger ... What a joke.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ah, the President of the USA is too busy criticizing Arnold Schwarzenegger ... What a joke.
And too busy making up smokescreens to hide his own campaign connections with Russia and the people who lied about that.
Only problem is that perjury is no joke, I don't think we've heard the last of that story.
-
The main thing about Republicans having contact with Russians during the Presidential campaign and then lying about it or failing to mention it either to Congress or to Trump as cabinet appointees is if they did it knowingly defying Obama's ban against any government officials making contact with Russian diplomats as part of US sanctions against Russia.
This seems to get lost or not specifically addressed in the media coverage that makes it all look like a witch hunt, the same term accused by democrats against Republicans against Hillary about the Benghazi incident and the missing emails.
I don't know which is more serious an issue or considered a crime requiring justice be done? I'm not really that concerned about Trump's overall choices for cabinet appointees more than I am about the ones he chose that admitted making contact with Russian diplomats in deviance to Russian sanctions. Wish the media or Sean Spicer or any government official would make this more clear.
-
Quote from: Tim Lookingbill on March 02, 2017, 11:20:49 PM
Oh good grief! Even camera calibration has gotten political.
Several days ago I noticed both MSNBC and CNN showing Spencer with the most ashen coldest blue skin tone while Fox has his skin close to Xrite Color Checker Caucasian Lab numbers.
Just a coincidence?
Not likely. In election TV advertising against Obama, the GOP made sure that Obama was represented to be blacker than he really was.
Actually Fox News consistently made Obama look very yellowish as if he had jaundice while CNN & MSNBC showed him with correct skin tone. I still don't know what it is about broadcast and camera technicians that seem to have difficulty managing consistent color on camera systems costing millions of dollars combined. I know most major broadcast cable channels show they employ a Colorist but don't know if they're responsible for maintaining skin tone appearance.
-
Laughable if it were not that stupid to even consider.
It would not only wreck the US intelligence capacity, but also the US economy. Trade will collapse, also in the USA. Some 12% of all US exports are going to Europe, which would hit the revenue of many American companies and lead to unemployment, alternative goods will be more expensive, if at all available from other regions. Also, some 14% of US imports are from Europe, so more businesses and consumers will not have access to those products anymore. That's only trade economy. There is a shitload of additional consequences, but you would apparently not care since you already don't care about your economy.
Not even Trump would be so stupid, but some of his supporters seem to be brainwashed.
Cheers,
Bart
Why would trade collapse? It would continue as it is now. All that changes is Europe would have to defend itself. You would have to take more money you put into national health care and buy more tanks. Then we could take the money we spend on NATO and pay for our health care. Europeans always criticize America for not wanting to have national medical care. Well, now we'll be able to as well. Well, maybe the problem is Europe doesn't know how to protect itself since it's been depending on America since WWII. Maybe it doesn't have the guts to do it and would rather Uncle America handle the real man's work and pay the bill. Why else do you need America? Do you think you're capable.
I do detect concern in your post that we will pull out. You should pray Trump figures out how to make America economically strong again. There's no longer the money for health care, growing the military, and being the world's policeman any longer. After all the debt and deficits, if another 2008 crisis occurs, the American voter will demand Trump to pull back to save money because I think he really believes that we've been screwed for too long. People are tired of the expense and shedding their children's blood in foreign wars. They're tired of spending money for ingrates; who knock us, our system and president, whenever they get a chance. The people who voted for Sanders are very similar in this thinking to the people who voted for Trump. So it's not just Trump voters. We're one recession away from bringing the troops home.
-
Why did Trump just send a carrier task force to sail around the South China Sea if China is no threat? What is the purpose of those islands that China just fortified militarily while our last President was asleep at the switch? Are the American taxpayers wasting our money? Should we pull back or bases and fleet and end ANZUS? Why did the Japanese prime minister rush to play golf with Trump after trump suggested Japan defend itself? Why did the European leaders s**t in the pants when trump originally said that NATO was obsolete? Why do so many (europeans mainly) criticize us until they need us?
I said there's no threat of China invading Australia. There's a significant economic threat to the US (in particular) and to Japan and other South East Asian countries (mostly economic, although Taiwan is probably at a sovereign risk).
As for ANZUS, you're getting logistical and operational support in an area of the world that has strategic and economic significance to the US. Whether you think it's worth it or not is up to you. Whether you think an ally who has always supported you is worth it or not is up to you (Mattis apparently set Trump straight on that fact pretty early on).
Japan is definitely at threat from China, but the loss of Japan economically would have a huge impact on the US, too. You see, this is where isolationism fails. It had a significant impact leading up to WWII, too.
EU and NATO didn't shit their pants and again I'll point out that the US spend in Europe is (obviously) only a fraction of your total defence expenditure. As others have pointed out, the US very much has vested interests in stopping Russia from expanding. This constant prattle that the US is spending all this money to look after Europe as if there's no benefit to the US is tiresome. For the record, actual spend toward NATO/Europe by the US is about 1.1% of US GDP - about 30% of your total expenditure. A discussion as to whether that's a good investment or not is a reasonable discussion, so long as the numbers are kept accurate (and stop quoting total US expenditure) and reflect your very significant economic and political and cultural investment in preventing Russian expansion.
Oh, and back to ANZUS. Australia is the 13th ranked in terms of military expenditure (dollars) in the world (12th by some estimates, actually) which lines up with us being the 13th largest economy in the world (again, 12th by some measures), and 20th (compared to the US in 10th) as a percentage of GDP. Again, if you don't think there's a worthwhile contribution then that's a matter for the US, but I suspect the likes of Mattis understand the value - it just remains to be seen whether Trump will go bat-shit crazy like today's tweets about Obama wiretapping him (there's no evidence, just some fake news from Brietbart and the like) or whether he can be puppetted to act more like a President as he did in his speech to congress. It took him less than a week to fall from the level he'd clambered to with that speech, so I'm not betting on a much improved performance really.
-
Then we could take the money we spend on NATO and pay for our health care.
You spend about $195B toward NATO, including stationing about 100,000 personnel. If you pull out, that's either 100,000 people looking for a job (if you cut spending) or you'll deploy them elsewhere in which case you'll save very little.
Let's assume you put them all out of work and consider how that $195B stacks up. The US spends about $3.2T per year on health care, so that $195B is about 6%. Pretty sure increasing expenditure by 6% isn't going to cover current private insurance payments - not by a long shot. So pulling out from Europe wouldn't fix your health care but it would put 100,000 people out of work (or some combination in between, but less out of work means less towards healthcare).
Of course, pulling out of Europe would not only put all those people out of work, but the flow on effect for suppliers and so on would be a significant hit to the US economy (and EU and others, of course).
The problem with addressing issues in the way Trump does is that he never looks at the detail.
-
I said there's no threat of China invading Australia. There's a significant economic threat to the US (in particular) and to Japan and other South East Asian countries (mostly economic, although Taiwan is probably at a sovereign risk).
As for ANZUS, you're getting logistical and operational support in an area of the world that has strategic and economic significance to the US. Whether you think it's worth it or not is up to you. Whether you think an ally who has always supported you is worth it or not is up to you (Mattis apparently set Trump straight on that fact pretty early on).
Japan is definitely at threat from China, but the loss of Japan economically would have a huge impact on the US, too. You see, this is where isolationism fails. It had a significant impact leading up to WWII, too.
EU and NATO didn't shit their pants and again I'll point out that the US spend in Europe is (obviously) only a fraction of your total defence expenditure. As others have pointed out, the US very much has vested interests in stopping Russia from expanding. This constant prattle that the US is spending all this money to look after Europe as if there's no benefit to the US is tiresome. For the record, actual spend toward NATO/Europe by the US is about 1.1% of US GDP - about 30% of your total expenditure. A discussion as to whether that's a good investment or not is a reasonable discussion, so long as the numbers are kept accurate (and stop quoting total US expenditure) and reflect your very significant economic and political and cultural investment in preventing Russian expansion.
Oh, and back to ANZUS. Australia is the 13th ranked in terms of military expenditure (dollars) in the world (12th by some estimates, actually) which lines up with us being the 13th largest economy in the world (again, 12th by some measures), and 20th (compared to the US in 10th) as a percentage of GDP. Again, if you don't think there's a worthwhile contribution then that's a matter for the US, but I suspect the likes of Mattis understand the value - it just remains to be seen whether Trump will go bat-shit crazy like today's tweets about Obama wiretapping him (there's no evidence, just some fake news from Brietbart and the like) or whether he can be puppetted to act more like a President as he did in his speech to congress. It took him less than a week to fall from the level he'd clambered to with that speech, so I'm not betting on a much improved performance really.
You're being disingenuous. You only gave reasons why the US wants ANZUS. But why does Australia want it? You didn't say. No one stays in a treaty unless they get something out of it. So, what does Australia want from the ANZUS treaty even assuming that it's true that China will never militarily attack Australia? Does the US Navy protect your suppliers, your customers, your trade routes? Does the US Navy being there allow you to negotiate better deals? Maybe it's the money American sailors spend on shore leave there? What are the ANZUS reasons for Australia?
-
You're being disingenuous. You only gave reasons why the US wants ANZUS. But why does Australia want it? You didn't say. No one stays in a treaty unless they get something out of it. So, what does Australia want from the ANZUS treaty even assuming that it's true that China will never militarily attack Australia? Does the US Navy protect your suppliers, your customers, your trade routes? Does the US Navy being there allow you to negotiate better deals? Maybe it's the money American sailors spend on shore leave there? What are the ANZUS reasons for Australia?
Partly historical - we've always stood with the US and, for the foreseeable future, will continue to do so almost certainly regardless of ANZUS or otherwise. NZ, for example, is not part of ANZUS because they won't allow nuclear armed ships into port and the US won't confirm which ships carry them. Both perfectly valid positions, so ANZUS was suspended in terms of NZ.
Do we derive benefits? I'm sure there's some economic benefit (US ships don't actually dock here very often, but the marines up in Darwin probably help out a bit). There's joint exercises (which include NZ, Singapore, and other nations in the region - not part of ANZUS or any formal alliance). There's cooperation on intelligence and other military matters which provide day to day benefits. Of course there's the benefit of a powerful ally should something happen and, whilst unlikely, it is still a tangible benefit. Of course, having the treaty doesn't actually mean the US would come to our aid - that's far more likely as a result of the overall relationship, but ANZUS (or any other similar treaty) certainly adds to it.
So, I'm not being disingenuous - I'm pointing out that constantly suggesting it's some sort of one-way street with no benefit to the US is demonstrably wrong and just silly. The value of the *relationship* with the US is far, far more valuable than ANZUS.
Oh, and to answer specific questions - no, the US navy doesn't protect our suppliers, customers, or trade routes by and large. The US navy isn't "here", and their overall presence has zero impact on our ability to negotiate trade deals (Trump pulled the TPP, but Australia still has very favourable trade relations with pretty much the whole of SEA and the Pacific).
Again, I think you have a very inaccurate view of the reach and impact of the USN this side of the Pacific. Obama wanted to increase that presence in response to China in last year of his term - Trump seems ambivalent in that he wants to pressure China but he doesn't want to increase presence (sending a CBG for a FONOP isn't really a general increase in presence).
-
You spend about $195B toward NATO, including stationing about 100,000 personnel. If you pull out, that's either 100,000 people looking for a job (if you cut spending) or you'll deploy them elsewhere in which case you'll save very little.
Let's assume you put them all out of work and consider how that $195B stacks up. The US spends about $3.2T per year on health care, so that $195B is about 6%. Pretty sure increasing expenditure by 6% isn't going to cover current private insurance payments - not by a long shot. So pulling out from Europe wouldn't fix your health care but it would put 100,000 people out of work (or some combination in between, but less out of work means less towards healthcare).
Of course, pulling out of Europe would not only put all those people out of work, but the flow on effect for suppliers and so on would be a significant hit to the US economy (and EU and others, of course).
The problem with addressing issues in the way Trump does is that he never looks at the detail.
I'm not familiar with the numbers, so I'll use yours. Saving $195 Billion would pay for the 30 million Americans who didn't have heath care before Obamacare ($6,500 per person). So we could eliminate Obamacare totally and go back to the system we had and every American would now have health care.
Also, let me explain how an economy works. Spending money on the military does nothing for civilians. It takes away from them. (That's why the Europeans like the current arrangement with NATO where America pays for the military Europe doesn't have to buy). Money saved on military expenditures goes to consumer items. The tax money that I could save that pays for some soldier to drive around in a tank could go for my kid's education or maybe a summer in camp. Soldiers out of work can still work except they'll find jobs making civilian products and doing civilian services. Manufacturers of civilian goods will pickup the slack from military producers because civilians will have more money to spend on civilian goods because their taxes are lower. Corporations will be able to expand and provide more jobs because their taxes are lower too.
As Sanders liberals keep reminding conservatives, America spent US$6 trillion dollars on foreign wars since 911. Do you realize how many aspirins that buys?
-
Partly historical - we've always stood with the US and, for the foreseeable future, will continue to do so almost certainly regardless of ANZUS or otherwise. NZ, for example, is not part of ANZUS because they won't allow nuclear armed ships into port and the US won't confirm which ships carry them. Both perfectly valid positions, so ANZUS was suspended in terms of NZ.
Do we derive benefits? I'm sure there's some economic benefit (US ships don't actually dock here very often, but the marines up in Darwin probably help out a bit). There's joint exercises (which include NZ, Singapore, and other nations in the region - not part of ANZUS or any formal alliance). There's cooperation on intelligence and other military matters which provide day to day benefits. Of course there's the benefit of a powerful ally should something happen and, whilst unlikely, it is still a tangible benefit. Of course, having the treaty doesn't actually mean the US would come to our aid - that's far more likely as a result of the overall relationship, but ANZUS (or any other similar treaty) certainly adds to it.
So, I'm not being disingenuous - I'm pointing out that constantly suggesting it's some sort of one-way street with no benefit to the US is demonstrably wrong and just silly. The value of the *relationship* with the US is far, far more valuable than ANZUS.
Oh, and to answer specific questions - no, the US navy doesn't protect our suppliers, customers, or trade routes by and large. The US navy isn't "here", and their overall presence has zero impact on our ability to negotiate trade deals (Trump pulled the TPP, but Australia still has very favourable trade relations with pretty much the whole of SEA and the Pacific).
Again, I think you have a very inaccurate view of the reach and impact of the USN this side of the Pacific. Obama wanted to increase that presence in response to China in last year of his term - Trump seems ambivalent in that he wants to pressure China but he doesn't want to increase presence (sending a CBG for a FONOP isn't really a general increase in presence).
I didn't mean to imply that America wasn't getting something out of our relationship. I think we've both done well together over the years. I was just trying to understand what Australia gets out of it and you've given some reasons. One comment though. I believe America does protect your suppliers, customers and trade routes. If America isn't around the Pacific, China would put pressure on Japan and other Pacific nations where trade deals might not be so favorable to you. China will want to sell their stuff to them rather than allow you too. With a Chinese gun to Japan's head, your trade officials and companies might not be as welcomed there.
I'm curious about your perspective about the carrier group Trump just sent through the South China Sea. You don't feel it made much impact to China? That's not good. Personally, I think Trump made a huge mistake when he went back to a two China policy without getting anything for changing his position. By giving away that chip so quickly, he showed China his weakness. Another Obama? He did a similar thing with NATO and his requirement to Europe to pay more. He might not be such a great deal maker he thinks he is.
-
make the last post ...a one-China policy....
-
I'm not familiar with the numbers, so I'll use yours. Saving $195 Billion would pay for the 30 million Americans who didn't have heath care before Obamacare ($6,500 per person). So we could eliminate Obamacare totally and go back to the system we had and every American would now have health care.
Also, let me explain how an economy works. Spending money on the military does nothing for civilians. It takes away from them. (That's why the Europeans like the current arrangement with NATO where America pays for the military Europe doesn't have to buy). Money saved on military expenditures goes to consumer items. The tax money that I could save that pays for some soldier to drive around in a tank could go for my kid's education or maybe a summer in camp. Soldiers out of work can still work except they'll find jobs making civilian products and doing civilian services. Manufacturers of civilian goods will pickup the slack from military producers because civilians will have more money to spend on civilian goods because their taxes are lower. Corporations will be able to expand and provide more jobs because their taxes are lower too.
As Sanders liberals keep reminding conservatives, America spent US$6 trillion dollars on foreign wars since 911. Do you realize how many aspirins that buys?
It's about $10k per person on healthcare, for reference.
As to explaining how an economy works, thanks. My decades in international trade finance and banking, a master's degree, and so on, never taught me anything to do with that... You're wrong. Spending money on anything affects everything. A large portion of people employed as a result of the military are not military personnel. Their supplies aren't made by the military, they're made by civilian contractors, other businesses and so on. Yes, you might be taxed less, but overall the economy contracts because 100,000 people suddenly don't have an income. Also, don't bet that you'll be taxed less - the US is already running at a loss - savings ought to go to paying down that enormous debt before you just hand it back to people who may or may not spend it (it's far more complicated than you're making out - not everyone spends more when they have more - a lot of people pay down debt, increase savings, or and so on). If you really want a discussion on the economics of this, start a new thread, because we have so many pages of discussion to add it really should stand alone.
$6T is a lot more than $195B and that $195B doesn't count the real economic cost of losing all those jobs and contracts and so on.
-
It's about $10k per person on healthcare, for reference.
As to explaining how an economy works, thanks. My decades in international trade finance and banking, a master's degree, and so on, never taught me anything to do with that... You're wrong. Spending money on anything affects everything. A large portion of people employed as a result of the military are not military personnel. Their supplies aren't made by the military, they're made by civilian contractors, other businesses and so on. Yes, you might be taxed less, but overall the economy contracts because 100,000 people suddenly don't have an income. Also, don't bet that you'll be taxed less - the US is already running at a loss - savings ought to go to paying down that enormous debt before you just hand it back to people who may or may not spend it (it's far more complicated than you're making out - not everyone spends more when they have more - a lot of people pay down debt, increase savings, or and so on). If you really want a discussion on the economics of this, start a new thread, because we have so many pages of discussion to add it really should stand alone.
$6T is a lot more than $195B and that $195B doesn't count the real economic cost of losing all those jobs and contracts and so on.
You're $10,000 in medical costs may be correct as an mean average. But that would include people over 65 years who have much larger medical expenses than those under 65. The 30 million people without insurance have to be under 65. Otherwise they would already be covered by Medicare, a government program. So the medical cost aggregate for the 30 million would be a lot less than $10,000 each, especially when you consider that the young in that group have really smaller health costs. Regardless of the actual amount, the savings would provide a huge amount of money for the government to pay medical expenses for people without health insurance.
Your arguments about jobs and the economy are also incorrect. The government and the tax payers save the taxes going for salaries for personnel whether they're soldiers or civilians working for the military. Those tax savings will be spent on civilian cars made by General Motors rather than for fighter jets built by Lockheed. Sure, jobs would have to shift. But that's happening all the time in a dynamic economy like ours. Regarding no jobs for 100,000 is wrong too. When WWII ended, 95% of 12 million American soldiers and sailors were fired back into civilian life. The American economy boomed. 100,000 would be easily absorbed in no time. You wouldn't even notice it.
You are right that we may be taxed the same. Well, that means we can lower the deficit and maybe start to pay down the debt. The bottom line is a military costs a society and does not benefit it beyond the protection it provides the country. Finally, if it is such a great deal for a country's economy, why don't the Europeans spend more on their military rather than ask us to pick up the slack?
-
You are right that we may be taxed the same. Well, that means we can lower the deficit and maybe start to pay down the debt. The bottom line is a military costs a society and does not benefit it beyond the protection it provides the country. Finally, if it is such a great deal for a country's economy, why don't the Europeans spend more on their military rather than ask us to pick up the slack?
Well as it seems Trump will raise the USA debt by great margin... ( and that has nothing to do with Europe or any other external cause)
You will not hear him about lowering the debt again if he wants to spend an extra 50.000.000.000$ on defence and needs more nuclear heads so he can destroy the earth an extra time more than the Russians. At the same time he cuts on clean water and pollution by cars... In the mean time he twitters his ears of with anything that came to his mind ... accusing people without any evidence...
I have never heard Obama talk about badly about the Bush administration... stop nagging and do what you are elected for...
-
You're $10,000 in medical costs may be correct as an mean average. But that would include people over 65 years who have much larger medical expenses than those under 65. The 30 million people without insurance have to be under 65. Otherwise they would already be covered by Medicare, a government program.
There are people who never worked and therefore never paid Medicare taxes and thus are not eligible for Medicare. They can pay for Part A (hospitalization, the normally free part of Medicare) and of course Part B & D, the parts that cover doctor visits and prescription drugs.
-
Your arguments about jobs and the economy are also incorrect. The government and the tax payers save the taxes going for salaries for personnel whether they're soldiers or civilians working for the military. Those tax savings will be spent on civilian cars made by General Motors rather than for fighter jets built by Lockheed. Sure, jobs would have to shift. But that's happening all the time in a dynamic economy like ours. Regarding no jobs for 100,000 is wrong too. When WWII ended, 95% of 12 million American soldiers and sailors were fired back into civilian life. The American economy boomed. 100,000 would be easily absorbed in no time. You wouldn't even notice it.
There was very large inflation because consumer goods were in very short supply and also there was rationing and price controls on lots of stuff. The changeover from a military to civilian economy did not happen overnight. there was a big dislocation as not only the American military but also all the civilians who were employed in the military economy also lost their jobs. My dad was a project manager at in the aircraft industry and he and another fellow were pretty lucky in that they were able to start up an architecture and engineering firm right after the war's end. It took them about two years before there was significant business in San Diego which whose economy was close to 100% dependent on the military during WWII. It remained heavily dependent on the military for almost two decades after the war. When I was in elementary school our field trips were to submarines, aircraft carriers, and the local marine base. We had regular military parades on Memorial day. the big transition started around 1960 when the new University of California campus opened and new spin off industries developed.
-
There are people who never worked and therefore never paid Medicare taxes and thus are not eligible for Medicare. They can pay for Part A (hospitalization, the normally free part of Medicare) and of course Part B & D, the parts that cover doctor visits and prescription drugs.
That doesn't change the point I was making at all. The extra tax money saved on military reduction would go a long way to help people without healthcare or used for other government services. Liberals have been arguing that for decades. Now that Trump is President, suddenly they've become military hawks and want to go to war with Russia. Pass the ammunition!
-
There was very large inflation because consumer goods were in very short supply and also there was rationing and price controls on lots of stuff. The changeover from a military to civilian economy did not happen overnight. there was a big dislocation as not only the American military but also all the civilians who were employed in the military economy also lost their jobs. My dad was a project manager at in the aircraft industry and he and another fellow were pretty lucky in that they were able to start up an architecture and engineering firm right after the war's end. It took them about two years before there was significant business in San Diego which whose economy was close to 100% dependent on the military during WWII. It remained heavily dependent on the military for almost two decades after the war. When I was in elementary school our field trips were to submarines, aircraft carriers, and the local marine base. We had regular military parades on Memorial day. the big transition started around 1960 when the new University of California campus opened and new spin off industries developed.
But that was 10 million people in a population of 130 million. Here, we're talking about 100,000 people in a population of 330 million and the economy is more civilian oriented then after the war. The 100,000 would be absorbed so quickly. You'd never notice it.
-
There are a little under 8,000,000 unemployed people in the US (those figures are under baked because of how it's reported, but we'll use the official figures). Sure, another 100,000 isn't a huge percentage of that, but to suggest they'd be easily absorbed and would suddenly find employment ignores the existing pool of unemployed people. To suggest that they would also be able to replace their incomes (which includes medical cover, often housing and meals and so on as part of the overall package) right away is also wrong. If you did it in anything less than 10 years you'd sure as hell notice it. The US economy has far less capacity to absorb and is far less dynamic and agile than post WWII.
Also, a great many of the people returning from WWII had jobs prior to the war, many of which were put on hold. When they came back, they resumed those jobs as the economy shifted back to a peacetime footing. They also weren't competing with a large existing unemployment base.
Basically, the two situations are not comparable.
-
There are a little under 8,000,000 unemployed people in the US (those figures are under baked because of how it's reported, but we'll use the official figures). Sure, another 100,000 isn't a huge percentage of that, but to suggest they'd be easily absorbed and would suddenly find employment ignores the existing pool of unemployed people. To suggest that they would also be able to replace their incomes (which includes medical cover, often housing and meals and so on as part of the overall package) right away is also wrong. If you did it in anything less than 10 years you'd sure as hell notice it. The US economy has far less capacity to absorb and is far less dynamic and agile than post WWII.
Also, a great many of the people returning from WWII had jobs prior to the war, many of which were put on hold. When they came back, they resumed those jobs as the economy shifted back to a peacetime footing. They also weren't competing with a large existing unemployment base.
Basically, the two situations are not comparable.
It is different than WWII. Soldiers are not laid off today like they were after WWII. Today, soldiers rotate back to civilian life when their enlistment (contract) is over. Some will re-enlist for another term. In any case, the reduction of 100,000 will come from not hiring new recruits over 2 or 3 years, not layoffs. There won't be a sudden increase to the labor pool. The same could be done for civilians that work for the military. In any case, many of these are non-American employees who work at American foreign military bases. In any case, the US Government isn't a charity. If we don't need the services of a federal employee, they should be laid off and have to find a civilian job.
I'm not suggesting to leave Europe unprotected. A phasing could also be set up so American forces rotate out of Europe while European countries increase their own military establishment until they can protect themselves. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union with its client states of East Europe. Certainly Europe has the resources today to protect itself. Don't you think so?
-
On the other hand, maybe General (Secretary of State) Mattis told Trump it would be a bad idea to pull out of NATO for another reason beside Russia. After the experiences of WWI and WWII, it seems Europeans have trouble getting along with each other. Maybe we need to stay there to stop them from shooting at each other. With the EU slipping into a more distinct nation-state situation a la Brexit like before the wars, this might be the worse time to pull out, but not because of Russia. If war again breaks out among the European states, we'd be dragged back in again for a third time, certainly more costly than now. NATO would keep the lid on things.
-
Mattis isn't Sec State, but to be honest he'd be a great choice if he wasn't busy being Sec Def.
Europe is extremely unlikely to fight amongst itself outside of Russia being a protagonist. NATO will continue regardless of the state of the EU.
The point of sacking 100,000 people is that there are far more consequences than your suggestion that it will just save money. In the short term, it won't. Until the economy adjusts and they and related industries become productive again, it won't help.
Of course you should reduce your military in areas that you don't need them, but just pointing at Europe and saying you're paying too much without considering what you're really getting is very myopic.
-
The Russian Caper Round 4:
Regarding the tap of Trump Tower, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (2010-2017) on Sunday denied any suggestion that Trump Tower communications were wiretapped before the election.
Regarding Russian collusion, he also stated: "We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."
The whole Russia thing is all BS on both sides. Obama holdovers started the controversy about the Russians by releasing info about Trump from unsubstantiated sources. And Trump responded by accusing their boss with similar unsubstantiated sources. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-james-clapper-i-can-deny-wiretap-trump-tower-n729261
-
The Russian Caper Round 4:
Regarding the tap of Trump Tower, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (2010-2017) on Sunday denied any suggestion that Trump Tower communications were wiretapped before the election.
Regarding Russian collusion, he also stated: "We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."
The whole Russia thing is all BS on both sides. Obama holdovers started the controversy about the Russians by releasing info about Trump from unsubstantiated sources. And Trump responded by accusing their boss with similar unsubstantiated sources. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-james-clapper-i-can-deny-wiretap-trump-tower-n729261
And 3 hours ago this was published:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN16C0MG
Cheers,
Bart
-
And 3 hours ago this was published:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN16C0MG
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, it's in the news over here as well. BTW, did you watch the Groningen/Ajax match today??? I know that is off topic but this is the Coffee Corner!
-
And 3 hours ago this was published:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN16C0MG
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks. Your article supports the same basic thing I said in my previous post. That neither side has any evidence the other side did something wrong. It's all just political posturing on both sides. Unfortunately, we're not discussing the real issues that will effect America and the world.
I just heard that we're going to send ground forces to Syria to challenge ISIS in Raqqa. That seems to comport with Trump's campaign promise to destroy them. I just hope that this is not another war we'll get bogged down in. If ISIS get destroyed, Syrians and other refugees will be able to return home taking a lot of pressure off Europe and elsewhere. Sweden will be safer :)
-
If ISIS get destroyed, Syrians and other refugees will be able to return home taking a lot of pressure off Europe and elsewhere. Sweden will be safer :)
Most of the refugees were fleeing from Assad and not ISIS. The land in Syria that ISIS occupy was not heavily populated. Turkey is upset as that land is likely to become Kurdish.
-
Yes, it's in the news over here as well. BTW, did you watch the Groningen/Ajax match today??? I know that is off topic but this is the Coffee Corner!
Hi Alan, no I didn't see the whole match, only fragments.
A good defense helped Groningen to at least gain a point and not let Ajax defeat them.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Most of the refugees were fleeing from Assad and not ISIS. The land in Syria that ISIS occupy was not heavily populated. Turkey is upset as that land is likely to become Kurdish.
What I heard was that's why we're going in not the Kurds. Then the land will be turned back to Syrians.
-
Hi Alan, no I didn't see the whole match, only fragments.
A good defense helped Groningen to at least gain a point and not let Ajax defeat them.
Cheers,
Bart
I've been an Ajax supporter since the days of Cruyff and try to watch every match. I've been disappointed by their play over the past three seasons.
-
Fact: New York man
Alternative fact #1: US citizen
Alternative fact #2: Bosnian Muslim
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-man-arrested-for-allegedly-trying-to-join-isis-extremist-groups/
-
And 1 hour ago (The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/trump-seeks-inquiry-into-allegations-that-obama-tapped-his-phones.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0&referer=
Well, the easy way out for Trump is to reveal his source of information (unless it's only an article on Breitbart.com). He accused the 'dishonest media' of not revealing their sources so, if he's a man, he'll reveal his sources for the allegation ...
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Also on Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN16C0MG
-
Fact: New York man
Alternative fact #1: US citizen
Alternative fact #2: Bosnian Muslim
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-man-arrested-for-allegedly-trying-to-join-isis-extremist-groups/
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/kent-shooting-victim-says-he-was-told-go-back-to-your-own-country/
Fact #1: US citizen
Fact #2: Victim is Sikh
Sikh men in particular have reported a rise in verbal abuse and uncomfortable encounters recently, “a kind of prejudice, a kind of xenophobia that is nothing that we’ve seen in the recent past."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fact: New York man
Alternative fact #1: US citizen
Alternative fact #2: Bosnian Muslim
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-man-arrested-for-allegedly-trying-to-join-isis-extremist-groups/
Not sure of your point, other than that a young man with drug problems and possible mental health issues could be a good target for extremist views. In this case, jihadism, but he doesn't seem a whole lot different than the kind of young recruits that white supremacists ensnare now and then. Not sure where the link to Bosnia is from – he told investigators that be became a Muslim in Montenegro.
Bumbling wannabe jihadist tries to join ISIS in Syria: feds (http://nypost.com/2017/03/04/terror-suspect-wanted-to-join-isis-as-suicide-bomber-feds/)
The fight against ISIS will need to reach much farther than "on the ground" in Syria and Iraq. The organization has extensive funding that needs to be stopped (and who knows where THAT leads) as well as a sophisticated recruitment team and strategy that preys on the psychologically vulnerable. Not an easy task. The rise of extremism is one of the 'unintended consequences' of global connectedness. Individuals with sick and destructive viewpoints find a 'like-minded' community. And individuals who are angry/troubled/questioning are sucked in by recruiters who have been specially trained for the purpose. How much easier is it when someone on the cusp of turning to extremism has his/her fears confirmed by xenophobic rhetoric and actions?
Years ago, there was a book called "Crazy for God" written by a former "Moonie" (member of Reverand Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church). The book detailed the way that members were 'brainwashed'. No wonder: a high-level Church official was a former member of the North Korean secret police. I met the author (accompanied him on an author tour in Toronto). He seemed to have been 'shattered' by his experience. Very scary stuff.
Redzepagic (the jihadist wannabe)
-
... Not sure where the link to Bosnia is from – he told investigators that be became a Muslim in Montenegro...
That's a Bosnian name, and Montenegro is bordering with Bosnia. Islam expands, you know.
Not sure of your point, other than that a young man with drug problems and possible mental health issues could be a good target for extremist views...
My point is that the media are using weaseling descriptions, like "New York man, "U.S. citizen," without once mentioning that he is a Muslim and immigrant/refugee in the first or second generation. Just as you failed to include that in your list of "predispositions" ("drug problems and possible mental health issues").
P.S. Thanks for posting his picture, glorifying the SOB
-
(http://i1173.photobucket.com/albums/r589/duadmin/170306-trump-back-at-work_zpsl915bazu.jpg)
And now he's hiding in the White House...
Sad!
-
Just a word on the popular vote. When a president only gets by with an Electoral College victory but loses the popular vote by a huge landslide it matters. It means the president has no mandate and will receive little support from the opposition party. His own party will be with him as long as he doesn't become a liability and threaten their chances to be reelected. Trump is below water in the polls and he is at his limit for his own party to keep supporting him. The 2018 Congressional Elections are not that far away and in the House of Representatives the popular vote matters. In the Senate the popular vote matters. So a president losing the popular vote by the margin that Trump did is a real concern to the Republican Politicians in the Congress. Although outwardly they may act like it doesn't matter you can bet privately they are very concerned. As November 2018 draws closer we will begin to see many Republican Congress members begin to distance themselves from Trump and maybe even aggressively oppose him.
-
None of that stuff matters. If Trump gets the economy going, Republicans will benefit in the election. That's why Democrats are trying to slow down his agenda by demanding investigations to sow confusion in Republican ranks.
-
Democrats lost more than 1000 seats, states, federal, governorship, during the Obama era, most of it before Trump. Think about it.
-
Yes, and then they lost the WH. Can you see the trend?
-
Coincidentally I was reading on the Alan Turing website about Fuzzy logic, when that whole "alternative fact" thing took place.
http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/Reference%20Articles/what_is_AI/What%20is%20AI07.html
Some expert systems use fuzzy logic. In standard, non-fuzzy, logic there are only two "truth values", true and false. This is a somewhat unnatural restriction, since we normally think of statements as being nearly true, partly false, truer than certain other statements, and so on.
-
I really got the impression that right after the elections the democrats started a media offensive amongst other things. And I wondered whether it may have tainted the media coverage in general. Purely as an example the coverage of what became known as "Muslim ban".
Trump clearly stated in his somewhat limited eloquence, that he wanted to stop the inflow of immigrants UNTIL they sorted out how to better filter individuals for terrorism. In other words: you could also call it a "Terrorist ban".
Big difference in framing.
Then you get the tearjerking stories about a child being held in transit, which may had nothing to do with the ban, but more with having separate passports, which has always been a trigger to stop someone at the border because of child abduction risks.
It's getting increasingly hard to filter the news in general, right-wing or left-wing, for truly independent newsvalue. And that is probably the most dangerous result from all of this. It's one thing to block the newsoutlets from access, it is entirely another to have it flooded with "fake news" or "fuzzy news" from both sides...
-
I really got the impression that right after the elections the democrats started a media offensive amongst other things. And I wondered whether it may have tainted the media coverage in general. Purely as an example the coverage of what became known as "Muslim ban".
Trump clearly stated in his somewhat limited eloquence, that he wanted to stop the inflow of immigrants UNTIL they sorted out how to better filter individuals for terrorism. In other words: you could also call it a "Terrorist ban".
Except that it is intended to be a Muslim ban (as Trump promised in his campaign speeches "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-muslim-ban-rudy-giuliani-how-legally-create-islam-us-immigration-entry-visa-new-york-a7552751.html
Of course it is ineffective, because it doesn't target all Muslims (e.g. SaudiArabia, Egypt, Indonesia, etc. are not included), and not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims. But because it is ineffective (most terrorist acts are by 'Nationals' anyway) doesn't take away from the intent. And that intent makes people less safe, because it helps to radicalize people against the Western cultures.
The new ban 'looks' a bit more legal, e.g. it no longer includes those already vetted with valid visa/greencard, but it still discriminates based on place of birth (instead of place of residence/upbringing, travel route, affiliations, other criteria, that could benefit a relevant risk assessment). But it remains ineffective, it's symbol politics, aimed at a gullible group of supporters.
It's getting increasingly hard to filter the news in general, right-wing or left-wing, for truly independent newsvalue.
That's the whole purpose of spreading Fake news, Alternative facts, it's a tactic of spreading disinformation.
And that is probably the most dangerous result from all of this. It's one thing to block the newsoutlets from access, it is entirely another to have it flooded with "fake news" or "fuzzy news" from both sides...
It so far looks like Trump's 'Alternative reality' machine, AKA Parallel universe, is generating most of the Alternative facts, i.e. fabricated lies. It's partly psychological (Trump believes fabrications that favor him), and a strategy to detract from other issues. Disinformation is a known tactic, it makes less informed people unsure what to believe (even to the point of doubting credible sources) and it take time/resources to debunk, time which cannot be spent (by investigative journalism) on other issues. It makes people indifferent, and less (self-)critical, it promotes information bias, and cognitive dissonance.
It is still not cleared up what caused Trump's accusations of Obama ordering a wiretapping of Trump in his Trump tower. The authorities who should know, deny that such an operation existed and add that such accusations hurt the intelligence community (which is part of Trump's tactics):
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16D21T
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just a word on the popular vote. When a president only gets by with an Electoral College victory but loses the popular vote by a huge landslide it matters. It means the president has no mandate and will receive little support from the opposition party.
I am not sure that is valid.
1. It would depend on what the word Mandate means in this context. In a political environment where close to 50% of the eligible voters choose not to vote, can any president claim to have a "mandate from the people"?
2. Winning the Electoral Vote which is intended to represent the majority of votes in the majority of states (as opposed to simply the majority of votes) could be considered a mandate in itself.
3. We have had presidents that have won both the Electoral College and the Popular Vote and still received little support from the opposition party. Of course this depends on how one measures "little support".
I am not sure that the popular vote has that much influence on how successful a president is. The popular vote is a popular venue for complaints (if your guy is the loser) or pride (if your guy wins). But ultimately, after the election, I think the popular vote numbers really have limited influence.
-
Coincidentally I was reading on the Alan Turing website about Fuzzy logic, when that whole "alternative fact" thing took place.
http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/Reference%20Articles/what_is_AI/What%20is%20AI07.html
Welcome back, Oscar!
-
That's the whole purpose of spreading Fake news, Alternative facts, it's a tactic of spreading disinformation.
I always understood that this spreading of disinformation had the intent of manipulating public opinion. Once the channels become flooded, an entirely new problem surfaces: the fact that it is (or at least used to be) the job of journalism to separate the wheat from the chaff, and whether they are able to do so properly. This is a separate issue from "investigative journalism", since they already use the framing as presented by respective sides, like naming a "temporary travel ban" a "Muslim ban" when you already pointed out that not all muslims are targeted (nor deported for that matter). It is very interesting to read the original EXO, which includes for example the protection against revenge crimes.
Or singling out stories of individual cases, however sad, bad, or contorted they may be, where they are not relevant to a larger policy institution. This by the way is something typical of recent times, where you even see this happening in national politics.
I don't want national politicians to focus on individual cases. In fact, it should be, and may even already be, illegal, if you think about that.
And when a Judge finds your policy not legally supported, it doesn't mean he/she is against the policy, it should merely be a state of legal facts that some policy doesn't have the correct legal bases or implementation (yet).
-
Welcome back, Oscar!
Thanks, and good to see you still here. I'm planning on contributing regularly again.
-
It is still not cleared up what caused Trump's accusations of Obama ordering a wiretapping of Trump in his Trump tower. The authorities who should know, deny that such an operation existed and add that such accusations hurt the intelligence community (which is part of Trump's tactics):
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16D21T
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, it will be interesting to see what unfolds. It did get me thinking: if a US adversary would run for president, does that exempt him/her from wiretapping? (If for example the Russian ties of Trump or his team were reasons for concern and thus wiretapping did happen prior to him running for president?)
-
Yes, it will be interesting to see what unfolds. It did get me thinking: if a US adversary would run for president, does that exempt him/her from wiretapping? (If for example the Russian ties of Trump or his team were reasons for concern and thus wiretapping did happen prior to him running for president?)
First and foremost, a President cannot order such a(n alleged) wiretap. There is a formal legal process for that, proportionality, checks, and balances, so multiple people would be in the know. Second, anybody could be wiretapped, but only if there is a legal ground for that. Third, we do not know what the secret services already know. Which might be a reason to undermine their credibility.
I could imagine that people like (former election campaign manager) Paul Manafort are on a watch-list, because it was known to everybody (apparently except Trump) that he had prior connections to dictatorial regimes and helped to get some very bad people elected as president there.
But that's not the same as claiming that the (former) President ordered a wiretap on a specific person, especially if the source was nothing more than an article on a website. If that's the case, then one might question the mental stability of the person making such claims.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I could imagine that people like (former election campaign manager) Paul Manafort are on a watch-list, because it was known to everybody (apparently except Trump) that he had prior connections to dictatorial regimes and helped to get some very bad people elected as president there.
But that's not the same as claiming that the (former) President ordered a wiretap on a specific person, especially if the source was nothing more than an article on a website. If that's the case, then one might question the mental stability of the person making such claims.
Cheers,
Bart
well, careful phrasing is not the current president's forté, that's for sure.
What about Steve Bannon? Could he be considered a "liability" given his background?
-
It's getting increasingly hard to filter the news in general, right-wing or left-wing, for truly independent newsvalue. And that is probably the most dangerous result from all of this. It's one thing to block the newsoutlets from access, it is entirely another to have it flooded with "fake news" or "fuzzy news" from both sides...
The news is distorted to fit their viewers. They preach to the choir. If they were to change it and make it more fair and balanced, they would lose their viewers. So the bias continues. If you read the comments in the liberal NY Times, you'll see 90% are biased liberal. Similar with Washington Post. Ditto with cable. MSNBC is very liberal, CNN less so, Fox is more to the right. You have to watch all sides to get different viewpoints then make up your own mind. Unfortunately, most people just want to be in the choir.
-
Most people know bigotry when they see it.
-
The news is distorted to fit their viewers. They preach to the choir. If they were to change it and make it more fair and balanced, they would lose their viewers. So the bias continues. If you read the comments in the liberal NY Times, you'll see 90% are biased liberal. Similar with Washington Post. Ditto with cable. MSNBC is very liberal, CNN less so, Fox is more to the right. You have to watch all sides to get different viewpoints then make up your own mind. Unfortunately, most people just want to be in the choir.
You are obviously convinced that the right are right and the left are wrong? Your bias is blatant
and you aren't in a position to preach about impartiality. :(
-
No. 2 Senate Republican says Senate to probe Trump's wiretap claims:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16E2DT
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fact-checking Trump's tweet about Guantanamo Bay detainees:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-checking-trumps-tweet-guantanamo-bay-detainees/story?id=45960699
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are obviously convinced that the right are right and the left are wrong? Your bias is blatant
and you aren't in a position to preach about impartiality. :(
Yes, I am biased like most people. But I'm an individual, not a news outlet. They should be unbiased so we can get the full story. Don't you think so?
-
Trump says Exxon expansion program reflects his jobs campaign promise, but plan was hatched in 2013:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-exxon-expansion-program-reflects-jobs-campaign-promise/story?id=45955001
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump says Exxon expansion program reflects his jobs campaign promise, but plan was hatched in 2013:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-exxon-expansion-program-reflects-jobs-campaign-promise/story?id=45955001
Cheers,
Bart
Trump's a piker. Obama has taken credit for 12 million jobs since 2009.
-
Trump says Exxon expansion program reflects his jobs campaign promise, but plan was hatched in 2013: ...
So?
...Still, during a keynote speech Monday at an oil and gas industry conference in Houston, Woods gave credit to the Trump administration.
"Investments of this scale require a pro-growth approach and a stable regulatory environment, and we appreciate the president's commitment to both,"
Have you ever asked yourself why the so-called Obama recovery is the longest recovery in the history of recoveries? While corporate profits and cash reserves reached historic proportions?
Companies have been holding off on their plans to spend all that record cash levels, which might have been "hatched" years ago, WAITING for a better business environment. Hence the credit for Trump.
-
Companies have been holding off on their plans to spend all that record cash levels, which might have been "hatched" years ago, WAITING for a better business environment. Hence the credit for Trump.
Really?
Boeing moves ahead with job cuts as 1,800 take buyouts:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/02/news/companies/boeing-job-cuts/
GM to cut another 1,100 jobs:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/news/companies/gm-layoffs/
Walmart Cutting Hundreds of Jobs In Latest Round of Layoffs:
http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/
Apparently, others have also waited for Trump:
"The latest job cuts comes as a number of other retailers slash payrolls too. Macy's (m, +0.65%) said last week it was cutting 10,000 jobs and closing 68 stores this year, while The Limited this weekend laid off 4,000 workers as it closed all its stores but kept its web site active."
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. and some other related news.
Is NAFTA Really to Blame?
Trump's claim that trade deals have led to the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs doesn't hold water.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-02-15/is-donald-trump-right-to-blame-nafta-for-us-job-losses
-
Really?
Boeing moves ahead with job cuts as 1,800 take buyouts:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/02/news/companies/boeing-job-cuts/
GM to cut another 1,100 jobs:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/news/companies/gm-layoffs/
Walmart Cutting Hundreds of Jobs In Latest Round of Layoffs:
http://fortune.com/2017/01/10/walmart-jobs-layoffs/
Apparently, others have also waited for Trump:
"The latest job cuts comes as a number of other retailers slash payrolls too. Macy's (m, +0.65%) said last week it was cutting 10,000 jobs and closing 68 stores this year, while The Limited this weekend laid off 4,000 workers as it closed all its stores but kept its web site active."
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. and some other related news.
Is NAFTA Really to Blame?
Trump's claim that trade deals have led to the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs doesn't hold water.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-02-15/is-donald-trump-right-to-blame-nafta-for-us-job-losses
So far, most of the claims Trump makes about creating new jobs are symbolic feel-good measures. I also agree that messing around with border taxes and other trade variables might turn out more negative than positive. The sharpest arrows in his economic quiver are lowering personal and business taxes, bringing back overseas profits of American corporations, reducing regulation and freshening up Obamacare to take the pressure off of businesses.
-
Companies have been holding off on their plans to spend all that record cash levels, which might have been "hatched" years ago, WAITING for a better business environment. Hence the credit for Trump.
most of the cash you are referring to is held by overseas subsidiaries that were set up for tax purposes and really serve no useful function other than to just sit there. I don't think this is "waiting for a better business environment" but rather waiting until the tax laws are changed to encouraged repatriation of those funds. This was done back in 2002 or thereabouts under Bush-II. The claim was that the money coming back was going to spur a tremendous amount of new business in the US. It was principally used to buy back shares of the company which made the stock price higher which led to higher CEO pay because the company surpassed the metrics that the compensation consultants helped establish. Certainly this is what the companies that had huge overseas holdings did. I was working in the industry at the time and there was no huge uptick in R&D expenditures following repatriation but there was an increase in senior level compensation. I look at all the 10-K filings of companies I have equity holdings (about 25, most of which are multinational) and I think pretty much the same thing that happened in 2002 will happen again.
Despite my pessimism outlined above in terms of massive increases in economic activity (there might be some but don't expect huge numbers of jobs to be created), the US corporate tax rate really needs to be drastically changed. The tax preferences need to be closed and the rates lowered or eliminated and replaced by a standard value added tax (doubt the 2nd choice will happen). We'll see what comes up but if it's just going to be tinkering the way they did the Obamacare replacement, count me disappointed.
-
The sharpest arrows in his economic quiver are lowering personal and business taxes, bringing back overseas profits of American corporations, reducing regulation and freshening up Obamacare to take the pressure off of businesses.
How is changing Obamacare going to take the pressure off of business. All large firms offer plans to employees who don't care about Obamacare. You saw what happened when the Republicans talked about eliminated the corporate tax deduction for employee provided health insurance (the only real way they could pay for their changes). The had to pull back in a hurry. Regarding regulation, it's really not anything at the national level that is holding things back but at the state and local levels. Any new building permits and plans are done at that level and are relatively unaffected by Federal regulations (there could be EPA discharge permits for air and water that would have to be followed but those are probably good things unless you want dirty water, particulates in the air, or smog causing emissions floating around).
-
most of the cash you are referring to is held by overseas subsidiaries that were set up for tax purposes and really serve no useful function other than to just sit there. I don't think this is "waiting for a better business environment" but rather waiting until the tax laws are changed to encouraged repatriation of those funds. This was done back in 2002 or thereabouts under Bush-II. The claim was that the money coming back was going to spur a tremendous amount of new business in the US. It was principally used to buy back shares of the company which made the stock price higher which led to higher CEO pay because the company surpassed the metrics that the compensation consultants helped establish. Certainly this is what the companies that had huge overseas holdings did. I was working in the industry at the time and there was no huge uptick in R&D expenditures following repatriation but there was an increase in senior level compensation. I look at all the 10-K filings of companies I have equity holdings (about 25, most of which are multinational) and I think pretty much the same thing that happened in 2002 will happen again.
Despite my pessimism outlined above in terms of massive increases in economic activity (there might be some but don't expect huge numbers of jobs to be created), the US corporate tax rate really needs to be drastically changed. The tax preferences need to be closed and the rates lowered or eliminated and replaced by a standard value added tax (doubt the 2nd choice will happen). We'll see what comes up but if it's just going to be tinkering the way they did the Obamacare replacement, count me disappointed.
Profits brought back from overseas will be taxed reducing government debt and deficits, always a good thing. Some of it will be used for investments by the corporations who own the profits. Even the money used for stock buybacks go to the stock sellers who will have money they can put back into the economy with purchases of goods, services, stocks, bonds, real estate and other business investments.
-
...I don't think this is "waiting for a better business environment" but rather waiting until the tax laws are changed to encouraged repatriation of those funds...
Well, changing tax laws is a part of the better business environment, isn't it?
-
Really? ...
Really.
Citing struggling brick-and-mortar retailers, caving in to online sales, doesn't change the argument. An economy of the US size is a huge organism, with parts withering away and new ones being created simultaneously. It doesn't change the fact that, overall, companies have had record profits and record cash reserves during Obama years and decided to wait and see.
-
How is changing Obamacare going to take the pressure off of business. All large firms offer plans to employees who don't care about Obamacare. You saw what happened when the Republicans talked about eliminated the corporate tax deduction for employee provided health insurance (the only real way they could pay for their changes). The had to pull back in a hurry. Regarding regulation, it's really not anything at the national level that is holding things back but at the state and local levels. Any new building permits and plans are done at that level and are relatively unaffected by Federal regulations (there could be EPA discharge permits for air and water that would have to be followed but those are probably good things unless you want dirty water, particulates in the air, or smog causing emissions floating around).
Obamacare effects smaller firms with 50 employees or more where the insurance mandate or penalty kicks in. Many companies deliberately stay at 49 employees or less to avoid the penalty. This puts a crimp on business. The problems with Obamacare collapsing in many states sows confusion in larger companies. Health insurance companies like Aetna have stopped providing insurance totally because of the problems with Obamacare. This aggravates issues with smaller companies who should be spending their time doing real business. A company appreciates a stable business environment.
Regarding regulations, while it is true that many of these are state and local, there are still many that are federal. EPA, FDA, etc delay the start and expansion of many businesses. With law suits using these regulations to create unwarranted delays, it can take years to get a business started. Look, everyone is in favor of clean air and water. But people have to have jobs. After all, eating is important too. Many regulations are just too burdensome and could be streamlined to make them more balanced.
-
Health insurance companies like Aetna have stopped providing insurance totally because of the problems with Obamacare.
Yeah, ya know...you might want to catch up. That's what Aetna said last year but they lied (not an unusual event these days.
Aetna Health Insurance Lied About the ACA and Triggers Anti-Trust Claim (http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2017/02/16/atena-health-insurance-lied-about-the-aca/)
Aetna said that they withdrew because the plans they offered under the ACA were not making them money. The government argued that they did it as part of strong arm tactic. They said that Aetna, knowing the impact it would on public perception of the ACA, threatened to leave the program if the merger wasn’t approved
There was a fair bit of evidence that many of the ACA programs were, in fact, making Aetna quite a bit of money. However, the government struggled to produce evidence showing Aetna’s actual motivations in leaving the ACA programs. That is, they were having trouble, until they produced an email from Aetna’s Chief Executive to the Department of Justice itself specifically stating that their participation in the ACA hinged on them being allowed to merge with Humana. From there, they went on to produce conversations with Aetna officers where they heavily suggested, and one time outright stated, that if they weren’t happy with the merger results the government wouldn’t be happy with their involvement in the ACA. They even found emails where, after a series of emails explaining that the withdrawal was to strengthen their position in their upcoming anti-trust lawsuit, Aetna executives actively mentioned they were trying to avoid leaving a paper trail indicating the reason they withdrew from the ACA and making efforts to shield any such evidence from being produced in a lawsuit.
A few weeks ago, in a 156 page monster of a ruling, the court finally agreed with the government and part of that ruling was based on the fact that Aetna had misled the public–and attempted to mislead the court–as to the motivations behind leaving the ACA program.
Typical lies in this alternative fact environment...seems so many people who thought they hated the ACA hated it because of lies and misunderstandings.
The House's plan doesn't even need Democrats to criticize it, the GOP Senate is doing a fine job eviscerating it all by themselves...
So, you see Alan, in this day and age, ya might wanna be REAL careful believing what you THINK you believe if your opinions are based on lies. And as a Trump supported, the lies will just keep coming at ya...until you say ENOUGH!
-
Profits brought back from overseas will be taxed reducing government debt and deficits, always a good thing. Some of it will be used for investments by the corporations who own the profits. Even the money used for stock buybacks go to the stock sellers who will have money they can put back into the economy with purchases of goods, services, stocks, bonds, real estate and other business investments.
If it's anything like 2002 they were brought back at a much reduced rate compared to the nominal corporate tax rate. The analysis done post 2002 is very little was reinvested. Yes, money that goes into stock repurchasing does benefit the investor class but you don't get nearly the multiplier effect that would be achieved by reinvesting in the business. Very little of it trickles down to the the working class. Most companies that engage in stock repurchases also are well known for laying off portions of the work force because of a lack of reinvestment.
-
Well, changing tax laws is a part of the better business environment, isn't it?
If it is done right, absolutely.
-
Health insurance companies like Aetna have stopped providing insurance totally because of the problems with Obamacare. This aggravates issues with smaller companies who should be spending their time doing real business. A company appreciates a stable business environment.
My daughter had an Aetna policy when she lived in Philadelphia. Aetna was exiting the individual policy market even before Obamacare was enacted. They stopped offering individual policies in California in 2013 which is where my daughter moved to.
Regarding regulations, while it is true that many of these are state and local, there are still many that are federal. EPA, FDA, etc delay the start and expansion of many businesses. With law suits using these regulations to create unwarranted delays, it can take years to get a business started. Look, everyone is in favor of clean air and water. But people have to have jobs. After all, eating is important too. Many regulations are just too burdensome and could be streamlined to make them more balanced.
Pretty sure you don't mean FDA as I don't know what regulations they enforce other than those dealing with product quality. almost all lawsuits are local in nature and fall into the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) category. Real estate developers are constantly facing these lawsuits and have pushed for more communities to use eminent domain to counter such lawsuits. When I was called for jury duty several years ago they noted that 3/4 of the trials concerned real estate or building issues. I stand by my statement that local permitting issues are the biggest issue that is faced.
-
The House's plan doesn't even need Democrats to criticize it, the GOP Senate is doing a fine job eviscerating it all by themselves...
Actually, it's not clear it can even pass the House of Representatives. Between the conservative Republicans who oppose the proposal on ideological grounds and the moderate ones who are concerned that it will deprive their constituents of benefits they depend on, the House leadership may not be able to command a majority in favor of this bill.
If by some chance it does make it through the House, Rand Paul (libertarian-conservative) has already predicted—probably accurately—that it will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate.
-
Approximate cover for medical cover in Australia is for an average salary of AU$76,000 about $1,400 per year. (It's called Medicare) It covers doctor and hospital costs.
You can insure privately, (this doesn't cancel your Medicare) for about the same as in the USA.
I'll never forget my brother-in-law's surprise when he had some hospital treatment and asked how to pay. (He's a US citizen). They said just show us your wife's Medicare card - that was it.
-
Yeah, ya know...you might want to catch up. That's what Aetna said last year but they lied (not an unusual event these days.
Aetna Health Insurance Lied About the ACA and Triggers Anti-Trust Claim (http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2017/02/16/atena-health-insurance-lied-about-the-aca/)
Typical lies in this alternative fact environment...seems so many people who thought they hated the ACA hated it because of lies and misunderstandings.
The House's plan doesn't even need Democrats to criticize it, the GOP Senate is doing a fine job eviscerating it all by themselves...
So, you see Alan, in this day and age, ya might wanna be REAL careful believing what you THINK you believe if your opinions are based on lies. And as a Trump supported, the lies will just keep coming at ya...until you say ENOUGH!
You're right about Aetna. I pulled their name out of memory and wasn't aware of the recent history. But you didn't quote my main point that the Obamacare is creating big problems in getting insurance and the 50 employee rule is effecting many businesses stopping their growth. I just Googled the issue and this popped up. It shows how 17 insurance coops have failed. The structure of Obamacare is failing. So something has to be done. http://www.atr.org/new-jersey-obamacare-co-op-becomes-17th-collapse-1
However, I really believe that the Republicans who want to replace it are barking up the wrong tree. So in that sense I agree with you. I don't see how they can change Obamacare fundamentally. Basically the government has to eventually pay for a lot of health care if they want everyone covered as Trump has promised. It will be done with credits instead of grants or whatever. A distinction without a difference. I think Obama won 7 years ago. He established health care for all and that won't be rejected. The methods used will just play around the edges. Obamacare Lite some call it. Unfortunately, without a real competitive situation and the government paying for so much of it directly or with tax credits, the costs will keep going up.
A related story. I just made an appointment for an annual physical. I'm on Medicare. Prior to the doctor's appointment, he mailed me a two page questionnaire that asked questions like Do you think about death? How do you feel about your health? How is sex working for you? All kinds of social and psychological questions, mainly with a few real medical stuff thrown in. I thought it strange and I really couldn't care about telling him this info but I did and sent the form back, less the question about sex. None of his business. Usually, they ask questions regarding past operations and medication you take. Then it hit me. Medicare I believe pays doctors for going over these things with their patients. So now doctors have an easy way to pick up extra money with the cost of a postage stamp and form. Another doctor rip-off thanks to the government. If I was buying insurance, I wouldn't pay for this kind of stuff in my coverage. So when you have the government involved, all sorts of stupid costs are added. Another government boondoggle.
-
If it's anything like 2002 they were brought back at a much reduced rate compared to the nominal corporate tax rate. The analysis done post 2002 is very little was reinvested. Yes, money that goes into stock repurchasing does benefit the investor class but you don't get nearly the multiplier effect that would be achieved by reinvesting in the business. Very little of it trickles down to the the working class. Most companies that engage in stock repurchases also are well known for laying off portions of the work force because of a lack of reinvestment.
Regardless, if a trillion dollars comes home, that's a trilling dollars that will end up in the economy unless the corporations are sticking it under their pillows. Better than leaving it overseas to be invested there and creating foreign jobs, isn't it?
-
... I stand by my statement that local permitting issues are the biggest issue that is faced.
Federal regulations cost America 2 trillion dollars in 2012. For comparison our GDP for 2012 is around 16 trillion. http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Executive-Summary.pdf
Could you find a link for state and local regulation costs so we can see what it is for comparisons?
Regarding codes, NYC recently re-wrote their building codes to streamline them and get rid of many archaic rules that cost a lot but did little to improve safety or construction. Private as well as government saved a lot of money. (Government has to follow the same codes when building as private and the city had to cut costs.) They still have stupid and costly rules that serve no purpose. I once installed a small 1/4 horsepower exhaust fan in a window that we bought for around $150. Code requires that the manufacturer's name and model number be on the engineer's plans that were already filed with the Dept of Building's. So we had to re-hire the engineer at around $700 to update his plans that showed the fan at 1/4 hp but with out the model info. You don't know that at the time of design. Putting that additional info on the plans serves no real purpose. So $750 was spent for no purpose. That doesn't even include the costs for soft labor of arranging an inspection to show the plans match the installation fan nameplate. We're taking about a tiny fan like you would install in your window. It's these kind of regulations that that should be expunge fro local and federal rules.
-
Approximate cover for medical cover in Australia is for an average salary of AU$76,000 about $1,400 per year. (It's called Medicare) It covers doctor and hospital costs.
You can insure privately, (this doesn't cancel your Medicare) for about the same as in the USA.
I'll never forget my brother-in-law's surprise when he had some hospital treatment and asked how to pay. (He's a US citizen). They said just show us your wife's Medicare card - that was it.
How much additional over the $1400 that you pay is in hidden taxes, VAT, sales taxes, income taxes etc that goes for medical care? What are the actual costs for medical care? Cover isn't costs. This reminds me when European photographers report here how a Nikon camera that costs $1000 in B & H in NYC costs $1400 in Europe due to VAT and import duties. Then they tell us how they have free health costs, unlike America. Where do you think the extra $400 is going?
-
How much additional over the $1400 that you pay is in hidden taxes, VAT, sales taxes, income taxes etc that goes for medical care? What are the actual costs for medical care? Cover isn't costs. This reminds me when European photographers report here how a Nikon camera that costs $1000 in B & H in NYC costs $1400 in Europe due to VAT and import duties. Then they tell us how they have free health costs, unlike America. Where do you think the extra $400 is going?
We do have high income taxes and VAT, but (practically) free medical care and education. During the past 6 years I have had two hernia operations and two hip joint replacements, total cost to me about 800€. I have put 3 kids through college (dentist, music teacher, registered nurse) and 3 more are still studying (2 engineers and one engineer/medical student) which has so far cost me, or them, 0€ in tuition fees. They have even spent a total of 4 years in student exchange in Poland, Italy and Belgium. How much would all this have cost us in the States?
I never complain about taxes. Life here is practically stress free.
-
How much additional over the $1400 that you pay is in hidden taxes, VAT, sales taxes, income taxes etc that goes for medical care? What are the actual costs for medical care? Cover isn't costs. This reminds me when European photographers report here how a Nikon camera that costs $1000 in B & H in NYC costs $1400 in Europe due to VAT and import duties. Then they tell us how they have free health costs, unlike America. Where do you think the extra $400 is going?
In Australia, Medicare (government universal healthcare) is funded by a 1.5% income tax levy (so you only pay it if you have a taxable income and it's a flat 1.5% of that taxable income) so it's roughly $1,200 p.a. for the average wage.
As for taxes, as individuals, we basically have income tax, GST (a VAT) at 10%, and stamp duty on property purchases. Stamp duty is state, the other two are federal.
-
And more things are developing, although so far no formal White House decision is made, yet...
Watchdog to ask U.S. lawmakers to probe Icahn's role with Trump:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biofuels-icahn-idUSKBN16F0GR
Cheers,
Bart
-
Federal regulations cost America 2 trillion dollars in 2012. For comparison our GDP for 2012 is around 16 trillion. http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Executive-Summary.pdf
Could you find a link for state and local regulation costs so we can see what it is for comparisons?
Regarding codes, NYC recently re-wrote their building codes to streamline them and get rid of many archaic rules that cost a lot but did little to improve safety or construction. Private as well as government saved a lot of money. (Government has to follow the same codes when building as private and the city had to cut costs.) They still have stupid and costly rules that serve no purpose. I once installed a small 1/4 horsepower exhaust fan in a window that we bought for around $150. Code requires that the manufacturer's name and model number be on the engineer's plans that were already filed with the Dept of Building's. So we had to re-hire the engineer at around $700 to update his plans that showed the fan at 1/4 hp but with out the model info. You don't know that at the time of design. Putting that additional info on the plans serves no real purpose. So $750 was spent for no purpose. That doesn't even include the costs for soft labor of arranging an inspection to show the plans match the installation fan nameplate. We're taking about a tiny fan like you would install in your window. It's these kind of regulations that that should be expunge fro local and federal rules.
I work a lot with architects and they always complain about codes and regulations being too damn burdensome. I could call every single client of mine today and ask if they had a project fall through because of the regulations in the past year, and every single one would say yes go off on a tangent about it.
Some of them make sense, but many do not.
A great example was a client of mine designed a multi-family residential project. Any multi-family with 4 or more units must be ADA compliant. One regulation in the ADA is that the top of all water heaters can be no more then 48 inches off the ground. They drew the plans based on the current specs of the product, however it takes time to get a project going. The following year, when they ordered the heaters, the manufacture increased the height of the heaters by 1/2 inch. They got hit with an ADA non-compliance over a half inch and had to fix it. Fixing it not only meant fixing it on site, but in the plans too; you know how many pages a building plan is for a new construction project? At least a hundred, with separate plans for all the subs. All of those had to be adjusted.
Another client of mine had a really nice office building renovation project with a budget of about $450K. The building was an old two story building with no elevator but built before the ADA. ADA regs now state that all public and work buildings need an elevator. The cost of installing an elevator in this building was $150K, then you through in the yearly maintenance and inspection fees and not to mention the amount of usable space lost. The project died before anything was even drawn.
I remember a few years ago PA was going to make it law that all new single family residential projects (so any house) needed to have a sprinkler system. Eventually PA realized how stupid this was and how much it would slow down single family construction they decided not to pass the bill, but only after probably half of the architects licensed in the state called Harrisburg.
I could go on and on with how regulations killed jobs, and if you ever sit down with an architect, just ask them. I guarantee the conversation won't be short.
So to say regulations don't kill projects is ludicrous.
-
On another note, I love how CNN is now covering Wikileaks agains, but, from about July to November of last year, it was not a credible news source.
-
If you haven't heard about #TheIdesOfTrump, you can read about it here:
https://thebassmanblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/08/the-ides-of-trump/
Briefly, it's a letter and postcard writing campaign for next week.
-
You're right about Aetna. I pulled their name out of memory and wasn't aware of the recent history. But you didn't quote my main point that the Obamacare is creating big problems in getting insurance and the 50 employee rule is effecting many businesses stopping their growth. I just Googled the issue and this popped up. It shows how 17 insurance coops have failed. The structure of Obamacare is failing. So something has to be done. http://www.atr.org/new-jersey-obamacare-co-op-becomes-17th-collapse-1
The Co-ops were under capitalized and claims outran premiums. Not any more complicated than that. I'm not sure that the structure is failing. the states that took the Medicaid expansion money have done well. Kentucky, Alaska, Colorado, and Ohio all have Republican governors (the Kentucky expansion was initially done under a Democrat) and they told President Trump that things were working in their state. The states that didn't take the money are where most of the problems are. I was not a big fan of Obamacare when it was passed. I was still working in the pharmaceutical industry at the time and saw that it was basically put together as a kludge to be able to deliver insurance. It was probably the only thing that was feasible at the time given the Republicans didn't want to participate.
However, I really believe that the Republicans who want to replace it are barking up the wrong tree. So in that sense I agree with you. I don't see how they can change Obamacare fundamentally. Basically the government has to eventually pay for a lot of health care if they want everyone covered as Trump has promised. It will be done with credits instead of grants or whatever. A distinction without a difference. I think Obama won 7 years ago. He established health care for all and that won't be rejected. The methods used will just play around the edges. Obamacare Lite some call it. Unfortunately, without a real competitive situation and the government paying for so much of it directly or with tax credits, the costs will keep going up.
costs have to be controlled. This can be either done by the government (the way they do it with Medicare and Medicaid) or it can be done through negotiation by the insurance carriers (establishing physician networks and getting discounts for services and drugs). to think that individuals can do this on their own is laughable as there is no transparency on pricing or quality of care/service. It's not like buying a car using Internet pricing discounts.
A related story. I just made an appointment for an annual physical. I'm on Medicare. Prior to the doctor's appointment, he mailed me a two page questionnaire that asked questions like Do you think about death? How do you feel about your health? How is sex working for you? All kinds of social and psychological questions, mainly with a few real medical stuff thrown in. I thought it strange and I really couldn't care about telling him this info but I did and sent the form back, less the question about sex. None of his business. Usually, they ask questions regarding past operations and medication you take. Then it hit me. Medicare I believe pays doctors for going over these things with their patients. So now doctors have an easy way to pick up extra money with the cost of a postage stamp and form. Another doctor rip-off thanks to the government. If I was buying insurance, I wouldn't pay for this kind of stuff in my coverage. So when you have the government involved, all sorts of stupid costs are added. Another government boondoggle.
I've been on Medicare for four years and never encountered that. there are some quality metrics that were put into Medicare to improve quality of care but this does sound rather strange. I wouldn't call the effort a boondoggle as one of the most difficult things to do is assess quality of care. A lot of years ago I attended one of the Jackson Hole meeting that were convened by Dr. Paul Ellwood, one of the very early champions of managed care. His big thing was trying to figure out how to assess quality and maximize health outcomes. Unfortunately, this is really an area that is not funded very well.
-
Federal regulations cost America 2 trillion dollars in 2012. For comparison our GDP for 2012 is around 16 trillion. http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Executive-Summary.pdf
Could you find a link for state and local regulation costs so we can see what it is for comparisons?
Regarding codes, NYC recently re-wrote their building codes to streamline them and get rid of many archaic rules that cost a lot but did little to improve safety or construction. Private as well as government saved a lot of money. (Government has to follow the same codes when building as private and the city had to cut costs.) They still have stupid and costly rules that serve no purpose. I once installed a small 1/4 horsepower exhaust fan in a window that we bought for around $150. Code requires that the manufacturer's name and model number be on the engineer's plans that were already filed with the Dept of Building's. So we had to re-hire the engineer at around $700 to update his plans that showed the fan at 1/4 hp but with out the model info. You don't know that at the time of design. Putting that additional info on the plans serves no real purpose. So $750 was spent for no purpose. That doesn't even include the costs for soft labor of arranging an inspection to show the plans match the installation fan nameplate. We're taking about a tiny fan like you would install in your window. It's these kind of regulations that that should be expunge fro local and federal rules.
I was talking specifically about state and local permitting issues. The number that you cite might be accurate though it comes from an industry trade association (I used to work at one and know how the data is sometimes skewed. Of course that amount also covers food and drug regulation and a bunch of other stuff that is probably necessary. The example you cited is a classic one of how states and localities regulate to excess.
-
costs have to be controlled. This can be either done by the government (the way they do it with Medicare and Medicaid) or it can be done through negotiation by the insurance carriers (establishing physician networks and getting discounts for services and drugs). to think that individuals can do this on their own is laughable as there is no transparency on pricing or quality of care/service. It's not like buying a car using Internet pricing discounts.
I agree that costs need to be controlled, however I don't think it has anything to do with what you proposed.
The underlying problem with healthcare in America is that we are so damn unhealthy. We don't exercise, eat right, are obese, causing all kinds of preventable health problems, and then we complain about healthcare being so expensive.
Personally I believe people should be forced to pay more for coverage based on their lifestyle and diet. Money talks and bull shit walks.
Turn being unhealthy into a money problem for people and this will get fixed, or at least it will get better.
-
...costs have to be controlled. This can be either done by the government (the way they do it with Medicare and Medicaid) or it can be done through negotiation by the insurance carriers (establishing physician networks and getting discounts for services and drugs). to think that individuals can do this on their own is laughable as there is no transparency on pricing or quality of care/service. It's not like buying a car using Internet pricing discounts.
I've been on Medicare for four years and never encountered that. there are some quality metrics that were put into Medicare to improve quality of care but this does sound rather strange. I wouldn't call the effort a boondoggle as one of the most difficult things to do is assess quality of care. A lot of years ago I attended one of the Jackson Hole meeting that were convened by Dr. Paul Ellwood, one of the very early champions of managed care. His big thing was trying to figure out how to assess quality and maximize health outcomes. Unfortunately, this is really an area that is not funded very well.
Controlling costs means lowering doctor fees. Many of the better doctors have already pulled out of Medicare. I learned my lession right after I enrolled. I went to a doctor who charged $500. Since he opted out of Medicare, Medicare would not pay as primary and therefore my secondary insurances that I paid for, would not pay either because the primary did not accept it. So I didn't get ten cents back from anyone and had to drop the doctor. My wife's cancer doctor who checks her out every year (she's the best) is going to be a problem when my wife starts Medicare in April. The doctor charges $900, most of which I get back from insurance now. But since she doesn't accept Medicare, and my wife will not give her up annual exams with her, we'll have to pay the full amount next year. The doctor does offer a ten percent discount if you're on Medicare, but that still means $800 out of pocket for a checkup. Of course my wife is worth it. :)
I still think that any kind of competition is better than no competition at all such as with the government as a single payer. In any case, there's no way to pay for it with Obamacare or with some Republican plan. And the government is already broke. Stay healthy, my friend.
The point is the same thing is going to happen with Obamacare, or Trumpcare, or whatever it's called. Doctors go though too many years of training at high expense. If they can't make money, the smarter ones will either opt out or go into more lucrative professions. That will reduce quality care for the average person. Of course the rich will be able to pay for the best out of pocket.
-
The underlying problem with healthcare in America is that we are so damn unhealthy.
Not to be too snarky but the underlying problem with healthcare in America is a belief that there is only one problem with it. This makes identifying a solution much harder.
There are many problems with American Healthcare, very few of which can be fixed quickly.
Like the economy in general, it took us decades to get in to this mess, it will probably take us decades to get out. But people want fast sound-byte solutions "If we only did A, it would solve the problem". That's just not reasonable. To make things even harder, I feel we need two separate solutions
One solution for the long term and one solution to carry us over until the long term solution can take effect. But since the term of a Representative is only 2 years, governmentally, the future is only 18 months. Anything after that is not considered.
The sad news is that there is most likely no cheap solution and no quick solution. Definitely no quick and cheap solution.
-
U.S. senators ask FBI, DOJ for any evidence of Trump wiretap:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16F2AQ
And related:
FBI Director Comey at cyber conference: 'You're stuck with me':
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-comey-idUSKBN16F23N
Comey, who was appointed FBI director by Barack Obama in 2013, urged Justice Department officials to refute Trump's claims because it falsely insinuated the Federal Bureau of Investigation broke the law, U.S. officials said. The department has not acted on his request.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Stay healthy, my friend.
or die young...
-
U.S. senators ask FBI, DOJ for any evidence of Trump wiretap:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretap-idUSKBN16F2AQ
Clapper the Director of National Intelligence said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. But the press only talks about his denial of the tap. Trump is playing the what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since the whole claim about collusion is from unnamed sources, Trump is using unnamed sources to claim a tap. The media is pushing the tap and ignoring the more important Russian collusion claim that's just as phony.
Here's Clapper: "Clapper was also asked on "Meet the Press" if he had any evidence that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russian government while the Kremlin was working to influence the election.
"Not to my knowledge," Clapper said, based on the information he had before his time in the position ended.
"We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-dni-james-clapper-i-can-deny-wiretap-trump-tower-n729261
Here's the full interview transcript: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-03-05-17-n729271
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-08/wikileaks-cia-revelations-look-like-a-dud-for-now
-
Clapper the Director of National Intelligence said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
The wiretap issue is not about the Russian connection or lack thereof. It is about an allegation that the former President of the USA, supposedly broke the law as part of a political campaign.
Sofar, Trump has neither explained his reasons for that claim nor disclosed sources that led him to assuming that. So sofar it's a false allegation, which also reflects badly on the judicial system.
But the press only talks about his denial of the tap.
Clapper, when asked, denied that there was an investigation order, so it's up to Trump to prove otherwise (or explain his tweets).
Cheers,
Bart
-
The wiretap issue is not about the Russian connection or lack thereof. It is about an allegation that the former President of the USA, supposedly broke the law as part of a political campaign.
Sofar, Trump has neither explained his reasons for that claim nor disclosed sources that led him to assuming that. So sofar it's a false allegation, which also reflects badly on the judicial system.
Clapper, when asked, denied that there was an investigation order, so it's up to Trump to prove otherwise (or explain his tweets).
Cheers,
Bart
You totally ignored my post. You're still talking about the tap. Forget the tap. Who cares about what Obama did or didn't? The point is that Clapper said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. That Russia's hack of the Democratic National Committee had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. The Russians did it on their own. Trumps hands are clean. That's what the whole original issue was about.
-
You totally ignored my post. You're still talking about the tap. Forget the tap. Who cares about what Obama did or didn't?
And you are missing the point. It's not about Obama, it's about the current President of the USA who is either telling lies, thereby implicating the former president in breaking the law (or his whole Security administration did), or is so unstable that he bases his actions on unreliable sources and impulsively acts upon whatever they say/suggest. Not the kind of behavior that inspires trust in someone to decides on matters of (inter-)national security. Especially worrying when we know that he will be tested by several foreign powers.
The point is that Clapper said there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. That Russia's hack of the Democratic National Committee had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. The Russians did it on their own. Trumps hands are clean. That's what the whole original issue was about.
All he said was that at that time (of the report after which he left), there was no evidence of collusion. He obviously has no knowledge of what happened since.
From the article you linked to: CHUCK TODD:
There was a conclusion that said, "It's clear that the Russians interfered and did so in an attempt to help Donald Trump." Do you still believe that conclusion?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Yes, I do.
CHUCK TODD:
But at this point, what's not proven is the idea of collusion.
JAMES CLAPPER:
That's correct.
Cheers,
Bart
-
the current President of the USA who is either telling lies, thereby implicating the former president in breaking the law (or his whole Security administration did), or is so unstable that he bases his actions on unreliable sources and impulsively acts upon whatever they say/suggest.
The second explanation seems more plausible to me — at least, in this instance and probably by default. I don't get the impression Trump typically is aware of whether something he says is true or false as long as it fits his narrative of the moment: he seems to be opportunistically delusional. Of course, pathology doesn't entirely rule out mendacity, but I think the publicly-available evidence suggests that he just ... ahhh ... went off his rocker Saturday morning.
-
And you are missing the point. It's not about Obama, it's about the current President of the USA who is either telling lies, thereby implicating the former president in breaking the law (or his whole Security administration did), or is so unstable that he bases his actions on unreliable sources and impulsively acts upon whatever they say/suggest. Not the kind of behavior that inspires trust in someone to decides on matters of (inter-)national security. Especially worrying when we know that he will be tested by several foreign powers.
All he said was that at that time (of the report after which he left), there was no evidence of collusion. He obviously has no knowledge of what happened since.
From the article you linked to:
Cheers,
Bart
Clapper was DNI from 2010 through Jan 2017 long after the campaign ended. What happened "since" occurred after Jan 2017 when he resigned so it has no bearing on any collusion. The collusion in question refers back to the campaign period before the election. He was DNI when the Russians were hacking during the campaign before the election. Therefore he would have been knowledgeable of any FBI CIA or other America intelligence groups whether they had evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians. And he stated as you bolded that there was no proof of collusion. So he denied there was collusion. No one is denying that the Russians hacked the DNC. But the Democrats were trying to stablish the collusion link so they could impeach Trump. Clapper indicated there was no collusion. By the way so did the FBI Director Comey state the same thing. No proof found of collusion.
The tap issue was a diversion, a head fake created by Trump to drag the Democrats and Obama into investigation. You and the entire world's media took the bait. So now the issue is the tap. Who cares about the tap? The worse that would happen is like Sweden, Trump will say he thought it to be a possibility. Unless both Clapper and Comey lied, the main point is no collusion with the Russians which would be an impeachable offense.
-
For the record here is the exact portion of what Clapper told NBC about collusion. It's clear that there was no collusion according to him. Remember, the intelligence groups were investigating all through the campaign. That's how they new the Russians were hacking. Clapper left in Jan 2017 long after the campaign. So one would have to believe that the intelligence groups have figured out collusion since Jan 20th, 2017 and knew nothing about it before. Very unlikely.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, that's an important revelation at this point. Let me ask you this. Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?
JAMES CLAPPER:
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, "our," that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that. But does it exist?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Not to my knowledge.
CHUCK TODD:
If it existed, it would have been in this report?
JAMES CLAPPER:
This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.
CHUCK TODD:
At some--
JAMES CLAPPER:
But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.
CHUCK TODD:
There's a lot of smoke, but there hasn't been that smoking gun yet. At what point should the public start to wonder if this is all just smoke?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Well, that's a good question. I don't know. I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest, in the current President's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom of all this. Because it's such a distraction. And certainly the Russians have to be chortling about the success of their efforts to sow dissention in this country.
CHUCK TODD:
So you feel like your report does not get to the bottom-- you admit your report that you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?
JAMES CLAPPER:
It did-- well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time. Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know.
CHUCK TODD:
There was a conclusion that said, "It's clear that the Russians interfered and did so in an attempt to help Donald Trump." Do you still believe that conclusion?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Yes, I do.
CHUCK TODD:
But at this point, what's not proven is the idea of collusion.
JAMES CLAPPER:
That's correct.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-03-05-17-n729271
-
No collusion is good. Interference is still bad. Interference to support one particular candidate makes you wonder why.
-
No collusion is good. Interference is still bad. Interference to support one particular candidate makes you wonder why.
Trump indicated during the campaign that he wanted a reset with Russia, that he could work with Putin. Hillary wanted to practically go to war with Russia. So if you were Putin, who would you provide interference too? What the Democrats did, however, was to escalate the interference and infer without any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in violation of Federal laws. In fact, the evidence from Clapper and Comey indicates no collusion. Many Democrats still infer that there was collusion of a sitting President. Yet, the same people complain how terrible it is that Trump is accusing a past President of taps. Why is the latter tap charges so bad but not the former collusion charges? What Trump did with the tap accusation, is play the same game that the Democrats were playing against him. Using unproven assumptions to paint a negative picture of the opposite side. Frankly, I think it's all political BS on both sides.
-
Trump indicated during the campaign that he wanted a reset with Russia, that he could work with Putin. Hillary wanted to practically go to war with Russia. So if you were Putin, who would you provide interference too? What the Democrats did, however, was to escalate the interference and infer without any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in violation of Federal laws. In fact, the evidence from Clapper and Comey indicates no collusion. Many Democrats still infer that there was collusion of a sitting President. Yet, the same people complain how terrible it is that Trump is accusing a past President of taps. Why is the latter tap charges so bad but not the former collusion charges? What Trump did with the tap accusation, is play the same game that the Democrats were playing against him. Using unproven assumptions to paint a negative picture of the opposite side. Frankly, I think it's all political BS on both sides.
Because there is zero evidence of the wire tapping. None. Not one single tiny little bit. If there was, it would have been presented.
The question of collusion was not unreasonable given the actions of the Russian state and the meetings and pro-Russia rhetoric coming from Trump and his team. Circumstantial, of course, but not an unreasonable question to be asked.
There's the big difference.
-
Because there is zero evidence of the wire tapping. None. Not one single tiny little bit. If there was, it would have been presented.
Indeed, it's increasingly likely that Trump was triggered by something/someone into sending 4 Tweets about it:
3:35 AM - 4 Mar 2017
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
3:49 AM - 4 Mar 2017
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
3:52 AM - 4 Mar 2017
I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
4:02 AM - 4 Mar 2017
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
That's 4 Tweets in half an hour, something really got him worked-up.
Since his reactions are so impulsive, it would be worthwhile to understand who or what causes these reactions. Alan calls it deliberate actions (to bait the media), but that's unlikely in this case also given earlier reactions that were probably based on TV show items (like in the Sweden case, with a fake expert), and this wiretap-incident might have been triggered by articles on the Breitbart website. This is a concern because of Trump attempts to discredit all information sources that can unveil the truth (a concept that seems alien to Trump), and if he's successful it gives him even more of a free rein (or as he hopes, free reign). Such an unstable person needs high level 'sanity checks'.
The question of collusion was not unreasonable given the actions of the Russian state and the meetings and pro-Russia rhetoric coming from Trump and his team. Circumstantial, of course, but not an unreasonable question to be asked.
There's the big difference.
Exactly! And the reason why Russia interfered with the election process was to weaken the mandate for President Clinton, if she had been elected, or create some leverage with Trump (which there might still be). Anyway, Trump was considered to be a much easier opponent than Clinton, especially when Trump increases the budget deficit (which would limit his maneuvering space) as a result of his plans (that only divide the people more, increase cost for the government and reduce tax revenues).
A weaker, more divided USA, and with issues of damaged international trust, is a much more preferred opponent for Russia than a strong USA under Clinton (who was more seasoned in dealing with Putin's machinations). The weakened Russian economy is a concern for Putin, and there's nothing better than creating a international enemy with trouble at their own home, to have his own population close ranks behind their leader.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If only we could let the experts from outside the US run this country, what a wonderful world it would be!!!
-
If only we could let the experts from outside the US run this country, what a wonderful world it would be!!!
More and more it looks like anyone but Trump will do... even somebody from within the USA ;)
-
Speaking to a biographer in the 1960s, less than 20 years after signing the National Security Act of 1947, Truman...
Merle Miller: Mr. President, I know that you were responsible as President for setting up the CIA. How do you feel about it now?
Truman: I think it was a mistake. And if I'd know what was going to happen, I never would have done it.
the President needed at that time a central organization that would bring all the various intelligence reports we were getting in those days, and there must have been a dozen of them, maybe more, bring them all into one organization so that the President would get one report on what was going on in various parts of the world. Now that made sense, and that's why I went ahead and set up what they called the Central Intelligence Agency.
But it got out of hand. The fella ... the one that was in the White House after me never paid any attention to it, and it got out of hand. Why, they've got an organization over there in Virginia now that is practically the equal of the Pentagon in many ways. And I think I've told you, one Pentagon is one too many.
Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don't just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there's nobody to keep track of what they're up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they'll have something to report on. They've become ... it's become a government all of its own and all secret. They don't have to account to anybody.
That's a very dangerous thing in a democratic society, and it's got to be put a stop to. The people have got a right to know what those birds are up to. And if I was back in the White House, people would know. You see, the way a free government works, there's got to be a housecleaning every now and again, and I don't care what branch of the government is involved. Somebody has to keep an eye on things.
And when you can't do any housecleaning because everything that goes on is a damn secret, why, then we're on our way to something the Founding Fathers didn't have in mind. Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix. And if what happened at the Bay of Pigs doesn't prove that, I don't know what does. You have got to keep an eye on the military at all times, and it doesn't matter whether it's the birds in the Pentagon or the birds in the CIA...
Source: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/truman-was-right-about-the-cia#comments
https://www.amazon.com/Plain-speaking-biography-harry-truman/dp/0425094995
-
Because there is zero evidence of the wire tapping. None. Not one single tiny little bit. If there was, it would have been presented.
The question of collusion was not unreasonable given the actions of the Russian state and the meetings and pro-Russia rhetoric coming from Trump and his team. Circumstantial, of course, but not an unreasonable question to be asked.
There's the big difference.
Long after Clapper and Comey said there was no collusion with Russia of the Trump campaign to swing the election, the Democrats just a few days ago had to walk back their phony charges again. A sitting Senator Coons, a Democrat, was the latest one accusing Trump of violating Federal law that could get him in jail, impeached, etc. This is all part of the Democrat plan to delegitimize him. Of course, you don't think this is a big deal, BECAUSE YOU HATE TRUMP! The Democrats are playing sleaze ball politics with support of the liberal media. But they're dealing with the counter-puncher Trump who knows how to play sleaze ball politics right back. His supporters love it.
Here's the Senator's comments regarding his accusation about Trump. Of course you only read liberal news outlets so you wouldn't know this happened.
==============================
Sen. Chris Coons, Delaware Democrat, on Sunday walked back his bombshell declaration about transcripts showing Russia-Trump collusion, saying he had no proof such documents exist and apologizing for any “hyperventilating.”
“I have no hard evidence of collusion,” Mr. Coons told “Fox News Sunday.”
He said he was sorry for any misinterpretation of his comments, which blew up on social media after a Friday interview on MSNBC.
“So to the extent of those comments, they might be in some way misinterpreted as leading to sort of a hyperventilating attitude here in the Senate about this, I apologize for that,” Mr. Coons said. “That’s not what I was trying to do.”
At the same time, he said, “I am confident that intelligence exists that is relevant to this question. Not that says there is collusion, and proof of it, that’s not what I was trying to say.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/5/chris-coons-walks-back-talk-of-russia-trump-collus/
-
Slobodan: Thanks for posting the Truman quote about the CIA "black state". Henry Stimson, US secretary of state, sniffed in 1929 as he closed down his department’s code-cracking outfit., "Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail." Obviously, no one listen to him.
America did not have a national intelligence service until 1946, when the wartime Office of Strategic Services morphed into the Central Intelligence Agency. Today, the US has 16 agencies spying on literally everybody – including, apparently, the German chancellor. Now I learned that the NSA is listening in to my conversations through my smart TV. I wonder if they're tracking the arguments I have with my wife?
-
HR 1275
Long title
"To eliminate the individual and employer health coverage mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to expand beyond that Act the choices in obtaining and financing affordable health insurance coverage, and for other purposes."
Short title
"World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017"
That's hubris.
-
Further to my profile motto, I've come across this visual representation: seeing things only one way is a sure dead end ;)
-
Further to my profile motto, I've come across this visual representation: seeing things only one way is a sure dead end ;)
Nice one.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Further to my profile motto, I've come across this visual representation: seeing things only one way is a sure dead end ;)
Well seen.
-
Long after Clapper and Comey said there was no collusion with Russia of the Trump campaign to swing the election...
Actually, what was said was there was no evidence–at that time–of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia...pretty sure the investigation is ongoing and more and more instances of unusual circumstances keep coming out...
Republicans adopted pro-Russia stance on Ukraine as Trump officials met with Russian ambassador (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-russia-republican-pro-putin-ukraine-stance-rnc-ambassador-kislyak-meeting-a7610621.html)
Donald Trump appears to have pushed for the Republicans to adopt a pro-Moscow policy over Ukraine just as his senior aides were meeting with Russia’s US Ambassador.
At the Republican National Convention last summer, the party agreed to insert language into its platform that opposed arming or providing Ukraine with weapons to take on pro-Russian rebels. At the time, Mr Trump told an interviewer he “wasn’t involved in it”.
But now, a former adviser to Mr Trump has revealed that the push to change the platform came after the direct intervention of the New York tycoon. Mr Trump had hinted as to his views on Ukraine during a speech in the spring of 2016, where the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, was among the guests.
It just keeps dribbling in drop by drop...kinda like Podesta's emails.
Even if Trump and Putin are not in cahoots, it sure looks like they are and even that appearance of impropriety hurts America. But, since Trump made the really STUPID mistake of claiming that Obama wiretapped him, he has incentivized Congress and the media to keep investigating and his AG is on the sidelines because he recused himself because, well he did meet with Russians after he said he didn't and since he was part of the Trump campaign he couldn't be part to any investigations of the campaign...and be sure there will be continued campaign investigations...
-
Actually, what was said was there was no evidence–at that time–of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia...pretty sure the investigation is ongoing and more and more instances of unusual circumstances keep coming out...
Republicans adopted pro-Russia stance on Ukraine as Trump officials met with Russian ambassador (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-russia-republican-pro-putin-ukraine-stance-rnc-ambassador-kislyak-meeting-a7610621.html)
It just keeps dribbling in drop by drop...kinda like Podesta's emails.
Even if Trump and Putin are not in cahoots, it sure looks like they are and even that appearance of impropriety hurts America. But, since Trump made the really STUPID mistake of claiming that Obama wiretapped him, he has incentivized Congress and the media to keep investigating and his AG is on the sidelines because he recused himself because, well he did meet with Russians after he said he didn't and since he was part of the Trump campaign he couldn't be part to any investigations of the campaign...and be sure there will be continued campaign investigations...
Let them investigate both the tap and the collusion. But there is no evidence currently that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to swing the election. All you're doing is continuing the insinuations without proof. You don't seem to have any compunctions to call Trump a traitor, in effect. Yet when Trump insinuates that Obama tapped him also without evidence, you get all upset. He has the same non-evidence of a tap as the Democrats have of a collusion. Both sides are playing politics, accusing the other side of dastardly deeds with out evidence or proof. It's BS on both sides.
-
Ground for impeachment...finally!
-
I don't hate Trump. I just think he's a moron.
-
I don't hate Trump. I just think he's a moron.
Dumb like a fox.
-
You don't seem to have any compunctions to call Trump a traitor, in effect. Yet when Trump insinuates that Obama tapped him also without evidence, you get all upset.
No, I've called him a malignant narcissist that was willing to do anything to win...to tell any lie and to collaborate with anybody to win–even though he clearly wasn't expecting to win. Naw, I don't call him a traitor...YET...
I call him a lying, cheating, misogynistic xenophobe that doesn't have a friggin' clue how the United States government works. He gets his foreign intelligence from Fox & Friends in the morning and took the bait that radio host Mark Levin was dangling on Breitbart about wire taps and the “silent coup” by the Obama administration...
Yeah, you go right ahead and buy that whole Obama is out to get Trump crap if ya want...
Me? Not so much...but there is already substantial evidence of Russian involvement in trying to impact our election–which is pretty friggin' bad and Flynn has already resigned and Sessions put him out of the loop in the investigations and suddenly, a whole bunch of other Trump people have been shown to meet with Russians.
So...why is Trump so soft on Russia? Why did Trump people push to have the GOP platform changed from advocating arming the Ukraine to protect them from Russia? Why did Trump pick Tillerson a long time friend of Putin and recipient of Russia's Order of Friendship award as Secretary of State?
What are the connections?
(http://cdn.media.rollcall.com/author/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-09-at-5.30.25-AM.png)
This is from an article Swalwell Launches Pages Diagraming Trump’s Ties to Russia (http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/swalwell-launches-site-about-trumps-ties-to-russia)
"California Rep. Eric Swalwell has set up web pages to show connections between President Donald Trump’s team and Russian government officials and business interests."
So, there isn't any direct evidence of Trump/Russian collusion on the election...yet. But there's plenty of evidence that Russia impacted the election and that a lot of people around Trump are involved with Russians and they've been lying about it right up till when they get caught in a lie.
So, we'll see...there's a big congressional hearing set for March 20th...wonder what will come of Trumps connections to Russia and the alleged tapping of Trump by Obama.
P.S. if you want to know who all those folks are with Russian ties, Google is your friend...interesting reading in a scary bad wreck on the side of the highway sort of way. But hey, Trump will "Make America Great Again" right?
-
Obama Admits to Wiretapping Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LcP4R9_QkA)
:~)
-
Obama Admits to Wiretapping Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LcP4R9_QkA)
:~)
See? Trump was right. :)
-
I don't hate Trump. I just think he's a moron.
Perhaps we can take solace in the words of Groucho Marx from Duck Soup
“He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.”
-
Speaking to a biographer in the 1960s, less than 20 years after signing the National Security Act of 1947, Truman...
Source: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/truman-was-right-about-the-cia#comments
https://www.amazon.com/Plain-speaking-biography-harry-truman/dp/0425094995
Thanks for quoting the Miller biography which is highly underrated and worth the read. I was on a panel at MIT a number of years ago with Senator Moynihan on the topic of secrecy. I think it was about the time he wrote his book on the topic. He always maintained that the US government keeps too many things secret and that we really should move towards much more openness. Secrecy allows those that keep the secrets to run amok from time to time.
-
I wonder if all these trademarks issued to the Trump Organization the other day will raise questions. It was rather curious that they were stuck in the system so long and now bingo they are all granted.
-
...So...why is Trump so soft on Russia? Why did Trump people push to have the GOP platform changed from advocating arming the Ukraine to protect them from Russia? Why did Trump pick Tillerson a long time friend of Putin and recipient of Russia's Order of Friendship award as Secretary of State?...
Trump and many experts see China as the main threat to us going forward. Russia, not so much. Those islands China built up into military bases are no joke to us or our allies there. Plus getting Russia with us would put a friend of sorts on the northern border of China. China would have to defend itself there, tying up many Chinese soldiers. Imagine where we would have to put our American forces if Canada was Russia or China. So, a friendly Russia and peace in Europe would allow us concentrate our forces in the Pacific. Russia has also become very dominant in the Middle East. We could work with them to damage or destroy ISIS and other crazies there that are a threat to America. Too many old-time Americans think we're still fighting the Soviet Union and the Cold War. That's not to say Russia is not a potential threat to Europe. But many think it's worthwhile to see if we can work out things with Russia as it could be very advantageous to us and world peace. We can become more hostile to them later if we have too.
Having Tillerson as Sec of State is an advantage. First, Tillerson, as CEO of the world's largest oil company, had a lot of experience dealing with heads of state throughout the world including Putin. He's no slouch. He's a tough negotiator. Second, in future discussions with Russia, Putin will treat him as a friend, or at least as someone he could do business with and trust. After all, he gave him a Russian medal. So there has to be a good level of trust between them. And they know each other. It's easier to work things out with people you know and trust. I understand you don't like Trump and many of his policies. That's OK. You may have many valid reasons to believe that. But with Tillerson, I think you ought to wait and see. You might be very surprised.
We'll be making a big mistake if we allow our own national politics effect how we handle international affairs.
-
Russia should be our best frenemy.
-
Having Tillerson as Sec of State is an advantage. First, Tillerson, as CEO of the world's largest oil company, had a lot of experience dealing with heads of state throughout the world including Putin. He's no slouch. He's a tough negotiator. Second, in future discussions with Russia, Putin will treat him as a friend, or at least as someone he could do business with and trust. After all, he gave him a Russian medal. So there has to be a good level of trust between them. And they know each other. It's easier to work things out with people you know and trust. I understand you don't like Trump and many of his policies. That's OK. You may have many valid reasons to believe that. But with Tillerson, I think you ought to wait and see. You might be very surprised.
We'll be making a big mistake if we allow our own national politics effect how we handle international affairs.
I thought Tillerson was a good choice. Unfortunately he is being undercut by some in the White House who have prevented him from hiring his own staff (Elliott Cohen was vetoed because he opposed Trump during the election). He's really out there by his lonesome self in that regard. I'm not sure receiving a medal from President Putin counts for much.
-
Russia should be our best frenemy.
+1 Good word for Putin. Not as nice as Gorbachev. But a lot better than Stalin.
-
Trump and many experts see China as the main threat to us going forward. Russia, not so much. Those islands China built up into military bases are no joke to us or our allies there. Plus getting Russia with us would put a friend of sorts on the northern border of China.
I'm afraid that is wishful thinking. In general, 'Russians' interpret everything as a complot staged against them. They have learned to not trust anybody except, perhaps, themselves.
There is no bromance in the air. Besides, Trump wouldn't be able to stand Putin's 'approval' rating (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjByMnyrMzSAhWK1RoKHcvNCzQQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fhow-to-understand-putins-jaw-droppingly-high-approval-ratings%2F2016%2F03%2F05%2F17f5d8f2-d5ba-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html&usg=AFQjCNFf8qf-YVe1MsUNtWGO18W2CG2jQg) of 83% and blame dishonest Russian media for spreading fake news. That'll quickly kill any seed of trust.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But a lot better than Stalin.
That is setting a high bar. ;D
Can you imagine your epitaph being "well, at least he was better than Stalin." LoL
-
I thought Tillerson was a good choice. Unfortunately he is being undercut by some in the White House who have prevented him from hiring his own staff (Elliott Cohen was vetoed because he opposed Trump during the election). He's really out there by his lonesome self in that regard. I'm not sure receiving a medal from President Putin counts for much.
I was curious what the medal was for: "Order of Friendship, which is given to foreign citizens for "special merits in strengthening peace, friendship, cooperation and mutual understanding between peoples." It is also awarded for those who make a "great contribution" to "large-scale economic projects" in Russia.
Apparently the medal was given to Tillerson in 2011 when Rosneft, Russia's oil company, signed a big deal with Tillerson's Exxon. Exxon since then has lost about a billion dollars because of the sanctions imposed by America. So lifting the sanctions would help Exxon. Tillerson has rid himself of all Exxon asset's, I believe. Let's hope that he'll put America first in all his dealings.
Elliot Cohen tends to want to use military force too much. He advocated war with Iraq in 2001. Do we really need another war?
-
That is setting a high bar. ;D
Can you imagine your epitaph being "well, at least he was better than Stalin." LoL
Which reminds me of the story of WC Fields, an American comic of the 1920's and 30's. He really hated Philadelphia with a passion. He said he wanted his epitaph to read, "I'd rather be here than in Philadelphia."
-
Which reminds me of another one this time at the bottom of a bronze statue of a man in uniform riding on a charging stallion who strived all his life to do great things:
President - Warrior Hero - Captain of Industry
But Still a Disappointment To His Mother
Hmm. Trump?
-
Another example of weasel reporting:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/man-arrested-after-injuring-five-people-in-duesseldorf-axe-attack
Subtitle (bold mine): Police say there is no indication of terrorist motive after detaining 36-year-old from the former Yugoslavia
Every time they use weaseling descriptions, you know they are trying to hide something. Also, claiming "mental illness" first and immediately discounting terrorism, seems to be a standard MO these days.
Never mind that the phrase "former Yugoslavia" is used to cover up the fact that he is a Muslim from Kosovo.
-
Another example of weasel reporting:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/man-arrested-after-injuring-five-people-in-duesseldorf-axe-attack
Subtitle (bold mine): Police say there is no indication of terrorist motive after detaining 36-year-old from the former Yugoslavia
Every time they use weaseling descriptions, you know they are trying to hide something. Also, claiming "mental illness" first and immediately discounting terrorism, seems to be a standard MO these days.
Never mind that the phrase "former Yugoslavia" is used to cover up the fact that he is a Muslim from Kosovo.
Out of curiosity, how would you rewrite that to be "accurate?"
-
Russia should be our best frenemy.
They used to be, for Europe at least. with some minor gastransport quibbles, everything seemed relatively in balance. But Putin has made it abundantly clear that he wouldn't accept expansion of NATO borders and influence in to Ukraine. Kind of obvious considering the importance of crimea for both its defence and economy.
Similarly, the islands in the south china sea are considered important means for china to control and defend its shipping routes. They are not steppingstones to worlddomination. If that's what they are after, then i don"t think those islands will make a iota of difference.
Kind of reminds me of the Tony Blair tour prior to invading Iraq. Every ally in the middle east told him it would destabilize the region, and boy, were they right if ever...
-
Out of curiosity, how would you rewrite that to be "accurate?"
Just mention it.
Mentioning "former Yugoslavia" instead is a bit disingenuous, as the country does not exist the last 25 years. However, Kosovo, as an independent country, does now exist, and while not recognized by a number of other countries in the world, is recognized by Germany.
-
Just mention it.
Mentioning "former Yugoslavia" instead is a bit disingenuous, as the country does not exist the last 25 years. However, Kosovo, as an independent country, does now exist, and while not recognized by a number of other countries in the world, is recognized by Germany.
Do you think that by substituting "Kosovo" for (the admittedly awkward) "former Yugoslavia" implies to the greater western world that there's some Muslim funny business at the root of the incident? Speaking only for myself, but as someone who has had an office in the Balkans for the better part of 15 years now and is consequently far more familiar with that region that your average American, "Kosovo" isn't synonymous with "Muslim extremist" to me.
Look, clearly we disagree on the extent to which Islam, and rank-and-file Muslims in general, pose a threat to the west on any given day, but feel like you're too-frequently looking for equivocation where in reality it's at best (currently) just uncertain reporting on a developing situation.
-
Do you think that by substituting "Kosovo" for (the admittedly awkward) "former Yugoslavia" implies to the greater western world that there's some Muslim funny business at the root of the incident?...
The original reporting came from the German authorities and press, and they are certainly very familiar with what Kosovo is, given how actively they supported KLA. As for Americans, KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) was for years on the State Department terrorist organizations list, so there is that. Several newer cases of terrorism in the USA were guys from Kosovo. As for the "greater western world," most are certainly familiar with the NATO bombing campaign to protect them, and one reason given to the public is that they were persecuted as Muslims. So, yes, many in the western world either know or should know the connection between Kosovo, Muslims, and terrorism.
One source I am sure you trust, The New York Times: "How Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/europe/how-the-saudis-turned-kosovo-into-fertile-ground-for-isis.html
Over the last two years, the police have identified 314 Kosovars — including two suicide bombers, 44 women and 28 children — who have gone abroad to join the Islamic State, the highest number per capita in Europe.
-
...Similarly, the islands in the south china sea are considered important means for china to control and defend its shipping routes. They are not steppingstones to worlddomination. If that's what they are after, then i don"t think those islands will make a iota of difference...
Those shipping lanes don't belong to China. They are not the only ones who use them. In addition, China violated international law in taking those islands. The were found unanimously guilty in the Hague. Of course, as a flip on what we've heard recently, Power Talks to Truth. No one did anything about it, so now it belongs to them. From 2012-2015, Obama stopped sending the US FLeet through that area. China jumped into the vacuum and built up those islands. Now, Trump and Mattis is sending the fleet through there again but it's too late unless we want to take heavy military action, which we won't. If the Philippines want their islands back, they'll have to fight China for them on their own.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html?_r=0
-
Out of curiosity, how would you rewrite that to be "accurate?"
Keep it simple and to the point. Here is how the German Spiegel reported it:
Der 36 Jahre alte Mann aus dem Kosovo hatte am Vorabend neun Menschen mit einer Axt verletzt, vier von ihnen schwer. Unter den Verletzten sind auch ein 13-jähriges Mädchen aus Düsseldorf und zwei italienische Touristinnen.
The 36-year-old man from Kosovo had injured nine people with an ax in the evening, four of them seriously. Among the injured are also a 13-year-old girl from Düsseldorf and two Italian tourists.
On the other hand, you could also say that the man came from an area that was at one time ruled by Romans.
-
However, Kosovo, as an independent country
so unfortunate that Putin was late to the seat - otherwise KLA 'd be bombed into oblivion...
-
Another example of weasel reporting:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/man-arrested-after-injuring-five-people-in-duesseldorf-axe-attack
Subtitle (bold mine): Police say there is no indication of terrorist motive after detaining 36-year-old from the former Yugoslavia
Every time they use weaseling descriptions, you know they are trying to hide something. Also, claiming "mental illness" first and immediately discounting terrorism, seems to be a standard MO these days.
Never mind that the phrase "former Yugoslavia" is used to cover up the fact that he is a Muslim from Kosovo.
The only time it isn't mental health problems is when a white, Western, Christian man attacks a person of color or different heritage or religion. Then it's racism. Everyone else gets a pass. That's PC and fake news.
-
Another example of weasel reporting:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/man-arrested-after-injuring-five-people-in-duesseldorf-axe-attack
Subtitle (bold mine): Police say there is no indication of terrorist motive after detaining 36-year-old from the former Yugoslavia
Every time they use weaseling descriptions, you know they are trying to hide something. Also, claiming "mental illness" first and immediately discounting terrorism, seems to be a standard MO these days.
Hm, the man was born 36 years ago, in what was then known as 'Yugoslavia'. It only effectively became Kosovo since 1999 and on February 17, 2008, the Albanian majority unilaterally declared independence. So the man was born in what is often called 'former Yugoslavia' (because it is officially recognized as Kosovo by 108 of the 193 members of the United Nation).
How is that weaseling? Seems like an accurate description. The man apparently is said to have been running up and down the platform carrying a weapon/ax.
Never mind that the phrase "former Yugoslavia" is used to cover up the fact that he is a Muslim from Kosovo.
Ah, Islamophobia strikes again?
Kosovo has 3 major religions; Islam, Roman Catholic, and Serbian-orthodox. I have no idea what religion the assailant subscribes to, or if he is practicing any. He did seem to have mental issues, but I'd not call that religiously motivated.
Also, the 93% Albanian majority define their ethnic unity by language, not by religion. The 7% minority, do identify by religious unity. I have no idea from which group the assailant originates, or what motivated his act.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Those shipping lanes don't belong to China. They are not the only ones who use them. In addition, China violated international law in taking those islands. The were found unanimously guilty in the Hague. Of course, as a flip on what we've heard recently, Power Talks to Truth. No one did anything about it, so now it belongs to them. From 2012-2015, Obama stopped sending the US FLeet through that area. China jumped into the vacuum and built up those islands. Now, Trump and Mattis is sending the fleet through there again but it's too late unless we want to take heavy military action, which we won't. If the Philippines want their islands back, they'll have to fight China for them on their own.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html?_r=0
I agree fully. The routes don't belong to China, but they are important to them. The islands don't belong to China, and there are several reasons why I believe their (re)possession or confiscating or strong-arming is questionable, not in the least btw the ecological implications. But yes, if you don't defend your territory, it may get stolen from you. On the other hand, I don't know whether there have been (failed) negotiations over their use, and I don't know whether they are worth starting WWIII over, if the main objective of China is merely being able to properly defend the shippinglanes (against pirate terrorist like in the gulf region for example), a defence which also benefits other nations.
For the record: I'm not a China fan, nor a Putin fan, but some of these subjects seem to get equally manipulated in the news.
.
-
I agree fully. The routes don't belong to China, but they are important to them. The islands don't belong to China, and there are several reasons why I believe their (re)possession or confiscating or strong-arming is questionable, not in the least btw the ecological implications. But yes, if you don't defend your territory, it may get stolen from you. On the other hand, I don't know whether there have been (failed) negotiations over their use, and I don't know whether they are worth starting WWIII over, if the main objective of China is merely being able to properly defend the shippinglanes (against pirate terrorist like in the gulf region for example), a defence which also benefits other nations.
For the record: I'm not a China fan, nor a Putin fan, but some of these subjects seem to get equally manipulated in the news.
.
The question is what will Trump do when these happen in the future? Will he operate America as the world's policeman? Will he become like Obama where his bark is worse then his bite? Will he let Mattis decide for him? These are real war and peace issues that few are talking about, especially the popular news outlets and the public. They rather talk about Trump's irrational and hyperbolic tweets about how the last administration was out to get him or how the Russians made out Hillary to look like a witch. Meanwhile the rest of the world is figuring out how they can take advantage of the political distractions in Washington. If we don't stop the constant bickering, America and the rest of the world are in for some hard times.
-
Hm, the man was born 36 years ago, in what was then known as 'Yugoslavia'. It only effectively became Kosovo since 1999 and on February 17, 2008, the Albanian majority unilaterally declared independence. So the man was born in what is often called 'former Yugoslavia' (because it is officially recognized as Kosovo by 108 of the 193 members of the United Nation).
How is that weaseling? Seems like an accurate description. The man apparently is said to have been running up and down the platform carrying a weapon/ax.
Ah, Islamophobia strikes again?
Kosovo has 3 major religions; Islam, Roman Catholic, and Serbian-orthodox. I have no idea what religion the assailant subscribes to, or if he is practicing any. He did seem to have mental issues, but I'd not call that religiously motivated.
Also, the 93% Albanian majority define their ethnic unity by language, not by religion. The 7% minority, do identify by religious unity. I have no idea from which group the assailant originates, or what motivated his act.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, in my book, it is a very clear example of weaseling.
If the German papers where this attack took place, can report it factually, why must the American publications alter or obfuscate the facts?
Incidentally, in the nineties, beside Yugoslavia there was another state - Czechoslovakia which was divided into two new entities, and if a citizen of any of those two new states gets nowadays in the news (as a victim or attacker), it is not mentioned as "a person, born in the former Czechoslovakia", but reported accurately and indisputably. For example:
Czech attacked by polar bear (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/polar-bear-attack-sleeping-czech-tourist)
Slovak model found guilty of murder of British millionaire (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/27/slovakian-model-found-guilty-of-murder-of-british-millionaire/)
and that's despite the fact the both actors were actually born in the same state that was formerly known as Czechoslovakia
-
The only time it isn't mental health problems is when a white, Western, Christian man attacks a person of color or different heritage or religion. Then it's racism. Everyone else gets a pass. That's PC and fake news.
You've gotta be kidding me.
-
You've gotta be kidding me.
No, I'm not.
-
Hm, the man was born 36 years ago, in what was then known as 'Yugoslavia'. It only effectively became Kosovo since 1999...
Kosovo has 3 major religions; Islam, Roman Catholic, and Serbian-orthodox. I have no idea what religion the assailant subscribes to, or if he is practicing any....
Also, the 93% Albanian majority define their ethnic unity by language, not by religion. The 7% minority, do identify by religious unity. I have no idea from which group the assailant originates, or what motivated his act.
Bart,
You are obviously an educated and knowledgeable man. You are, however, way out of your depth here.
effectively became Kosovo since 1999
- Say what!? Kosovo was an autonomous region of Yugoslavia since the the WWII. In the 70's, it had its own representative in the collective presidency of Yugoslavia (one of eight, just like Serbia or any other republic), its own constitution, parliament, police, etc.
Kosovo has 3 major religions; Islam, Roman Catholic, and Serbian-orthodox.
Another weaseling formulation. To the uninitiated, this sounds like an equal split, while in reality, it is about 90% Albanian Muslim, 7% Serbian Orthodox, and 3% Albanian Catholic
I have no idea what religion the assailant subscribes to, or if he is practicing any
You are right that you have no idea. But, statistically speaking, what do you think chances are that he is a Muslim? How about 90%? That would be one hell of an educated guess. But wait, there is more. According to the German press, his name is Fatmir H. That is an Albanian name. So, yes, there is about 3% chance that he is a Catholic, and zero chance Serbian Orthodox.
the 93% Albanian majority define their ethnic unity by language, not by religion. The 7% minority, do identify by religious unity
Again, SAY WHAT!? Let me repeat: about 97% of Albanians are Muslims, 3% Catholics.
-
This reminds me of the attitudes on so-called unequal stopping, during random police checks, of specific types of teen youth. Well, you'd hardly expect the fuzz to stop kids in school uniforms when there are plenty of mohaws and skinny-nuts standing around in groups, now would you?
Dress the part, you attract the attention.
For a period during the early 80s when we moved out to live here in Spain, the fuzz at Glasgow Airport would invariably stop me during my shuttles for work trips and, on the occasions that my son was along for the ride, he'd be pulled over too. Once, I asked the guy if the jeans and beard had been the attraction; he just smiled. What else? The camera case festooned with Hassy and airport logos, and the shameless exhibitionism of strings of luggage tags hanging off the straps?
(Wonderful times in which to have worked! But thank goodness the Carnaby St. period had passed.)
Frankly, I was happy to be pulled over: it's nice to see the authorities trying to do something to stop drug mules and all the rest of the garbage that travels this world spreading death and misery. And every time, the officers had a good, polite attitude. Maybe that's governed by the way one speaks to them. As with being stopped, it's in the sowing and reaping.
-
The original reporting came from the German authorities and press, and they are certainly very familiar with what Kosovo is, given how actively they supported KLA. As for Americans, KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) was for years on the State Department terrorist organizations list, so there is that. Several newer cases of terrorism in the USA were guys from Kosovo. As for the "greater western world," most are certainly familiar with the NATO bombing campaign to protect them, and one reason given to the public is that they were persecuted as Muslims. So, yes, many in the western world either know or should know the connection between Kosovo, Muslims, and terrorism.
One source I am sure you trust, The New York Times: "How Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/europe/how-the-saudis-turned-kosovo-into-fertile-ground-for-isis.html
No doubt about this. However, there are lots of Muslims within the Russian Federation who are kept in line by brutal police state tactics. At some point that will boil over again.
-
No doubt about this. However, there are lots of Muslims within the Russian Federation who are kept in line by brutal police state tactics. At some point that will boil over again.
Not sure I follow. What is the Russian role in all of this?
-
Not sure I follow. What is the Russian role in all of this?
As relevant as the Muslim role in this thread about Trump?
The Russian interference and the Muslim ban, in case one has forgotten.
Trump's revised travel ban dealt first court setback:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSKBN16I02F
And maybe we need to include Turkey as well?
White House says Trump did not know Flynn was representing Turkey
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-idUSKBN16H2OR
Cheers,
Bart
-
One source I am sure you trust, The New York Times: "How Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/europe/how-the-saudis-turned-kosovo-into-fertile-ground-for-isis.html
One wonders why Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE "get a pass" on their funding of jihadism, while Donald Trump calls Iran the number one terrorist state.
-
One wonders why Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE "get a pass" on their funding of jihadism, while Donald Trump calls Iran the number one terrorist state.
Trump real-estate ...
Oil.
Sales of weapon systems.
Symbol politics.
Take a pick.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump real-estate ...
Oil.
Sales of weapon systems.
Symbol politics.
Take a pick.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, it was more of a sad rhetorical statement than a lack of understanding. :(
I think the defeat of ISIS and like organizations depends on the will to strangle their funding, just as much as the "ground game". Unfortunately, that will has been, and is being, compromised by an oily expediency. Nothing we haven't seen before in so many ways, and in so many situations.
-
Trump real-estate ...
Oil.
Sales of weapon systems.
Symbol politics.
Trump has nothing to do with it. It's been a staple of American foreign policy (and geopolitics in general) for decades before him, for Republican and Democrat presidents alike.
-
Yes, it was more of a sad rhetorical statement than a lack of understanding. :(
I know, but not everybody else understands the real issues, large and small.
Like this; Trump's disputes with local governments could create fresh conflicts of interest:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-conflicts-idUSKBN16H0JN
And that's just local issues, not even geo-political ones.
I think the defeat of ISIS and like organizations depends on the will to strangle their funding, just as much as the "ground game". Unfortunately, that will has been, and is being, compromised by an oily expediency. Nothing we haven't seen before in so many ways, and in so many situations.
There are bigger issues on the horizon, and Trump may be willing to let things escalate to unite the people against a common enemy behind a strong leader (in his own mind).
Cheers,
Bart
-
No doubt about this. However, there are lots of Muslims within the Russian Federation who are kept in line by brutal police state tactics. At some point that will boil over again.
actually the only place in Russian Federation where few remaining alive (and local vs departed abroad to fight or blow marathons) radical muslims / ~"lots of Muslims"/ are kept in line (by being promptly killed w/o trial) are certain regions in North Caucasus and there they are kept in line by local genetically fellow brethern who, for quite some time already, are more interested to make money rather than recite Quran and hence successfully aligned themselves with the federals, allowing the latter to outsource the extermination business and extricate the state from from both police and military activities on site... the rest of the country has no chance of anything like this = either well integrated like Tatarstan or thoughtfully decimated like Crimea ... and for the North Caucasus luckily nuclear weapons are keeping dirty American hands away, so there is no chance to get the mess like in Iraq, Syria or Libya there...
-
Hm, the man was born 36 years ago, in what was then known as 'Yugoslavia'. It only effectively became Kosovo since 1999 and on February 17, 2008, the Albanian majority unilaterally declared independence. So the man was born in what is often called 'former Yugoslavia' (because it is officially recognized as Kosovo by 108 of the 193 members of the United Nation).
How is that weaseling? Seems like an accurate description. The man apparently is said to have been running up and down the platform carrying a weapon/ax.
Ah, Islamophobia strikes again?
Kosovo has 3 major religions; Islam, Roman Catholic, and Serbian-orthodox. I have no idea what religion the assailant subscribes to, or if he is practicing any. He did seem to have mental issues, but I'd not call that religiously motivated.
Also, the 93% Albanian majority define their ethnic unity by language, not by religion. The 7% minority, do identify by religious unity. I have no idea from which group the assailant originates, or what motivated his act.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart: What's going on with Turkey's Erdogan and their foreign minister? They called the Dutch premier a Nazi. It seems the Dutch have more Muslim issues and more prejudice toward them than America. Maybe you should focus on your own country's Muslim issues instead of criticizing America and Trump and other countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/netherlands-cancels-visit-by-turkish-foreign-minister-in-spiraling-feud-between-europe-and-turkey/2017/03/11/acc2c8ba-0655-11e7-a391-651727e77fc0_story.html?utm_term=.3b1436826f75
-
It seems the Dutch and many other Europeans are having more troubles with Muslim immigration than America. Yet the attacks on America and Trump from Europeans here don't stop. That Europeans are so much more tolerant than America. Here's another article. Of course Sweden is not hiding their issues; Trump is making that all up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/anti-immigrant-anger-threatens-to-remake-the-liberal-netherlands/2017/03/10/ebdb3a8c-ff4d-11e6-9b78-824ccab94435_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.abaf178e661e
-
Bart: What's going on with Turkey's Erdogan and their foreign minister? They called the Dutch premier a Nazi. It seems the Dutch have more Muslim issues and more prejudice toward them than America. Maybe you should focus on your own country's Muslim issues instead of criticizing America and Trump and other countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/netherlands-cancels-visit-by-turkish-foreign-minister-in-spiraling-feud-between-europe-and-turkey/2017/03/11/acc2c8ba-0655-11e7-a391-651727e77fc0_story.html?utm_term=.3b1436826f75
It's absurd to have any other national coming to your country and having electioneering rights.
Why would anyone with common sense allow that crap? You wanna rabble-rouse, do it at home. Your home.
Rob C
-
Bart: What's going on with Turkey's Erdogan and their foreign minister? They called the Dutch premier a Nazi. It seems the Dutch have more Muslim issues and more prejudice toward them than America. Maybe you should focus on your own country's Muslim issues instead of criticizing America and Trump and other countries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/netherlands-cancels-visit-by-turkish-foreign-minister-in-spiraling-feud-between-europe-and-turkey/2017/03/11/acc2c8ba-0655-11e7-a391-651727e77fc0_story.html?utm_term=.3b1436826f75
They apparently called for a rally and (pro erdogan) demonstration to be held in the Netherlands after the talk by their minister, something that would be forbidden by international law. Even so, we were negotiating the terms and possibilities of the minister's visit, under safer circumstances, but they decided to unilaterally drop the bomb anyway.
It is not about muslims, we just don't respond well to despotism.
-
It seems the Dutch and many other Europeans are having more troubles with Muslim immigration than America. Yet the attacks on America and Trump from Europeans here don't stop. That Europeans are so much more tolerant than America. Here's another article. Of course Sweden is not hiding their issues; Trump is making that all up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/anti-immigrant-anger-threatens-to-remake-the-liberal-netherlands/2017/03/10/ebdb3a8c-ff4d-11e6-9b78-824ccab94435_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.abaf178e661e
It's not about Muslims. It's about immigration in general, and the multi-cultural pluralism, even within EU borders. (Same -sentiment- as in US: jobs lost to cheap-labor influx from eastern-european countries for example) There is a sense of lost identity due to an increasingly more influential EU dominance.
So it are in essence the anti-establishment parties that are gaining votes, they just happen to also be anti-immigration, and some of them particularly anti-muslim. But it would be several bridges too far to say all dutch are anti-muslim because they only have limited choice in voting anti-establishment.
Personally I believe the problem in both the US and EU is this: lack of vision.
The choice is either one of 20+ technocratic beancounters that have solid bookkeeping but no vision, or a populist with a vision of a society from a bygone era. The same thing happened in the US. Hillary had her bookkeeping and statistics solidly build in stone, but people are not statistics and they don't like beancounters. So, guess who wins the elections...
-
It's not about Muslims...
Indeed, why would anyone be against that peace-loving, tolerant religion?
-
But there is no evidence currently that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to swing the election.
And then there is this...
Longtime Trump ally Roger Stone admits he held private conversations with Russia-affiliated hackers (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-pal-roger-stone-admits-spoke-privately-dnc-hackers-article-1.2994990)
And Flynn's reputation has taken another hit...
Michael Flynn Was Paid to Represent Turkey’s Interests During Trump Campaign (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/michael-flynn-turkey.html?_r=0)
He even attended top secret briefings while acting as an agent of a foreign country. Wow...I'm sure glad that US intelligence caught him talking to the Russian ambassador about sanctions otherwise he might still be the National Security Advisor...
Sure am looking forward to March 20th...House Intel schedules first Russia hearing for March 20 (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/house-intelligence-committee-schedules-russia-hearing-march-20/). Wow, Sally Yates will be testifying (the acting AG that Trump fired) as well as:
FBI Director James Comey
NSA Director Mike Rogers
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,
Former CIA Director John Brennan
Two executives from CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity company originally investigating the DNC hacks and which first "found" Russian involvement.
I wonder if we'll finally have evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump's phones?
Yeah, probably not :~)
Trump is gonna Make America Great Again (hopefully before he gets impeached)
-
Indeed, why would anyone be against that peace-loving, tolerant religion?
This is separate issue. Erdogan is a problem because of despotism, not because of his religious inclination.
-
Indeed, why would anyone be against that peace-loving, tolerant religion?
What are you trying to say? That ALL muslims think this way? Or that ALL tolerant people also tolerate extremism?
-
They apparently called for a rally and (pro erdogan) demonstration to be held in the Netherlands after the talk by their minister, something that would be forbidden by international law. Even so, we were negotiating the terms and possibilities of the minister's visit, under safer circumstances, but they decided to unilaterally drop the bomb anyway.
Yes, as the negotiations (for a more limited gathering on the consulate grounds) were being conducted, the Turkish foreign affairs minister suddenly started to threaten our government with sanctions and what have you. That effectively terminated the discussion/negotiations, and the landing rights were pulled.
For the folks in other countries who do not seem to understand, this is all played by the book (the populist dictator's manual). Because Erdogan might lose the referendum to expand his power even further, he needed an outside enemy so that his people would unite behind their powerful leader. Therefore he created a direct confrontation in European countries where election tensions are rising (in 4 days time, next Wednesday, in the Netherlands), aimed at being denied to promote his own dictatorship in foreign democratic countries.
It is not about muslims, we just don't respond well to despotism.
That's right, and the threats with sanctions while negotiations were being conducted how we could let him speak to a smaller group on the consulate's grounds, while making sure that public order and safety in the surrounding areas could be maintained, effectively slammed the door shut.
Nothing to do with Muslims, everything to do with populist dictators trying to disrupt elections in other countries. Just like in the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What are you trying to say? That ALL muslims think this way?...
No, just enough of them.
-
I do not get it.
Are you suggesting that Erdogan election rallies in Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe would pose a threat to "the public order and safety"? How can a dozen protesters do so? Surely there are not more than a dozen mentally-unstable people who would support Erdogan? Millions of Muslim immigrants there are by now all democratically oriented, law-abiding, well integrated, and surely would not support a dictator?
-
No, just enough of them.
How did they become "them"?
-
How did they become "them"?
By the virtue of grammar rules?
-
I do not get it.
Are you suggesting that Erdogan election rallies in Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe would pose a threat to "the public order and safety"? How can a dozen protesters do so? Surely there are not more than a dozen mentally-unstable people who would support Erdogan? Millions of Muslim immigrants there are by now all democratically oriented, law-abiding, well integrated, and surely would not support a dictator?
A Few Good Men. I saw the movie. But how are Erdogan supporters and millions of Muslims related? Or Erdogan supporters and extremists for that matter?
-
By the virtue of grammar rules?
Or because of upbringing and education perhaps? Do you believe that demonising millions of muslims with your pictures of a dozen unstable extremists is going to help sway younger people in general to a more tolerant thinking?
-
I do not get it.
Are you suggesting that Erdogan election rallies in Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe would pose a threat to "the public order and safety"? How can a dozen protesters do so? Surely there are not more than a dozen mentally-unstable people who would support Erdogan?
Indeed, you do not get it (on purpose).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Or because of upbringing and education perhaps? Do you believe that demonising millions of muslims with your pictures of a dozen unstable extremists is going to help sway younger people in general to a more tolerant thinking?
I think that denying the reality and portraying it as "a dozen unstable" would't help younger people think for themselves, rather than being "swayed."
-
It's not about Muslims. It's about immigration in general, and the multi-cultural pluralism, even within EU borders. (Same -sentiment- as in US: jobs lost to cheap-labor influx from eastern-european countries for example) There is a sense of lost identity due to an increasingly more influential EU dominance.
So it are in essence the anti-establishment parties that are gaining votes, they just happen to also be anti-immigration, and some of them particularly anti-muslim. But it would be several bridges too far to say all dutch are anti-muslim because they only have limited choice in voting anti-establishment.
Personally I believe the problem in both the US and EU is this: lack of vision.
The choice is either one of 20+ technocratic beancounters that have solid bookkeeping but no vision, or a populist with a vision of a society from a bygone era. The same thing happened in the US. Hillary had her bookkeeping and statistics solidly build in stone, but people are not statistics and they don't like beancounters. So, guess who wins the elections...
My point wasn't about Erdogan. He's just another autocrat jockeying to be President for life. My original post was to highlight the holier-than-thou comments by Europeans aimed at America and Trump. It's Europe that have the dedicated anti-Muslim, anti-immigration parties. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. LePen in France. Germany too. Yet we get this constant barrage of America's intolerance when the real virulence is emanating from Europe. You should clean up your own house before casting aspersions on Trump. Or maybe that's a way to avoid looking inside yourselves.
-
How did they become "them"?
Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina)
For many Serbs (Orthodox Christians), they became "them" when Islam was introduced on a larger scale in the mid to late 15th century during the Ottoman occupation. The Srebrenica Massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre) (disputed by some Serbs) and the Kosovo War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War) are perhaps the two most well-known events in recent history that underscore the degree of the enmity between Serbs and Balkan Muslims. As for jihadist, radical Muslims, see Slobodan's earlier link to the article outlining Saudi funding in Kosovo for the promotion of militant ideology; this was begun in earnest after the "ethnic wars" in the 1990's.
Serbs and the predominantly Catholic Croats also have a mutual, historical enmity. During WWII, the pro-Axis Ustaša movement sought to "ethnically cleanse" Serbs, Jews and Roma from their "claimed" Independent State of Croatia. An estimated 100,000 perished. During the conflicts of the 1990's Serbs and Croats routinely accused each other of acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Both groups also fought the (majority-Muslim) Bosniaks, of course, and have been accused of war crimes against them. [Edit: war crime charges were also brought against some Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians.]
I worked for a second-generation Canadian-Serb in the 1970's. Her father never talked about Muslims or Islam. For him, "them" meant the papist Croats and the communists. Until he got too old to travel, he and some old buddies would get together in a US border town once a year and make plans to "go back and fight". Of course, they never did. My boss characterized it as a reunion of old men drinking too much, reliving old hostilities, and mixing up their dentures in the cheap hotel room's only glass. Though she knew the history, she never developed a concept of "them" (much to her father's dismay).
-
I applaud the reaction of the netherlands! The extreme provocations of the turkish incumbents required a clear response. Merkel signed a faustian pact with Erdogan hence she does not take a stand against the Kalif of Istanbul.
-
I do not get it.
Are you suggesting that Erdogan election rallies in Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe would pose a threat to "the public order and safety"? How can a dozen protesters do so? Surely there are not more than a dozen mentally-unstable people who would support Erdogan? Millions of Muslim immigrants there are by now all democratically oriented, law-abiding, well integrated, and surely would not support a dictator?
Slobodan, you forgot to add the :-) bit!
The surprising thing is to see the women holding banners promoting extremism. Where the milk of human kindness now?
Maybe they are obliged to parade like that or get a thumping when they go home, or rather, get that thumping if they don't leave home with banners. Strident, bitter women are a perversion of the maternal imperative bestowed by nature and biology. Just another corruption in this festering shitpot of today.
-
Yet we get this constant barrage of America's intolerance when the real virulence is emanating from Europe. You should clean up your own house before casting aspersions on Trump. Or maybe that's a way to avoid looking inside yourselves.
Well, yes, point taken.
1. Current situation in EU is far from ideal and more dangerous than Trump
2. Current reporting surrounding Trump is far from ideal and more dangerous than Trump himself
On the other hand: for someone who holds the keys to a rather destructive nuclear and military potential, he seems to have very limited diplomatic skills, and an equally limited self-expressive & self-reflective capacity. Considering the role that the US has played on the global stage since WWII it is no wonder that the EU is worried about what is happening in the US, especially with current disinformation wars.
-
Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina)
For many Serbs (Orthodox Christians), they became "them" when Islam was introduced on a larger scale in the mid to late 15th century during the Ottoman occupation. The Srebrenica Massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre) (disputed by some Serbs) and the Kosovo War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War) are perhaps the two most well-known events in recent history that underscore the degree of the enmity between Serbs and Balkan Muslims. As for jihadist, radical Muslims, see Slobodan's earlier link to the article outlining Saudi funding in Kosovo for the promotion of militant ideology; this was begun in earnest after the "ethnic wars" in the 1990's.
Serbs and the predominantly Catholic Croats also have a mutual, historical enmity. During WWII, the pro-Axis Ustaša movement sought to "ethnically cleanse" Serbs, Jews and Roma from their "claimed" Independent State of Croatia. An estimated 100,000 perished. During the conflicts of the 1990's Serbs and Croats routinely accused each other of acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Both groups also fought the (majority-Muslim) Bosniaks, of course, and have been accused of war crimes against them.
I worked for a second-generation Canadian-Serb in the 1970's. Her father never talked about Muslims or Islam. For him, "them" meant the papist Croats and the communists. Until he got too old to travel, he and some old buddies would get together in a US border town once a year and make plans to "go back and fight". Of course, they never did. My boss characterized it as a reunion of old men drinking too much, reliving old hostilities, and mixing up their dentures in the cheap hotel room's only glass. Though she knew the history, she never developed a concept of "them" (much to her father's dismay).
I had a schoolbuddy from Csechia (then called Czechoslovakia). His dad was an accomplished astronomer but since they apparently had quite a few of those, it had been relatively easy to emigrate out of the country. Obviously, their family couldn't visit the west.
Decades later, after the cold war, his grandma could finally come over for a visit.
I remember well his surprise over how his grandma would hush him and start whispering at the mere mention of the words russia and/or politics, afraid as she was that the neighbours might hear.
-
I applaud the reaction of the netherlands! The extreme provocations of the turkish incumbents required a clear response. Merkel signed a faustian pact with Erdogan hence she does not take a stand against the Kalif of Istanbul.
Well, we're just being consistent and will resist international attempts to violate the principles of Non-iterventionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism). Turkey claims that the Dutch nationals (some are 3rd generation Dutch with Turkish grandparents) are Turkish residents, and they will treat them the same as those living in Turkey, even on foreign soil. That recently included snitch-lines to the consulate where people could report alleged Gulen sympathizers, and confiscation of their passports when applying for travel documents to visit family in Turkey. Our government made clear that they are not Turkish residents, but Dutch residents with also a Turkish passport, and we will not tolerate such intimidation practices on Dutch nationals.
Attempts to negotiate an orderly visit of the Foreign affairs Minister to speak to some of the potential referendum voters on the consulate's grounds, were torpedoed by Turkey (with the intent to escalate the issue) when our government learned from international media that Turkey threatened with Political and Economic sanctions.
When diplomacy failed, we prevented further escalation among Dutch citizens (some of which with double, Dutch/Turkish, passports) by pulling the landing rights of the inbound Turkish foreign affairs minister. As reaction (purely as provocation), the Turkish government sent their minister of Family affairs (on campaign in Germany) by car from Germany to the Netherlands in order to conduct an unauthorized demonstration.
Legally, that minister of family affairs does not have the political immunity that a.o. her Foreign affairs colleague has. So when she arrived in one of several (to avoid being stopped en-route) convoys in the vicinity of the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam, she was blocked outside the consulate (the whole area was declared to be under special rules for anybody except residents) and was asked to leave the country and when she refused (after locking herself in her car) was escorted back by police to Germany where she came from.
Whether/how this will affect our national elections next Wednesday, remains to be seen.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Funny how the Dutch play tough when their a$$ is on the line, while criticizing us for the same.
-
Turkey claims that the Dutch nationals (some are 3rd generation Dutch with Turkish grandparents) are Turkish residents, and they will treat them the same as those living in Turkey, even on foreign soil.
I think Erdogan thinks that FIFA (the international federation for football (e.g., soccer in the US)) is the ruling body in this regard!!! ;) He just wants some better players for his country!
For those in the US who might not understand, FIFA allows lineage to be used in determining what nation a player can represent in international competition. Thus, someone who is born in The Netherlands with a Turkish grandparent is eligible to play for Turkey in the World Cup. there are a number of Dutch born players of Moroccan descent that play for that country's national team.
-
...his grandma could finally come over for a visit.
I remember well his surprise over how his grandma would hush him and start whispering at the mere mention of the words russia and/or politics, afraid as she was that the neighbours might hear.
Ah, the arrogance of youth! The grandma simply knew better, that someone, somewhere, is always listening! ;)
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-cia-mi5-hacked-your-smart-tv-to-spy-on-you/
-
Ah, the arrogance of youth! The grandma simply knew better, that someone, somewhere, is always listening! ;)
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-cia-mi5-hacked-your-smart-tv-to-spy-on-you/
Ah, sure, the added value of the internuts of things
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-18/my-friend-cayla-doll-banned-germany-over-surveillance-concerns/8282508
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/millions-of-recorded-messages-between-parents-and-children-targeted-in-teddy-bear-toy-hack/news-story/d8a4f09e975a6f83f7bd24ec22f40dc5
-
Funny how the Dutch play tough when their a$$ is on the line, while criticizing us for the same.
I don't recall 'the Dutch' criticizing the USA when the Russian 'diplomats' were expelled by the Obama administration (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-diplomats-idUSKBN14L17E). Maybe you have something else in mind?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Funny how the Dutch play tough when their a$$ is on the line, while criticizing us for the same.
I am sure the Dutch will not tolerate it that if our prime minister would continu to repeat that 1+1=3 and present is as the truth - as your president does.
Yes we are very tough
-
...Yes we are very tough
Like in Srebrenica?
-
This is why we need NATO. Not to stop the Russians. But to prevent war from breaking out among European nations. What's going to happen when the EU collapses?
-
Like in Srebrenica?
like you were and are with the American Indians...
No let's not jump from one incident in world history to the other...
Lets stick to Trump - try to add some relevant info.
I was saying if that trump is not able to tell the truth about how many people were at his inauguration - what else we can believe from his mouth?
and that the Dutch would not have tolerated it if it was out prime minister.
-
Like in Srebrenica?
Not to get too far off topic, the Dutch troops called in Air strikes to stop the advancing army troops of Gen. Ratko Mladić . This air support was denied, so there was neither a possibility to defend the refugees nor the troops. Mladić threatened to kill Dutch and French military hostages and to attack surrounding locations where 20,000 to 30,000 civilian refugees were situated, if the airstrikes would continue. NATO stopped defending the enclave that was overrun by refugees. What the secret deal between French General Janvier and Mladić had to do with the denial of air support remains unclear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre#4_June_and_6.E2.80.9311_July_1995:_Serb_take-over_of_Srebrenica
But really, bringing in this tragedy to score a point, is a bit sick.
Cheers,
Bart
-
like you were and are with the American Indians...
No let's not jump from one incident in world history to the other...
Lets stick to Trump - try to add some relevant info.
I was saying if that trump is not able to tell the truth about how many people were at his inauguration - what else we can believe from his mouth?
and that the Dutch would not have tolerated it if it was out prime minister.
Yes let's blame Trump. It's his lying for all those problems between Turkey and the Netherlands. You sound like a Democrat.
-
Yes let's blame Trump. It's his lying for all those problems between Turkey and the Netherlands. You sound like a Democrat.
Don't know about that. Maybe you should ask Michael Flynn?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-idUSKBN16H2OR
Cheers,
Bart
-
"and that the Dutch would not have tolerated it if it was out prime minister."
Damn spell check. Blame Slobodan!
Cheers,
-
Don't know about that. Maybe you should ask Michael Flynn?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-idUSKBN16H2OR
Cheers,
Bart
Why do you so disrespect America and Trump? May I remind you it was America that stopped the carnage in Serbia 20 years ago while Europe sat on their asses. Someday you may need us again and you'll be crying on Trump's shoulder asking for forgiveness for all the nasty things you said about him. You insulted him about his travel ban and immigration policies. Meanwhile, Europe's policies against Muslims are far more vindictive and getting worse. You project your own prejudices on him and America.
-
Trump tried to call New York prosecutor Bharara before firing him: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-justice-idUSKBN16J0Y3
From the article:On Wednesday, three watchdog groups asked Bharara to take steps to prevent the Trump Organization from receiving benefits from foreign governments that might enrich Trump, who has not given up ownership of the business.
Norm Eisen, a former White House ethics lawyer who leads one of the groups, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, questioned the timing of the firings.
"I do believe that something odd happened," he said. "You don't decide to keep 46 folks on, then suddenly demand their immediate exit, without some precipitating cause or causes."
Democrat Elijah Cummings, ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, said on Sunday it was the president's prerogative to fire U.S. attorneys. But he questioned why Trump had suddenly changed his mind on keeping Bharara.
"I'm just curious as to why that is," Cummings said on ABC's "This Week" program. "Certainly, there's a lot of questions coming up as to whether ... President Trump is concerned about the jurisdiction of this U.S. attorney and whether that might affect his future."
Cheers,
Bart
-
The decision to request resignations of the Assistant US Attorneys is no big thing. As the papers have noted it is customary and has been done by other Presidents. The Bharara is somewhat curious since it is said that Trump asked him to stay on. In the great world of Trump problems this is a pin prick and not worth getting worked up about.
-
The decision to request resignations of the Assistant US Attorneys is no big thing. As the papers have noted it is customary and has been done by other Presidents. The Bharara is somewhat curious since it is said that Trump asked him to stay on. In the great world of Trump problems this is a pin prick and not worth getting worked up about.
US Attorneys in NY (Eastern and Southern Districts) often want to become elected politicians afterward or get appointed to higher positions. It's the next step. NYC Mayor Giuliani, NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, NY Governor Thomas Dewey, Attorney General of the US Loretta Lynch (appointed position), Director of the FBI James Comey, and many others were US Attorneys from NY as was Preet Bharara. If you intend to run for political office as a Democrat, it's better to have on your résumé that you were fired by Republican President Trump rather than that you just resigned like 42 others. Those kind of battle scars are important to your supporters and voters. Which sounds better as a campaign slogan?
Vote for Preet = Fearless US Prosecutor who was Fired by Trump or
Vote for Preet = Fearless US Prosecutor who Resigned
-
Legally, that minister of family affairs does not have the political immunity that a.o. her Foreign affairs colleague has.
All right! I didn't know this.
This entire BS with Turkey is going on since way too long. German policies in that regard are plain ridiculous and outright irresponsible.
We sent arms and intelligence to Kurdish Peshmerga troops supporting their immensely courageous fight against IS, but then look the other way when Turkish military bombards Kurdish fighters. The most you could get was a "Not very happy with that development." from Ms. Merkel and Co.
Btw. I do think that Interventionism is NATO agenda, as per extended arm of the US. However, power vacuum in Middle East is seductive to Erdogan and his clan, and explains their politics to a certain degree. Now that Mad Dog's obsession with Iran again turns into US foreign policy, Erdogan has an easy game rubbing shoulders with Trump.
Good Luck with the Elections Bart! Let reason and wisdom be their guide.
The country’s almost 13 million voters will line up March 15 at more than 9,000 polling stations to tick the box for their candidate with pencils, and these votes will be counted by hand. It’s unclear how long it will take officials to get it done.
Excellent!
I'll be in Netherlands on 15th, having an extra large portion of Kibbeling. :)
-
Someday you may need us again and you'll be crying on Trump's shoulder asking for forgiveness for all the nasty things you said about him.
I said it before, I say it again, you do have a talent for "comedy". Meh! Utterly risible statement Alan.
-
Don't know about that. Maybe you should ask Michael Flynn?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-idUSKBN16H2OR
Cheers,
Bart
So now you want to divert attention from mean spirited violence against Turks in the Netherlands. While you castigate the Trump administration, the liberal Dutch are using batons, horse charges and water cannon on Muslims. For shame.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3069645/dutch-riot-cops-batons-water-canon-horse-charges-turkish-protesters-rotterdam/
-
I said it before, I say it again, you do have a talent for "comedy". Meh! Utterly risible statement Alan.
Thanks for the compliment although I think it was more satire with a ring of truth than comedy. :)
-
So now you want to divert attention from mean spirited violence against Turks in the Netherlands. While you castigate the Trump administration, the liberal Dutch are using batons, horse charges and water cannon on Muslims. For shame.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3069645/dutch-riot-cops-batons-water-canon-horse-charges-turkish-protesters-rotterdam/
Come on, Alan, you are making a mountain out of a molehill... that's just a dozen of mentally-unstable creating trouble. No way would third-generation Dutch citizens pledge more allegiance to a foreign ruler than to their third-generation homeland. Right?
-
Then there's this...
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-58c6120f/turbine/la-1489375841-3f3pov5sjf-snap-photo/750/750x422)
Trump voters would be among the biggest losers in Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-trump-supporters-20170312-story.html)
So, all those Trump voters that thought he would Make America Great Again are going to pay for their vote...but at least they won't have to worry about Hillary's Private Email Server–thank goodness!
-
Come on, Alan, you are making a mountain out of a molehill... that's just a dozen of mentally-unstable creating trouble. No way would third-generation Dutch citizens pledge more allegiance to a foreign ruler than to their third-generation homeland. Right?
Exactly what we don't want here. But the hypocrisy of Europeans who attack Trump while they beat up Muslims and marginalize them is pretty amazing. I suppose it's easier for them to point a finger than take responsibility for their own problems.
The truth is however, I don't think America has or would have the same problems. America is a nation of immigrants. While we all practice the culture of parents and grandparents in our homes and local communities, most of us, Muslims included, are American in the public square or trying to become so. Europe has a bigger problem. Most countries there, like England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, yes, even Sweden have been homogenized for centuries. Substantial immigration is relatively new for them. So they have trouble accepting "foreigners" as their own, even when they become citizens. The immigrants feel the prejudice and stay apart in their original groups. They don't integrate and become real citizens. I'm not saying America doesn't have problems. But I feel we deal with it better because of our immigrant past and present. Immigrants want to become part of the American dream as America is not only a country. It's a state of mind.
-
Trump voters would be among the biggest losers in Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-trump-supporters-20170312-story.html)
So, all those Trump voters that thought he would Make America Great Again are going to pay for their vote...but at least they won't have to worry about Hillary's Private Email Server–thank goodness!
I agree. Trumpcare will break the bank as fast as Obamacare. Obama won 7 years ago. Universal health coverage paid by the government through taxes (and printing) may be the only way to resolve this whole issue. If legislation doesn't pass at all, Obamacare will implode on its own. The question is, who's going to get the blame? Democrats for unilaterally writing such bad legislation in the first place? Or Republicans for not doing anything about it imploding? It's going to be a mess.
-
...I don't think America has or would have the same problems...
Yet.
Muslim percentage is just about 1% now. It will double by 2050 (as they use weaponized natality) and, incidentally, overtake American Jews. Compare that with Europe, which will have about 10-20% by 2050.
-
Yet.
Muslim percentage is just about 1% now. It will double by 2050 (as they use weaponized natality) and, incidentally, overtake American Jews. Compare that with Europe, which will have about 10-20% by 2050.
So by 2050 it would be 2% here in America vs. 10-20% in Europe. That's a big difference. In any case, I still feel that America has a unique ability to subsume immigrant cultural and religious allegiances better than Europe. Our strong Constitution helps a lot. What's harmful is when politicians use identity politics to divide us.
-
Exactly what we don't want here. But the hypocrisy of Europeans who attack Trump while they beat up Muslims and marginalize them is pretty amazing. I suppose it's easier for them to point a finger than take responsibility for their own problems.
The truth is however, I don't think America has or would have the same problems. America is a nation of immigrants. While we all practice the culture of parents and grandparents in our homes and local communities, most of us, Muslims included, are American in the public square or trying to become so. Europe has a bigger problem. Most countries there, like England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, yes, even Sweden have been homogenized for centuries. Substantial immigration is relatively new for them. So they have trouble accepting "foreigners" as their own, even when they become citizens. The immigrants feel the prejudice and stay apart in their original groups. They don't integrate and become real citizens. I'm not saying America doesn't have problems. But I feel we deal with it better because of our immigrant past and present. Immigrants want to become part of the American dream as America is not only a country. It's a state of mind.
Hate to say it Alan, but you live in a dream world. You simply don't have the least fucking idea what you are talking about. As for trying to hide shit behind percentages, get real. One percent of a vast number is one thing and ten percent of a far smaller number is infinitely more devastating a figure.
Parts of Europe have already lived under the Muslim yoke; the USA has never had that experience. Read some non-America-centic history and you'll be surprised at how widely the Islamist world has ruled in the past and you'll realise it's what it's trying to re-establish today, not only politically but religiously. Think about the latter particularly, and what that would imply for you and your faith. Why the hell do you think your countrymen have been dying abroad of late? You think petrol? You think for the safety from their own kind of a few towel-headed foreigners? For some photojournalist to make a fortune from snaps of a green-eyed girl in rags? Nope, for your own native protection at home, is why.
Tell me, how would you react to the Turkish government sending ministers into your state with the explicit intention of causing public riots in an endeavour to get votes from second- and even third-generation Turkish Americans (granted dual nationalities in some European countries- you see how badly and unfairly they get dealt with in Europe?!) to advance the dreams of its leader to turn into unchallengeable dictator?
Wake up. The alarm stopped ringing half-an-hour ago, time for that cold shower of reality.
-
But I feel we deal with it better because of our immigrant past and present.
That's why you have the IIRIRA, right? I guess you would call that tough, fair, and practical.
Immigrants want to become part of the American dream as America is not only a country. It's a state of mind.
Yeah well, if it becomes a state of mind, ever, it's time to consult a psychiatrist.
-
Can this be the same America that until the mid 1960's legally practised racial segregation including sending black women to prison for marrying white men??
Kettle Pot Black.
I will give Alan the benefit of the doubt. His posts are designed to stir things up??? :( :-\
-
US Attorneys in NY (Eastern and Southern Districts) often want to become elected politicians afterward or get appointed to higher positions. It's the next step. NYC Mayor Giuliani, NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, NY Governor Thomas Dewey, Attorney General of the US Loretta Lynch (appointed position), Director of the FBI James Comey, and many others were US Attorneys from NY as was Preet Bharara.
Spitzer was never a US Attorney but rather the Attorney General of New York which is an elected position.
-
All right! I didn't know this.
Not to get too far off topic, but it also applies to the USA (e.g. Russian 'diplomats').
With regards to the Turkish minister of Family affairs. In International Law there is a basic principle of diplomatic immunity. The question was, does that also apply to her? The basic issue is that when you claim immunity, then that privilege has to originate from somewhere.
We do recognize Diplomatic immunity. That means that everybody who is allowed by the government to come to our country, e.g. as a diplomat (like embassy personnel), are granted immunity.
But this minister of Family affairs was not invited and was also told she was not welcome. That's why she was asked to leave the country, and when she refused and locked herself in her car for several hours, and finally a tow truck was about to take the armoured car away, she exited the car and was escorted by police to the German border, where she came from.
Others who do have immunity are e.g. heads of state or ministers of Foreign affairs, but that is very much defined according to International Law by the specific function of those officials who are an embodiment of their state. To execute the function of their office on behalf of their state, they must have immunity.
But a minister of Family affairs doesn't have to be in the Netherlands to execute her task, let alone come to our country to run a pro Erdogan campaign.
So there is no International Legal argument why she would be protected by immunity, unlike her colleague of Foreign affairs, but he was simply not allowed to enter the Dutch territory in an official capacity.
Good Luck with the Elections Bart! Let reason and wisdom be their guide.
Excellent!
Unless something disruptive happens, I assume that reason will prevail with the majority of the people. We do have a system of majority voting, so each vote counts for one of the candidates of 28 (!) political parties on the list, and basically all nationals of 18 years and older are able to vote. The outcome, should normally not take more than a day to be known, despite the paper and pencil choice (to prevent the already increasing hacking attempts by foreign powers). Then those parties who's candidates have assembled enough votes will enter in a process of negotiations about who will form a coalition government for the next 4-years.
I'll be in Netherlands on 15th, having an extra large portion of Kibbeling. :)
Always a nice thing to do ;)
Enjoy your visit.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The rules of Diplomatic Immunity are complicated and involve several different levels.
This document does a pretty good job is defining the different levels of diplomatic immunity
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf
-
So now you want to divert attention from mean spirited violence against Turks in the Netherlands. While you castigate the Trump administration, the liberal Dutch are using batons, horse charges and water cannon on Muslims. For shame.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3069645/dutch-riot-cops-batons-water-canon-horse-charges-turkish-protesters-rotterdam/
Just trying to focus on the topic of this thread. But when an otherwise orderly demonstration starts getting out of hand, and some of the people do not wish to disperse as requested by the police and organizers, and start throwing rocks and bottles at the police and begin damaging store- and residential building windows, then yes the police will do their job of restoring law and order.
So I have no idea what you are rambling about. Let's not forget that this would not have been allowed in Turkey, people are jailed and tortured there for less, and 90% of the journalists are appointed by the government, and judges/teachers/politicians are fired or jailed without due process if they do not side with the government ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
... when an otherwise orderly demonstration starts getting out of hand, and some of the people do not wish to disperse as requested by the police and organizers, and start throwing rocks and bottles at the police and begin damaging store- and residential building windows, then yes the police will do their job of restoring law and order...
You talking about Ferguson? ;)
If I remember correctly, the last time we did talk about Ferguson, your position was that it was... racist police, discriminating against blacks?
-
You talking about Ferguson? ;)
If I remember correctly, the last time we did talk about Ferguson, your position was that it was... racist police, discriminating against blacks?
As far as I know there is quite a difference between arresting and rounding up troublemakers vs. killing the protestors. I have no problem with law and order but I think avoidance of excessive force could be a bit higher on the priority list of certain US police forces.
-
You talking about Ferguson? ;)
If I remember correctly, the last time we did talk about Ferguson, your position was that it was... racist police, discriminating against blacks?
I have no idea what you are specifically talking about, but there are most likely a number of documented cases of racism and discrimination (against Indians, blacks, Mexicans, LBTGs, etc.), even under police officers. Does that make all police officers racists? I do not remember suggesting that, and it would surprise me, so maybe you can provide a link?
I do seem to remember that you thought that (then President) Obama should defend the police, regardless of their actions, when he was critical about those individuals who overstepped their authority.
Cheers,
Bart
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hate to say it Alan, but you live in a dream world. You simply don't have the least fucking idea what you are talking about. As for trying to hide shit behind percentages, get real. One percent of a vast number is one thing and ten percent of a far smaller number is infinitely more devastating a figure.
Parts of Europe have already lived under the Muslim yoke; the USA has never had that experience. Read some non-America-centic history and you'll be surprised at how widely the Islamist world has ruled in the past and you'll realise it's what it's trying to re-establish today, not only politically but religiously. Think about the latter particularly, and what that would imply for you and your faith. Why the hell do you think your countrymen have been dying abroad of late? You think petrol? You think for the safety from their own kind of a few towel-headed foreigners? For some photojournalist to make a fortune from snaps of a green-eyed girl in rags? Nope, for your own native protection at home, is why.
Tell me, how would you react to the Turkish government sending ministers into your state with the explicit intention of causing public riots in an endeavour to get votes from second- and even third-generation Turkish Americans (granted dual nationalities in some European countries- you see how badly and unfairly they get dealt with in Europe?!) to advance the dreams of its leader to turn into unchallengeable dictator?
Wake up. The alarm stopped ringing half-an-hour ago, time for that cold shower of reality.
Thanks for making Trump's point better than he makes it. He and many Americans, myself included, look across the ocean at Europe's Muslim problems, and say that's something we don't want here. So he issues travel bans, and wants immigration policies that let people in "who want to love America and not be separate from it when they get here." So why do Europeans so hate Trump? He's just taking your position. Yet you attack him when he mentions Sweden when his point is to show all the crime in Muslim areas of Europe. Europeans who post here should be commending Trump for not wanting to follow the European path. Instead, all we hear are knee-jerk reactions to Trump hating the very policies he wants to implement to avoid similar problems here.
Finally, having lost my niece, my sister's only daughter, to the terrorists on 9-11, I woke up a long time ago and took the cold shower of reality.
-
...Finally, having lost my niece, my sister's only daughter, to the terrorists on 9-11, I woke up a long time ago and took the cold shower of reality...
Alan,
very sorry to hear that.
I can imagine your position has changed since.
-
Spitzer was never a US Attorney but rather the Attorney General of New York which is an elected position.
Another "gotcha" correction, just like those when Trump make a factual error, that misses the overall point being made.
-
Alan,
very sorry to hear that.
I can imagine your position has changed since.
Thanks Pieter for you warm regards. Here name was Lisa Raines; she was a passenger on Flight 77 that was crashed into the Pentagon. Lisa was a smart, wonderful women and very caring person. Everyone loved being around her. My sister, Marilyn, who passed away a couple of years ago, never had a day when she didn't cry about Lisa. For the most part, I've gotten over the bitterness and anger although it will be a fine day when they finally hang Sheik Mohammad, the mastermind of 9-11, who's now being held in Gitmo. Of course, anyone, whether in Europe of America or elsewhere, who becomes the victim of terrorism, takes on a different perspective. But over time, my feelings and opinions come more from pragmatism than anger.
-
As far as I know there is quite a difference between arresting and rounding up troublemakers vs. killing the protestors...
For the record, no protester was killed in the Ferguson riots.
-
Thanks Pieter for you warm regards. Here name was Lisa Raines; she was a passenger on Flight 77 that was crashed into the Pentagon. Lisa was a smart, wonderful women and very caring person. Everyone loved being around her. My sister, Marilyn, who passed away a couple of years ago, never had a day when she didn't cry about Lisa.
It is a small world!!! I worked with Lisa starting way back in the mid-1980s. We both worked at the same trade association for a while and then moved on to other jobs but stayed in touch. Her husband, Steve was also a very dear friend of mine.
Alan
-
Thanks for making Trump's point better than he makes it. He and many Americans, myself included, look across the ocean at Europe's Muslim problems, and say that's something we don't want here. So he issues travel bans, and wants immigration policies that let people in "who want to love America and not be separate from it when they get here." So why do Europeans so hate Trump? He's just taking your position. Yet you attack him when he mentions Sweden when his point is to show all the crime in Muslim areas of Europe. Europeans who post here should be commending Trump for not wanting to follow the European path. Instead, all we hear are knee-jerk reactions to Trump hating the very policies he wants to implement to avoid similar problems here.
Finally, having lost my niece, my sister's only daughter, to the terrorists on 9-11, I woke up a long time ago and took the cold shower of reality.
"Exactly what we don't want here. But the hypocrisy of Europeans who attack Trump while they beat up Muslims and marginalize them is pretty amazing. I suppose it's easier for them to point a finger than take responsibility for their own problems."... Alan Klein.
That's not making Trump's point at all: Trump's ìs to ignore the laws of his own land and make it all up on the fly - just like the Turk! Frankly, there's not a huge difference between them except the colour of their hair. Both want to have a dictatorship of their own.
Furthermore, nobody marginalizes them (Islamics): as with so many ethnic/religious groupings they choose to stay within their own tight communities where they live as they please and respect the laws of their own little world and (in their new environment) sub-culture. But don't imagine it's a position reserved for non-whites: take a look around Europe and you find Brits do exactly the same thing: they group and seldom make a friend outwith their own nationality. And much for the same reasons, excluding religion - which most don't really care about anyway, but because they are either too lazy or too stupid to try and learn the language of the new country they decided to call home. Of course, even after living abroad for forty years, some still refer to Britain as 'home'!
The problem with Trumpian politics such as banning entire countries, is that it turns entire countries into foes, and I think it would be quite a stetch to imagine that all those millions of people had felt that way before the attempts to split the world. As for what it does for the people of similar origins (as the banned) now resident and citizens of the US is anybody's guess, but I'd suggest nothing good.
If you want to 'cleanse' a country of troublemakers, good idea, but first let them make the trouble and then hoof the ones who have made it straight out.
Failure to implement the above is one of the reasons that Brexit became so strogly ingrained in some minds: they saw the abuses of British hospitality and the abject failure of governments to act. That the failures to act may have been based on European as against UK law is always a possibility, but it would have made sense for the government to have taken that point up with the Europeans first, not getting into the situation where the UK can easily split up too.
As I said before: it's a mess.
-
... as with so many ethnic/religious groupings they choose to stay within their own tight communities where they live as they please and respect the laws of their own little world and (in their new environment) sub-culture.... Brits do exactly the same thing: they group and seldom make a friend outwith their own nationality...
Except Brits (and other groupings) do not try to impose "the laws of their own little world" onto others.
-
Except Brits (and other groupings) do not try to impose "the laws of their own little world" onto others.
At least not so far this week... 8)
-
A somewhat long, but interesting read about the roots of jihadism: Qutb in America (http://www.5280.com/magazine/2003/06/al-qaeda%E2%80%99s-greeley-roots?pageID=269)
-
It is a small world!!! I worked with Lisa starting way back in the mid-1980s. We both worked at the same trade association for a while and then moved on to other jobs but stayed in touch. Her husband, Steve was also a very dear friend of mine.
Alan
It is a small world. So glad you were friends. I lost track of Steve. He remarried. The whole thing was a nightmare. Something no family should have to go through. Alan.
-
Except Brits (and other groupings) do not try to impose "the laws of their own little world" onto others.
Really? Try sitting in on an AGM of Property Owners here in Mallorca! They all think Spanish law should be English law, not Scottish law or any other law, but English law.
I've sometimes sat for a coffee with Brits who speak very loudly, complaining about the local ways, and then wonder why the service suddenly deteriorates. I eventually stopped joining anybody in groups. On their own they can be perfectly normal, but in a crowd, quite often it's football time.
But yes, in the stricter sense of your post, you're perfectly right: we don't usually try to impose stuff like sharia. Well, not since the days of Empire, though even there we didn't officially mess much with religion: that was up to the missionaries to play with and feel fulfilled. Problem there was the different denominations of missionary: Baptists, Seventh Day Aventists etc, etc.
-
Gotta love this guy huh?
Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-wiretapping/)
"(CNN)The White House on Monday walked back a key point of President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated allegation that President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones in Trump Tower during the 2016 election.
Namely, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump wasn't referring to wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping.
"I think there's no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election," Spicer said. "The President used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities.""
Ok, so "wire tapping" in quotes doesn't mean wiretapping...but then Kellyanne Conway weighed in...
"Do you know whether Trump Tower was wiretapped?" Bergen County Record columnist Mike Kelly asked Conway on Sunday.
"What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other," Conway said, before suggesting that surveillance could take place through phones, TVs or "microwaves that turn into cameras."
Well, I never did trust that darn microwave...but that's ok, she appeared on New Day and cleared that up:
Asked to clarify her comments on wiretapping, Conway, one of President Trump's top aides, said she was talking about general news articles on surveillance techniques saying: "I'm not Inspector Gadget. I don't believe people are using the microwave to spy on the Trump campaign."
She shrugged off questions about providing any evidence of foul play that the Trump campaign may have, simply saying: "I'm not in the job of having evidence. That's what investigations are for."
Well, I would never confuse Kellyanne Conway with Inspector Gadget...
Well, the DOJ is on the clock...
Congressional deadline arrives for DOJ evidence on Trump wiretap claims (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/intelligence-deadline-wiretaps/)
What do ya wanna bet there is no evidence and Trump was just parroting the Breitbart/Levin conspiracy theory. Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/)
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17155162_1262404127178758_5342688711355555769_n.jpg?oh=4360a8b799d2940640c0a5e8aab28f62&oe=5970345D)
-
I don't think Trump should apologize for the wiretap comment until the Democrats apologize for calling him a traitor for colluding with the Russians to swing the election. Why is OK to call a current sitting President treasonous but it's not OK to call an ex-President a wire tapper?
-
I will give Alan the benefit of the doubt. His posts are designed to stir things up??? :( :-\
Well, without me, Slobodan and a couple of others, there would be no discussion. Everyone would be talking in an echo chamber. Stir away. :)
-
Well, without me, Slobodan and a couple of others, there would be no discussion. Everyone would be talking in an echo chamber. Stir away. :)
Well, if we would listen to you there would be no discussion either, because according to you as Europeans we're not allowed to criticize Trump ;)
But fortunately we aren't listening and I still find following the ping-pong of arguments interesting 8)
-
Gotta love this guy huh?
Spicer: Trump didn't mean wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-wiretapping/)
"(CNN)The White House on Monday walked back a key point of President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated allegation that President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones in Trump Tower during the 2016 election.
Namely, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Trump wasn't referring to wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping.
"I think there's no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election," Spicer said. "The President used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities.""
Well there you have it, so when Trump Tweets about "wires tapped" in one Tweet, and about "wire tapping" in the next Tweet, and 'tapping my Phones' in the next Tweet, and about 'tapp my phones' in the next Tweet, he is not talking about wire tapping /phone tapping.
Makes perfect sense, in a parallel universe other than ours.
The man is a liability.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, if we would listen to you there would be no discussion either, because according to you as Europeans we're not allowed to criticize Trump ;)
But fortunately we aren't listening and I still find following the ping-pong of arguments interesting 8)
There is no argument, there is even less discussion; what there is is a vicious circle of cant that has already approached the critical speed at which it vanishes up its own ass.
Stand well clear, or at least switch off the fans!
Rob
-
I don't think Trump should apologize for the wiretap comment until the Democrats apologize for calling him a traitor for colluding with the Russians to swing the election.
Which Democrats are you referring specificly? Or are you just emulating the big orange one and pulling it out of your ass?
-
I don't think Trump should apologize for the wiretap comment until the Democrats apologize for calling him a traitor for colluding with the Russians to swing the election. Why is OK to call a current sitting President treasonous but it's not OK to call an ex-President a wire tapper?
The comment, if there was one, of him colluding with Russians would be a typical hyperbolic political sound bite. The accusation of wiretapping could be uncovered if he simply ordered an investigation.
But this isn't debate anymore, it's now religion. To his followers, he can do no wrong. This is not rational.
-
I don't think Trump should apologize for the wiretap comment until the Democrats apologize for calling him a traitor for colluding with the Russians to swing the election. Why is OK to call a current sitting President treasonous but it's not OK to call an ex-President a wire tapper?
We'll draw the conclusions about who needs to apologize to whom after the investigations are concluded. However a president who gets his intelligence from Fox news is bad news for the US, no matter how you look at it. Also the number of people in his entourage who did some shady business with Russia (and Turkey) the past half year or so should raise some eyebrows irrespective if you're a Trump supporter or not. Even if he didn't know about it it still questions his judgement and due diligence capabilities. Maybe the next time the conservatives get together they can change their song from "lock her up" to "lock them up", although I think chances of that are very low since people in general are mostly more gentle on the same political colour vs. the opposite colour.
-
Which Democrats are you referring specificly? Or are you just emulating the big orange one and pulling it out of your ass?
Long after Clapper and Comey said there was no collusion with Russia of the Trump campaign to swing the election, the Democrats just a week ago had to walk back their phony charges again. A sitting Senator Coons, a Democrat, was the latest one accusing Trump of violating Federal law that could get him in jail, impeached, etc. This was all part of the Democrat plan to delegitimize him. The Democrats are playing sleaze ball politics with support of the liberal media.
Here's the Senator's comments regarding his accusation about Trump. Of course you only read liberal news outlets so you wouldn't know this happened.
============================== ===========
Sen. Chris Coons, Delaware Democrat, on Sunday (March 5th) walked back his bombshell declaration about transcripts showing Russia-Trump collusion, saying he had no proof such documents exist and apologizing for any “hyperventilating.”
“I have no hard evidence of collusion,” Mr. Coons told “Fox News Sunday.”
He said he was sorry for any misinterpretation of his comments, which blew up on social media after a Friday interview on MSNBC.
“So to the extent of those comments, they might be in some way misinterpreted as leading to sort of a hyperventilating attitude here in the Senate about this, I apologize for that,” Mr. Coons said. “That’s not what I was trying to do.”
At the same time, he said, “I am confident that intelligence exists that is relevant to this question. Not that says there is collusion, and proof of it, that’s not what I was trying to say.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/5/chris-coons-walks-back-talk-of-russia-trump-collus/
-
We'll draw the conclusions about who needs to apologize to whom after the investigations are concluded. However a president who gets his intelligence from Fox news is bad news for the US, no matter how you look at it. Also the number of people in his entourage who did some shady business with Russia (and Turkey) the past half year or so should raise some eyebrows irrespective if you're a Trump supporter or not. Even if he didn't know about it it still questions his judgement and due diligence capabilities. Maybe the next time the conservatives get together they can change their song from "lock her up" to "lock them up", although I think chances of that are very low since people in general are mostly more gentle on the same political colour vs. the opposite colour.
I expect the liberal press to just mention the wiretap and never mention all the Democrat accusations of treason and Russian collusion that will be proven wrong. They press already knows this truth and have stopped mentioning collusion focusing on the wiretap. Only Trump haters are fooled.
-
So, where did he call Trump a " traitor" (your word)?
-
I expect the liberal press to just mention the wiretap and never mention all the Democrat accusations of treason and Russian collusion that will be proven wrong. They press already knows this truth and have stopped mentioning collusion focusing on the wiretap. Only Trump haters are fooled.
Alan, there's plenty people reading both sides of the press and come to a different conclusion from yours. To assume the "Trump haters" as you call them are just brainwashed by liberal media and don't look further is as ignorant asassuming all conservatives only get their news from Fox.
-
So, where did he call Trump a " traitor" (your word)?
You're playing "gotcha" word game with me just as you played them with Trump with Sweden. The Democrat Senator and many other Democrats claimed that Trump colluded with a foreign power to influence an election. If, true, that could put Trump in jail for years after being impeached. The Senator's implication is that he's a traitor.
-
Can't we all just get along a find a modicum of common ground? ;)
-
Just think. Another four years of debate. We'll be up to page 34,378. And no one's mind will be changed.
-
You really can't make this stuff up.
Democrats blame stupidity, ignorance and the lack of proper education for the Trump's win. So, the beginning of this article sounds promising, at least in admitting there is a problem:
At a time when the United States has plummeted in the global rankings of education standards...
then it continues:
...one of the country’s largest states is poised to scrap a test designed to measure the reading and writing skills of people trying to become teachers.
Because...
... an outsized percentage of black and Hispanic candidates were failing the test...
In other words, the test is "racist" because...
... an outsized percentage of black and Hispanic candidates were failing the test...
In spite of the fact that:
...a ruling by a federal judge in 2015 that the test was not discriminatory...
No, really, you can't make this stuff up.
Article here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/13/ny-dropping-teacher-literacy-test-amid-claims-racism.html
-
You're playing "gotcha" word game with me just as you played them with Trump with Sweden. The Democrat Senator and many other Democrats claimed that Trump colluded with a foreign power to influence an election. If, true, that could put Trump in jail for years after being impeached. The Senator's implication is that he's a traitor.
Oh, ok...you want him to apologize because he IMPLIED that Trump was a "traitor"...he didn't actually call him a traitor, he just implied it...
So, is that the same as Trump "implying" Obama tapped his phones:
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
So...I'm playing "gotcha" word games?
Words have meaning, well, ok, unless they come out of Trump's mouth or twitter feed...
Last Week Tonight‘s John Oliver had a really funny segment (yeah, sorry, he's a Brit making fun of Trump on American TV–so what?). He quoted a CNN editor Zachary Wolf saying, in all seriousness, “This is what makes covering Donald Trump so very difficult: what does he mean when he says words?”
Zach actually said that out of shear frustration at trying to explain why it is so hard to cover Trump.
So, really Alan, reread what you wrote and tell me if you aren't at least just a little bit embarrassed by your position?
The President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump shouldn't apologize for saying Obama had his "wires tapped" and calling it McCarthyism until Senator Chris Coons apologizes for simply implying Trump might be a traitor...and the fact he walked back his bombshell declaration about transcripts showing Russia-Trump collusion, saying he had no proof such documents exist and apologizing for any “hyperventilating.”
“I have no hard evidence of collusion,” Mr. Coons told “Fox News Sunday.”
He said he was sorry for any misinterpretation of his comments, which blew up on social media after a Friday interview on MSNBC.
So, that ain't good enough for you to maybe conclude that The Orange One might need to eat some crow and take back his accusation a tiny bit?
Pretty sure that's what Spicy was trying to do in todays press briefing...poorly btw.
‘If he’s not joking’: Sean Spicer loses it when NBC reporter asks ‘when can we trust the president?’ (http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/if-hes-not-joking-sean-spicer-loses-it-when-nbc-reporter-asks-when-can-we-trust-the-president/)
“You said, ‘They may have been phony in the past but it’s very real now,'” Alexander said, quoting Spicer’s words back to him. “When should Americans trust the president? Should they trust the president, is it phony or real when he says President Obama was wiretapped?”
“He doesn’t really think that President Obama went up and tapped his phone personally,” Spicer explained. “But there’s no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election. That is a widely reported activity that occurred back then.”
“The president used the word wiretapping,” the press secretary continued, gesturing air quotes, “to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities during that.”
Later:
Alexander replied: “The bottom line is the question is still not answered. Can you say affirmatively that whenever the president says something, we can trust it to be real?”
“If he’s not joking!” Spicer exclaimed.
-
Then there's this...
Democrats question Trump 'conflict of interest' with Deutsche Bank investigation (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/11/democrats-question-trump-conflict-of-interest-deutsche-bank-investigation-money-laundering)
Senior Democrats on Capitol Hill are calling for a congressional investigation into the justice department’s handling of an ongoing inquiry into Deutsche Bank, saying that Donald Trump had conflicts of interest with the German bank, his biggest creditor.
Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House financial services committee, urged her Republican colleagues to launch their own investigation into the nature of Deutsche Bank’s money-laundering scheme, who participated in the arrangement and whether it involved any other violations of US law beyond the failure to maintain anti-money laundering controls.
Deutsche Bank has already been ordered to pay more than $800m (£660m) in fines in the US and UK for failing to stop the improper and corrupt transfer of more than $10bn out of Russia. It is also being investigated by the justice department (DoJ).
Guess who would be heading up any DOJ investigations in NYC?
Preet Bharara, Manhattan’s federal prosecutor who was wait for it...fired on Sat–after actually visiting Trump in Trump Towers and being asked to stay on.
Ironically it was reported that Mr. Bharara’s office was investigating whether Fox News, essentially the propaganda arm of the White House, failed to properly alert its shareholders about settlements with employees who accused the channel’s former boss, Roger Ailes, of sexual harassment.
CNN reports: After firing Preet Bharara, President Trump beware (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/11/opinions/trump-beware-after-firing-bharara-callan/index.html)
Trump may have become increasingly wary of Bharara's close relationship with his mentor, US Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. Bharara served as counsel to the then-Senate minority leader and was rewarded with Schumer's recommendation to President Obama that Bharara should be appointed to the coveted Southern District prosecutorial spot.
The investigation of possible ties between members of the Trump campaign team and Russian officials, and the President's claim that he was wiretapped in Trump Tower on orders of President Obama, will all lead back to the Southern District of New York.
In the end, President Trump has undoubtedly decided that he wants his own pick rather than the choice of Senate adversary Chuck Schumer in place as the top federal prosecutor in New York.
In terminating Bharara, though, the President has created a formidable and charismatic enemy who shares the President's social media skills. Mr. Bharara has now become the first US attorney for the Southern District of New York to announce that he had been fired via Twitter. POTUS beware.
Hum...maybe Trump just got pissed off since Bharara refused to take a call from The Donald...so maybe it wasn't Trump covering his ass(ets), maybe he just had a temper tantrum?
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17264373_10155153107687718_485480212857384981_n.jpg?oh=bfca9b458a69db99272f3e2f27c03957&oe=592908F0)
Photo Credit: Glen Reid he said :( Take all you want of any of my shared images! :) FREE! FREE! (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155153107687718&set=p.10155153107687718&type=3&theater)
Edited to add photo credit
Too much?
:~)
I'll treat Trump with respect the moment he exhibits any...
-
Then there's this...
The crux of the matter is that there are "independant monitors" appointed to Deutsche.
Now, it couldn't get more Kafkaesque!
Paul Atkins - Patomak Partners - served on Trump’s transition team and was involved in appointing federal financial regulators.
He is now an independant monitor at DB, and in this position, he is monitoring whether Trump’s business partner complies with the terms of a settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on derivatives reporting.
Sickening!
-
Finally, having lost my niece, my sister's only daughter, to the terrorists on 9-11, I woke up a long time ago and took the cold shower of reality.
I'm truly sorry for your and your sisters loss Alan, no family should go through such an ordeal and I agree we need to go through a lot of effort to stop terrorist killings, especially the ones that fake to be motivated by religion but are simple acts of devilish evil and have nothing to do with the true meaning of any religion.
So my question is why do you let your president get away with implementing an immigration ban that was so badly written that it was overturned before the ink was dry, didn't have a chance of being heard at the supreme court, sowed more hatred against the US in several countries, resulted in many "good guys" not being able to enter the US while it did very little to prevent the "bad guys" continuing to come in (or just staying in). If I were in your situation I'd be in favour of an effective measure and be up in arms against something symbolic and ineffective like this was. And despite his promises there is still no new rule in effect, he's still dragging his feet and diverting attention to other fake (and probably less important) matters like possible collusion with Russia and wire tapping of the Trump tower.
-
So lemme get this straight.
When Trump said that his campaign was wiretapped, he really did not mean wiretapped.
When Trump said that Obama was behind it, he really did not mean Obama was behind it.
Jus tryin to keep things straight.
And Conway thinks that we can turn microwave ovens into cameras? but she also says “I’m not in the job of having evidence,”.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReUA1m8CNEfQ1FleB_OrZtYzqUpwwtlgcSVyMkSt_cQFBkVYjgpw)
-
Same as pussy grabbing. First saying that he did it, then saying it was just a talk. Locker room talk.
Or a number of other things. He keeps everybody on their toes.
-
And Conway thinks that we can turn microwave ovens into cameras? but she also says “I’m not in the job of having evidence,”.
These days they point a laser at a flat surface in a room (like the door of a microwave) and measure the vibrations to detect what is being said.
"I don't understand!"
"It's like wiretapping but without the wire."
-
And Conway thinks that we can turn microwave ovens into cameras? but she also says “I’m not in the job of having evidence,”.
The real irony is that Kelly Conway is a lawyer (she clerked for a good friend of our who was a judge on the Washington DC court). She really should know better but I think it's case of a lot of media training and the fact that she ignores the questions being asked.
-
Oh, ok...you want him to apologize because he IMPLIED that Trump was a "traitor"...he didn't actually call him a traitor, he just implied it...
If it quacks like a duck....and walks like a duck...
-
The real irony is that Kelly Conway is a lawyer (she clerked for a good friend of our who was a judge on the Washington DC court). She really should know better but I think it's case of a lot of media training and the fact that she ignores the questions being asked.
Or perhaps she has sold her integrity and become a political stooge. I hope she gets paid a lot of money for after Trump leaves office, that is all she will have left in her life. Kinda sad.
How these stooges, from any party, can look at themselves in the mirror every morning and have any pride in what they are doing.
Perhaps when you become a political stooge, you no longer cast a reflection in the mirror? ;D
-
... terrorist killings, especially the ones that fake to be motivated by religion but are simple acts of devilish evil and have nothing to do with the true meaning of any religion...
Dream on.
-
I'm truly sorry for your and your sisters loss Alan, no family should go through such an ordeal and I agree we need to go through a lot of effort to stop terrorist killings, especially the ones that fake to be motivated by religion but are simple acts of devilish evil and have nothing to do with the true meaning of any religion.
So my question is why do you let your president get away with implementing an immigration ban that was so badly written that it was overturned before the ink was dry, didn't have a chance of being heard at the supreme court, sowed more hatred against the US in several countries, resulted in many "good guys" not being able to enter the US while it did very little to prevent the "bad guys" continuing to come in (or just staying in). If I were in your situation I'd be in favour of an effective measure and be up in arms against something symbolic and ineffective like this was. And despite his promises there is still no new rule in effect, he's still dragging his feet and diverting attention to other fake (and probably less important) matters like possible collusion with Russia and wire tapping of the Trump tower.
Thanks for your supportive words regarding my niece. I agree Trump could have done a better job with the original Executive Order (EO). He's new to the job but is a quick learner. His revised EO is fine. If it only keeps out one terrorist who would blow himself up in a crowded American marketplace, it's worth it.
-
...something symbolic and ineffective like this was..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/09/illegal-border-crossings-decrease-by-40-percent-in-trumps-first-month-report-says.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/
-
So lemme get this straight.
When Trump said that his campaign was wiretapped, he really did not mean wiretapped.
When Trump said that Obama was behind it, he really did not mean Obama was behind it.
Jus tryin to keep things straight.
No, he means that Obama was using the power of the state and his administration to find out things about him and his campaign to help Hillary and damage Trump. Certainly his point wasn't that Barack would sneak into the basement at Trump Towers, put on earphones, and clip a recorder to Trump's telephone lines. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot all for political purposes on both sides. We should all be simply shocked. Shocked, I tell ya.
Look, Trump isn't an English major or an experienced politician who knows or cares what each word means. He speaks very colloquially. I suspect he'll get better as time goes on. In the meanwhile, he speaks in broad, sometimes confusing terms. But we all know that. That's who he is. Instead of the press using good editorial judgment, the liberal media try to find the most base interpretation to try to make him look bad. Everyday they keep piling on. Everything is a negative; nothing he does is positive. Like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", pretty soon no one is going to listen to the press. So when he finally does something that is truly "bad", no one is going to pay attention just brushing it aside as another fake, politically motivated hit.
-
The real irony is that Kelly Conway is a lawyer (she clerked for a good friend of our who was a judge on the Washington DC court). She really should know better but I think it's case of a lot of media training and the fact that she ignores the questions being asked.
So you're going to trust a lawyer? Aren't most politicians lawyers? You know when you know a politician is lying? When you see their lips moving.
-
Look, Trump isn't an English major or an experienced politician who knows or cares what each word means. He speaks very colloquially. I suspect he'll get better as time goes on. In the meanwhile, he speaks in broad, sometimes confusing terms. But we all know that. That's who he is. Instead of the press using good editorial judgment, the liberal media try to find the most base interpretation to try to make him look bad. Everyday they keep piling on. Everything is a negative; nothing he does is positive. Like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", pretty soon no one is going to listen to the press. So when he finally does something that is truly "bad", no one is going to pay attention just brushing it aside as another fake, politically motivated hit.
You would think that after Bush Jr and Obama that we have learned that PotUS is not an entry level job.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/09/illegal-border-crossings-decrease-by-40-percent-in-trumps-first-month-report-says.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/
I was talking about the ineffectiveness of the EO to reduce legal travel from a certain number of ME countries, not these type of illegal border crossings. So dream on if you think changing the subject refutes my statement ;)
-
Dream on.
I'm not dreaming, I agree there are mean spirited killing Muslims but likewise there are mean spirited killing Christians. Both kill and hide behind their religion when they do so but both are equally wrong. That doesn't mean all Christians or all Muslims are killers.
-
Instead of the press using good editorial judgment, the liberal media try to find the most base interpretation to try to make him look bad. Everyday they keep piling on. Everything is a negative; nothing he does is positive. Like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", pretty soon no one is going to listen to the press. So when he finally does something that is truly "bad", no one is going to pay attention just brushing it aside as another fake, politically motivated hit.
Just like the conservative press did with Obama, why are you so upset now that it's the other way around? (sorry for stealing one of your arguments ;) )
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/09/illegal-border-crossings-decrease-by-40-percent-in-trumps-first-month-report-says.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/
maybe because they go to Canada now.
Illegal migrants crossing Canada’s borders are hopping off planes in New York and busing directly north (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-border-agencies-shift-staff-to-deal-with-illegal-crossings/article34105944/)
-
maybe because they go to Canada now.
Illegal migrants crossing Canada’s borders are hopping off planes in New York and busing directly north (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-border-agencies-shift-staff-to-deal-with-illegal-crossings/article34105944/)
Which makes the policy even more efficient, as those crossing into Canada were already in the States. That is, not only there are less new illegals, but the old ones are leaving too.
-
...there are mean spirited killing Muslims but likewise there are mean spirited killing Christians...
False equivalence.
-
False equivalence.
Care to explain this hyperbole?
-
Alan,
I am thinking about your comment, "If it only keeps out one terrorist who would blow himself up in a crowded American marketplace, it's worth it.
If I would logically follow up on that, if one gun is used to kill we should ban all guns, if one person dies due to lack of access to healthcare we should have healthcare for everyone. There should be zero tolerance for any type of pollution, I think you see where I am going with this. By the way, I don't think we should ban all guns although the process to obtain them is woefully inadequate and I do believe there should be universal healthcare.
There is risk, I don't think anyone denies this but it must be weighed against the suffering and death of tens of thousands of people who we could help. The current vetting process is 2 years long, it is already "extreme" and none of the countries being banned by the President had people involved in 9-11. Our "local" terrorists have been in this country for years, many of them are Christian Fundamentalists or other "religious" groups. The truth is we cannot prevent every instance of terrorism or any other harmful thing, although we have been doing a pretty good job of it.
Bastardization of religion has been an excuse used for millennia to claim some moral superiority over others, making them "less human" and justifying their extinction.
My condolences on the loss of your niece, I live just outside NYC and know many people who lost loved ones or who narrowly escaped their own death.
I believe we make the world a more peaceful and safer place by reaching out a helpful hand rather than slamming a door in the face of those who need help.
Jim
-
That is, not only there are less new illegals, but the old ones are leaving too.
Somebody has to clean the pools and do the gardens in in the southern states, who's going to do that (for the same price) when the illegal Middle/South Americans are leaving?
-
I was talking about the ineffectiveness of the EO to reduce legal travel from a certain number of ME countries, not these type of illegal border crossings. So dream on if you think changing the subject refutes my statement ;)
I know. My point being that, while the EO might have been "ineffective" in its stated purpose, the very manner in which it was implemented, rough and sometimes ruthless, sent a clear message to potential illegal immigrants that there is a new sheriff in town.
-
Somebody has to clean the pools and do the gardens in in the southern states, who's going to do that (for the same price) when the illegal Middle/South Americans are leaving?
The price is going to go up until Americans pick up the slack. That's the whole point. Raising incomes through jobs, not welfare.
-
False equivalence.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/isis-american-south-lynching/
-
Alan,
I am thinking about your comment, "If it only keeps out one terrorist who would blow himself up in a crowded American marketplace, it's worth it.
If I would logically follow up on that, if one gun is used to kill we should ban all guns, if one person dies due to lack of access to healthcare we should have healthcare for everyone. There should be zero tolerance for any type of pollution, I think you see where I am going with this. By the way, I don't think we should ban all guns although the process to obtain them is woefully inadequate and I do believe there should be universal healthcare.
There is risk, I don't think anyone denies this but it must be weighed against the suffering and death of tens of thousands of people who we could help. The current vetting process is 2 years long, it is already "extreme" and none of the countries being banned by the President had people involved in 9-11. Our "local" terrorists have been in this country for years, many of them are Christian Fundamentalists or other "religious" groups. The truth is we cannot prevent every instance of terrorism or any other harmful thing, although we have been doing a pretty good job of it.
Bastardization of religion has been an excuse used for millennia to claim some moral superiority over others, making them "less human" and justifying their extinction.
My condolences on the loss of your niece, I live just outside NYC and know many people who lost loved ones or who narrowly escaped their own death.
I believe we make the world a more peaceful and safer place by reaching out a helpful hand rather than slamming a door in the face of those who need help.
Jim
Well said, Jim. There are a faction of people that would willing sacrifice 1,000 , or 10,000, or 100,000 of "them" to save one of "us." Tribalism is an ugly thing.
-
These days they point a laser at a flat surface in a room (like the door of a microwave) and measure the vibrations to detect what is being said...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone
-
Just like the conservative press did with Obama, why are you so upset now that it's the other way around? (sorry for stealing one of your arguments ;) )
It is true that the conservative press attacked Obama, often unfairly. The difference is the rest of the press making up about 90% of it, loved Obama. To Liberal media, he could do no wrong. They protected him constantly. He could do no wrong. With Trump and most Republicans and conservative politicians, most of the media is not so kind. We get it. That's why we call it fake news.
-
... There are a faction of people that would willing sacrifice 1,000 , or 10,000, or 100,000 of "them" to save one of "us." Tribalism is an ugly thing.
A.k.a. humanity. Isn't that what the human history has all been about? Survival of the fittest and protection of one's own?
-
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/isis-american-south-lynching/
And the difference is "only" 70-140 years.
Not to mention the conclusion of the article itself:
No, the American South (and other parts of America where racial terrorists ran rampant) was never run by fanatical theocrats who used grotesque public murders as a tool of terror.
-
And the difference is "only" 70-140 years.
Not to mention the conclusion of the article itself:
The point isn't that it's happening right now, the point is that you've been making the argument that Islam is uniquely violent and terroristic. Just because the Klan (a perverted but overtly "Christian" organization) has been shamed and legislated into silence doesn't mean that the ethnic violence that was just ending when I was born ('72) can be disregarded, or that those undercurrents don't still lurk, just waiting for an opportunity to rear their disgusting heads.
(Northern Ireland might be a more contemporary example of how good white "Christians" of differing sects indulge their intertwined ethno-nationalistic religiosity with terror, but it's not a history I'm particularly familiar with, beyond the Catholic/Protestant divide that has historically been problematic in the UK)
Finally, maybe it would be helpful if you quoted the entire conclusion next time. Here's the part you left out:
But if you were a black in the years 1877-1950, this was a distinction without much meaningful difference.
-
A.k.a. humanity. Isn't that what the human history has all been about? Survival of the fittest and protection of one's own?
Perhaps. But maybe what needs changing is the definition of "one's own," and (especially) the encouragement of said tribalism for personal or political benefit.
-
Alan,
I am thinking about your comment, "If it only keeps out one terrorist who would blow himself up in a crowded American marketplace, it's worth it.
If I would logically follow up on that, if one gun is used to kill we should ban all guns, if one person dies due to lack of access to healthcare we should have healthcare for everyone. There should be zero tolerance for any type of pollution, I think you see where I am going with this. By the way, I don't think we should ban all guns although the process to obtain them is woefully inadequate and I do believe there should be universal healthcare.
There is risk, I don't think anyone denies this but it must be weighed against the suffering and death of tens of thousands of people who we could help. The current vetting process is 2 years long, it is already "extreme" and none of the countries being banned by the President had people involved in 9-11. Our "local" terrorists have been in this country for years, many of them are Christian Fundamentalists or other "religious" groups. The truth is we cannot prevent every instance of terrorism or any other harmful thing, although we have been doing a pretty good job of it.
Bastardization of religion has been an excuse used for millennia to claim some moral superiority over others, making them "less human" and justifying their extinction.
My condolences on the loss of your niece, I live just outside NYC and know many people who lost loved ones or who narrowly escaped their own death.
I believe we make the world a more peaceful and safer place by reaching out a helpful hand rather than slamming a door in the face of those who need help.
Jim
Thanks for your condolences. Regarding the EO and other issues, I'm sorry if my posts made it seem like I don't care about other people. That's not true although I put my family and country first. The EO does not ban people including Syrians who have lost their homes or other Muslims who wish to emigrate or just visit the US. What it does is put a three month time-out on issuing new visas, not a terribly onerous process. During this period, the government is suppose to develop better vetting procedures so when the issuance of visas is restored, more thorough vetting is followed.
As an American citizen, the last time I flew domestically in the US between New Jersey and Florida, I, like all Americans had to go through a pre-boarding check. I took my shoes off so they could see if I had a shoe bomb. They X-rayed my carry-ons, metal detected my entire body. They even swiped my palm with a brush container chemicals that would tell them if I handled explosive materials beforehand. They did that even though I had an American passport and photo ID showing I'm a citizen. If I can be inconvenienced like that for a domestic flight, certainly we can expect some serious vetting before letting in potential terrorists. If they're inconvenienced, well, sorry about that. We're all effected by the terrorism problem.
Finally, it's easy to be sanguine about what a terrorist might do until it's someone in your family who was killed. Caring about your fellow citizens should be at least as important as caring about foreigners.
-
The point isn't that it's happening right now, the point is that you've been making the argument that Islam is uniquely violent and terroristic...
I am not making that general argument. I am making the argument that the original, medieval interpretation of Islam is STILL uniquely violent. All other religions outgrew their medieval versions hundreds of years ago. Also, because it was repeated so many times as a straw-man argument, let me be clear: I never said all Muslims are violent or medieval. Just that the particular, original, violent interpretation of Islam has reached a critical mass, enough to pose a serious danger world-wide. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of imams engaged in radicalization, tens of thousands armed fighters, hundreds of thousands in the immediate supporting network, and millions of quiet supporters on the sidelines (some of which can't wait to jump into the fray). And that is world-wide. Other religious conflicts are relatively local (like Northern Ireland), or spurred by exceptional circumstances (like wars - e.g. creation of concentration camps for Orthodox Christians, Jews and Gypsies by Catholics in my former home country). No other contemporary religion can claim such organizational and ideological reach (for its medieval version - the Catholic church has both, but has luckily abandoned its violent side). As horrible as lynchings and KKK were, they were relatively local and never reached any ideological or religious mainstream support. One more thing: Islam today is blurring the lines between state and church, religion and ideology. No other contemporary religion can claim that (though I am sure they wouldn't mind, if they could). It was Iran's supreme religious and state ruler that issued fatwa against Salman Rushdie, not some raghead lunatic. It is Saudi Arabia that still today beheads, stones unfaithful women, cuts limbs and publicly lashes. It is SA and Iran that still support terrorist organizations world-wide, more or less overtly (see my previous link about Saudis' link to Kosovo). And spontaneous public lynchings for religious reasons still happen in many Muslim countries today.
-
The price is going to go up until Americans pick up the slack. That's the whole point. Raising incomes through jobs, not welfare.
Great idea Slobodan, but there's a fly in that Vaseline: lots of people simply can't afford to pay what it takes for a first-world worker to do some jobs.
The UK hotel industry is heavily dependent of foreign workers to clean, wait, cook and do all sorts of things that the "true-Brit" ain't gonna do at the price, come what may. Expell foreign workers, and overnight you'd close hundeds of hotels, just like that, in the words of one Tommy Cooper. There's huge competition in the hotel trade, and the Internet search/compare sites have made that worse still; prices are pared down to the wire. Raise salaries and there'd be no place to go, for many of them, other than down the tubes, and then there'd be no place for the tourists to go, who are just as worried about stretching their wallet as anybody else today.
The Health Service also runs on help from many, many Asian doctors and nurses and Caribbean folks too; even with their level of accepted wages the service can't stay out of debt. What you're suggesting, in fact, is a version of the dream of Communism, but based on a more affluent level, which as you know perfectly well, can't work in a real world.
As with the manufacture of cameras sliding away from Japan itself to factories in Thailand, it's not done for love but for survival. As I've mentioned before when folks dream about filling the Rust Belt with brand new mills and factories, it'll not happen until the Far East has become too expensive too, and then maybe, just maybe, there's a chance sense and economics will prevail and folks accept the good olde days are over and they are going to have to work to new rules or not at all. By hey, Ford is opening a Lincoln factory in China to make SUV stuff to local tastes... so Mexico is out, but not China. Over to you, Don: what you gonna do this time?
-
One of my favourite quotes
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
Lyndon B. Johnson
-
..lots of people simply can't afford to pay what it takes for a first-world worker to do some jobs...
You mean some poor middle-class American would need to get off his fat a$$, drop the remote and Budweiser, and go mow his own lawn? Or that Brits would need to spend their welfare checks and crawl and puke on British streets, instead of Spanish ones? Excuse me while I go get a tissue.
If an industry can't survive without slave-like conditions for its workers, then it shouldn't. Hotels? Most of them are corporate owned. And corporations today sit on historical piles of cash and profits, so there is room for some trickle down. This time, as I said, via better paid jobs, not welfare. Not to forget, those better paid workers will send that money back into the economy, local economy, not foreign lands.
Less tourism? Good. Barcelona is already overflowing.
-
Instead of the press using good editorial judgment, the liberal media try to find the most base interpretation to try to make him look bad. Everyday they keep piling on. Everything is a negative; nothing he does is positive.
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17156167_1362480250457370_6643654728541364205_n.jpg?oh=a4c02dd502aa2cedbe7451a904e93d7c&oe=596B4862)
Then there's this...
Fox News: Pro-Journalism Newspaper Slogans Are ‘Anti-Trump Rhetoric’ (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/14/fox-news-pro-journalism-newspaper-slogans-are-anti-trump-rhetoric.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl)
Ok...so...
According to Fox News, pro-journalism slogans like “Journalism Matters” are “anti-Trump.” A Fox & Friends First news report Tuesday fretted over “newspapers cashing in on T-shirts splashed with anti-president rhetoric,” citing The Washington Post’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” the Los Angeles Times’s “Journalism Matters,” and the Chicago Tribune’s “Speaking Truth to Power Since 1847” as examples of “media bias on full display.”
So, Fox and Friends (Trump's favorite TV show it seems) views any pro media slogans as anti-Trump?
Guess they forgot about Breitbart's Store (https://store.breitbart.com)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0877/4420/products/Border-wall-t-primaryimage.jpg?v=1475844706)
That's a useful sentiment huh?
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that Trump is gonna Make America Great Again. I hope you are right but fear you are wrong, very, very wrong.
-
Care to explain this hyperbole?
Just so that you wouldn't think I am ignoring you, see my reply to James above, page 67, #1336 :)
-
It is true that the conservative press attacked Obama, often unfairly. The difference is the rest of the press making up about 90% of it, loved Obama. To Liberal media, he could do no wrong. They protected him constantly. He could do no wrong. With Trump and most Republicans and conservative politicians, most of the media is not so kind. We get it. That's why we call it fake news.
C'mon Allen, It's not 90% and FOX is the champion of fake news, not the mainstream other media. And there were critical points on Obama in the mainstream media as well (and rightfully so in some cases). I know you're trying to make a point, but exaggeration doesn't help your case.
-
Just so that you wouldn't think I am ignoring you, see my reply to James above, page 37, #1336 :)
Thanks, I see where you're coming from. It's probably semantic, but higher numbers and more widespread only makes it more serious (and I agree with that), but in my mind it doesn't make it a false equivalence. A killing in the name of the Koran is equally bad as a killing in the name of the bible.
-
C'mon Allen, It's not 90% and FOX is the champion of fake news, not the mainstream other media. And there were critical points on Obama in the mainstream media as well (and rightfully so in some cases). I know you're trying to make a point, but exaggeration doesn't help your case.
OK. It might be only 85% that's liberal and Democrat biased.
-
How do I prevent Obama or the Russians from tapping in to my "smart" camera that can connect to the internet with Wi-Fi. I'm not concerned about my microwave? It's "dumb".
-
How do I prevent Obama or the Russians from tapping in to my "smart" camera that can connect to the internet with Wi-Fi. I'm not concerned about my microwave? It's "dumb".
Follow the FBI Director's advice from a year ago: he said he puts a black tape over his computer or phone camera lens when not in use.
-
How do I prevent Obama or the Russians from tapping in to my "smart" camera that can connect to the internet with Wi-Fi. I'm not concerned about my microwave? It's "dumb".
Put it in airplane mode (when WiFi not needed). But you won't need it for protection from Obama and the Russians, I'd be much more worried about Erdogan and Trump ;)
-
OK. It might be only 85% that's liberal and Democrat biased.
Indeed, sometimes humour can be your best defense ;)
-
How do I prevent Obama or the Russians from tapping in to my "smart" camera that can connect to the internet with Wi-Fi. I'm not concerned about my microwave? It's "dumb".
Put your camera in the microwave and select "popcorn"...that'll keep "them" from tapping your camera. Oh, wait...you want to keep using your camera? Well, all you have to do is disable wi-fi - DOH!
-
So, no direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia on fixing the election but there sure is a lot of smoke about Trump/Putin connections...
All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868)
What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia? The answer is still unclear, and Democrats in Congress want to get to the bottom of it with an investigation. But there’s no doubt that a spider web of connections—some public, some private, some clear, some murky—exists between Trump, his associates and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
I'll let you decide whether to view the charts but it's pretty impressive that there are so many connections. And there's no doubt that it will provide fodder that will plague Trump's admin for a long time. He better hope all of the investigations don't actually find compelling evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians...pretty sure that would be an impeachable offense :~(
And yes, the charts are on http://www.politico.com (http://www.politico.com) and by Alan's perspective #FAKENEWS, but the charts represent verifiable "facts", you know, things that are "real" and not "alternative"?
Edited to remove over large graphic–sorry!
-
So, no direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia on fixing the election but there sure is a lot of smoke about Trump/Putin connections...
I'll let you decide whether to view the charts but it's pretty impressive that there are so many connections. And there's no doubt that it will provide fodder that will plague Trump's admin for a long time. He better hope all of the investigations don't actually find compelling evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians...pretty sure that would be an impeachable offense :~(
Makes me think of this wonderful game of a few years ago.
The Bacon Number (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon_number)
-
Makes me think of this wonderful game of a few years ago.
The Bacon Number (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon_number)
Yep, but if you look at the charts, they don't need to go 6 degrees of separation...more like one or two degrees of separation.
-
Yep, but if you look at the charts, they don't need to go 6 degrees of separation...more like one or two degrees of separation.
What's your point?
Does the fact that I, someone whom has no political connections, could, in theory, have a very high probability of having only six degrees of separation from Putin prove I am a traitor?
If you could find 5 other people who connect me to Putin, which is a very real possibility, I would not be surprised by anyone in politics having only two degrees of separation from another political opponent, even in another country.
Plus I believe it was Obama that said, "the 80s called, they want their foreign policies back" in response to Romney's Russia position in 2012. Trump has been campaigning on better ties with Russia, just like Obama in 2008 and 2012. I am not surprise by either one talking with Russia due to try and make this happen and I firm believe that, like Trump said and Obama supported from 2008 to 2013, anyone who does not want better ties with Russia is stupid.
Show the proof that Trump actually conspired with Putin to rig the election, until then those who claim this is the case are at the same level as conspiracy theorists, because that is all this is right now, a conspiracy theory.
I feel like I am the dinner table with my father who still insist Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with it and bases his opinions off of the movie JFK.
-
What's your point?
Does the fact that I, someone whom has no political connections, could, in theory, have a very high probability of having only six degrees of separation from Putin prove I am a traitor?
Did you look at the charts? It ain't 6 degrees of separation doode, it's one or two degrees of separation.
So far there's no proof of collusion but as far as I know, the investigation is ongoing (as in not finished). But we do know that Trump and Russian entanglements are causing Trump a lot of grief...which could be largely mitigated if he released his tax returns (like he said he would at one point in time) proving he doesn't have business ties to Russia...
But that wouldn't address the fact that the Trump campaign demanded the removal of certain language supporting Ukrainian fight against Russian aggression. Hum Why?
Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort have direct Russian ties– Manafort in particular may have actual blood on his hands (Donald Trump's former campaign manager accused of playing part in Ukrainian mass killings (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-manager-ukraine-mass-killings-russia-fbi-email-hack-dnc-a7627766.html)).
Then there's Sergei Millian (US-Russian Businessman Said to Be Source of Key Trump Dossier Claims (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-russian-businessman-source-key-trump-dossier-claims/story?id=45019603)) and Felix H. Sater (A Back-Channel Plan for Ukraine and Russia, Courtesy of Trump Associates (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-russia.html?_r=1) and the Trump/Russian/Putin connections become far, far more than can possibly explained by 6 degrees of separation...
Esquire (are they #FAKENEWS?) has a rundown of "connections":
All of the Trump Administration's Ties to Russia (That We Know About) (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a53134/trump-administration-russia-ties/)
-
...But that wouldn't address the fact that the Trump campaign demanded the removal of certain language supporting Ukrainian fight against Russian aggression. Hum Why?...
Because it makes perfect sense.
As for "two degrees of separation"... when I was working in Russia, I had our company's (American, btw) security chief on speed dial. He happened to be a Secret Service Chief equivalent for Mr. Andropov, the Communist Party Secretary General. Does that make me "one degree" away from the most powerful man in Russia in its time?
-
So, no direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia on fixing the election but there sure is a lot of smoke about Trump/Putin connections...
All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868)
I'll let you decide whether to view the charts but it's pretty impressive that there are so many connections. And there's no doubt that it will provide fodder that will plague Trump's admin for a long time. He better hope all of the investigations don't actually find compelling evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians...pretty sure that would be an impeachable offense :~(
And yes, the charts are on http://www.politico.com (http://www.politico.com) and by Alan's perspective #FAKENEWS, but the charts represent verifiable "facts", you know, things that are "real" and not "alternative"?
Edited to remove over large graphic–sorry!
Good clues. I'm ready to make an accusation. Mrs. White did it in the Conservatory with the Pipe Wrench.
-
What's your point?
Does the fact that I, someone whom has no political connections, could, in theory, have a very high probability of having only six degrees of separation from Putin prove I am a traitor?
If you could find 5 other people who connect me to Putin, which is a very real possibility, I would not be surprised by anyone in politics having only two degrees of separation from another political opponent, even in another country.
Plus I believe it was Obama that said, "the 80s called, they want their foreign policies back" in response to Romney's Russia position in 2012. Trump has been campaigning on better ties with Russia, just like Obama in 2008 and 2012. I am not surprise by either one talking with Russia due to try and make this happen and I firm believe that, like Trump said and Obama supported from 2008 to 2013, anyone who does not want better ties with Russia is stupid.
Show the proof that Trump actually conspired with Putin to rig the election, until then those who claim this is the case are at the same level as conspiracy theorists, because that is all this is right now, a conspiracy theory.
I feel like I am the dinner table with my father who still insist Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with it and bases his opinions off of the movie JFK.
I'm pretty suspicious too. I worked for a company in NYC that did sub-contracting business with Trump. I'm not going to tell you what he sub-contracted for or I'd have to kill you.
Dasvidaniya.
-
He happened to be a Secret Service Chief equivalent for Mr. Andropov, the Communist Party Secretary General. Does that make me "one degree" away from the most powerful man in Russia in its time?
Yep...but it depends on what you asked your security chief on speed dial to do for you...and if Andropov had him ask you to do things...and if those things were illegal or corrupt or amounted to collusion or espionage.
Changing the GOP platform to make what Putin did a non-issue in the election seems more than just a favor for a friend...and considering the GOP Convention (held July 18–21, 2016) was over just before the DNC WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 was pretty interesting timing don't ya think?
Bad luck on the part of the DNC or a timely Russian attempt at influencing the election?
-
What if we find out that Obama illegally wiretapped Trump and recorded a conversation that showed Trump colluding with the Russians to swing the election?
-
Yep...but it depends on what you asked your security chief on speed dial to do for you...and if Andropov had him ask you to do things...and if those things were illegal or corrupt or amounted to collusion or espionage.
Changing the GOP platform to make what Putin did a non-issue in the election seems more than just a favor for a friend...and considering the GOP Convention (held July 18–21, 2016) was over just before the DNC WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 was pretty interesting timing don't ya think?
Bad luck on the part of the DNC or a timely Russian attempt at influencing the election?
It could be that once the Russians saw Trump ramp up his honest desire to do business with them, they went to work to hurt Hillary.
-
I am not making that general argument. I am making the argument that the original, medieval interpretation of Islam is STILL uniquely violent. All other religions outgrew their medieval versions hundreds of years ago. Also, because it was repeated so many times as a straw-man argument, let me be clear: I never said all Muslims are violent or medieval. Just that the particular, original, violent interpretation of Islam has reached a critical mass, enough to pose a serious danger world-wide. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of imams engaged in radicalization, tens of thousands armed fighters, hundreds of thousands in the immediate supporting network, and millions of quiet supporters on the sidelines (some of which can't wait to jump into the fray). And that is world-wide. Other religious conflicts are relatively local (like Northern Ireland), or spurred by exceptional circumstances (like wars - e.g. creation of concentration camps for Orthodox Christians, Jews and Gypsies by Catholics in my former home country). No other contemporary religion can claim such organizational and ideological reach (for its medieval version - the Catholic church has both, but has luckily abandoned its violent side). As horrible as lynchings and KKK were, they were relatively local and never reached any ideological or religious mainstream support. One more thing: Islam today is blurring the lines between state and church, religion and ideology. No other contemporary religion can claim that (though I am sure they wouldn't mind, if they could). It was Iran's supreme religious and state ruler that issued fatwa against Salman Rushdie, not some raghead lunatic. It is Saudi Arabia that still today beheads, stones unfaithful women, cuts limbs and publicly lashes. It is SA and Iran that still support terrorist organizations world-wide, more or less overtly (see my previous link about Saudis' link to Kosovo). And spontaneous public lynchings for religious reasons still happen in many Muslim countries today.
Thanks for this - it makes your position much more understandable.
-
What if we find out that Obama illegally wiretapped Trump and recorded a conversation that showed Trump colluding with the Russians to swing the election?
Then I'm moving to Canada...I have friends there :~)
-
Just when you thought that microwave ovens are the most dangerous spying devices:
"Standard Innovation reaches $3 million class-action settlement after its vibrators were shown to collect and transmit ‘highly sensitive’ data"
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14920510/sex-toy-vibrator-we-vibe-4-lawsuit-settlement-privacy
:D
-
Just when you thought that microwave ovens are the most dangerous spying devices:
"Standard Innovation reaches $3 million class-action settlement after its vibrators were shown to collect and transmit ‘highly sensitive’ data"
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14920510/sex-toy-vibrator-we-vibe-4-lawsuit-settlement-privacy
:D
The Inter-nuts of Tinge
-
Trump to roll back use of climate change in policy reviews: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-carbon-idUSKBN16L2R4
IOW: let future generations deal with the issues. Trump has put some people in strategical positions (like the EPA) to deny reality and move towards making more money in the short term (and more cost in the future). Typical short term policy changes/actions will cost more over a longer term. And the cost is not only in money, but also in human lives (life expectancy and health issues), and changes in (food) vegetation growth and spreading of insects. Especially inexplicable behavior from (Republican) representatives who claim religious morality, and responsibility for protecting creation.
Scientists to EPA head: You don’t know what you’re talking about
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/scientists-to-epa-head-you-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about/
Cheers,
Bart
-
False equivalence.
Not really when you look at this historically. The Crusades are a good example (chased my ancestors out of the Rhineland). The 30 years way was awful (Christian vs. Christian); CV Wedgewood's good book on this war is informative.
-
So far there's no proof of collusion but as far as I know, the investigation is ongoing (as in not finished). But we do know that Trump and Russian entanglements are causing Trump a lot of grief...which could be largely mitigated if he released his tax returns (like he said he would at one point in time) proving he doesn't have business ties to Russia...
In a way this is the same game that Trump is playing with his wild accusations and then sending out his minions to demand that something which is untrue be proven untrue. The tax returns are not likely to be useful as most of the foreign ties (if there are any) are likely being done by interlocking LLCs which would not show up on the personal tax returns.
-
IOW: let future generations deal with the issues. Trump has put some people in strategical positions (like the EPA) to deny reality and move towards making more money in the short term (and more cost in the future). Typical short term policy changes/actions will cost more over a longer term. And the cost is not only in money, but also in human lives (life expectancy and health issues). Especially inexplicable behavior from (Republican) representatives who claim religious morality, and responsibility for protecting creation.
When you bring in a business person whose background is focused on profits, as PotUS, this is not surprising. I fear that he is taking Charles Wilson's quote "I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa" a bit too literally.
-
When you bring in a business person whose background is focused on profits, as PotUS, this is not surprising.
Indeed, not surprising if he were to operate in isolation. But what about his entourage? They will be held as accountable (or more because they should know better than Trump) as their formal leader.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not really when you look at this historically. The Crusades are a good example...
If you skew the history by, say, 800 years? That is, compare Christianity from 800 years ago with today's Islam. Then again, not even close:
-
Indeed, not surprising if he were to operate in isolation. But what about his entourage? They will be held as accountable (or more because they should know better than Trump) as their formal leader.
Cheers,
Bart
The PotUS has advisers, but as some old dead guy once said "the buck stops here". I hope that Trump understands this. Unfortunately, there is no requirement of the PotUS to actually take the advice of his advisers. The PotUS takes advice and makes the decision. That's the whole purpose of a president. The final decision and the final responsibility rests with the PotUS. I fear that Trump likes to make decisions but throws minions under the bus when accountability comes up.
-
The PotUS has advisers, but as some old dead guy once said "the buck stops here". I hope that Trump understands this. Unfortunately, there is no requirement of the PotUS to actually take the advice of his advisers. The PotUS takes advice and makes the decision. That's the whole purpose of a president. The final decision and the final responsibility rests with the PotUS. I fear that Trump likes to make decisions but throws minions under the bus when accountability comes up.
Yes, the PotUS is responsible for his own decisions (as are those who put him in that powerful position). But the government of the USA also consists of the Senate and Congress. They too have a responsibility and will be held accountable. Ignorance is not an excuse, when advisors and scientists can/do educate someone.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you skew the history by, say, 800 years? That is, compare Christianity from 800 years ago with today's Islam. Then again, not even close:
if we focus on the Spain and Portugal in that time they were under arabic influence.
The muslim society was a relaxt one, were also Christians and jews were accepted.
After that ; the Spanish Inquisition...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
I can also show you a map of the Americas around 1200...
after that - the christians came from the east tot conquer...
-
if we focus on the Spain and Portugal in that time they were under arabic influence.
The muslim society was a relaxt one, were also Christians and jews were accepted...
My people should know a thing or two about "relaxed," we were "only" 500 years under Turks. As for "accepted", there were three options: convert, die, or pay tax. The same options ISIS is offering to infidels today. Very relaxed.
-
Yes, but Spain had at least two waves of Moslem invaders - the first where various religions were tolerated and existed in peace, side-by-side, and a later one, mainly from northern Africa, where killing became the name of the game. But internecine, too, as today.
Huge advances in learning came from the Moors: algebra, astronomy, all sorts of sciences as well as (strongly in Mallorca) subterranean irrigation systems turning arid into green. The influences of Moorish architecture are to be seen all over Europe. (It's said that the folk memory of those glorious days of Islamic positive glory are somewhere back in the psyche of the current ativists. Their version of Rust Belt retrieval. Trouble is, the moment people start to fight, it all ends up in tears. Which is why, for them, those days became memory and not present reality.)
Spain's occupation really came about because Spain wasn't a single, united country with any cohesive policy. It was a mess of different power structures, just as was Italy until even later. Thinking of that, Nicola Sturgeon seems bent on ignoring the lessons of history. Sheesh, you just had to be a kid in the schoolyard to know that small, isolated and weak didn't equate wth having a great time.
At least the Brits left India with a railroad system. And a few tons of Rolls-Royces in various collections. Guess we almost extinguished the tiger, though. Just as well we didn't have to deal with the India and the Pakistans that were to follow our 'glorious' exit in August of '47! It would have bankrupted us several time over.
;-)
Rob
-
Death by ideology. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different estimates for each event, but the overall picture is pretty clear. Perverse ideologies, paranoid and ruthless dictators (and their minions), the politics of fear, hatred, and rationalized superiority/"righteousness".
Wars and Casualties of the 20th & 21st Centuries (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html)
Worst Genocides of the 20th & 21st Centuries (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html)
-
Trump to roll back use of climate change in policy reviews: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-carbon-idUSKBN16L2R4
IOW: let future generations deal with the issues. Trump has put some people in strategical positions (like the EPA) to deny reality and move towards making more money in the short term (and more cost in the future). Typical short term policy changes/actions will cost more over a longer term. And the cost is not only in money, but also in human lives (life expectancy and health issues), and changes in (food) vegetation growth and spreading of insects. Especially inexplicable behavior from (Republican) representatives who claim religious morality, and responsibility for protecting creation.
Scientists to EPA head: You don’t know what you’re talking about
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/scientists-to-epa-head-you-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about/
Cheers,
Bart
The problem with climate change is that most of the arguments are about whether it's happening or not. Other than the supposed bad effect on polar bear and the rising levels effecting low areas, there are not many analysis of the actual effects, good and bad, of changes.
First, is the assumption that the way it was let's say 50 years ago is the optimum kind of weather. Who says? It may be the climate that we're use too. But without actually living in other climate conditions, we may find that there are better conditions that we experienced in the past. It would be a very large coincidence if the climate was optimal in world history 50 years ago. We may find that slightly warmer is better. Certainly the mini ice age we had a few centuries ago or the big Ice Age we had 12000 years ago that covered half the northern hemisphere were certainly worse than any thing we have now.
Regarding warming, sure, it may effect the polar bear. (As an aside, the polar bear population has been expanding and the main problem is if it's too cold after the winter in the spring so that seals, the bear's main prey, don't find breathing holes. With frozen expanses, the bear's newborn die for lack of food as there are no seals around. It turns out that warmer winters and springs are better for the bears and seals). Warming climates in the tundra and other northern areas and rising tree lines up mountains will allow for expansion of other species including trees, insects, brown and grizzly bears, flowers, etc. Even more space to plant food and for human expansion. It seems that we've assumed the changes of a warming climate are all negative. That just isn't true and it does a disservice to only concentrate on the climate itself and negative changes only. I don't think studies have covered the positive effects. Of course it's always more interesting to worry about meteors crashing into the earth and destroying it. All our disaster movies follow this theme. It more boring to study normal and positive processes.
-
Death by ideology. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different estimates for each event, but the overall picture is pretty clear. Perverse ideologies, paranoid and ruthless dictators (and their minions), the politics of fear, hatred, and rationalized superiority/"righteousness".
Wars and Casualties of the 20th & 21st Centuries (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html)
Worst Genocides of the 20th & 21st Centuries (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html)
Definitely Trump's fault.
-
Did you look at the charts? It ain't 6 degrees of separation doode, it's one or two degrees of separation.
So far there's no proof of collusion but as far as I know, the investigation is ongoing (as in not finished). But we do know that Trump and Russian entanglements are causing Trump a lot of grief...which could be largely mitigated if he released his tax returns (like he said he would at one point in time) proving he doesn't have business ties to Russia...
But that wouldn't address the fact that the Trump campaign demanded the removal of certain language supporting Ukrainian fight against Russian aggression. Hum Why?
Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort have direct Russian ties– Manafort in particular may have actual blood on his hands (Donald Trump's former campaign manager accused of playing part in Ukrainian mass killings (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-manager-ukraine-mass-killings-russia-fbi-email-hack-dnc-a7627766.html)).
Then there's Sergei Millian (US-Russian Businessman Said to Be Source of Key Trump Dossier Claims (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-russian-businessman-source-key-trump-dossier-claims/story?id=45019603)) and Felix H. Sater (A Back-Channel Plan for Ukraine and Russia, Courtesy of Trump Associates (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-russia.html?_r=1) and the Trump/Russian/Putin connections become far, far more than can possibly explained by 6 degrees of separation...
Esquire (are they #FAKENEWS?) has a rundown of "connections":
All of the Trump Administration's Ties to Russia (That We Know About) (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a53134/trump-administration-russia-ties/)
Well well well ... national politicians actually talk and develop relationships with national politicians from other countries, even adversaries. Who would have thought? What a diplomatic thing to do!
This is the Dem's equivalent of Benghazi, and it is just going to go on and on. Unfortunately, it's going to turn off a whole lot of people to the Left, just like Benghazi did to the Right.
Of course, there will the choir boys, and since the choir is usually louder then the rest, the politicians will play to them, but it still does not mean it's not crazy talk.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of pushing this down the throats of the average US citizens, the Dems would be better off with some self reflection on why they really lost, like the Reps did in 2008.
Now insofar as Trump changing the Ukraine language, I really don't care. I really don't care about a small peninsula 1000s of miles away that has a lot more to do with Russia strategically then the USA. I'm tired of it, and to be honest, not something worth fighting a war over, which HRC was more then ready to do.
-
The problem with climate change is that most of the arguments are about whether it's happening or not.
That's the problem, that is not what the discussion among scientists is about. It's not even about how much of the change is caused by human influence, there is only some discussion about the exact percentages (e.g. if it's 3% or 4% on a given partial metric). It's almost ridiculous that this still needs to be explained, and it's almost criminal if a government denies the facts which are known to be detrimental to the public's health. Reminds me of the cigarette industry.
Regarding warming, sure, it may effect the polar bear. (As an aside, the polar bear population has been expanding ...
Because they have stopped hunting them into extinction!
It seems that we've assumed the changes of a warming climate are all negative.
Most of them are! More extreme weather, failed harvests and droughts (with resulting death and migrations that will not be stopped by closing borders and building walls), spreading infections (immune to anti-biotics), to name a few. Fortunately, most of it will not affect your personal life in the short term. So screw all others and future generations. And when reality finally sinks in, it's too late to reverse the process, but hey we had a great time while it lasted.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Did you look at the charts? It ain't 6 degrees of separation doode, it's one or two degrees of separation.
So far there's no proof of collusion but as far as I know, the investigation is ongoing (as in not finished). But we do know that Trump and Russian entanglements are causing Trump a lot of grief...which could be largely mitigated if he released his tax returns (like he said he would at one point in time) proving he doesn't have business ties to Russia...
But that wouldn't address the fact that the Trump campaign demanded the removal of certain language supporting Ukrainian fight against Russian aggression. Hum Why?
Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort have direct Russian ties– Manafort in particular may have actual blood on his hands (Donald Trump's former campaign manager accused of playing part in Ukrainian mass killings (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-manager-ukraine-mass-killings-russia-fbi-email-hack-dnc-a7627766.html)).
Then there's Sergei Millian (US-Russian Businessman Said to Be Source of Key Trump Dossier Claims (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-russian-businessman-source-key-trump-dossier-claims/story?id=45019603)) and Felix H. Sater (A Back-Channel Plan for Ukraine and Russia, Courtesy of Trump Associates (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-russia.html?_r=1) and the Trump/Russian/Putin connections become far, far more than can possibly explained by 6 degrees of separation...
Esquire (are they #FAKENEWS?) has a rundown of "connections":
All of the Trump Administration's Ties to Russia (That We Know About) (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a53134/trump-administration-russia-ties/)
The only thing that there's proof of (Trump acknowledged it already) is that he sold a home he paid $40 million for to a Russian who paid him $100 million. Now if Trump can only make deals like that for America with China, even you might vote for him.
The whole tax thing is about domestic politics and has nothing to do with Russia. What it will do if released is give non-stop ammunition to the Democrats to criticize Trump for the next 4 years. Just look at the small release yesterday of two pages from 2005 of his returns. Trump's attackers already knock him about a $105 million write-off for losses, all perfectly legal in compliance with the IRS. Can you image the attacks and smears if the Democrats had all 100 pages of his return, regardless of the honesty and the fact there's nothing there? He'd be an idiot to release them.
During the election, Americans had a choice between Trump, and the corrupt Clintons. Have you all forgotten how she collected $250,000 for speeches to Wall Street and foreign sovereigns. The listeners didn't care about what she aid but rather what she'd do for them after she became President. She was selling access. Of course, the Clintons claimed this was all for charity. Well, now that she lost, everything's be shut down. They laid off 22 employees. No one would pay her a dime because she can't do anything for them any more. The whole thing was a slush fund to enrich the Clintons.
The American voter made a choice and figured they rather hire a businessman/CEO, warts and all, who might be able to create jobs and help the economy than a corrupt politician who forever thought only of herself.
http://observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-foundation-shuts-down-clinton-global-initiative/
-
... It's almost ridiculous that this still needs to be explained...
That's the very arrogance that cost you (well, your American counterparts) the election. As if you are the chosen ones with the knowledge, and you just have to explain it to the unwashed. Smarter ones used to say: "Scio me nihil scire."
-
...Most of them are! More extreme weather, failed harvests and droughts (with resulting death and migrations that will not be stopped by closing borders and building walls), spreading infections (immune to anti-biotics), to name a few. Fortunately, most of it will not affect your personal life in the short term. So screw all others and future generations. And when reality finally sinks in, it's too late to reverse the process, but hey we had a great time while it lasted.
Cheers,
Bart
The problem is that for every one of the negatives, we can point to a positive. So it depends what articles and studies you read. The point I'm making is that there is very little about positive studies because the media want to focus on the negative for political reasons and because disaster sells papers better than good news.
Here are a couple of positive studies and articles of warming climate. Something you should appreciate, they also support the fact the climate is warming. But the impact is positive.
http://www.livescience.com/28406-arctic-tundra-turning-green.html Warming Tundra allows more things to grow and good for people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357808/ Tree line in Alps moves up 115 meters giving more space for animals and people to live.
-
That's the very arrogance that cost you (well, your American counterparts) the election. As if you are the chosen ones with the knowledge, and you just have to explain it to the unwashed. Smarter ones used to say: "Scio me nihil scire."
There are 'even' some republicans with a conscience that do not want to take the blame. Maybe there will be some more that come to their senses instead of blindly/selfishly pursuing their own interests.
In challenge to Trump, 17 Republicans in Congress join fight against global warming:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-congress-idUSKBN16M235
I applaud these brave Republican members of congress. Brave, because as the linked article mentions:
"A similar resolution was introduced by Republicans in the previous Congress, with 17 signing. Some of those lawmakers lost their reelection bids."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, now that she lost, everything's be shut down. They laid off 22 employees. No one would pay her a dime because she can't do anything for them any more. The whole thing was a slush fund to enrich the Clintons.
Yeah, that was pretty telling. When Clinton lost, that would be the optimum time to increase the efforts in the foundations since there would be no conflict of interest. But the fact that once she stopped being a viable source of influence, suddenly these countries stopped contributing. It is hard to maintain that these countries/corporations were interested in the good that the foundations were doing. It does seem to point to a conflict of interest.
Hillary Clinton's legacy will be: Being the only politician that could have lost to Trump. I really think that if the DNC had selected a random citizen off the streets, they could have beaten Trump. But instead they gave us Hillary. In retrospect, I feel this was a worse decision than the RNC running Palin.
Trump and Hillary.... representing the best of the best of the best our two major parties could come up with.
(facepalm)
-
The American voter made a choice and figured they rather hire a businessman/CEO, warts and all, who might be able to create jobs and help the economy than a corrupt politician who forever thought only of herself.
American voters cast around 3 million more votes for Clinton than for Trump. The Electoral College system is the only reason he won.
-
Hillary would have won the electoral vote too if she wasn't so corrupt and self-centered.
-
The problem with climate change is that most of the arguments are about whether it's happening or not. Other than the supposed bad effect on polar bear and the rising levels effecting low areas, there are not many analysis of the actual effects, good and bad, of changes.
First, is the assumption that the way it was let's say 50 years ago is the optimum kind of weather. Who says? It may be the climate that we're use too. But without actually living in other climate conditions, we may find that there are better conditions that we experienced in the past. It would be a very large coincidence if the climate was optimal in world history 50 years ago. We may find that slightly warmer is better. Certainly the mini ice age we had a few centuries ago or the big Ice Age we had 12000 years ago that covered half the northern hemisphere were certainly worse than any thing we have now.
Regarding warming, sure, it may effect the polar bear. (As an aside, the polar bear population has been expanding and the main problem is if it's too cold after the winter in the spring so that seals, the bear's main prey, don't find breathing holes. With frozen expanses, the bear's newborn die for lack of food as there are no seals around. It turns out that warmer winters and springs are better for the bears and seals). Warming climates in the tundra and other northern areas and rising tree lines up mountains will allow for expansion of other species including trees, insects, brown and grizzly bears, flowers, etc. Even more space to plant food and for human expansion. It seems that we've assumed the changes of a warming climate are all negative. That just isn't true and it does a disservice to only concentrate on the climate itself and negative changes only. I don't think studies have covered the positive effects. Of course it's always more interesting to worry about meteors crashing into the earth and destroying it. All our disaster movies follow this theme. It more boring to study normal and positive processes.
Alan,
What's your problem with climate change? It's unclear whether you're saying it isn't happening, whether you admit that it is, or whether you are simply saying that it's all going to be better when it gets warmer. Or, alternatively, that it doesn't matter? Hedging your verbal bets reaches a point where you are better saying nothing than saying a lot of stuff that's neither one thing nor the other, and is, to be generous, simply regurgitated political catechism with all the intentional opaqueness of that.
Polar bears are just one easily identified, cuddly example that unlike the reality of the beast, is also a warm and cosy idea to which to cleave in ahhh!... moments.
Forget friggin' bears: think people and countries. Think the Ganges delta; think the Maldives; think Florida, Louisiana and no doubt parts of Texas, and if you were to care, my present home town.
Give a thought to Africa and the expanding deserts. It's sometimes said that Africa starts in the South of France. Doesn't your local tv service show you what's happening to millions in Sudan and Somalia, today, or is the latter (Somalia), in the States, all about heroes in Black Hawk helicopters going bang, bang, bang! and sometimes getting themselves killed for their efforts?
The reality of what's already happening is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions, and unless you are happy to say okay, but starvation is just nature's way to control population figures, then you must take account of what man is contributing. It isn't an argument about what nature is or is not contributing to the equation; it's about what humanity can do to avert, mitigate - and at the very least, slow down ultimate disaster not just in the low lands and the far away lands, but right in your own neck of the woods too.
Ice Ages are not the point: nobody is offering to stop them or to bring them back for the skiing crowd; even the Italian Alps are now losing their glaciers in a song of sympathy and harmony with the Andes and Himalayas. What it's about is, to repeat, humanity making an effort to stop things from getting worse more quickly.
I don't think short-term US economic figures are worth the rest of the world's future. Jesus, even China, yes, soulless China is accepting the problem and trying to do something major about it.
Head tucked deep in the sand won't stop your ass frying in that sunshine, believe me. And don't imagine you'll be safe in any fortress America: your own folks have the guns - and the will to use them - should their food sources start to become unreliable. They already use their weapons to devastating effect for far less than that. And where do you imagine the armed forces, police and National Guard sympathies are going to be when their own families start to feel the pressure on food and basic survival?
You've had one civil war already; are you geared up for the next? Reckon Mr T will wave his zillions of bucks and 'fix' it - fixing it is what he said he does didn't he? He wouldn't be around to be seen - he'd be off somewhere altogether more pleasant at the drop of a hat. Because he could.
Rob
-
Permafrost soils hold about twice as much carbon as currently found in the atmosphere. When it thaws that carbon is released as carbon dioxide and methane, further accelerating the warming. This alone could cause large changes to happen rapidly relative to anything we have seen.
An interesting read: https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp (https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp)
-
... It's unclear whether you're saying it isn't happening, whether you admit that it is, or whether you are simply saying that it's all going to be better when it gets warmer. Or, alternatively, that it doesn't matter?...
The thing is, Rob, that Alan doesn't know. You do not know. I do not know. Nobody knows (only believes).
...what humanity can do to avert, mitigate...
Another unknown, Rob. Or whatever humanity think we could do is but a grain of sand in the ocean of time. At one time, New York was horrified that they would be inundated under piles of horse manure...then cars came.
-
Another unknown, Rob. Or whether humanity think we could do is but a grain of sand in the ocean of time. At one time, New York was horrified that they would be inundated under piles of horse manure...then cars came.
And now (as part of that result) it risks inundation by rising water levels. One can always wait for that to happen first, before thinking about solutions. Know what, the Dutch are very experienced in keeping water in check, and reclaiming land from the sea, for centuries already. Good for our business, and we did assist a.o. in Louisiana and New York, so I probably should encourage the USA in keeping up the good work, if only global warming would stop at your borders.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The problem is that for every one of the negatives, we can point to a positive. So it depends what articles and studies you read. The point I'm making is that there is very little about positive studies because the media want to focus on the negative for political reasons and because disaster sells papers better than good news.
Here are a couple of positive studies and articles of warming climate. Something you should appreciate, they also support the fact the climate is warming. But the impact is positive.
http://www.livescience.com/28406-arctic-tundra-turning-green.html Warming Tundra allows more things to grow and good for people.
Depends on where you live. The thawing of the permafrost layers releases loads of methane (even worse for global warming), and it releases e.g. anthrax from animals that were killed by that, but got isolated by ice.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3357808/ Tree line in Alps moves up 115 meters giving more space for animals and people to live.
Great, that will put locals out of business (exploiting ski slopes) and reduce tourism (=less travel). Too bad if you are a local resident though.
See, there are usually several (conflicting) aspects to those (contrived) benefits. Human intervention in natural processes more often than not have a negative effect on a larger/global scale. So minimizing our influence on those processes, reducing our Carbon footprint, is usually to be preferred if we have a choice.
And a choice we have. Reducing emissions, opens up lots of new job opportunities as well.
Edit, adding related news:
Exclusive: U.S. group Sierra Club seeks probe of EPA's Pruitt over CO2 comments:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-epa-exclusive-idUSKBN16M2O7
Cheers,
Bart
-
The thing is, Rob, that Alan doesn't know. You do not know. I do not know. Nobody knows (only believes).
I think given what is being observed in the Antarctic, the Arctic, and Greenland that is is very clear that something is getting warmer. What other way to explain the loss of ice in all three of those regions and the splitting of a rather large ice shelf in the Antarctic. We also have a lot of temperature data from all over that points to something happening with the temperature (hint: it's not getting cooler). I'm pretty sure those are facts. The other facts as I learned in the atmospheric chemistry class that I took 45 years ago is that CO2 and methane are both greenhouse gases and both have been increasing in recent years. CO2 from the burning of fossile fuels and methane from a variety of sources including off gassing from fracking and oil production and the increased raising of ruminant animals whose incomplete digestive systems result in the release of uncaptured methane. All of those are facts. Maybe some people don't want to attribute this to human activity.
-
The thing is, Rob, that Alan doesn't know. You do not know. I do not know. Nobody knows (only believes).
Very true! Nobody knows what exactly will happen.
But common sense says that all the drilling and fracking, in addition to the toxic, livestock and plastic pollutions won't help the planet and its future inhabitants.
-
Facts are necessary, but not sufficient for a complex explanation or theory. More like building blocks. What matters is how you combine them. Needless to say, most people know by now that correlation is not necessarily causation. So, the fact that there is a warming, and the fact that greenhouse gases are increasing is a correlation. It might or might not mean causation. The earth is five billion years old, with periodic cooling and warming, most of the time without human "help."
-
Waiting for Jeff to ridicule and pour scorn on the guy who paid $38 millions in taxes. :)
-
For you guys who claim it's impossible to know the essentials of climate change:
Do you expose your family to chemical pollution of this kind (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html) because science cannot tell us absolutely every single thing there is to know about their harms?
When people die early deaths from exposure to such chemicals, from your perspective who is the victim: the people who died, or the companies who make them?
-
Facts are necessary, but not sufficient for a complex explanation or theory. More like building blocks.
Give a man enough bricks and he can build a house! There is this story that I just read: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/15/stopping-global-warming-is-only-way-to-save-great-barrier-reef-scientists-warn You are right in that one or two facts don't necessarily build an explanation or theory unless it's an apple falling on Newton's head. However, there are so many facts emerging from all parts of the globe that argue that this is not "business as usual."
-
RE: Climate Change
For me, the debate is all too reminiscent of the "smoking is bad for your health" fight. Time and time again my father would point to a "study" that dismissed the causal relationship. The damage was already done in his case, and his end was not something I'd wish for anyone. In 1954 the tobacco industry set up its own Tobacco Industry Research Committee, promising to help in the research of tobacco use and health. We know now how helpful that group turned out to be. :o A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement)
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt)
Like so many things these days, climate change has become a politically-charged issue. As the detailed science and statistics all become overwhelming for me, I start to look at motivations.
-
To answer someone's question, I think it is warming up but it's not clear to me how much is natural and how much is caused by man. Everyone has been assuming, for example, that the melting and warming in the Arctic has been caused by man. Here's a study, just published two days ago, that indicates that scientists now believe 30-50% of the melting of arctic ice is by natural causes. I doubt if this news will ever be published in the regular press or shown on cable. The news is always that man is causing all the warming. I believe that there are natural factors at work as well
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/14/520104348/natural-environmental-swings-cause-up-to-half-of-arctic-sea-ice-loss
But the main question I had was what will be the actual damage caused by warming, regardless of the reason for warming? I want to move the debate past whether it is warming. Again, the media only focus on the negative because it sells newspapers and it's the current popular political thinking. Part of the reason for the opposition to the premise that man causes warming and its bad for you is almost counter-intuitive. When winters are mild as they have been for a few years, most people like it. They think it's a positive. So while they see it's getting warming, the effect seems positive. So these people ask why do climate change believers want to spend a lot of money to change something that seems positive so they deny it's even happening?
This twist of their logic would be more difficult for them to espouse if the scientists and the media did their job. They seem like they're piling on rather than being fair in their assessments, kind of like what is happening with Trump. If they provided lists of positive and negative effects, and presented the results in a fair and honest approach, then deniers might come around. We may also find that the believers might lower their demands if the positive effects are more common then previously realized. All I'm requesting is honest analysis and publishing.
My argument is that beside being nice having warmer winters, there are a lot of other positive reasons warming is good for the environment. At a minimum, evidence of both positive and negative effects should be published so we can make educated decision about what we should do. Right now it seems like one side is trying to jam it down the other side's throat.
-
Facts are necessary, but not sufficient for a complex explanation or theory. More like building blocks. What matters is how you combine them. Needless to say, most people know by now that correlation is not necessarily causation. So, the fact that there is a warming, and the fact that greenhouse gases are increasing is a correlation. It might or might not mean causation. The earth is five billion years old, with periodic cooling and warming, most of the time without human "help."
Cooling and warming are only two things which can be relatively easily measured. Quite alarming, but pollutions of all kinds which are intrinsically linked to the former two are even more serious.
SOLUTIONS? Manage growth and limit overpopulation.
It has been estimated that the ocean contains 5 trillion particles, totaling 250,000 tons, while a study last year concluded that 100,000 microbeads entered the ocean with each use of a personal cosmetic product that contained them.
Microplastics in oceans (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33997)
A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife.
Livestock Pollution (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html)
Nausea, headaches and nosebleeds, invasive chemical smells, constant drilling, slumping property prices – welcome to Ponder, Texas, where fracking has overtaken the town.
Fracking Hell (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/14/fracking-hell-live-next-shale-gas-well-texas-us)
We do have huge population growth in places where we don’t want it
Bill Gates wants to reduce world population (https://www.occupycorporatism.com/bill-gates-asks-fellow-billionaires-help-reduce-worlds-population/)
-
... limit overpopulation...
Hey, I am all for it... just how?
P.S. Cheney tried sending AIDS to Africa, didn't turn out so well (or at least according to Obama's spiritual adviser) ;)
-
...Great, that will put locals out of business (exploiting ski slopes) and reduce tourism (=less travel). Too bad if you are a local resident though.
See, there are usually several (conflicting) aspects to those (contrived) benefits. Human intervention in natural processes more often than not have a negative effect on a larger/global scale. So minimizing our influence on those processes, reducing our Carbon footprint, is usually to be preferred if we have a choice.
And a choice we have. Reducing emissions, opens up lots of new job opportunities as well....
Cheers,
Bart
Getting rid of coal puts coal miners out of work. Getting rid of oil puts oil workers out of work. I suppose if we keep the environment colder by reducing our carbon footprint, the out-of-work coal miners can get jobs as ski instructors. I really don't think we should look at jobs for either side as the basis for making changes. There are always displacements in work as societies change and production is modernized and invention drives the economies into other areas.
-
Well done, Alan, completely disregard desertification, starvation, flooding, any inconvenient fact at all. A really intelligent, considered response "To answer someone's question" to you.
If you deserve a prize, it's for world-beating powers to keep your blinkers firmly in place. A conversation with a rubber wall would have delivered a greater, relevant response.
You win: no point remains in holding things up right in front of you - you simply refuse to believe your own eyes. I have never, in my life, come acoss a similar mindset outwith a religious meeting. I avoid political ones (meetings) but about those I have choice; with the former I did not...
But you have inadvertently explained how ISIS is psychologically possible.
Rob C
-
... We do have huge population growth in places where we don’t want it
Bill Gates wants to reduce world population (https://www.occupycorporatism.com/bill-gates-asks-fellow-billionaires-help-reduce-worlds-population/)
Ok, so he said (bold mine):
In an interview with media, Gates explained: “Capitalism did not eradicate smallpox. It just doesn’t know how. Polio eradication is a work in progress, but it’s not being done by markets. So the childhood death reduction, the nutrition improvements, those are overwhelmingly aid-driven.”
So, capitalism didn't... he did (Gates, via aid). And how has he ended in the position to provide aid? Thanks to... capitalism. Yes, the ruthless game of profit, in which he was so good (and ruthless).
-
Hey, I am all for it... just how?
P.S. Cheney tried sending AIDS to Africa, didn't turn out so well (or at least according to Obama's spiritual adviser) ;)
Just ask the big thinkers. Bill Gates wants to do with vaccines and Elon Musk is ready to start evacuation to Mars.
-
Cooling and warming are only two things which can be relatively easily measured. Quite alarming, but pollutions of all kinds which are intrinsically linked to the former two are even more serious.
SOLUTIONS? Manage growth and limit overpopulation.
It has been estimated that the ocean contains 5 trillion particles, totaling 250,000 tons, while a study last year concluded that 100,000 microbeads entered the ocean with each use of a personal cosmetic product that contained them.
Microplastics in oceans (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33997)
A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife.
Livestock Pollution (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html)
Nausea, headaches and nosebleeds, invasive chemical smells, constant drilling, slumping property prices – welcome to Ponder, Texas, where fracking has overtaken the town.
Fracking Hell (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/14/fracking-hell-live-next-shale-gas-well-texas-us)
We do have huge population growth in places where we don’t want it
Bill Gates wants to reduce world population (https://www.occupycorporatism.com/bill-gates-asks-fellow-billionaires-help-reduce-worlds-population/)
No one wants pollution. But throwing around big numbers to scare people who can't imagine what they mean in a real sense is just a scare tactic. 250,000 tons represents 0.000000025 of 1% of the oceans. I think 0.000000025% is 2.5 billionths of 1% but the math majors here can help me. The point is it's a pretty small percentage.
My solution for the herds of cattle is Gas-X.
Bill Gates would do the world a lot better if he stopped giving his wealth away and invested it instead. The work, jobs and wealth created by investments would help more people and keep on giving in the future. Giving money as he wants to do only dissipates his immense fortune. It fritters it away. Look at all the jobs and wealth his Microsoft has created. Can you imagine how many more people and countries he could help if his investments created ten more Microsofts?
-
I believe that there are natural factors at work as well
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/14/520104348/natural-environmental-swings-cause-up-to-half-of-arctic-sea-ice-loss
Shocking, the rate of melting is at least doubled by the human factor alone, and part of the 'natural' is also caused by man over a longer period.
My argument is that beside being nice having warmer winters, there are a lot of other positive reasons warming is good for the environment.
What might seem nice at superficial glance, such warmer winters (assuming yours are cold), it also means that many insects will survive winter and their explosive growth in numbers next year will cause increased infections with more and more exotic viruses, e.g. Zika and Malaria if we only consider certain mosquitoes, in regions where people and animals have no natural resistance or where no cures exist.
These temperature changes also change the flow of warmer and colder water through the oceans in their annual circulation patterns. That in turn, will affect e.g. plankton, algae and micro organism growth in the oceans, sources of absorption of CO2 and production of oxygen.
I'm not versed enough in chemistry myself to predict related chemical reactions such as the effect of acidity on the release of the stored CO2 in those bicarbonates. Currently, the oceans still absorb a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere, but that process is already changing/slowing down as the acidification progresses. Scientists who are versed in such matters are not optimistic.
"Ocean acidification has been called the 'evil twin of global warming' and 'the other CO2 problem' ".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Global warming will accelerate all sorts of chemical processes, but most in the wrong direction, and towards an acceleration that may be unstoppable.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well done, Alan, completely disregard desertification, starvation, flooding, any inconvenient fact at all. A really intelligent, considered response "To answer someone's question" to you.
If you deserve a prize, it's for world-beating powers to keep your blinkers firmly in place. A conversation with a rubber wall would have delivered a greater, relevant response.
You win: no point remains in holding things up right in front of you - you simply refuse to believe your own eyes. I have never, in my life, come acoss a similar mindset outwith a religious meeting. I avoid political ones (meetings) but about those I have choice; with the former I did not...
But you have inadvertently explained how ISIS is psychologically possible.
Rob C
Thanks Rob. I didn't think my beliefs could have such a powerful effect on someone.
I do believe my own eyes. I notice that it's been warmer in the winter which has been nice for the most part. I've saved on cleaning bills as I haven't needed to wear some of my heavier winter garb. The last time I was down at the beach, the water didn't seem any higher. I haven't really seen the effect of global warming although we're being told it will happen at any moment, or maybe later in 50 years, so I should believe that so Al Gore can make another $100 million on warming and buy another jet to burn 1000 gallons of fuel an hour. Whew. It must be pretty bad. You said so.
I suppose the things that prove what you want proved to me I can see. But only if I look at all the propaganda by supporters of the damage from warmer climate. However, since these people don't show the other side, I am suspect, because it seems weighted to prove their arguments. Sorry, I'm not a robot.
-
Shocking, the rate of melting is at least doubled by the human factor alone, and part of the 'natural' is also caused by man over a longer period.
What might seem nice at superficial glance, such warmer winters (assuming yours are cold), it also means that many insects will survive winter and their explosive growth in numbers next year will cause increased infections with more and more exotic viruses, e.g. Zika and Malaria if we only consider certain mosquitoes, in regions where people and animals have no natural resistance or where no cures exist.
These temperature changes also change the flow of warmer and colder water through the oceans in their annual circulation patterns. That in turn, will affect e.g. plankton, algae and micro organism growth in the oceans, sources of absorption of CO2 and production of oxygen.
I'm not versed enough in chemistry myself to predict related chemical reactions such as the effect of acidity on the release of the stored CO2 in those bicarbonates. Currently, the oceans still absorb a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere, but that process is already changing/slowing down as the acidification progresses. Scientists who are versed in such matters are not optimistic.
"Ocean acidification has been called the 'evil twin of global warming' and 'the other CO2 problem' ".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Global warming will accelerate all sorts of chemical processes, but most in the wrong direction, and towards an acceleration that may be unstoppable.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart: I do not dispute any of your predictions. But you missed my point. What I'm asking for is the other side. Something like this, "Dr. Smith and Dr. Wolf have published a study showing that warming climate over the next 5 years will increase the amount of damaging insects that will annually infect 200 people with Zika, killing 10 of them. The same warming will create another 200,000 hectares of arable land to produce food that will feed 500,000 people."
What we're getting now is "Warming is bad. People are going to die. Cities will be flooded. The end of the world is near, well, in 50 years anyway." All bad news and all one sided. In order for societies to make good judgments on where government should spend their money, we need good facts that are not tainted with one-side hyperbole. That's all I'm asking for.
-
...The end of the world is near, well, in 50 years anyway...
About time when the whole world will be under Sharia. Sound like a pretty good deal to me ;)
P.S. Calm down, people, just kidding!
-
Bart: I do not dispute any of your predictions. But you missed my point. What I'm asking for is the other side. Something like this, "Dr. Smith and Dr. Wolf have published a study showing that warming climate over the next 5 years will increase the amount of damaging insects that will annually infect 200 people with Zika, killing 10 of them. The same warming will create another 200,000 hectares of arable land to produce food that will feed 500,000 people."
Alan, I understand that and would like that as well, but I'm realistic enough to understand that that is difficult because there are cascades of effects.
What we're getting now is "Warming is bad. People are going to die. Cities will be flooded. The end of the world is near, well, in 50 years anyway." All bad news and all one sided. In order for societies to make good judgments on where government should spend their money, we need good facts that are not tainted with one-side hyperbole. That's all I'm asking for.
Well, the grim truth is that almost all news is actually bad. And what is worse, Trump's policies are not going to help (not in the right direction that is). By appointing a known global warming denier as head of the EPA, by installing people in his administration that wanted to destroy all records of previous research that doesn't fit his agenda, etc., etc, only to make a quick buck for his cronies, he will only make matters worse, so much is sure. How much worse could be debated, but it is unwanted whatever way one twists it. Worse is worse. We need better, not worse, not even a bit if possible. Slowing down the deterioration is the best we can reasonably hope for, if everything that was e.g. agreed in the Paris agreements is actually achieved. Not enough but the best we can hope for.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Getting back to this thread, I think Trump likes global warming because Don Jr. wants to build resorts in Canada. I can just picture it. -
"The Trump Klondike Resort and Golf Club. We Got Rid of the Ice." Ivanka could sell cashmere T-shirts with maple leafs emblazoned on the front. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will become a club member and Trump can fly Air Force 1 there to smooze with his other club members instead of flying south to Mar-a-lago where it's become too hot to stay.
-
Getting back to this thread, I think Trump likes global warming because Don Jr. wants to build resorts in Canada. I can just picture it. -
"The Trump Klondike Resort and Golf Club. We Got Rid of the Ice." Ivanka could sell cashmere T-shirts with maple leafs emblazoned on the front. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will become a club member and Trump can fly Air Force 1 there to smooze with his other club members instead of flying south to Mar-a-lago where it's become too hot to stay.
I'm afraid I largely agree. ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ahhmm...
-
Ahhmm...
Good one Slobodan.
-
Ahhmm...
Good find Slobodan. Only Trump's likeness could use some work.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I do believe my own eyes. I notice that it's been warmer in the winter which has been nice for the most part. I've saved on cleaning bills as I haven't needed to wear some of my heavier winter garb. The last time I was down at the beach, the water didn't seem any higher. I haven't really seen the effect of global warming although we're being told it will happen at any moment, or maybe later in 50 years, so I should believe that so Al Gore can make another $100 million on warming and buy another jet to burn 1000 gallons of fuel an hour. Whew. It must be pretty bad. You said so.
This is an astoundingly facile, self-centered, myopic, and selfish view.
If your "Global Warming Report" wasn't so stereotypical I'd be shocked at it's callowness, but it's just par for the course from the republican/trump illiterati. Maybe all this warm weather you're enjoying leads to drought, causes fires, and burns your house down?
What we're getting now is "Warming is bad. People are going to die. Cities will be flooded. The end of the world is near, well, in 50 years anyway." All bad news and all one sided.
The good news about global warming is that your winters are warmer. Lucky you!
In order for societies to make good judgments on where government should spend their money, we need good facts that are not tainted with one-side hyperbole. That's all I'm asking for.
Out of curiosity, what's the upside of smoking? What you see is "one-sided hyperbole" is scientific consensus. What you hear on Rush Radio is one sided hyperbole.
-
Bernie Sanders made a good point. After too many lies, ...
@BernieSanders: The day is going to come when some tragedy will hit, and people won’t believe this President
Crying Wolf (http://www.snappytv.com/tc/4201351)
-
... Out of curiosity, what's the upside of smoking?...
Freedom of choice.
-
Bart: I do not dispute any of your predictions. But you missed my point. What I'm asking for is the other side. Something like this, "Dr. Smith and Dr. Wolf have published a study showing that warming climate over the next 5 years will increase the amount of damaging insects that will annually infect 200 people with Zika, killing 10 of them. The same warming will create another 200,000 hectares of arable land to produce food that will feed 500,000 people."
What we're getting now is "Warming is bad. People are going to die. Cities will be flooded. The end of the world is near, well, in 50 years anyway." All bad news and all one sided. In order for societies to make good judgments on where government should spend their money, we need good facts that are not tainted with one-side hyperbole. That's all I'm asking for.
Some of the less desirable things moving in northerly direction:
Ticks moving north (http://www.pressherald.com/2016/05/18/ticks-carrying-lyme-disease-moving-north-in-new-england/)
Alligator caught in Toronto's High Park pond (http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/toronto-wildlife-officials-baffled-by-alligator-like-reptile-in-high-park-pond)
It took the wildlife officials 4 hours to catch the almost 3 foot long reptile. Good thing I never swim there.
-
Some of the less desirable things moving in northerly direction:
Ticks moving north (http://www.pressherald.com/2016/05/18/ticks-carrying-lyme-disease-moving-north-in-new-england/)
Alligator caught in Toronto's High Park pond (http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/toronto-wildlife-officials-baffled-by-alligator-like-reptile-in-high-park-pond)
It took the wildlife officials 4 hours to catch the almost 3 foot long reptile. Good thing I never swim there.
Thanks for making my point about the one-sidedness in media of global warming effects. Only the negatives are indicated.
OK, there are more ticks going north because of global warming. But that's happening because the animals blood they feed on to live and reproduce are the mice and deer that are first moving into the new territory. The deer and rodents are now able to live in those areas because it's warmer. That means that deer and rodent populations are expanding. It also means the coyote, wolf, birds who need more warm weather, insects that feed on ticks, and thousands of other species are expanding there too. That's a plus for nature. It also means the people may be able to plant food when before the cold weather did not allow it. More deer provide game for hunters to provide food for their tables.
Like I said, newspapers print negative news. It's what sells. The one-sidedness of it makes it seems like warming can only be bad. But it isn't. There are winners as well as losers when the climate changes. Think out of the box. Don't get caught up in just the headline. You're smarter than that. Nature and the environment isn't static. One thing effects others. But across the board.
-
I know newspapers like to print negative news. Especially when a car hits an elk or moose in a new suburb which used to be before their territory.
But unless you are a tick or mosquito, there are not too many positive sides to the warmer temperatures.
Being vegetarian and urban farmer, the deer and rodents are actually not that desirable around my house. And the ice hole in my backyard used before to preserve meat and frozen juice, melts much earlier than in the previous years. Well, at least the wolves and coyotes are not attracted to the cache anymore.
I've seen sometime deer between the trees they left beside the road as corridors between the parks, but we are not allowed to use guns and traps in this neighbourhood. However, those ticks, deer flies and mosquitos can ruin an otherwise nice day. Even worse, Canada geese are not migrating anymore south, but poop all year around on our lawns and sidewalks. But as long as there is water left in the Great Lakes, we can paddle around and pretend we are fishing.
-
Where do you live, Les? Your profile indicates Lauderdale by the Sea, FL.
We've had Canada geese poop for years down here in NY and NJ since it warmed up. Now that it's getting even warmer, maybe it will get better here if they stay up there where you live. Like I said there are winners and losers with climate change. :)
-
Actually, I am in Toronto now, trying to decide which snow shovel I should use to clear my driveway. As it happens, the expected snow storm veered off in your direction, so we didn't get much snow after all. Well, Montreal further east got its good share - some 40cm of snow.
Yes, despite all the global warming trends, Toronto is still too cold for a good part of the year. So whenever I can, I like to escape from the cold white north and Florida is a convenient and pleasant location. I just came back from another place with palm trees and blooming rhododendrons, albeit the palm trees were really tiny. Green grass everywhere, but too many wet days for walking around with a camera. Ireland just can't compare in the winter with southern Florida.
-
Like I said there are winners and losers with climate change. :)
Among the "losers", a decisive acceleration in the mass extinction of non-human species, which when combined with massive human migration, leads to potentially catastrophic consequences for human populations.
-
Global warming will accelerate all sorts of chemical processes, but most in the wrong direction, and towards an acceleration that may be unstoppable.
Morning,
Good news for a change, woke up to a world without a Wilders government! Thanks Dutchies. :)
There is no doubt that positive, hence amplifying, feedback loops, or a cascading effect as you mentioned, will accelerate the change of ecosystems on the planet. Probably the easiest to understand +FL is this known fact here:
https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-9.jpg (https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-9.jpg)
Rising temperatures and loss of ice affect water availability, bio diversity, cause eco system boundary shifts, and global feedbacks such as monsoonal shifts, loss of soil carbon etc.
These are indisputable cascading effects observed in the greater Himalaya region, holding the largest mass of ice outside the polar regions, and being the source of ten of the largest rivers in Asia.
All these effects are interrelated, hence they are full of uncertainty. Only a fool or totally ignorant person would claim that the uncertain effects will not be devastating. The increased frequency and duration of extreme events is already more than obvious.
Btw. as this is a photography forum, some of you folks might not have heard this amazing story, well worth your time to read and look into, it is one of the most fascinating stories in photography I ever came across back in 2007. I remember an evening with Michael where I pointed him to James Balog, and you betcha, he was equally "jaw-dropped."
http://extremeicesurvey.org (http://extremeicesurvey.org)
Best
G
-
Actually, I am in Toronto now, trying to decide which snow shovel I should use to clear my driveway. As it happens, the expected snow storm veered off in your direction, so we didn't get much snow after all. Well, Montreal further east got its good share - some 40cm of snow.
Yes, despite all the global warming trends, Toronto is still too cold for a good part of the year. So whenever I can, I like to escape from the cold white north and Florida is a convenient and pleasant location. I just came back from another place with palm trees and blooming rhododendrons, albeit the palm trees were really tiny. Green grass everywhere, but too many wet days for walking around with a camera. Ireland just can't compare in the winter with southern Florida.
I know a lot of Canadians travel to Florida to get away from the cold. If global warming really kicks in, you may be able to use beach front property on Lake Ontario and skip Florida completely during the winter. :)
-
Among the "losers", a decisive acceleration in the mass extinction of non-human species, which when combined with massive human migration, leads to potentially catastrophic consequences for human populations.
Well the deer, ticks and mice seem to be doing better.
-
Watch THIS:
Columbia Glacier May 2007 - June 2015
https://vimeo.com/extremeice/videos/all/page:1 (https://vimeo.com/extremeice/videos/all/page:1)
-
http://www.livescience.com/28406-arctic-tundra-turning-green.html Warming Tundra allows more things to grow and good for people.
Did you actually bother to read the whole article? I'm asking because your stated conclusion is a bit different than what the article says:
Real effect
The findings match forecasts for Arctic greening predicted by various other methods, and they foreshadow effects that will strike closer to home later, Forbes said.
"What's happening now in the Arctic is a faster version of what will be happening at lower latitudes," Forbes told LiveScience.
That could worsen extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy in the future.
"The snowstorms in Washington, D.C., and New York, and the flooding and the freezing on the River Thames — the extreme weather will continue to be extreme but it won't be so uncommon," Forbes said.
If that's your idea as something that is "good for people", I think we live in different realities...
Look, I live in Chicago...this winter we had no measurable snow in Jan & Feb. First time in 147 years...we also set a record for 5 days above 65º in Feb. Is that a good thing? Well, for Chicago I suppose...it means we spend less on snow removal and salt for roads. But I would trade that for the climate to be stabilized...
Here are some articles that point out some of the risks of ignoring what climate scientists tell us:
Climate Security: Building National Security (http://www.americansecurityproject.org/climate-security/)
Climate change is a national security threat that America’s military, and militaries around the world are taking seriously. The science around climate security is definitive enough for action: the military knows that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting.
Climate change alone will not cause wars, but it serves as an “Accelerant of Instability” or a “Threat Multiplier” that makes already existing threats worse. The threat of global warming for security will manifest through a range of effects: resource scarcity, extreme weather, food scarcity, water insecurity, and sea level rise will all threaten societies around the world. Too many governments are not prepared for these threats, either because they do not have the resources or because they have not planned ahead. How societies and governments respond to the increase in instability will determine whether climate change will lead to war.
Global Drought Information System (https://www.drought.gov/gdm/current-conditions)
At the end of September 2016, La Nina conditions are expected during the Northern Hemisphere fall and winter, according to the NOAA. According to NOAA, September 2016 was the second hottest September in the 137 year record at 1.29C above average. In Europe, drought conditions expanded through Central Europe and up to the North Sea. For the second month in a row, the European Union’s crop monitoring service lowered the corn yield forecast for this year. In Asia, drought continues throughout central Russia and a ring from the Indian sub-Continent around eastern China and Mongolia. In China, drought in the northwestern Gansu Province led to implementation of the government’s level-IV emergency response plan. In Africa, short-term drought eased slightly in the western part of the continent while continuing to strongly impact South Africa. In South Africa, there has been a culling of hippo and buffalo herds due to the poor condition of vegetation. In North America, drought remains entrenched along the western coast as well as through New England and the US Southeast. In the US Northeast, the apple crop has suffered due to the drought with noticeably smaller fruit produced this year. In South America, drought continues in Brazil as well as from the equator down along the Andes. Irrigation water for farms was restricted in Espirito Santo, where rivers were largely dry. In Oceania, drought continued nearly unchanged.
Bacteria, Methane, and Other Dangers Within Siberia’s Melting Permafrost (https://www.wired.com/2016/12/global-warming-beneath-permafrost/)
FOR HUNDREDS OF thousands of years, the Siberian permafrost has been a giant freezer for everything buried within it. But global warming has put the frozen ground in defrost mode, and the tundra is now heating up twice as fast as the rest of the planet. “Permafrost is a silent ticking time bomb,” says Robert Spencer, an environmental scientist at Florida State University. As it thaws, the dirt could release a litany of horrors. Beware: The ice-beasts cometh.
The Great Barrier Reef is bleaching yet again, and scientists say only swift climate action can save it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/15/the-great-barrier-reef-is-bleaching-yet-again-and-scientists-say-only-swift-climate-action-can-save-it/?utm_term=.8ad0f3c3f702)
Last year the Great Barrier Reef — the largest coral structure on Earth — saw unprecedented bleaching due to extremely warm ocean temperatures. In major parts of the remote northern sector of the reef, two-thirds of the corals ultimately died.
This was the reef’s third and worst severe bleaching event — prior events occurred in 1998 and 2002. But now, scientists say, yet another event is unfolding that is also quite severe, meaning that the reef is experiencing its first back-to-back bleaching in two successive years.
“This one won’t be as bad as 2016, but it could be more comparable to 1998 or 2002,” said Terry Hughes, the lead author of the new study and director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. “It’s an open question whether it’s the third- or second-most-severe.”[/i]
Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=0)
NORFOLK, Va. — Huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.
Five hundred miles down the Atlantic Coast, the only road to Tybee Island, Ga., is disappearing beneath the sea several times a year, cutting the town off from the mainland.
And another 500 miles on, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets.
For decades, as the global warming created by human emissions caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand, scientists warned that the accelerating rise of the sea would eventually imperil the United States’ coastline.
Greenland's huge annual ice loss is even worse than thought (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/21/greenlands-huge-annual-ice-loss-is-even-worse-than-thought)
The huge annual losses of ice from the Greenland cap are even worse than thought, according to new research which also shows that the melt is not a short-term blip but a long-term trend.
The melting Greenland ice sheet is already a major contributor to rising sea level and if it was eventually lost entirely, the oceans would rise by six metres around the world, flooding many of the world’s largest cities.
The new study reveals a more accurate estimate of the ice loss by taking better account of the gradual rise of the entire Greenland landmass. When the ice cap was at its peak 20,000 years ago, its great weight depressed the hot, viscous rocks in the underlying mantle. As ice has been shed since, the island has slowly rebounded upwards.
E.P.A. Warns of High Cost of Climate Change (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/us/politics/effects-of-climate-change-could-cost-billions-epa-report-says.html)
WASHINGTON — In the absence of global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the United States by the end of the century may face up to $180 billion in economic losses because of drought and water shortages, according to a report released Monday by the White House and Environmental Protection Agency.
White House officials said the report, which analyzes the economic costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the American economy, is the most comprehensive effort to date to quantify the impacts of global warming.
(Note: This was about the former EPA, not the EPA that will be decimated by Scott Pruitt)
And speaking of the orange one, global warming is not a plot by the Chinese to put American industry at a disadvantage as he tweeted in 2012 "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Heck, even Exxon knew about climate change SINCE 1981! Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding)
ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.
And to add a touch of real weirdness, it now comes out that our current Sec of State Rex Tillerson used an alias email address while at the oil company to send and receive information related to climate change. Wait, what?
Tillerson used email alias at Exxon to talk climate: New York attorney general (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tillerson-climatechange-idUSKBN16L06J)
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp, used an alias email address while at the oil company to send and receive information related to climate change and other matters, according to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
The attorney general's office said in a letter on Monday that it found Tillerson had used an alias email address under the pseudonym "Wayne Tracker" from at least 2008 through 2015.
Wayne is Tillerson's middle name.
The letter was sent to a New York state judge overseeing Schneiderman's investigation into whether Exxon misled shareholders and the public about climate change.
But why do people deny climate change is real, is being caused by human activity and will, eventually ruin the planet?
Well, an article in the same web site you pointed to has an interesting take: Evolution, Climate and Vaccines: Why Americans Deny Science (http://www.livescience.com/57590-why-americans-deny-science.html)
The U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country's citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.
Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.
Kinda interesting to lump evolution, climate and vaccine deniers together, but it makes sense when you read the article and look at the research. A lot of the way people look at climate change is based on where they are. This is also an interesting take: What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/)
The 7 charts reveal the following...
1) Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.
2) People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change.
3) A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years.
4) Drought tops the list of climate change concerns.
5) Most people in the countries surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change.
6) To deal with climate change, most think changes in both policy and lifestyle will be necessary.
7) Americans’ views about climate issues divide sharply along partisan lines.
In the grand scheme of things, it's all very well and good to debate political viewpoints and argue about policies and economics and conservative vs progressive mindsets. Happy to do so in a civil manner, but I really REALLY will not "debate" the very real and serious problem facing humanity–probably the single most important problem which is climate change–for the worse. The science is widely accepted–even Exxon accepts it.
Yeah, some oddball and fruitcake scientists are climate deniers but oddly, there's an scary relationship between climate deniers and controls on tobacco and acid rain.
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science)
If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?
The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.
Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
So, are you a climate change denier? Do you deny that people are dying of starvation caused by severe drought? Do you deny that superstorms like Sandy cost billions of $? Do you deny the sea levels have risen? That coastal areas are at risk of disappearing? Do you deny that global warming and climate change is and will continue to be a bit problem for humanity? Or don't you give a crap?
-
Btw. as this is a photography forum, some of you folks might not have heard this amazing story, well worth your time to read and look into, it is one of the most fascinating stories in photography I ever came across back in 2007. I remember an evening with Michael where I pointed him to James Balog, and you betcha, he was equally "jaw-dropped."
http://extremeicesurvey.org (http://extremeicesurvey.org)
Cool...thanks for the link!
-
Jeff:
I really REALLY will not "debate" the very real and serious problem facing humanity–probably the single most important problem which is climate change–for the worse
I made that error a few times, to debate with deniers, not anymore. It is plain ridiculous and a waste of time to listen to the convoluted crap they come up with to claim that the "Anthropocene" is what.... a Chinese Invention, or Putin Hack perhaps.
Thank you too for the links, useful Information.
If the dramatic developments in the Himalaya Region continue, 1 billion people will be directly affected, facing life threatening lack of fresh water, and THIS will be the real refugee crisis, the current "crisis" is a kindergarden against what is to come when environmental refugees start packing their bags.
-
Another slap in the face.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/mar/16/trump-travel-ban-blocked-nationwide-hawaii-court-live
His incompetence is astounding but I am sure there are people who will still support him. :-[ :'(
-
The judge is also saying that he is a racist. Surly now this is the beginning of the end for him?
-
The judge is also saying that he is a racist. Surly now this is the beginning of the end for him?
The statement above needs clarification - which of the two is the racist? Trump or the judge? Can't be Trump - he made it clear at his recent press conference.
Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic or racist. This was made clear in an astonishing press conference on Thursday, which delivered irrefutable evidence obliterating all ideas to the contrary. What was the irrefutable evidence? Donald Trump said so. The president made his point plainly: “Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life,” he said. “Number two, racism, the least racist person.”
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2011/09/29/hugo_chavez_caption_contest/antisemitic-trump.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png)
One more item to be added to Jeff's list:
Louisiana's swamps will disappear as sea levels rise 4 times faster than world average (https://ca.yahoo.com/news/louisianas-swamps-disappear-sea-levels-100001206.html)
(https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/uj.t8yUZvs.Q68DlgmXDlQ--/Zmk9c3RyaW07aD00ODA7dz02NDA7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/international_business_times_news_7/0619bfc24e9c6d9e22cf22f4cbff9169)
-
Surly now this is the beginning of the end for him?
The sooner the better! The longer it takes to get rid of him, the more lasting damage he can cause. This nutjob and fascist cronies he arranged to be in the white housereally scare the living daylight out of me. Europeans need to go the other way, the opposite of increased military spending is required. Bloody NATO already blows 921 billion Euro away, who the hell needs more weapons and more military?
Only those who desire and will profit from war, stirring the global shit from one provocation and crisis to the next. Sickening.
Good call by this "so called" judge, and good to see that checks and balances still work. However, until Trump is gone... chaos will increase, and that is dangerous on a global level.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStnG2MUpJ7boSBwrvwwSkb9KrPTUsDT0_DhtbSqaOC97_7jZxaFA)
Concerning the latest Federal Judge's blocking of the TBO, I am not sure this second ban will make it. While there were many flaws in the first TBO, this new one seems to have removed all of the flaws. It is still hard to make the inference that this new TBO is anti-Muslim when the majority of the countries that have a majority Muslim population are not affected.
I also think that statements made by a candidate before election do not necessarily indicate intent after being sworn into office. What is important is what Trump says after being sworn in as president. There is a bigly difference between being a candidate (aka regular citizen) and the PotUS. As a candidate, the person is in a salesmanship context. No one should ever have an expectation that what a candidate says is a fully balanced dissertation on a topic. They are literally trying to sell something -- themselves to the citizens.
The TBO, like all Executive Orders needs to be evaluated on the words of the order and on the current implementation of that order. Trying to determine "well this is what he reallllly meant" is rather difficult as it is subjective and hard to measure. All the person has to do is say "no, that is not what I intended". Any further investigation degrades down to elementary school recess "yes you did!" "No I didn't!" "Did so!" "Did not!" and we don't need any more of that in our politics.
Does the wording and implementation of this new TBO violate any existing law? The answer is either yes or no. If yes, show us the law. EOs like laws are presumed to be legal and constitutional unless proven otherwise.
But this "well the EO states X but we allll realllly know that Trump meant Y [nudge nudge wink wink] " is sophistry.
-
The judge is also saying that he is a racist...
The judge does look like a racist, I agree.
-
Getting rid of coal puts coal miners out of work. Getting rid of oil puts oil workers out of work.
Coal miners have been put out of work because of strip mining and mountain top removal. The employment drop started well before any of the clean coal regulation came into play. We are not getting rid of oil and it is the price of oil that governs the level of investment and employment. State fracking laws also play a roll here but that is not a national issue that President Trump can do anything about. Oil exploration has been proposed for the Atlantic continental shelf but the states don't want this for fear of oil pollution in the coastal areas that depend on tourism.
-
...But this "well the EO states X but we allll realllly know that Trump meant Y [nudge nudge wink wink] " is sophistry.
And political fanboy-ism.
Nice post, Otto.
P.S. I am still waiting for the attack on $38 million. Jeff, you there? Anyone? ;)
-
I am sure that the thousands of workers involved in horse tack, Farriers, Blacksmiths, buggy whip, and cart industries were against the manufacturer of the automobile.
Should we have restricted the marketing of the automobile to help keep these important and well established industries viable? No, market environments change as technology changes and there are winners and losers.
What we need to do is take these coal industry workers and give them opportunities to learn another trade to work. When a society moves from one technological resource to another, it should not just abandon those citizens who worked the former, but should help them transition as technology transitions.
I am sure that unemployed coal workers would like to have steady employment but they may need help in the transition. As a society, do we abandon them as "collateral damage" or do we help them?
I would like to live in a country where we work to help job losers become employed winners. As a taxpayer, I am willing to contribute. Employed workers are good for my country.
-
"Monster storm approaching NY," etc.
When I was a kid, we called it...winter.
-
What we need to do is take these coal industry workers and give them opportunities to learn another trade to work. When a society moves from one technological resource to another, it should not just abandon those citizens who worked the former, but should help them transition as technology transitions.
I am sure that unemployed coal workers would like to have steady employment but they may need help in the transition. As a society, do we abandon them as "collateral damage" or do we help them?
I would like to live in a country where we work to help job losers become employed winners. As a taxpayer, I am willing to contribute. Employed workers are good for my country.
I agree with this but it's hard to do. In most cases there are no significant employment opportunities in these regions and it would necessitate moving. Of course this is what happened with the mechanism of agriculture beginning in the 19th century and one can look at the decennial US census is see the large drop in farm-based employment over the years. We still see large drops in population in farm states and the smaller towns in those states. The coal mining areas of Appalachia have been suffering for years and while there has been a relocation of some chemical industry to West Virginia, other opportunities for employment such as the steel industry of Pennsylvania and Ohio are pretty much gone as are some of the other manufacturing sites in southern Ohio. Automation has had an impact as well since it takes fewer workers to make an automobile than it did 40 years ago. One wonders whether the opioid epidemic in these regions is because people have given up.
-
The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.
Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
How recognizable if we look at Trump's tactics. Deny reality, confuse the sheeple, and make a fast buck at the cost of others.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am sure that the thousands of workers involved in horse tack, Farriers, Blacksmiths, buggy whip, and cart industries were against the manufacturer of the automobile.
Should we have restricted the marketing of the automobile to help keep these important and well established industries viable? No, market environments change as technology changes and there are winners and losers.
What we need to do is take these coal industry workers and give them opportunities to learn another trade to work. When a society moves from one technological resource to another, it should not just abandon those citizens who worked the former, but should help them transition as technology transitions.
I am sure that unemployed coal workers would like to have steady employment but they may need help in the transition. As a society, do we abandon them as "collateral damage" or do we help them?
I would like to live in a country where we work to help job losers become employed winners. As a taxpayer, I am willing to contribute. Employed workers are good for my country.
This is a great reason for smaller government. Just let the industries die that need to die and let people figure out how to move forward. Cut out the cronyism.
As soon as government gets involved, industries get put on life support for no reason. Dems and Reps are just as guilty with this, only with different industries.
My brother is about as far left as possible and writes for a far left blog. He recently made a stink about Philly checking train tickets at the station instead of on the train, which will ultimately kill some of the jobs for train conductors.
If it is more efficient, let it happen. I feel like it is was up to him, we would still have cabooses on every train filled with workers ready to run across the tops of the cars to manually spin the brakes on so jobs are not lost.
Reps do the same with coal. Coal is dirty and inefficient. Take away the subsidies, let the industry fair on its own accord. Oil, well actually oil is still more efficient then any other power source, exception maybe nuclear.
Nuclear is another big annoyance with me. It's cleaner, efficient, unlimited, but no Reps or Dems want to touch it. They criticize the current plants for being dangerous, but no new plant has been built since the 70s, so none have modern safe guards in place.
Not to mention all the storage facilities that were meant to be short term are getting filled up with spent fuel. We have a long term storage facility in AZ (the bast place for it since 90+% of AZ is uninhabitable), but no politicians wants to allow trains through their district with spent fuel. They rather have it build up in an area with little to protection, go figure.
-
Did you actually bother to read the whole article? I'm asking because your stated conclusion is a bit different than what the article says:
If that's your idea as something that is "good for people", I think we live in different realities...
Look, I live in Chicago...this winter we had no measurable snow in Jan & Feb. First time in 147 years...we also set a record for 5 days above 65º in Feb. Is that a good thing? Well, for Chicago I suppose...it means we spend less on snow removal and salt for roads. But I would trade that for the climate to be stabilized...
Here are some articles that point out some of the risks of ignoring what climate scientists tell us:
Climate Security: Building National Security (http://www.americansecurityproject.org/climate-security/)
Climate change is a national security threat that America’s military, and militaries around the world are taking seriously. The science around climate security is definitive enough for action: the military knows that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting.
Climate change alone will not cause wars, but it serves as an “Accelerant of Instability” or a “Threat Multiplier” that makes already existing threats worse. The threat of global warming for security will manifest through a range of effects: resource scarcity, extreme weather, food scarcity, water insecurity, and sea level rise will all threaten societies around the world. Too many governments are not prepared for these threats, either because they do not have the resources or because they have not planned ahead. How societies and governments respond to the increase in instability will determine whether climate change will lead to war.
Global Drought Information System (https://www.drought.gov/gdm/current-conditions)
At the end of September 2016, La Nina conditions are expected during the Northern Hemisphere fall and winter, according to the NOAA. According to NOAA, September 2016 was the second hottest September in the 137 year record at 1.29C above average. In Europe, drought conditions expanded through Central Europe and up to the North Sea. For the second month in a row, the European Union’s crop monitoring service lowered the corn yield forecast for this year. In Asia, drought continues throughout central Russia and a ring from the Indian sub-Continent around eastern China and Mongolia. In China, drought in the northwestern Gansu Province led to implementation of the government’s level-IV emergency response plan. In Africa, short-term drought eased slightly in the western part of the continent while continuing to strongly impact South Africa. In South Africa, there has been a culling of hippo and buffalo herds due to the poor condition of vegetation. In North America, drought remains entrenched along the western coast as well as through New England and the US Southeast. In the US Northeast, the apple crop has suffered due to the drought with noticeably smaller fruit produced this year. In South America, drought continues in Brazil as well as from the equator down along the Andes. Irrigation water for farms was restricted in Espirito Santo, where rivers were largely dry. In Oceania, drought continued nearly unchanged.
Bacteria, Methane, and Other Dangers Within Siberia’s Melting Permafrost (https://www.wired.com/2016/12/global-warming-beneath-permafrost/)
FOR HUNDREDS OF thousands of years, the Siberian permafrost has been a giant freezer for everything buried within it. But global warming has put the frozen ground in defrost mode, and the tundra is now heating up twice as fast as the rest of the planet. “Permafrost is a silent ticking time bomb,” says Robert Spencer, an environmental scientist at Florida State University. As it thaws, the dirt could release a litany of horrors. Beware: The ice-beasts cometh.
The Great Barrier Reef is bleaching yet again, and scientists say only swift climate action can save it (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/15/the-great-barrier-reef-is-bleaching-yet-again-and-scientists-say-only-swift-climate-action-can-save-it/?utm_term=.8ad0f3c3f702)
Last year the Great Barrier Reef — the largest coral structure on Earth — saw unprecedented bleaching due to extremely warm ocean temperatures. In major parts of the remote northern sector of the reef, two-thirds of the corals ultimately died.
This was the reef’s third and worst severe bleaching event — prior events occurred in 1998 and 2002. But now, scientists say, yet another event is unfolding that is also quite severe, meaning that the reef is experiencing its first back-to-back bleaching in two successive years.
“This one won’t be as bad as 2016, but it could be more comparable to 1998 or 2002,” said Terry Hughes, the lead author of the new study and director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. “It’s an open question whether it’s the third- or second-most-severe.”[/i]
Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?_r=0)
NORFOLK, Va. — Huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.
Five hundred miles down the Atlantic Coast, the only road to Tybee Island, Ga., is disappearing beneath the sea several times a year, cutting the town off from the mainland.
And another 500 miles on, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets.
For decades, as the global warming created by human emissions caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand, scientists warned that the accelerating rise of the sea would eventually imperil the United States’ coastline.
Greenland's huge annual ice loss is even worse than thought (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/21/greenlands-huge-annual-ice-loss-is-even-worse-than-thought)
The huge annual losses of ice from the Greenland cap are even worse than thought, according to new research which also shows that the melt is not a short-term blip but a long-term trend.
The melting Greenland ice sheet is already a major contributor to rising sea level and if it was eventually lost entirely, the oceans would rise by six metres around the world, flooding many of the world’s largest cities.
The new study reveals a more accurate estimate of the ice loss by taking better account of the gradual rise of the entire Greenland landmass. When the ice cap was at its peak 20,000 years ago, its great weight depressed the hot, viscous rocks in the underlying mantle. As ice has been shed since, the island has slowly rebounded upwards.
E.P.A. Warns of High Cost of Climate Change (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/us/politics/effects-of-climate-change-could-cost-billions-epa-report-says.html)
WASHINGTON — In the absence of global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the United States by the end of the century may face up to $180 billion in economic losses because of drought and water shortages, according to a report released Monday by the White House and Environmental Protection Agency.
White House officials said the report, which analyzes the economic costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the American economy, is the most comprehensive effort to date to quantify the impacts of global warming.
(Note: This was about the former EPA, not the EPA that will be decimated by Scott Pruitt)
And speaking of the orange one, global warming is not a plot by the Chinese to put American industry at a disadvantage as he tweeted in 2012 "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Heck, even Exxon knew about climate change SINCE 1981! Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding)
ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.
And to add a touch of real weirdness, it now comes out that our current Sec of State Rex Tillerson used an alias email address while at the oil company to send and receive information related to climate change. Wait, what?
Tillerson used email alias at Exxon to talk climate: New York attorney general (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tillerson-climatechange-idUSKBN16L06J)
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp, used an alias email address while at the oil company to send and receive information related to climate change and other matters, according to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
The attorney general's office said in a letter on Monday that it found Tillerson had used an alias email address under the pseudonym "Wayne Tracker" from at least 2008 through 2015.
Wayne is Tillerson's middle name.
The letter was sent to a New York state judge overseeing Schneiderman's investigation into whether Exxon misled shareholders and the public about climate change.
But why do people deny climate change is real, is being caused by human activity and will, eventually ruin the planet?
Well, an article in the same web site you pointed to has an interesting take: Evolution, Climate and Vaccines: Why Americans Deny Science (http://www.livescience.com/57590-why-americans-deny-science.html)
The U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country's citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.
Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.
Kinda interesting to lump evolution, climate and vaccine deniers together, but it makes sense when you read the article and look at the research. A lot of the way people look at climate change is based on where they are. This is also an interesting take: What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/)
The 7 charts reveal the following...
1) Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.
2) People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change.
3) A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years.
4) Drought tops the list of climate change concerns.
5) Most people in the countries surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change.
6) To deal with climate change, most think changes in both policy and lifestyle will be necessary.
7) Americans’ views about climate issues divide sharply along partisan lines.
In the grand scheme of things, it's all very well and good to debate political viewpoints and argue about policies and economics and conservative vs progressive mindsets. Happy to do so in a civil manner, but I really REALLY will not "debate" the very real and serious problem facing humanity–probably the single most important problem which is climate change–for the worse. The science is widely accepted–even Exxon accepts it.
Yeah, some oddball and fruitcake scientists are climate deniers but oddly, there's an scary relationship between climate deniers and controls on tobacco and acid rain.
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science)
If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?
The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.
Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.
So, are you a climate change denier? Do you deny that people are dying of starvation caused by severe drought? Do you deny that superstorms like Sandy cost billions of $? Do you deny the sea levels have risen? That coastal areas are at risk of disappearing? Do you deny that global warming and climate change is and will continue to be a bit problem for humanity? Or don't you give a crap?
This is the one topic I feel my fellow Reps are wrong on. Climate change is a big deal, it is negatively effecting the planet, and we are the cause of it.
The science is irrefutable.
Of all the things to look at, this is the one topic that could get me to switch sides, especially if Blue Dogs made a come back.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStnG2MUpJ7boSBwrvwwSkb9KrPTUsDT0_DhtbSqaOC97_7jZxaFA)
Very apt, I like it.
Does the wording and implementation of this new TBO violate any existing law? The answer is either yes or no. If yes, show us the law. EOs like laws are presumed to be legal and constitutional unless proven otherwise.
As a layman, I think it's more reasonably worded than the first piece of junk. The main difficulty may be that discrimination based on place of birth collides with the Constitution and International laws on Human Rights.
Another issue is that it is unproven that the goal of the EO is obviously linked to the selection (discrimination) of those specific countries. Yes, there may have been less than stellar cooperation from some countries in doing proper background checks to enable the issuing of visa, and/or countries may have played a role of safe-haven for terrorists. But then the list should not be restricted to those countries alone. So it remains discriminatory, and in conflict with domestic and international law.
Just my 2 cents. I'll leave it to the US government to solve this mess they created themselves.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And political fanboy-ism.
Nice post, Otto.
P.S. I am still waiting for the attack on $38 million. Jeff, you there? Anyone? ;)
Since it arrived anonymously by mail, Trump would classify it as Fake. So why bother?
Besides, if Trump was the sender of it, it's probably either a lie, or it does not reveal the connections that really show his dependencies or conflicts of interest. BTW, it is not expected that there will be obvious Russian connections in those 2 pages, but there should be signs of rather huge debts with the Chinese banks. If those are not reflected in those "Fake"(?) documents, it's not full disclosure anyway, just yet another deliberate distraction/disinformation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... does not reveal the connections that really show his dependencies or conflicts of interest. BTW, it is not expected that there will be obvious Russian connections in those 2 pages, but there should be signs of rather huge debts with the Chinese banks...
I am not familiar how big boys (i.e., billionaires) file their taxes, nor I claim to be a tax expert. But I do file my taxes myself, so, here is the question: why is everybody (on the left) expecting to see "signs of connections, dependencies or debts" in his (or anyone else's) tax return? My tax return does not reflect my assets, or liabilities, just income. It does not disclose how much money (or debt) I have, unless it is some sort of interest or investment income (or loss on sale). Especially not in the first two pages that 1040 form is. Names of banks or brokerages (generating income) are in separate schedules.
-
The judge does look like a racist, I agree.
:)
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStnG2MUpJ7boSBwrvwwSkb9KrPTUsDT0_DhtbSqaOC97_7jZxaFA)
Concerning the latest Federal Judge's blocking of the TBO, I am not sure this second ban will make it. While there were many flaws in the first TBO, this new one seems to have removed all of the flaws. It is still hard to make the inference that this new TBO is anti-Muslim when the majority of the countries that have a majority Muslim population are not affected.
I also think that statements made by a candidate before election do not necessarily indicate intent after being sworn into office. What is important is what Trump says after being sworn in as president. There is a bigly difference between being a candidate (aka regular citizen) and the PotUS. As a candidate, the person is in a salesmanship context. No one should ever have an expectation that what a candidate says is a fully balanced dissertation on a topic. They are literally trying to sell something -- themselves to the citizens.
The TBO, like all Executive Orders needs to be evaluated on the words of the order and on the current implementation of that order. Trying to determine "well this is what he reallllly meant" is rather difficult as it is subjective and hard to measure. All the person has to do is say "no, that is not what I intended". Any further investigation degrades down to elementary school recess "yes you did!" "No I didn't!" "Did so!" "Did not!" and we don't need any more of that in our politics.
Does the wording and implementation of this new TBO violate any existing law? The answer is either yes or no. If yes, show us the law. EOs like laws are presumed to be legal and constitutional unless proven otherwise.
But this "well the EO states X but we allll realllly know that Trump meant Y [nudge nudge wink wink] " is sophistry.
I absolutely agree. Perfectly explained. Applying what politicians say during a heated campaign to determine the constitutionality of a law that would be otherwise legal when operated per the terms of the order would put a cold blanket on open and free debate. It would be a strike against free speech. Politicians would have to check with constitutional lawyers before they debate in fear that the courts will subsequently strike down perfectly legal laws. The courts shouldn't become thought and speech police. This is America not Orwell's Farm.
Also, in this case, we're only talking about what the President said. What about Congressional legislation? I can't imagine the Supreme Court wanting to review the constitutionality of every law based on what Senator X or Congressman Y said and meant during the debate in Congress or on MSNBC, CNN or Fox when it was written. No law would be able to pass constitutional muster. At a minimum, it would tie up every law because the courts would have to review what everyone said beforehand. They judges would never have time to go home to be with their families. For their own sanity, they're going to want to only have to look at the law or Executive Order as written. If they don't, and anything is possible in today's hot political climate, we're opening Pandora's box.
-
Coal miners have been put out of work because of strip mining and mountain top removal. The employment drop started well before any of the clean coal regulation came into play. We are not getting rid of oil and it is the price of oil that governs the level of investment and employment. State fracking laws also play a roll here but that is not a national issue that President Trump can do anything about. Oil exploration has been proposed for the Atlantic continental shelf but the states don't want this for fear of oil pollution in the coastal areas that depend on tourism.
That's exactly what Hillary said and look where it got her?
-
... They judges would never have time to go home to be with their families. For their own sanity, they're going to want to only have to look at the law or Executive Order as written...
That's why we are calling these clowns so-called judges. Relying on the Internet memes and hearsay for their decisions.
Here is an anecdote from my personal experience. When we first moved to the States, I got my drivers license, but my wife couldn't, as she had a different visa (family-member one). The law allowed her to use her home-country drivers license for the first six months. The Secretary of State (Illinois) realized the problem, that there are legal residents who can not be issued drivers licenses, and posted a letter of their web site, explaining that they can continue to use their home-country licenses as long as their visas are valid. After a minor accident, police checked her license, saw it is past six-month validity and sent her to court. I supplied a printout of the Secretary of State's Letter as a proof that the charges should be dismissed. The judge's answer: "I do not give a shit what the Secretary of State thinks or says. I read the law. $125 fine...next case!"
-
I am sure that the thousands of workers involved in horse tack, Farriers, Blacksmiths, buggy whip, and cart industries were against the manufacturer of the automobile.
Should we have restricted the marketing of the automobile to help keep these important and well established industries viable? No, market environments change as technology changes and there are winners and losers.
What we need to do is take these coal industry workers and give them opportunities to learn another trade to work. When a society moves from one technological resource to another, it should not just abandon those citizens who worked the former, but should help them transition as technology transitions.
I am sure that unemployed coal workers would like to have steady employment but they may need help in the transition. As a society, do we abandon them as "collateral damage" or do we help them?
I would like to live in a country where we work to help job losers become employed winners. As a taxpayer, I am willing to contribute. Employed workers are good for my country.
I agree. Your heart is in the right place, although I am nervous about starting another program we can't afford and will grow into a monster as most federal programs do.
Trump won because he said he would help those in the coal and rust belt states who have lost their careers because of these changes and because the jobs went overseas. Of course, he's not stupid. He knows most of these jobs won't come back. But he had the political good sense, unlike Hillary, to show that he cared. Most of the people out of work in these industries realize that times have changed. But, these people, mostly Democrats, just wanted to know that they're not the forgotten "deplorables' in flyover country. That someone in Washington is going to try to help. If Trump and the Republicans can at least put some food on their tables, they will continue to rule Congress and the Presidency. All the talk about tapping phones and the Russian Caper will be long forgotten.
-
Very apt, I like it.
As a layman, I think it's more reasonably worded than the first piece of junk. The main difficulty may be that discrimination based on place of birth collides with the Constitution and International laws on Human Rights.
Another issue is that it is unproven that the goal of the EO is obviously linked to the selection (discrimination) of those specific countries. Yes, there may have been less than stellar cooperation from some countries in doing proper background checks to enable the issuing of visa, and/or countries may have played a role of safe-haven for terrorists. But then the list should not be restricted to those countries alone. So it remains discriminatory, and in conflict with domestic and international law.
Just my 2 cents. I'll leave it to the US government to solve this mess they created themselves.
Cheers,
Bart
I agree. We should add Belgium to the list because there seems to be more terrorists there then elsewhere. Look what they did to Paris. No more visas for them for three months until we can figure out how to vet them better.
-
I agree. We should add Belgium to the list because there seems to be more terrorists there then elsewhere. Look what they did to Paris. No more visas for them for three months until we can figure out how to vet them better.
Indeed, if the vetting process in Belgium when applying for visa to enter the USA is lacking in any way. And that goes for all other countries, not just Belgium if applicable (which would surprise me since the US embassy supplies those visa to begin with, and I do not recall any prior Belgian terrorist attacks on US soil).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump won because he said he would help those in the coal and rust belt states who have lost their careers because of these changes and because the jobs went overseas.
Which would be another lie, in the case of coal miners. The simple truth is that there are cheaper sources of energy (oil and gas from fracking).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed, if the vetting process in Belgium when applying for visa to enter the USA is lacking in any way. And that goes for all other countries, not just Belgium if applicable (which would surprise me since the US embassy supplies those visa to begin with, and I do not recall any prior Belgian terrorist attacks on US soil).
Cheers,
Bart
I can't believe you bought that meme liberal argument. Who waits to lock their doors after they get burglarized? And how do you know the visa process in Belgium is adequate? The president of the US by congressional law was given the authority to control immigration. I hope he is verifying that vetting is proper in Belgium as France didn't do too good. I know. You're going to tell me about European Union rules of free passage between countries. Well, that's your problem, not ours. America isn't the EU and we want to protect our borders more thoroughly.
-
Which would be another lie, in the case of coal miners. The simple truth is that there are cheaper sources of energy (oil and gas from fracking).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I didn't lie. You mis-read what I said. I said, "Trump won because he said he would help those in the coal and rust belt states who have lost their careers because of these changes and because the jobs went overseas."
"....because of these changes..." refers to Ottophocus's post that I responded where he referred to changes effected by the market.
-
I can't believe you bought that meme liberal argument. Who waits to lock their doors after they get burglarized? And how do you know the visa process in Belgium is adequate?
Do you mean that you do not trust your own embassy to do their work when issuing such documents?
The president of the US by congressional law was given the authority to control immigration. I hope he is verifying that vetting is proper in Belgium as France didn't do too good. I know. You're going to tell me about European Union rules of free passage between countries. Well, that's your problem, not ours. America isn't the EU and we want to protect our borders more thoroughly.
How does homegrown terrorism (like in Belgium, or in France, or in Germany, or in Norway) have anything to do with an EO for stricter vetting during an additional 90 days for immigration in the USA? Do you need to apply for permission to travel between US states nowadays? Last time I was there we could still travel freely, just like in those countries that are part of the Schengen zone in the European Union.
I fail to get the point you are trying to make.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, I didn't lie. You mis-read what I said.
And I didn't imply that you lied, but that Trump did.
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/2/21/14671932/donald-trump-coal-mining-jobs
I said, "Trump won because he said he would help those in the coal and rust belt states who have lost their careers because of these changes and because the jobs went overseas."
I remember Trump promising that he'd open the mines again, not that he would 'help' the miners.
Çheers,
Bart
-
That's why we are calling these clowns so-called judges. Relying on the Internet memes and hearsay for their decisions.
Here is an anecdote from my personal experience. When we first moved to the States, I got my drivers license, but my wife couldn't, as she had a different visa (family-member one). The law allowed her to use her home-country drivers license for the first six months. The Secretary of State (Illinois) realized the problem, that there are legal residents who can not be issued drivers licenses, and posted a letter of their web site, explaining that they can continue to use their home-country licenses as long as their visas are valid. After a minor accident, police checked her license, saw it is past six-month validity and sent her to court. I supplied a printout of the Secretary of State's Letter as a proof that the charges should be dismissed. The judge's answer: "I do not give a shit what the Secretary of State thinks or says. I read the law. $125 fine...next case!"
Here's a worse anecdote. Well, worse for me. I was involved in a lawsuit. Not a local case but a federal case. My own lawyer wanted to pull out and asked the court to allow them too. I fought it because it would be costly to me to get another attorney up to speed. So I asked for a hearing in the judge's chambers. My lawyer made his point. I made mine. The judge ruled right then in my lawyer's favor allowing my lawyer to pull out. I complained that wasn't fair. So the judge looked me right in the eye and retorted, "You know, Mr. Klein. The American jurisprudence system is not always fair." I sat stunned not because of his ruling but what he said about the law. It was an expensive lesson that I learned. Judges were attorneys before they became jurists. So you're not going to win in a situation like I had. Anyway the law isn't always the law.
-
Here's a worse anecdote. Well, worse for me. I was involved in a lawsuit. Not a local case but a federal case. My own lawyer wanted to pull out and asked the court to allow them too. I fought it because it would be costly to me to get another attorney up to speed. So I asked for a hearing in the judge's chambers. My lawyer made his point. I made mine. The judge ruled right then in my lawyer's favor allowing my lawyer to pull out. I complained that wasn't fair. So the judge looked me right in the eye and retorted, "You know, Mr. Klein. The American jurisprudence system is not always fair." I sat stunned not because of his ruling but what he said about the law. It was an expensive lesson that I learned. Judges were attorneys before they became jurists. So you're not going to win in a situation like I had. Anyway the law isn't always the law.
Unfortunately, situations like this are not so uncommon. I wonder what's the percentage of the unfair cases.
-
I wonder what's the percentage of the unfair cases.
Ask Trump, I bet he can remember a few :P
-
Do you mean that you do not trust your own embassy to do their work when issuing such documents?
For real Visa's from Belgium (and many other European countries) they do a pretty thorough job, however for short term visitors they rely on the ESTA process, which is an on-line application system slightly more advanced that the former paper based "Visa Waiver Process". At least the new system has a few days between submitting the data and the person showing up at the US border.
-
Do you mean that you do not trust your own embassy to do their work when issuing such documents?
How does homegrown terrorism (like in Belgium, or in France, or in Germany, or in Norway) have anything to do with an EO for stricter vetting during an additional 90 days for immigration in the USA? Do you need to apply for permission to travel between US states nowadays? Last time I was there we could still travel freely, just like in those countries that are part of the Schengen zone in the European Union.
I fail to get the point you are trying to make.
Cheers,
Bart
I have no idea how we issue visas. I hope Trump or Secretary of State Tillerson has the State Department review the policies for the issuance of visas around the world beside the 6 countries in question. After Obama's lax policies, it would be a good idea. Who needs another 9-11?
Regarding travel, although the 50 US states are sovereign within the US Federal system, they're not each a nation state. All 50 are American. Our constitution allows free travel between states. At least I think it does. New Jersey is sovereign but not a Nation-State like Germany and France where people are citizens of different countries. But just because France isn't vetting Belgium, doesn't mean we shouldn't.
-
I know. You're going to tell me about European Union rules of free passage between countries. Well, that's your problem, not ours. America isn't the EU and we want to protect our borders more thoroughly.
Well, that's a slight misconception, there is no free travel within the European Union. There is free travel between countries that signed up to the Schengen agreement which is currently 22 of the EU members and 4 non-EU members. They basically work together to set a collective outside border with regard to Visas and Immigration. Even though it's different countries it's kind of similar to free travel between the different states of the US and one collective outside border.
-
Ask Trump, I bet he can remember a few :P
I have to agree with you there. As a former contractor in NYC who worked for real estate managers and developers, I wouldn't do work for companies like his. I wanted to get paid. :)
-
...The American jurisprudence system is not always fair."...
Judges are supposed to enforce laws, not fairness. Lawmakers should be the ones to take fairness into consideration.
-
EPA hit hardest as Trump budget targets regulation:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-epa-idUSKBN16N0E1
I do understand that this is still open for negotiation, and not the final budget. However, such a proposal already borders on criminal if one doesn't care for the air that citizens breath if it costs money, or for cleaning up poisonous waste dumps that jeopardize water quality, etc.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, that's a slight misconception, there is no free travel within the European Union. There is free travel between countries that signed up to the Schengen agreement which is currently 22 of the EU members and 4 non-EU members. They basically work together to set a collective outside border with regard to Visas and Immigration. Even though it's different countries it's kind of similar to free travel between the different states of the US and one collective outside border.
Over here, Americans treasure our right of free travel and not needing any documentation. We love the idea of getting in your car, filling up the gas tank, and speeding down interstates though as many states as you want. Just for the heck of it. Freedom! If Congress foolishly wrote a law restricting travel, having to stop at state borders to be checked, there would be a revolution. Americans would burn down the Capitol and shoot up Washington DC with their guns protected by the 2nd Amendment. It would be more fun than our Civil War. Whoopee!
-
Judges are supposed to enforce laws, not fairness. Lawmakers should be the ones to take fairness into consideration.
Yes, I largely agree, although like in your wife's case, one could hope for the mitigating circumstances (http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1267) (not deliberately breaking the law, but being led to believe there was more leeway) to result in e.g. a reduced fine. Maybe judges do not have that freedom in the USA, like they do in my country (although they would need to be consistent to avoid issues with such a verdict), but I think they do.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The main difficulty may be that discrimination based on place of birth collides with the Constitution and International laws on Human Rights.
Perhaps just a nit to pick, but the EO does not restrict itself nor does it mention Natural Citizens (by birth) but restricts itself to Nationals of those countries, which would include naturalized citizens.
Another issue is that it is unproven that the goal of the EO is obviously linked to the selection (discrimination) of those specific countries. Yes, there may have been less than stellar cooperation from some countries in doing proper background checks to enable the issuing of visa, and/or countries may have played a role of safe-haven for terrorists. But then the list should not be restricted to those countries alone. So it remains discriminatory, and in conflict with domestic and international law.
I am not sure I follow that it is in conflict with domestic or international law. There are no international laws that require the US to accept refugees. There are, however, international laws (1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees/1967 protocol/ UNGA Resolution 2198) that dictate how the US must treat refugees after they are accepted. There are agreements about how many refugees the US chooses to accept, but those agreements are not law, nor binding, and are at the pleasure of the President.
As for domestic law, the EO, which can be accessed from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
Cites the various federal laws that authorizes the President in doing exactly what is in this revised EO. The previous EO was poorly written and did violate federal law. The take-away is that perhaps these laws need to be revised. But in any case, the President is bound by laws in their present form, regardless of how people feel about the law.
There is no legal requirement to include all countries that meet one of the three criteria listed in the EO or the applicable laws. Morally, our sense of fairness may require that if you are calling out certain countries that meet criteria, you should call out all countries that meet that same criteria. That's the difference between morality and legality. An argument can be made, as you did, that this practice is discriminatory and it may be so. But even if it is discriminatory, that does not mean that it is automatically illegal.
The 14th amendment provides equal protection for any person (not limited to citizens) within the jurisdiction of the country or any state. The sticking point is when does a person fall under the jurisdiction of a country or state? The answer is when that country or state accepts them. Persons not accepted into the country are not protected under the 14th amendment. There are some interpretations that recognize de facto jurisdiction over illegal immigrants, but that is a much more complicated issue.
Trump's EO excludes specific classes of people before they are accepted in to the country. This is also why the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees/1967 protocol/ UNGA Resolution 2198) does not apply. If a refugee enters a country without authorization and does not immediately surrender to the appropriate authorities, they lose their refugee protected status.
That is what makes it legal although it can be argued that it is ill-advised.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 bans discrimination based on religion and national origin for the purpose of establishing immigration quotas. Trump's rational of national security makes his decision external to the 1965 act's scope. Now if Trump orders that nationals from country X can never immigrate to this country, that would be illegal. A temporary ban, in accordance with
8 U.S.C. 1101 is not illegal.
Now if Trump wanted to take refugees from these selected countries, after they have been accepted into the United States, and them put them in concentration camps....that would be illegal.
In any case, even if a person were to be accepted into the US, 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, article 32 gives the US the authority to expel any refugee on the grounds of national security or public safety. In that case, the refugee would be allowed representation in court.
It should be noted that much of the above only applies to refugees and not a larger population of immigrants or visitors.
No non-US citizen has any right to enter the US. Even diplomats don't have that right which is why diplomatic credentials have to be formally accepted. The US is hardly unique in this and controlling entry is one of the foundations of internationally recognized sovereignty.
Please don't misconstrue any of this as support for Trump's EO from me. I personally think it is a poorly thought out and even stupid idea. But I am having a hard time interpreting this as illegal.
-
Judges are supposed to enforce laws, not fairness. Lawmakers should be the ones to take fairness into consideration.
His ruling had nothing to do with law. He could have made the call in my favor and that would have been "legal" as well. Frankly, he made the ruling as he did because he was showing professional courtesy to another lawyer. Heck, I was only a litigant.
-
No non-US citizen has any right to enter the US. Even diplomats don't have that right which is why diplomatic credentials have to be formally accepted. The US is hardly unique in this and controlling entry is one of the foundations of internationally recognized sovereignty.
Excellent legal analysis. I'm curious about the one thing many have been critical of, the elephant in the room. That is whether rules can be written that restrict entry based on religion. Yes, there is the non-establishment of religion clause. But as one justice famously said that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
The fact is most if not all these terrorists are Muslim. If I was putting together a list of what to look for in a terrorist coming into this nation, it would be to find out if he was Muslim. Other criteria might be is he a healthy male, what does he think about freedom, etc. In other words, vetting him to what a terrorist would probably be. It's what the Israeli's do before letting you get on one of their El Al planes.
OK, we're not Israel. But isn't it "suicidal" to not use smart vetting to find out the people you shouldn't let in? Can it be constitutional? Is it constitutional, really, or are we just assuming it isn't. Has there been a test in the Supreme Court? Does the 2nd Amendment really apply to non-Americans?
So could a rule including religion (and I realize it's not in the current rule) actually pass constitutional muster? (question modified)
-
Oops. In my last post, I meant the non-establishment 1st Amendment, not the 2nd in the next to last paragraph.
-
P.S. I am still waiting for the attack on $38 million. Jeff, you there? Anyone? ;)
Ok, I'll fill in.
$38 million! That's only 25% of $150 million. Poor schnooks pay 25%. Where's the fairness in that? And what about the $150 million? I thought he made trillions or at least billions!. Then there's the $103 million write-off. Heck I was only able to write off my little property taxes and interest on mortgage. OK my house isn't Mar-a-lago, but heck it is my home sweet home. This whole two page release stinks to high heaven. You know what I think? It was really Treasury Secretary Wilbur Ross's. He just changed the name on top.
-
That is an interesting question.
I am not a lawyer but I do have a doctorate in domestic and international policy and about 35 years in the field.... at least that is what I am claiming while posting anonymously on the Internets Tubes. ;)
Unless other laws are enacted that restrict the president and the presidential actions concern people not yet accepted into the United States, I feel it would be legal to exclude members of a specific religion.
Legal not necessarily good I think that would be a very bad idea and one that would not sit well with domestic and international opinions, but we are talking about legality not morality.
The problem would be how can one tell if someone is a member of a religion, especially if the concern is that a baddie is trying to circumvent the system? Passing such a rule excluding specific religions might just result in an influx of atheists entering the country. What are the border people going to do? Claim "you are not an atheist, we know you are an Muslim!" Bad guys, by their very nature are bad and have no problem doing bad things like lying. Hate that about bad guys.
Which is why I feel that such a law, while legal would be ineffective, unfair, and counter to the traditions and customs of our society.... but legal.
I foresee congress re-looking at the immigration laws of this country. There was a legislative intent behind giving the President such exclusionary powers. I believe it was to enable the president to react to an acute short duration emergency not in support of something as vague as the never ending "war on terrorism" or what ever they are calling this these days.
Unlike the war powers act, the president does not have a constitutional authority to affect immigration. The president has legislative authority and that can be changed at any time by congress. I think congress should look into such examination of existing legislation.
Trying to make old legislation work in a modern environment requires far too much interpretation. Interpretation on the part of the Executive Branch and too much interpretation by the Judicial Branch. Interpretation by its very definition is subjective. As times change, so should our laws. As terrorism as grown far beyond what was envisioned back in the 1950's and 1960's, it is folly to think that legislation enacted 60 years ago applies to today's ever changing environment.
Get rid of old legislation and re-write new legislation that clearly and without need for retroactive interpretation, represents what the legislative branch thinks is necessary to solve today's problems in today's environment. Constitutions are enduring, legislation should not.
Well written legislation should not need Executive or Judicial interpretation.
-
Otto: But what about the process used to vet people, not the EO itself. I assume the State Dept created or should create a checklist that has a check box, Religion of Applicant. Is that constitutional? It doesn't have to be in the EO and become an international appearance problem. State could handle this question low key with the checklist. (Let's assume for the purposes of my argument that the applicant's religious affiliation can be gained truthfully by sources other than relying on his truthfulness. Birth records, family records, etc. It wouldn't be that hard to check if we wanted too. In any case, if he said "Atheist", that would be suspect from the countries in question and could be the basis of not letting him in. I assume judgment is used in many cases. It's not an exact measurement in any case.)
So could someone challenge the checklist as unconstitutional because of the religious question? Might this be a better way to handle accurate vetting? Why do you feel it's immoral to use a foreigner's religion as one determinant to identify him or her as a terrorist?
As a related question, how much does political correctness, not legality, play into this? I'm reminded of all the little old American ladies who are felt up when they go through security in our own airports because the TSA doesn't want to be called prejudiced by focusing on people who really could be terrorists. Has this become a PC issue rather than security issue something Trump and frankly many people are tired of?
-
Waiting for Jeff to ridicule and pour scorn on the guy who paid $38 millions in taxes. :)
Well, I'm still waiting for the tax returns for other years then 2005 that were not leaked (by the Trump entourage?, or by who else?) to get a better picture of the whole situation. One year tax return from 11 years ago doesn't say much. I'm sure we'll see them when the IRS audit is done with them ;)
-
... how can one tell if someone is a member of a religion...
Yes, very, very difficult.
-
Well, I'm still waiting for the tax returns for other years then 2005 that were not leaked (by the Trump entourage?, or by who else?) to get a better picture of the whole situation. One year tax return from 11 years ago doesn't say much. I'm sure we'll see them when the IRS audit is done with them ;)
They'll never get released unless Obama tells the IRS to do it.
-
"Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump's travel ban"
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/324336-to-block-trumps-ban-hawaii-judge-uses-psychoanalysis-not-legal
The lower courts gave considerable, indeed dispositive, weight to these anti-Muslim statements in deciding that the travel ban was, in reality, a Muslim ban that would violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion.
Under that reasoning, had the identical executive order been issued by President Obama, it would have been constitutional. But because it was issued by President Trump, it is unconstitutional. Indeed any executive order issued by President Trump dealing with travel from Muslim countries would be constitutionally suspect because of what candidate Trump said. In my view, that is a bridge too far. It turns constitutional analysis into psychoanalysis, requiring that the motives of the president be probed.
-
They'll never get released unless Obama tells the IRS to do it.
Don't think Obama has any "power" left to take any official action, why would the IRS listen to someone that isn't even considered a legal US citizen by the current POTUS incumbent? But I agree they will never be released because they probably paint a very different picture from the leaked 2005 one (and even that one might be a fake).
-
"Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump's travel ban"
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/324336-to-block-trumps-ban-hawaii-judge-uses-psychoanalysis-not-legal
Gee. I hope you're right. I have told my wife on occasion that I would kill her. I'm pretty sure it was hyperbole and bluster. In any case, I wouldn't want to go to jail for my big mouth. Maybe it would be better if I can get someone else to say it to her for me.
-
Waiting for Jeff to ridicule and pour scorn on the guy who paid $38 millions in taxes. :)
Wait, what?
The only ridicule and scorn I would pour on him is he lied back in May 20, 2014: Trump said in an interview on Irish TV that he would "absolutely" release his tax returns if he decided to run for office: Trump's interview video (https://youtu.be/Hg-5KEt1Abg)
So...I guess it doesn't count because he was talking to the #LYING&CORRUPTt Irish TV?
Here's a nice timeline all about Trump's Taxes and his various #TRUMP WIGGLES
A Definitive Timeline of Donald Trump's Many Excuses About His Taxes (as of Jan 23, 201) (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a52466/donald-trump-tax-returns-timeline/)
As for the 1040 "reveal" on the Rachel Maddow show, she was of course, upstaged by the White House...and of course, the expected presidential tweet: “Does anybody really believe that a reporter, who nobody ever heard of, ‘went to his mailbox’ and found my tax returns? @NBCNews FAKE NEWS!”
So, the 1040 revealed he paid about $38M at a tax rate of about 25% (a bit lower than mine) and wrote off $103M on $153M...the funniest thing about this whole thing is that after refusing to release his taxes because he's "under audit", he (the white house) goes ahead and releases his tax form just out of spite to ruin Rachael's "reveal". I think that's hilarious (and pretty telling about the behavior of a narcissist)
I find the tweet that David Shepardson tweeted out pretty funny too:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C662nh6W0AEn_yO.jpg)
Boy, that dishonest media sure is mean to the BIG CHEETO (http://www.awesomelyluvvie.com/2017/01/guide-disrespecting-donald-trump.html)
(http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Campaign-2016/trump-cheetos-550.jpg)
In His Own Words: Donald Trump Is Selling Himself Like A Bag Of Cheetos (http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=31242)
P.S. How's that for a response Slobodan?
;)
-
So, are you a climate change denier? Do you deny that people are dying of starvation caused by severe drought? Do you deny that superstorms like Sandy cost billions of $? Do you deny the sea levels have risen? That coastal areas are at risk of disappearing? Do you deny that global warming and climate change is and will continue to be a bit problem for humanity? Or don't you give a crap?
Hi Jeff,
This thread has moved on, but I couldn't resist addressing your biased reporting. ;)
I don't deny most of your points above, so I guess I'm not a climate change denier. I've never actually met a climate change denier. However, I have met many skeptics, that is, scientists who understand that the great complexity of the subject of climate science does not allow for scientific certainty on the effects on the world climate, that rising levels of CO2 might have.
The first fact that anyone interested in or worried about climate change should understand, is that climate has always been changing throughout the history of the earth, sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly, sometimes with catastrophic effects, and sometimes with beneficial effects.
One of my favourite locations for photography is the Angkor Wat region in Cambodia. I just love walking around the many ancient ruins which cover a huge area, photographing monkeys jumping around, and the beautiful bas-reliefs of semi-clad ladies (apsaras).
One of the intriguing mysteries of this ancient Khmer civilizations, consisting of dozens of large temples connected by a huge network of canals, reservoirs and irrigation systems, is why it became deserted and lost in the jungle, until the French colonists rediscovered it in the 19th century. Why did the population disperse and never return?
We know that the Khmers were invaded by the neighbouring Thais in the 14th century, but generally the whole population of a large empire based on fertile and productive land does not just disappear because of an invasion. If they were to, would not the invaders take over and occupy the great cities?
This mystery now has a possible explanation, thanks to the work of scientists examining the tree rings of ancient trees in the area. The following article addresses the issue:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/did-climate-influence-angkors-collapse
"Scientists led by Buckley were able to reconstruct 759 years of past climate in the region surrounding Angkor by studying the annual growth rings of a cypress tree, Fokienia hodginsii, growing in the highlands of Vietnam’s Bidoup Nui Ba National Park , about 700 kilometers away. By hiking high into the mountain cloud forests, the researchers were able to find rare specimens over 1,000 years old that had not been touched by loggers. After extracting tiny cores of wood showing the trees’ annual growth rings, researchers reconstructed year-to-year moisture levels in this part of Southeast Asia from 1250 to 2008. The tree rings revealed evidence of a mega-drought lasting three decades—from the 1330s to 1360s-- followed by a more severe but shorter drought from the 1400s to 1420s. Written records corroborate the latter drought, which may have been felt as far away as Sri Lanka and central China.
The droughts may have been devastating for a civilization dependent on farming and an irrigation system of reservoirs, canals and embankments sprawling across more than a thousand square kilometers. The droughts could have led to crop failure and a rise in infectious disease, and both problems would have been exacerbated by the density of the population, Buckley says."
The implication is that the Thais invaded because they realised that the civilization was collapsing due to a rapid change in climate and that they would stand a good chance of prevailing, which they did.
Another implication, and lesson to be learned from history, is that devastating climate changes can occur in any region of the planet without the help of human-produced CO2. One could argue that increased levels of CO2 will increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, but again there's no sound evidence that this is happening. Even the IPCC has admitted this in its latest report.
Every time there's an extreme weather event in Australia, such as a flood or a heatwave, the media reports it as the worst flood or highest temperature on record, or in living memory. However, when one later examines the records available in the Bureau of Meteorology, one usually finds that what was described as the highest or worst event on record is actually the second, third or fourth worst.
In January 2011 there was a massive flood in the city of Brisbane, Australia. I experienced it. It was described at the time as the worst flood ever, causing billions of dollars worth of damage resulting from rising river levels swamping roads and thousands of houses in the city. It was cited as yet another example of climate change due to rising CO2 levels.
Yet when I now look at a chart of the historical flood levels of the Brisbane river, issued by the Bureau of Meteorology, it's clear that in terms of flood heights the 2011 flood was not even nearly the worst on record. It was the 7th worst in Brisbane city during the past 180 years or so[/b], since records have been kept. Refer attached image. The two worst floods by a big margin, about 4 metres higher than the 2011 flood, occurred in 1841 and 1893. Refer attached photo of the 1893 flood in the heart of the city.
There's no doubt that the media is guilty of disseminating a lot of 'fake news'. I sympathise with Donald Trump in that respect.
-
And now there's this...
Medical, science research faces huge cuts under Trump budget (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/health/trump-budget-medical-science-huge-cuts/)
The National Institutes of Health budget would be cut by $5.8 billion, meaning it would lose about 20%. The Environmental Protection Agency would face $2.6 billion in cuts, that's 31% of the agency's budget. The Department of Energy would lose $900 million, or about 20% of its budget. Health and Human Services would see a $15.1 billion or 18% budget cut; as part of that, it shifts costs to industry from the Food and Drug Administration budget. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would face an 18% budget cut.
If you want to read the PDF, it's here...
AMERICA FIRST Beginning a New Chapter of American Greatness (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf)
The Washington Post says:
If you’re a poor person in America, Trump’s budget is not for you (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/16/if-youre-a-poor-person-in-america-trumps-budget-is-not-for-you/?utm_term=.e9ef26fa46bf)
If you’re a poor person in America, President Trump’s budget proposal is not for you.
Trump has unveiled a budget that would slash or abolish programs that have provided low-income Americans with help on virtually all fronts, including affordable housing, banking, weatherizing homes, job training, paying home heating oil bills, and obtaining legal counsel in civil matters.
#AmericaGreatAgain–not so much
-
I don't deny most of your points above, so I guess I'm not a climate change denier. I've never actually met a climate change denier. However, I have met many skeptics, that is, scientists who understand that the great complexity of the subject of climate science does not allow for scientific certainty on the effects on the world climate, that rising levels of CO2 might have.
The first fact that anyone interested in or worried about climate change should understand, is that climate has always been changing throughout the history of the earth, sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly, sometimes with catastrophic effects, and sometimes with beneficial effects.
Yep..."sometimes with catastrophic effects, and sometimes with beneficial effects" But it's foolish to say do nothing because "climate science does not allow for scientific certainty on the effects on the world climate, that rising levels of CO2 might have"
But...in the FIRST article I pointed to it said "The science around climate security is definitive enough for action: the military knows that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting."
it's that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting that climate change deniers cling to...
Well, if you wait until we are 100% sure of the disastrous effects of climate change, it'll be too f#&king late!
And it doesn't make sense to spend LESS money studying the problem does it?
Trump budget would gut EPA programs tackling climate change and pollution (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/16/trump-budget-cuts-climate-change-clean-up-programs-epa)
Proposal would cut Environmental Protection Agency’s funding by nearly a third, as budget director calls money spent to combat climate change a ‘waste’
Yeah, cut funding to study the environment so we can get some shiny new bullets!
-
Yeah, cut funding to study the environment so we can get some shiny new bullets!
The United States spends only slightly more on the military than the next seven countries combined, so obviously we need to dramatically increase military spending at the expense of everything else.
-
Let's make coal great again!
-
"Why the Supreme Court will uphold Trump's travel ban"
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/324336-to-block-trumps-ban-hawaii-judge-uses-psychoanalysis-not-legal
Gee. I hope you're right. I have told my wife on occasion that I would kill her. I'm pretty sure it was hyperbole and bluster. In any case, I wouldn't want to go to jail for my big mouth. Maybe it would be better if I can get someone else to say it to her for me.
-
The United States spends only slightly more on the military than the next seven countries combined, so obviously we need to dramatically increase military spending at the expense of everything else.
And especially at the expense of the environment, which is considered a waste of money by the President:
http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/03/16/white-house-considers-climate-change-a-w?videoId=371317109&videoChannel=1003&channelName=Politics
and of course the job training programs for coal country are also considered a waste of money:
Trump seeks to ax Appalachia economic programs, causing worry in coal country
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-appalachia-idUSKBN16N2VF
Cheers,
Bart
-
Don't think Obama has any "power" left to take any official action, why would the IRS listen to someone that isn't even considered a legal US citizen by the current POTUS incumbent? But I agree they will never be released because they probably paint a very different picture from the leaked 2005 one (and even that one might be a fake).
Obama left a loyal mole in every federal agency to do his dirty work to undermine Trump. In case you hadn't heard, Obama is a US citizen. It took him 5 years to provide the evidence, his birth certificate. Trump figures that gives him the right to similarly wait 5 years to show the evidence his lines were tapped.
-
The United States spends only slightly more on the military than the next seven countries combined, so obviously we need to dramatically increase military spending at the expense of everything else.
I agree we shouldn't increase the military budget. We should have NATO countries, Japan, etc pay more for their defense so we can cut back.
-
Yep..."sometimes with catastrophic effects, and sometimes with beneficial effects" But it's foolish to say do nothing because "climate science does not allow for scientific certainty on the effects on the world climate, that rising levels of CO2 might have"
But...in the FIRST article I pointed to it said "The science around climate security is definitive enough for action: the military knows that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting."
it's that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting that climate change deniers cling to...
Well, if you wait until we are 100% sure of the disastrous effects of climate change, it'll be too f#&king late!
And it doesn't make sense to spend LESS money studying the problem does it?
Trump budget would gut EPA programs tackling climate change and pollution (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/16/trump-budget-cuts-climate-change-clean-up-programs-epa)
Proposal would cut Environmental Protection Agency’s funding by nearly a third, as budget director calls money spent to combat climate change a ‘waste’
Yeah, cut funding to study the environment so we can get some shiny new bullets!
Where would you spend the money? How much? Where should the money come from? Are you willing to reduce your Social Security and Medicare? By how much? Will you accept that your taxes will go up? How much do you think you should pay? Will you take care of workers displaced by lost jobs? What will you tell those without running water, heat and electricity in poor areas of the world that because cheap carbon fuel isn't available, they'll have to continue to crap behind the nearest bush and freeze during the winter?
-
Just finished watching Steve Paiken's interview on TVO (Canadian production) with Dr. Richard Haass, discussing his latest book, "A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old World Order." 30 minutes long video, well worth watching.
Richard Haass Interview (http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/world-order-20)
Amazon reviews of his book (https://www.amazon.com/World-Disarray-American-Foreign-Policy/dp/0399562362/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489713461&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+haass+a+world+in+disarray)
-
Yep..."sometimes with catastrophic effects, and sometimes with beneficial effects" But it's foolish to say do nothing because "climate science does not allow for scientific certainty on the effects on the world climate, that rising levels of CO2 might have"
But...in the FIRST article I pointed to it said "The science around climate security is definitive enough for action: the military knows that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting."
it's that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting that climate change deniers cling to...
Well, if you wait until we are 100% sure of the disastrous effects of climate change, it'll be too f#&king late!
And it doesn't make sense to spend LESS money studying the problem does it?
Trump budget would gut EPA programs tackling climate change and pollution (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/16/trump-budget-cuts-climate-change-clean-up-programs-epa)
Proposal would cut Environmental Protection Agency’s funding by nearly a third, as budget director calls money spent to combat climate change a ‘waste’
Yeah, cut funding to study the environment so we can get some shiny new bullets!
There's no 100% certainty on anything, Jeff. The sorts of questions we should ask ourselves are:
(1) What are the specific consequences of a change in climate that we should be worried about? I suggest they are a possible increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, cyclones, heatwaves, and so on.
However, as I mentioned, the IPCC has acknowledged that there is no sound evidence so far that this is happening, although the media tends not to listen and repeats the mantra in its fake news that every extreme weather event is the worst on record.
(2) In view of the uncertainty of the effects of CO2 on climate, is there another, more certain way of protecting ourselves from extreme weather events than spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2 levels?
(3) Which is more certain; that we will continue to experience a repition of previous, known floods and droughts which have occurred in the past, and which we know were not caused by human-produced CO2...or that the increased severity of extreme weather events will be unprecedented due to rising CO2 levels?
The major problem that humanity faces is its inability to learn from history and do the sensible thing. If one builds a house in a flood plain that has a known record of being flooded every 20 or 30 years for the past 200 years, then one should expect that one's house will be subject to flooding within the next 20 or 30 years, depending in part on the date of the previous flood. The only uncertainty is the time period. There might be a major flood within the next 10 years, or it might not take place for another 40 years.
What is the best way to protect your house from such flooding? Reduce CO2 levels, or make sure your house is built on piers well above the height of the worst floods in the past?
The really sad thing is, the emphasis on economic development tends to prevent governments and local councils introducing proper building codes in areas that have a history of floods and/or cyclones, not only because most people would be put off by the additional expense of constructing their home on sturdy piers 4 metres or more above the ground, but also because advertising the catastrophe's of past weather events in a particular region would tend to discourage people to settle there.
If you want an example of true denial, Jeff, it's not the skeptics who are doubtful about the threat of rising CO2 levels, but those who disregard the history of extreme weather events and kid themselves that what has occurred in the past will not be repeated if we successfully reduce our CO2 emissions.
On the issue of Trumps budget proposal to cut expenditure on tackling pollution, I cannot agree with that. But again, is this another example of fake news. CO2 is often described as a pollutant, but it's not. It's a clean, clear, odourless gas which is essential for all life, and our planet is greener as a result of the increased levels of CO2 that we have introduced into the atmosphere. There is also a very significant 'fertilization' effect of increased levels of CO2 worth billions of dollars of increased crop production worldwide.
-
...What is the best way to protect your house from such flooding? Reduce CO2 levels, or make sure your house is built on piers well above the height of the worst floods in the past?
The really sad thing is, the emphasis on economic development tends to prevent governments and local councils introducing proper building codes in areas that have a history of floods and/or cyclones, not only because most people would be put off by the additional expense of constructing their home on sturdy piers 4 metres or more above the ground, but also because advertising the catastrophe's of past weather events in a particular region would tend to discourage people to settle there.
I live in NJ. When I drive along the shore, I see many homes that were damaged during Hurricane Sandy were re-built on stilts. People of course still want to live by the ocean and are willing to take the risk. I'm glad I'm inland. Before Sandy, my wife an I were looking to buy a home on the south shore of Long Island NY. Then I looked at the FEMA maps and realized most of the places were in flood zones so we changed our minds.
I'm curious with what is happening and will happen with wet lands as the ocean levels rise? They will expand. Won't that be good for the species there? The government is always telling us to protect these wet lands. You think they'd be happy with more water.
-
Alan,
See my post #1436 from earlier today (that's almost 100 posts in one day!)
- Louisiana's swamps will disappear as sea levels rise 4 times faster than world average
...
-
(1) What are the specific consequences of a change in climate that we should be worried about? I suggest they are a possible increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, cyclones, heatwaves, and so on.
However, as I mentioned, the IPCC has acknowledged that there is no sound evidence so far that this is happening, although the media tends not to listen and repeats the mantra in its fake news that every extreme weather event is the worst on record.
Pardon me and I mean no disrespect but do you care to cite where you read than the "IPCC has acknowledged that there is no sound evidence so far that this is happening". I can't find anything like this on https://www.ipcc.ch (https://www.ipcc.ch)
(2) In view of the uncertainty of the effects of CO2 on climate, is there another, more certain way of protecting ourselves from extreme weather events than spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2 levels?
Uh, what uncertainty? Again care to cite where you read that?
(3) Which is more certain; that we will continue to experience a repition of previous, known floods and droughts which have occurred in the past, and which we know were not caused by human-produced CO2...or that the increased severity of extreme weather events will be unprecedented due to rising CO2 levels?
Pretty sure the science says "the increased severity of extreme weather events will be unprecedented due to rising CO2 levels". Yep, pretty sure that's what about 97% of climate scientists would say. Pretty sure the EPA thinks that...ya might wanna check out this web site:
Climate Impacts on Human Health (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-human-health) which is a summary of a more advanced Climate and Health Assessment (https://health2016.globalchange.gov) by the globalchange.gov (http://www.globalchange.gov)
Now, this all presupposes that one is not inclined to look at the EPA as a total waste of money and whose budget should be be slashed as reported by scientificamerican.com (https://www.scientificamerican.com).
Trump Budget Cuts Funds for EPA by 31 Percent (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-budget-cuts-funds-for-epa-by-31-percent/)
President Trump's budget released this morning aims directly at programs addressing climate change by eliminating funds for the Clean Power Plan and "reorienting" U.S. EPA on air pollution.
The blueprint calls for a 31 percent spending reduction for EPA, slashing its budget by $2.6 billion. Environmental advocates described it as a crippling blow to an agency at the vanguard of climate action.
The budget also seeks a 5.6 percent cut to the Energy Department and a 12 percent decrease for the Interior Department (Energywire, March 16). It also slashes funding for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's agency by 28 percent.
You write...
But again, is this another example of fake news. CO2 is often described as a pollutant, but it's not. It's a clean, clear, odourless gas which is essential for all life, and our planet is greener as a result of the increased levels of CO2 that we have introduced into the atmosphere.
Yeah, ya know, CO2 is indeed a natural gas that is needed in the atmosphere but...if you look at all of the natural excretion of CO2 compared to the CO2 that humans create, the earth can not maintain an equilibrium...particularly when one of the things human are doing is leveling huge swaths of rainforest and other natural CO2 absorbers. Pretty sure humans care cause far more CO2 than can be absorbed and that excess human made CO2 is indeed a pollutant if you accept that a a pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource?
But CO2 is only a portion of the human activity that is a problem.
Overview of Greenhouse Gases (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases)
Carbon dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
Nitrous oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for stratospheric ozone-depleting substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases ("High GWP gases").
So care to cite your sources? I've cited some of mine...
Edited to fix a typo
-
Obama left a loyal mole in every federal agency to do his dirty work to undermine Trump.
Any evidence (real evidence, not FOX like media) on this? Not that there are people left appointed under his government, but that they are currently working for Obama to undermine Trump.
In case you hadn't heard, Obama is a US citizen. It took him 5 years to provide the evidence, his birth certificate. Trump figures that gives him the right to similarly wait 5 years to show the evidence his lines were tapped.
No, it took several of those 5 years for Trump to accept the birth certificate that Obama provided as "real". I hope we can determine if the leaked 2005 Trump tax return is real or not a bit faster then that.
-
If it would not be so sad, you would laugh your ass off:
According to public opinion polls, Americans believe nearly a third of the budget goes to international aid. In reality, it’s less than 1 percent.
http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/nov/09/john-kerry/yep-most-people-clueless-us-foreign-aid-spending/ (http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/nov/09/john-kerry/yep-most-people-clueless-us-foreign-aid-spending/)
A survey of Fox News viewers from 2013 showed nearly half believed most federal debt could be eliminated by “cutting waste and fraud.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/13/trumps-budget-bluff (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/13/trumps-budget-bluff)
Without a doubt, with this budget, Trump shows the middle finger to the working class who voted for him.
You couldn't make it up.
-
Depends how one sees "international aid." Narrowly, bureaucratically defined (1%) or, as most people see it, military "aid" to foreign countries, that is, our interventions around the world, being the "world's policeman" and such.
-
Otto: But what about the process used to vet people, not the EO itself.
I do not have detailed information on the vetting process so I can't opine on it.
Why do you feel it's immoral to use a foreigner's religion as one determinant to identify him or her as a terrorist?
1. Empiracle evidence shows that the vast majority of people of any religion are law abiding people.
2. There are few objective observables that can be used to identify subscription to a specific religion. The few that we do have are easily changed or concealed.
3. The group of people we want to guard against are baddies and baddies have no problems lying. How do you prove that someone is lying about their subscription to a religion (see item 2)? Baddies can shave and baddies can even wear baseball caps, made in China, proclaiming "Make America Great" -- especially if they wish enter the US under false pretenses.
4. In the United States, we have a fantasy of a culture open to religious freedom. We have been somewhat successful in this, but patently discriminating against a religion would probably do more harm than good, especially since it really won't have much of an impact on the entry of baddies.
Instead of subscription to a religion, I feel that past actions are a better indicator of the risk of a person. However, you will only catch the stupid people that way. Someone really smart who wants to infiltrate the US to do bad things will not have a publicly retrievable history of talking about bad stuff.
It is a hard question. If I had the answer, I sure would not be wasting my time posting on a photography forum. ;D
We just have to make sure that the "cure" is not worse then the "disease".
-
Just finished watching Steve Paiken's interview on TVO (Canadian production) with Dr. Richard Haass, discussing his latest book, "A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old World Order." 30 minutes long video, well worth watching.
Richard Haass Interview (http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/world-order-20)
Amazon reviews of his book (https://www.amazon.com/World-Disarray-American-Foreign-Policy/dp/0399562362/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489713461&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+haass+a+world+in+disarray)
Hi Les,
Thanks for these references. Good info and a balanced view on the state of affairs and the direction we propably should take.
Cheers,
Bart
-
There's no 100% certainty on anything, Jeff. The sorts of questions we should ask ourselves are:
(1) What are the specific consequences of a change in climate that we should be worried about? I suggest they are a possible increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, cyclones, heatwaves, and so on.
However, as I mentioned, the IPCC has acknowledged that there is no sound evidence so far that this is happening, although the media tends not to listen and repeats the mantra in its fake news that every extreme weather event is the worst on record.
Hi Ray,
Like Jeff (and presumably others), I'm also curious as to what source you use for the claim that you yourself emphasized in bold.
When I read the Policymakers summary by the IPCC (http://www.climatechange2013.org/), it reads on page 4:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and
SPM.4).
Emphasis in bold is mine.
If you like, you can also delve into the full 1552 page assessment report for some more detail, but I have not yet finished reading all of that myself. It's a pity that it is dated 2013 because things are still accelerating, so 3 years later there will be significantly changed actual figures to worry about. But obviously such reports do not get published overnight, it too takes a lot of work to collect, prepare and present.
So, I'm curious what your sources are.
Cheers,
Bart
-
particularly when one of the things human are doing is leveling huge swaths of rainforest and other natural CO2 absorbers.
Rain forests do not absorb any CO2, decaying (same as slow burning) trees and other organic matter releases EXACTLY the same amount of CO2 those same organisms captured when growing up. If rain forests did absorb CO2 as claimed, there would have to be huge and thick beds of pure C (coal) under the forest, but actually there is none, nada, zero. The soil is typically just a few inches thick. If the rain forest did absorb CO2, where is it?
Of course cutting down and burning forests release CO2 prematurely, which is not reabsorbed if the forest does not grow back. But generally a normal living forest does not absorb net CO2 at all, it is in equilibrium. Only if the forest is turning into a swamp where organic material is buried and does not decay, more CO2 is absorbed than released.
Steady state forests as some kind of CO2 absorbers is a common fallacy and often repeated, but any thinking person can understand why it is not so. Where is the claimed absorbed carbon?
-
Rain forests do not absorb any CO2, decaying (same as slow burning) trees and other organic matter releases EXACTLY the same amount of CO2 those same organisms captured when growing up.
Well, not exactly the same (part of it is food for other species and fungi and other micro-organisms), and certainly not at the same rate. It makes a difference if a tree needs 10-years to grow, and (after polluting transportation and preparation) e.g. burning it in hours. And the burning won't just release the CO2 back into the atmosphere, it also releases a shitload of other stuff like sulfur, heavy metals, and other elements.
Of course cutting down and burning forests release CO2 prematurely, which is not reabsorbed if the forest does not grow back. But generally a normal living forest does not absorb net CO2 at all, it is in equilibrium.
It's rather an ecosystem, on which many different species of living creatures and other plants thrive in symbiosis or with other dependencies.
As I also linked to before, Ocean Acidification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification) is another factor of huge importance that is closely related to the amount of atmospheric CO2 (if that's the only compound we're looking at).
Where is the claimed absorbed carbon?
Reducing(!!!) amounts are absorbed by the oceans as the atmospheric CO2 levels increase, depending on the amount it has to process at any given time. This accelerates the airborne amount of CO2. It is IMHO a mistake to focus only on one aspect of a complex chemical (im)balance.
But according to Trump, it's all a waste of money.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Candidate Trump:
We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.
We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!
Something I can agree with and why many people voted for him.
His budget, however...
-
This is a great reason for smaller government. Just let the industries die that need to die and let people figure out how to move forward. Cut out the cronyism.
As soon as government gets involved, industries get put on life support for no reason. Dems and Reps are just as guilty with this, only with different industries.
Whether you like the Koch brothers or not, one of their key goals is to end all tax preferences even those that might benefit their own companies. I could go along with this but there are instances when a new technology might need some assistance to get going (e.g., alternative energy)
My brother is about as far left as possible and writes for a far left blog. He recently made a stink about Philly checking train tickets at the station instead of on the train, which will ultimately kill some of the jobs for train conductors.
If it is more efficient, let it happen. I feel like it is was up to him, we would still have cabooses on every train filled with workers ready to run across the tops of the cars to manually spin the brakes on so jobs are not lost.
There is always New Jersey who to this day do not permit self serve pumps in gas stations. Think of all the jobs that preserves.
Reps do the same with coal. Coal is dirty and inefficient. Take away the subsidies, let the industry fair on its own accord. Oil, well actually oil is still more efficient then any other power source, exception maybe nuclear.
Nuclear is another big annoyance with me. It's cleaner, efficient, unlimited, but no Reps or Dems want to touch it. They criticize the current plants for being dangerous, but no new plant has been built since the 70s, so none have modern safe guards in place.
Not to mention all the storage facilities that were meant to be short term are getting filled up with spent fuel. We have a long term storage facility in AZ (the bast place for it since 90+% of AZ is uninhabitable), but no politicians wants to allow trains through their district with spent fuel. They rather have it build up in an area with little to protection, go figure.
I'm not sure there are any subsidies associated with coal mining. The big problem are the environmental controls that present acid rain and particulate matter (I'll leave aside the regulations regarding CO2 emissions). there are new nuclear power plant designs that are far safer than the current reactors. However, the licensing process is still long and quite involved. Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed (the French do this all the time) but the US facility was poorly designed and had big problems. It was shut down several decades ago. Are you sure you are not thinking of the Yucca Mountain storage site in Nevada? That is the one where there has been a huge political fight about.
Most of the public associates nuclear power with a great deal of dread. Of course the incidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukishima only reinforce those feelings.
-
... there are instances when a new technology might need some assistance to get going (e.g., alternative energy)...
"Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/
-
I live in NJ. When I drive along the shore, I see many homes that were damaged during Hurricane Sandy were re-built on stilts. People of course still want to live by the ocean and are willing to take the risk. I'm glad I'm inland. Before Sandy, my wife an I were looking to buy a home on the south shore of Long Island NY. Then I looked at the FEMA maps and realized most of the places were in flood zones so we changed our minds.
It's also important to note that commercial property casualty companies will not insure against flood damage. Insurance rates in ocean front areas that are subject to hurricanes are very high as well. Of course the government continues to bail these localities out when such disasters happen. Is this a good use of tax money? Shouldn't the states have to handle this? I remember after Katrina the US spent over $12B to improve and modernize the flood control system in New Orleans yet Governor Jindal was always complaining about taxes being to high and the government should leave more stuff up to the state. He certainly was happy to accept the repair work after Katrina.
-
"Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/
Yes, and for every scandalous story there is a more reasoned evaluation:
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit
-
Yes, and for every scandalous story there is a more reasoned evaluation:
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit
Ah, yes, coming from the government's own propaganda arm: NPR. That's why Trump is defunding it. ;)
-
"Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/
You see, this is exactly what's wrong with the media these days. If reputable outlets like the WP write this kind of irrelevant non-sense. Ever wondered what the total expenditure on energy is in the US? Or even just relative to the average taxpayer? That would be like what? 10 usd per individual? Not to mention that failed projects may still inject money in the local economy. Trump would love it, either way.
-
Ah, yes, coming from the government's own propaganda arm: NPR. That's why Trump is defunding it. ;)
Oh great, c!early you don't want to create jobs or an experienced workforce in the new energy sector...
-
You see, this is exactly what's wrong with the media these days. If reputable outlets like the WP...
I am not sure if you meant it sarcastically, but the source is the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. Now, neither is quite reputable these days, as the WT is leaning (or is) quite right, and the WP is rapidly becoming the loonie left.
-
Oh great, c!early you don't want to create jobs or an experienced workforce in the new energy sector...
Defunding NPR.
-
I am not sure if you meant it sarcastically, but the source is the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. Now, neither is quite reputable these days, as the WT is leaning (or is) quite right, and the WP is rapidly becoming the loonie left.
Okay, didn't realize that. In that case consider my comment retracted, although please be careful with all those irrelevant absolute numbers with which some writers try to emphasize the severity of their subject. I see this in so many newsitems, it's worrying.
-
Defunding NPR.
Okay, sorry, misread it.
-
There are situations where the commercial sector is well-placed to provide goods and services and some for which it is not. That's about all you can say on the subject. Painting the discussion black or white is self-evidently silly, why do we continue to do so?
There are many instances of market failure where guvmint intrusion seems to be the only way forward. Do you think the "free market" would have eliminated slavery in the 19th century or "Jim Crow" in the 20th? What do you think high import tariffs to protect certain industries are if not guvmint intrusion in a "free" market?
Do you think that the "free market" is aided by allowing large corporations to become near-monopolies? It's not who owns the company that makes it efficient (whatever efficient means), it's whether or not there is competition. We seem to have forgotten that in our headlong rush to make a small percentage of people really rich, in the hopes that they will turn around and bless the rest of us with some jobs.
Do people really think that it's not important to insure that the water and air remain non-toxic? Do you really think that industry will voluntarily see to that, despite centuries of evidence that no one individual gives a crap about the "commons" unless penalties and supervision are in place to make sure of it?
NPR is an arm of the guvmint? That's hysterical. Worldwide, the ONLY media outlets that have any validity anymore are the ones that have some measure of autonomy guaranteed by mandate. Nearly all the private media is a farce.
I find it hilarious when people quote some obscure paragraph from Adam Smith that suits their immediate debating points, as if Mr. Smith was the last word on the subject, but at the same time choose to ignore his own words and those of many others on the importance of a healthy guvmint sector.
I also find it amusing that some people seem to think that the "swamp" only exists in Washington D.C. Do you not think there are swamps in every state capital, in every head office of every corporation, in every military base, in every guvmint-funded "security" establishment? I also find it amusing that people religiously think that Trump isn't part of that swamp and that he will change it. If that isn't irrational religious belief, I don't know what is.
-
Was this Trump's new evidence (coming in e few weeks) of his phones being tapped as ordered by the former President?
Source appears to be FoxNews propaganda. Are you serious? Why not incriminate the UK as well.
UK says U.S. claims about spying will not be repeated:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretapping-idUSKBN16O16Q
And what does the USA say after falsely accusing the UK? Sorry? Someone told me?
Leading Republicans, Democrats reject Trump's Obama wiretap assertion:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16N2K3
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Do you think the "free market" would have eliminated slavery in the 19th century...
While I do agree in general with you about the need to have a balanced approach to markets and governments, this one is a bit trickier. One can posit that the elimination of slavery IS the act of free market, rather than lofty ideology or morality. Northern, already industrialized U.S. states needed a free market and free movement for labor, as opposed to the agricultural South, where laborers were tied to the land. A controversial thought, though.
It's not who owns the company that makes it efficient... it's whether or not there is competition. We seem to have forgotten that in our headlong rush to make a small percentage of people really rich...
Competition exists precisely because many people are trying to become rich.
-
Ah, yes, coming from the government's own propaganda arm: NPR. That's why Trump is defunding it. ;)
If it was the govt's arm, the Trump has been doing a poor job of using it!!! ;D
-
Competition exists precisely because many people are trying to become rich.
...and once they achieve that they try to prevent others from doing so.
-
...and once they achieve that they try to prevent others from doing so.
From one of my professors (Zingales) that addresses such an inherent paradox:
https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Capitalists-Unleashing-Opportunity/dp/0691121281
-
From one of my professors (Zingales) that addresses such an inherent paradox:
https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Capitalists-Unleashing-Opportunity/dp/0691121281
Yes, that's a decent book; I read it a while back. I disagreed with some of what he wrote and of course there really is no such thing as the idealized system that he writes about. I don't think we could exist without a central bank and decent securities laws.
-
...and once they achieve that they try to prevent others from doing so.
Government regulation is the cause of the lack of competition and lower prices. regulation impedes entry into established industries where the big guys like regulation. It's like Uber fighting for entry into cities where entrenched and protected taxi companies use government regs to protect them.
-
If it was the govt's arm, the Trump has been doing a poor job of using it!!! ;D
NPR is run by liberals who present their points of view. Also, now that there are so many cable stations, there are so many science, current event, nature and other stations that present multiple views all paid for privately. It's no longer necessary for government to be involved, especially when the NPR producers are biased. The taxpayers should keep the money for themselves or donate their own money to cable stations that present their point of view.
-
There are many instances of market failure where guvmint intrusion seems to be the only way forward. Do you think the "free market" would have eliminated slavery in the 19th century or "Jim Crow" in the 20th? What do you think high import tariffs to protect certain industries are if not guvmint intrusion in a "free" market?
Do you think that the "free market" is aided by allowing large corporations to become near-monopolies? It's not who owns the company that makes it efficient (whatever efficient means), it's whether or not there is competition. We seem to have forgotten that in our headlong rush to make a small percentage of people really rich, in the hopes that they will turn around and bless the rest of us with some jobs.
I also find it amusing that some people seem to think that the "swamp" only exists in Washington D.C. Do you not think there are swamps in every state capital, in every head office of every corporation, in every military base, in every guvmint-funded "security" establishment? I also find it amusing that people religiously think that Trump isn't part of that swamp and that he will change it. If that isn't irrational religious belief, I don't know what is.
Regarding the Civil War, I wondered whether it was worth the death of 700,000 Americans not including the thousands who lost their limbs and were disabled. I believe slavery would have ended shortly anyway. The cotton gin and other mechanization made slavery too expensive and less productive than motivated employees using modern farming tools. It would have ended on its own. There may have been less Jim Crow laws implemented that kept discrimination for another hundred years. Was getting rid of Saddam worth what we have now in the Middle East? Sometimes the road to hell are paved with good intentions.
Regarding corporations, owners can NOT run them without employees. The richer the investor, the more employees he'll need. Regarding monopolies, an unrelated issue, laws prevent them. In most cases, there are alternative products so monopolies rarely can exist even without laws against them.
Yes it's true that there are swamps in every state and locality. We should reduce government there too to get rid of the swamps. I don't know if Trump will become part of the swamp. It's too early to tell although he seems to be getting rid of some of it already. But the fact is our other choice during the election was Hillary Clinton who has been a critter of the swamp her entire life.
-
The taxpayers should keep the money for themselves or donate their own money to cable stations that present their point of view.
Hum...what would that look like. Are you going to donate money to Fox News or Breitbart or Rush Limbaugh? While NPR and PBS may be seen as being liberal, in point of fact that are far less liberal than the above 3 entities are to the right...far to the right. And yes, I do donate to PBS because I do want to see programing that is made for the purpose of enriching society instead of corporate pocketbooks...
Heck, even the Christian Science Monitor (not known for being a raging liberal media source, right?) is expressing a concern:
What America without the NEA and NEH would look like, and why that matters (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/0317/What-America-without-the-NEA-and-NEH-would-look-like-and-why-that-matters)
Four cultural federal organizations, including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), have for years been the target of conservative critics. But now the groups could see their funding gone as Mr. Trump on Thursday submitted his proposed budget to the Senate.
For arts and cultural groups across the country, the four agencies – although they account for only 0.02 percent of federal spending – have long been considered crucial in supporting outreach to underserved communities between the coasts, particularly in rural areas. Proponents of the proposed cuts have said that the proposed elimination of the agencies will open the door to a freer arts market that forces artists to produce works that speak to local audiences, rather than to bureaucrats in Washington.
The irony is cutting public funding from the the 4 main arts and humanities will hurt the rural red state smaller cities more than the east and west coast art centers.
Speaking with the Monitor from an event at a rural town in South Carolina, Pam Breaux, CEO of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, says everything around her “is indicative of the public benefits of the arts to rural communities.” With arts agencies in 56 states and jurisdictions, the assembly has found that collectively 25 percent of the state grant allocations go to rural communities, where private funding is not as prevalent, she says.
“Rural areas and low-income communities specifically would suffer disproportionately from significant reductions in funding from the NEA,” she says.
So, how does this fit in with Trump's promise to Make America Great Again?
But for Zabel, the loss of NEA means an erosion to the democratizing process that will lead to the loss of artistic and economic opportunities for artists in small towns outside the high-wealth coastal, urban cities.
“It concerns me because I think that [nurturing] culture and community as economic opportunities is part of how rural and small communities outside of the coasts are going to survive and thrive into the future,” she says. “A sense of place, a sense of identity, and a sense of culture, that's about our basic humanity.”
Yeah, Trump's budget is exactly what he promised to do...unfortunately, for his many supporters who voted for him.
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17203088_1841778846097153_1666907474093977559_n.jpg?oh=7f96f24d23ff8419dfb8b4645f26399c&oe=596D6359)
-
So far, the damage, if any, is only speculative. Time will tell.
-
Jeff, I'm all in favor of the arts. But arguing that it's only a little bit of money reminds of the expression misattributed to Democrat Senator Dirkson of Illinois, your home state, years ago: "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money"
The truth is arts survived before these programs and will survive without them. The arts have been supported for years with private money. Even Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with private payments, or at least with private payments made to the church. The problem is much of the arts especially on stations like PBS have been politicized. Their Liberal-Democrat bias is obvious. If the producers presented more balanced programs, many now opposed to continued funding, including myself, would favor continuing it.
-
Pardon me and I mean no disrespect but do you care to cite where you read than the "IPCC has acknowledged that there is no sound evidence so far that this is happening". I can't find anything like this on https://www.ipcc.ch (https://www.ipcc.ch)
Jeff,
I'm glad you've raised the topic. This issue is a bit confusing because the final IPCC reports, as I understand, are modified in their language in order to be more palatable to politicians who have the job of persuading the public that CO2 is a real problem.
The statements from the scientists and working groups who contribute to the IPCC are probably closer to the truth.
I haven't got a copy of the final report, after the politically correct changes have been made. But I do have a copy of the final draft from 'Working Group I'. This is how the final draft is described in the introduction.
"WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS
Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment"
"NOTE:
The Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment is submitted to the Twelfth Session of Working Group I for acceptance. The IPCC at its Thirty-sixth Session (Stockholm, 26 September 2013) will be informed of the actions of the Twelfth Session of Working Group I in this regard.
The final draft Report, dated 7 June 2013, of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis" was accepted but not approved in detail by the 12th Session of Working Group I and the 36th Session of the IPCC on 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. It consists of the full scientific and technical assessment undertaken by Working Group I.
"
Now I'm quite willing to post a copy of the relevant statements in this final draft from Working Group I, and/or the relevant texts where it is stated in some detail that there is a low confidence in the claimed increases in the severity and frequency of certain types of extreme weather events, such as droughts, cyclones and storms in general.
However, at the end of every section in this report, there is the following statement:
"Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute"
So what do you think, Jeff? I'm between a rock and a hard place. You are asking me to quote my sources, but my sources are asking me not to cite, quote or distribute.
I'll address your other points in your post when I have time.
-
NPR is run by liberals who present their points of view. Also, now that there are so many cable stations, there are so many science, current event, nature and other stations that present multiple views all paid for privately. It's no longer necessary for government to be involved, especially when the NPR producers are biased. The taxpayers should keep the money for themselves or donate their own money to cable stations that present their point of view.
You are overlooking the fact that NPR is free and the cable television stations are not. Your definition of bias is likely much different from mine.
-
Top NSA official ridicules allegation Britain spied on Trump:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretapping-nsa-idUSKBN16P096
Looking forward to Trump's reaction ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Regarding the Civil War, I wondered whether it was worth the death of 700,000 Americans not including the thousands who lost their limbs and were disabled. I believe slavery would have ended shortly anyway. The cotton gin and other mechanization made slavery too expensive and less productive than motivated employees using modern farming tools. It would have ended on its own.
It is a well established fact that the cotton gin encouraged slavery by making it much easier to process cotton and freeing up the manual labor for cultivating the cropland. Manual picking of cotton existed well into the 20th century as there was no mechanized method of harvesting.
There may have been less Jim Crow laws implemented that kept discrimination for another hundred years.
was the voter suppression that lasted until 1964 "less"?
Was getting rid of Saddam worth what we have now in the Middle East?
The map of the middle east was unstable because of the Sykes/Picot agreement between Britain and France during WWI. It was just question of time before things boiled over.
Regarding corporations, owners can NOT run them without employees. The richer the investor, the more employees he'll need. Regarding monopolies, an unrelated issue, laws prevent them. In most cases, there are alternative products so monopolies rarely can exist even without laws against them.
Yes, there are anti-trust laws but there is also discretion in terms of their enforcement. If the current administration decides to take a relaxed approach there is not much anyone can do.
-
The truth is arts survived before these programs and will survive without them. The arts have been supported for years with private money.
Yes, Texaco funded the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts for a lot of years. ExxonMobil funded Masterpiece theater. There are a lot of other examples as well. However, a lot of the private underwriting money has disappeared in recent years as companies have been under financial stress. Even Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with private payments, or at least with private payments made to the church.
this is probably not the best example as the church was the government at that time.
The problem is much of the arts especially on stations like PBS have been politicized. Their Liberal-Democrat bias is obvious. If the producers presented more balanced programs, many now opposed to continued funding, including myself, would favor continuing it.
do you seriously mean the arts broadcasting is political? Who will televise the Metropolitan Opera and countless other music programs ranging from classical to popular if not PBS. Who will run documentaries on important photographers such as Dorthea Lange and Margaret Bourke-White except for PBS (I watched both of these and learn things that I did not know. there are lots of other examples one can site. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has an independent board of directors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. they also have in place one of the best Ombudsman programs of any news media outlet around. during my working career I appeared on the PBS Newshour and several NPR news programs and was asked hard hitting questions each time. I was on two debate programs with responsible adversaries. I don't think there was political bent to the programs I appeared on.
Obviously Congress can defund these programs but the country will be poorer. It won't impact the large metro areas since those stations will raise the necessary funding. However, the rural areas will not be as fortunate in this regard and I suspect the stations will disappear. the citizens of those regions will no longer have ready access to programming that enriches us all. Maybe that is how it should be but I'm not on that side of the question.
-
Top NSA official ridicules allegation Britain spied on Trump:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretapping-nsa-idUSKBN16P096
Looking forward to Trump's reaction ...
Cheers,
Bart
It will be considered liberal fake news by some, but the direct quotes are probably true.
Trump is sending them back to Fox : President offered no apology, saying: ‘You shouldn’t be talking to me, you should be talking to Fox’ (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/white-house-will-not-be-repeat-claims-gchq-spied-trump-?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=217901&subid=13584431&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2)
Isn't it a pity that Trump trusts Fox more then his own NSA :o
-
It will be considered liberal fake news by some, but the direct quotes are probably true.
Trump is sending them back to Fox : President offered no apology, saying: ‘You shouldn’t be talking to me, you should be talking to Fox’ (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/white-house-will-not-be-repeat-claims-gchq-spied-trump-?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=217901&subid=13584431&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2)
Isn't it a pity that Trump trusts Fox more then his own NSA :o
Yes, but it's a known tactic of populists to discredit reputable sources of information, so that their own Alternative facts can blossom. Secret services, judges, etc. have already been targeted and will continue to be.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yeah, ya know, CO2 is indeed a natural gas that is needed in the atmosphere but...if you look at all of the natural excretion of CO2 compared to the CO2 that humans create, the earth can not maintain an equilibrium...particularly when one of the things human are doing is leveling huge swaths of rainforest and other natural CO2 absorbers. Pretty sure humans care cause far more CO2 than can be absorbed and that excess human made CO2 is indeed a pollutant if you accept that a a pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource?
I think you are underplaying the significance of CO2, Jeff. It's not just needed in the atmosphere, like a particular vitamin is needed for good health. It's a molecule that is absolutely essential for all life and plant growth on our planet.
Plants in particular thrive on increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. A doubling of CO2 levels, say from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm, to 560 ppm that might exist at some time in the near future, would have the effect of increasing total plant growth by an average of 30%.
Some types of pants will increase their growth by 40% or more with a doubling of CO2 levels. Other types might increase their growth by only 20%, and this effect takes place with the same amount of water and nutrients.
When plants are water-stressed due to drought conditions, the benefits of high levels of CO2 are even greater. This can be confirmed in real time without the need of computer projections.
This is an inconvenient truth for CO2 alarmists. How do they counter it?
The mantra is, such increases in plant growth, with respect to agricultural crops, do not contain as much protein and micro-nutrients as plants grown in lower levels of CO2. I don't deny this, but let's unravel it.
If soils do not contain sufficient quantities of certain minerals and micronutrients to accommodate increased growth, then the percentage of such minerals in the final product will be reduced. That's obvious.
If there's no Selenium in the soil, for example, then one should not expect any Selenium to be present in any crop grown in the soil. Basic logic.
If it were possible, through some science fiction scenario, to bring CO2 levels back to preindustrial levels in one year, by seeding processes that caused the CO2 to fall as rain, the alarmists might be overjoyed, but the reality is, there'd be a catastrophic reduction in agricultural production. There'd be mass starvation in many undeveloped countries.
-
...Isn't it a pity that Trump trusts Fox more then his own NSA :o
When/if it becomes his, he might.
In the meantime, it is just a part of the resistance. If approximately a half of the country is in the state of derengement and pledging resistance at all costs and by all means, it is naive to believe that civil servants are somehow totally politically neutral, regardless of how much they are supposed to be. If one accepts the narrative that Trump's support is predominantly in the rural America, working class, less educated, "deplorables," etc., then, by the same token, the liberal support is among the urban, educated, establishment, elite, media, universities, etc. Which would mean that many institutions would not even reflect the country's 50/50 split, but would actually be predominantly liberal. That includes State Department, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. Note the immediate resignations among civil servants after his win.
Also, the NSA guy said that the claim about Brits spying on the then-candidate Trump is "utterly ridiculous" (or something similar)...didn't we spy on their prime minister (and French, German, etc.)?
-
... this is probably not the best example as the church was the government at that time...
Good point, Alan.
-
This is an inconvenient truth for CO2 alarmists. How do they counter it?
I am not a plant. ;)
More seriously, more CO2 is not better in the balance of things (one cannot isolate 1 questionable benefit and ignore all negative side effects), just have a look at ocean acidification, "the other CO2 problem".
Besides, elevated levels of CO2 reduces our brain from functioning well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are overlooking the fact that NPR is free and the cable television stations are not. Your definition of bias is likely much different from mine.
NPR(PBS) is not free. Unless you're tuning in TV with "rabbit ear" antenna, it's part of the basic cable service you pay for in a package that also includes NBC, CBS, and other regular broadcast station as well as non-premium cable stations like CNN, etc. PBS is reimbursed by the cable companies I pay. Additionally, unlike the latter stations, NPR (PBS) gets additional money from me in the taxes I pay. Maybe PBS made sense before cable. But today with all the nature, history and other well produced stations, we really don't need a government station. Let private industry handle it. Big Bird could be sold off and wonderful programs like Ken Burns does would be picked up in a heartbeat by the History channel. There's loads of nature, conservation and high brow stuff already on private cable. The taxpayer should save their money and spend it on the cable stations they want to view. They shouldn't have to pay for what government bureaucrats think they should watch, even if there was no bias.
Regarding bias, one tends to think their media outlet is not biased. Most liberals who watch MSNBC and most conservatives who watch FOX think the other station is biased and their station is "fair and balanced". It's the way we see things.
-
When/if it becomes his, he might.
In the meantime, it is just a part of the resistance. If approximately a half of the country is in the state of derengement and pledging resistance at all costs and by all means, it is naive to believe that civil servants are somehow totally politically neutral, regardless of how much they are supposed to be. If one accepts the narrative that Trump's support is predominantly in the rural America, working class, less educated, "deplorables," etc., then, by the same token, the liberal support is among the urban, educated, establishment, elite, media, universities, etc. Which would mean that many institutions would not even reflect the country's 50/50 split, but would actually be predominantly liberal. That includes State Department, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. Note the immediate resignations among civil servants after his win.
Also, the NSA guy said that the claim about Brits spying on the then-candidate Trump is "utterly ridiculous" (or something similar)...didn't we spy on their prime minister (and French, German, etc.)?
I think it's a reasonable hypothesis Slobodan on the average population in these agencies, but I don't think the majority is as large as you describe. There is still a fair number of conservatives in these urban, educated areas that will also be in the employment pool of the departments. However a (small) majority of liberals doesn't mean they're suddenly all going to undermine Trump by creating alternative facts and turning stuff 180 degrees around. I'm optimistic enough to assume that the vast majority of civil servants has enough professional and personal ethics to not do that. There will obviously be exceptions, you will have those in any professional (and other) community.
-
I think the debate about getting rid of PBS and other social programs and regulations is really about a general philosophy of the purpose of government. The main dispute as I see it is this. Do we want government to run our lives, to be involved in all the decisions we make, to constantly watch over us from birth to death like some nanny state? Or do we want government to leave us alone, to allow us to make our own decisions about our lives, good and bad, with minimal interference from government? That's the debate.
Many libertarians, and I think Bannon is one, not so much Trump, think that government has gone too far in its efforts to run the show. Their cutbacks to pay for the increase in military spending is not about satisfying congressmen concerned with the budget. That's a handy excuse. It's really about trying to get us back to a people who rely on our own thinking and efforts to live our lives.
I'm all for that.
-
I think the debate about getting rid of PBS and other social programs and regulations is really about a general philosophy of the purpose of government. The main dispute as I see it is this. Do we want government to run our lives, to be involved in all the decisions we make, to constantly watch over us from birth to death like some nanny state? Or do we want government to leave us alone, to allow us to make our own decisions about our lives, good and bad, with minimal interference from government? That's the debate.
I understand the level of polarization in the USA is high, but isn't there any/some middleground possible?
It's also something cultural though, "You're either with us, or against us" as a former US president once said.
Black or White, no nuance
IMHO, synergy still produces better results though.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Top NSA official ridicules allegation Britain spied on Trump:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretapping-nsa-idUSKBN16P096
Looking forward to Trump's reaction ...
Cheers,
Bart
Actually, Angela Merkle at the meeting with Trump with the reporters smiled because she knew that it was she who was spying on Trump. After Obama, she felt one good turn deserved another.
-
Actually, Angela Merkle at the meeting with Trump with the reporters smiled because she knew that it was she who was spying on Trump. After Obama, she felt one good turn deserved another.
It would be nice to know who gave the more useful pointers on how to handle Putin... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
I understand the level of polarization in the USA is high, but isn't there any/some middleground possible?
It's also something cultural though, "You're either with us, or against us" as a former US president once said.
Black or White, no nuance
IMHO, synergy still produces better results though.
Cheers,
Bart
Despite Bannon's libertarian thinking, Trump is very much the NY Liberal Cruz accused him of being during the campaign. While they're reducing spending on some social programs, Trump wants some form of Obamacare and wants to spend a trillion on infrastructure, both darlings of the liberals. He also wants import duties, a decidedly anti-free market policy. I think liberal and Democrats hate him because they lost and the way he presents himself as a boisterous, no nonsense kind of guy. Bernie Sanders said many of the same things but in a more grandfatherly way. Watching Trump at the news conference with Merkle, he does seem more presidential while still maintaining some of his pugnaciousness and wry sense of humor as was seen with his comments about tapping Merkle's phone. He can be a funny kind of guy. Certainly, he isn't the ogre so many adversaries make him out to be. It's just politics.
-
I think you are underplaying the significance of CO2, Jeff. It's not just needed in the atmosphere, like a particular vitamin is needed for good health. It's a molecule that is absolutely essential for all life and plant growth on our planet.
Plants in particular thrive on increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. A doubling of CO2 levels, say from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm, to 560 ppm that might exist at some time in the near future, would have the effect of increasing total plant growth by an average of 30%.
Some types of pants will increase their growth by 40% or more with a doubling of CO2 levels. Other types might increase their growth by only 20%, and this effect takes place with the same amount of water and nutrients.
Yes, that's the assumption. What we don't know is whether this will hold up. Weather has become more violent certainly in the Washington DC area with more really bad storms and high winds. We also don't know what will happen with rainfall patterns and whether there will be increased drought in some pats of the country. Look at what happened in California this past winter. Tremendous amounts of rainfall that virtually ended a multiyear drought. I haven't seen all the final reports yet, but there was concern that some of the tree crops would be damaged by prolonged standing water.
Also, you refer to increased growth of plants with higher concentrations of CO2. this is dependent on plant species. If it's invasive weeds such as kudzu and porceleine berry, that's not a good thing. For most food crops, the photosynthetic pathway exclusive of CO2 levels is rate limiting and higher CO2 may not have much impact. I've not seen much research on soybeans, corn and wheat in terms of increased CO2 and of course the US already produces surpluses of those crops so I doubt the CO2 increase is much of an issue.
When plants are water-stressed due to drought conditions, the benefits of high levels of CO2 are even greater. This can be confirmed in real time without the need of computer projections.
Do you have a reference for major grain and cereal crops grown in the US?
This is an inconvenient truth for CO2 alarmists. How do they counter it?
The mantra is, such increases in plant growth, with respect to agricultural crops, do not contain as much protein and micro-nutrients as plants grown in lower levels of CO2. I don't deny this, but let's unravel it.
If soils do not contain sufficient quantities of certain minerals and micronutrients to accommodate increased growth, then the percentage of such minerals in the final product will be reduced. That's obvious.
If there's no Selenium in the soil, for example, then one should not expect any Selenium to be present in any crop grown in the soil. Basic logic.
I don't see how this is related to CO2 levels
If it were possible, through some science fiction scenario, to bring CO2 levels back to preindustrial levels in one year, by seeding processes that caused the CO2 to fall as rain, the alarmists might be overjoyed, but the reality is, there'd be a catastrophic reduction in agricultural production. There'd be mass starvation in many undeveloped countries.
Worse, one would see increase acidification of lakes, rivers and oceans which is not a good thing. Basic Chem 101.
-
Glasgow, Scotland 18th March. An anti racist demonstration. Trump got his "blessings"
-
It would be nice to know who gave the more useful pointers on how to handle Putin... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
You're too serious, Bart. Everyone knows that Merkle worked for the KGB.
-
Despite Bannon's libertarian thinking, Trump is very much the NY Liberal Cruz accused him of being during the campaign. While they're reducing spending on some social programs, Trump wants some form of Obamacare and wants to spend a trillion on infrastructure, both darlings of the liberals.
I sure didn't see this in the proposed budget. I guess the word didn't filter down from Mar-a-Lago.
I think liberal and Democrats hate him because they lost and the way he presents himself as a boisterous, no nonsense kind of guy.
No, the real truth is he is a delusional fool who conned a great part of America to get elected. I certainly never felt like this with Reagan or either of the Bushes who demostrated a level of competence that this guy does not have. Could you ever imagine Reagan tweeting lies at 4AM? this is the fundamental problem and nothing else.
-
You're too serious, Bart. Everyone knows that Merkle worked for the KGB.
I trust you are being flippant here. As an East German, one would serve in the Stasi rather than KGB. There is absolutely no evidence that Merkel was a Stasi agent. She was too busy getting her PhD in quantum chemistry.
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure AM was sort of into opposition to DDR. If you have not lived in a "people's republic' you don't understand what DDR and CCCP was about. Have you done that, you still don't understand, but you have a better idea…
Best regards
Erik
I trust you are being flippant here. As an East German, one would serve in the Stasi rather than KGB. There is absolutely no evidence that Merkel was a Stasi agent. She was too busy getting her PhD in quantum chemistry.
-
Actually, Angela Merkle at the meeting with Trump with the reporters smiled because she knew that it was she who was spying on Trump. After Obama, she felt one good turn deserved another.
I think she smiled because she didn't have to shake hands with Trump ;)
Any other sources then FOX that it was Germany and not the UK who helped Obama with the wiretaps?
-
I trust you are being flippant here. As an East German, one would serve in the Stasi rather than KGB. There is absolutely no evidence that Merkel was a Stasi agent. She was too busy getting her PhD in quantum chemistry.
Yes, I know about the Stasi. However, she was a secret agent of the KGB while she worked in quantum chemistry. It was a cover. The pretty girls the Russians used as hookers to trap people. That's why she knows so much about Putin. We learned about that when Obama tapped her phones. Unfortunately, he doesn't speak German. So it took awhile to learn about it and get someone in the State Dept to translate the recordings. Obama's been tapping everyone. When I got my new 4K smart tv last year, I swear I heard him on its speakers. I said, "Hello. Who's there?" A another person came on who sounded British. Then another guy came on who spoke Russian. It seems like everyone's watching my TV. :)
-
We can go over all the minutia of AGW, Budget, foreign policy and whatnot, but all you really need to know in regard to the trump administration is this. Trump is the marionette whose strings Bannon is pulling. Bannon’s plan is CHAOS!
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/378865/large/Screenshot_2017-03-17_14.42.23.png?1489776161)
-
We can go over all the minutia of AGW, Budget, foreign policy and whatnot, but all you really need to know in regard to the trump administration is this. Trump is the marionette whose strings Bannon is pulling. Bannon’s plan is CHAOS!
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/378865/large/Screenshot_2017-03-17_14.42.23.png?1489776161)
That's what Trump meant when he said he would drain the swamp. He wants to get rid of the elite establishment, hangers-on, and crony capitalism. Trump said that before Bannon even came aboard. He's not his marionette. You're giving Bannon too much credit. If he gets out of line or becomes a handicap, Trump will summarily fire him in a New York minute just like Flynn and Pudzser.
-
I sure didn't see this in the proposed budget. I guess the word didn't filter down from Mar-a-Lago.No, the real truth is he is a delusional fool who conned a great part of America to get elected. I certainly never felt like this with Reagan or either of the Bushes who demostrated a level of competence that this guy does not have. Could you ever imagine Reagan tweeting lies at 4AM? this is the fundamental problem and nothing else.
Wasn't it Bush who got us into the disastrous Iraq adventure? Let's give Trump a chance. He may surprise you.
-
Oh, and Bush 2 was also responsible for the great recession of 2008. Some competence.
-
Yes, Texaco funded the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts for a lot of years. ExxonMobil funded Masterpiece theater. There are a lot of other examples as well. However, a lot of the private underwriting money has disappeared in recent years as companies have been under financial stress. this is probably not the best example as the church was the government at that time.
do you seriously mean the arts broadcasting is political? Who will televise the Metropolitan Opera and countless other music programs ranging from classical to popular if not PBS. Who will run documentaries on important photographers such as Dorthea Lange and Margaret Bourke-White except for PBS (I watched both of these and learn things that I did not know. there are lots of other examples one can site. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has an independent board of directors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. they also have in place one of the best Ombudsman programs of any news media outlet around. during my working career I appeared on the PBS Newshour and several NPR news programs and was asked hard hitting questions each time. I was on two debate programs with responsible adversaries. I don't think there was political bent to the programs I appeared on.
Obviously Congress can defund these programs but the country will be poorer. It won't impact the large metro areas since those stations will raise the necessary funding. However, the rural areas will not be as fortunate in this regard and I suspect the stations will disappear. the citizens of those regions will no longer have ready access to programming that enriches us all. Maybe that is how it should be but I'm not on that side of the question.
My heart bleeds for Exxon, Texaco and the Met Opera because they are under financial stress. I have my own financial stress to deal with as do millions of other taxpayers. If PBS went away, the taxpayers would save money. The Met Opera, documentaries, and all those other enriching programs would sell their performances to private cable stations instead of selling them to PBS. (You don't think they're giving them to PBS for free, do you?) People interested in watching the Met Opera could then subscribe to those stations from their cable suppliers. If they want to learn about photography and the rules-of-thirds, let them buy one of Schewe's terrific books. You don't pay for the movies I want to go to see in the theatre. Why should I pay for Met Opera performances you want to watch that I'm not interested in?
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure AM was sort of into opposition to DDR. If you have not lived in a "people's republic' you don't understand what DDR and CCCP was about. Have you done that, you still don't understand, but you have a better idea…
Best regards
Erik
Best story on her rise to Chancellor: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/01/quiet-german
-
Yes, I know about the Stasi. However, she was a secret agent of the KGB while she worked in quantum chemistry. It was a cover.
Please provide a citation. I can find nothing in the German press to substantiate this.
-
You're too serious, Bart. Everyone knows that Merkle worked for the KGB.
Alan, there are several good biography books about Angela Merkel. Get one. Much better reading that some of the stuff in this discussion.
She and Putin understand each other very well. In her young days, she travelled in a rather unconventional way through Soviet Union and Putin spent several years working as KGB agent in East Germany. She speaks Russian and he speaks fluent German. Actually, Putin is pretty good also in English. He can really do anything.
Putin entertaining (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekeq4szDmJo)
-
Let's give Trump a chance. He may surprise you.
He's already surprising us on an almost daily basis ;)
-
He's already surprising us on an almost daily basis ;)
Good one, Pieter!
-
Weather has become more violent certainly in the Washington DC area with more really bad storms and high winds.
Weather is always more violent compared to past weather that was less violent.
Weather in this year may be more violent than the weather you remember 10 years ago, but lees violent than the weather you don't remember 20 or 30 years ago.
If you've read my posts you should be aware of an important point on this issue. Whenever there is a claim that a particular weather event is the worst in living memory, or the worst on record, this is found to be usually untrue when the turbulence has settled down and the true, historical records are examined.
If soils do not contain sufficient quantities of certain minerals and micronutrients to accommodate increased growth, then the percentage of such minerals in the final product will be reduced. That's obvious.
If there's no Selenium in the soil, for example, then one should not expect any Selenium to be present in any crop grown in the soil. Basic logic.
I don't see how this is related to CO2 levels.
Let me explain. The fact that increased CO2 levels encourages greater growth of plants, to varying degrees of course, according to the plant species, is a very inconvenient truth for AGW alarmists.
The fact that CO2 might be a tremendous asset for mankind, and help reduce food shortages in undeveloped countries, and be a free fertilizer everywhere, is a disturbing fact for alarmists.
Because the nature of such alarmists is to create alarm, they respond to this fact that CO2 increases plant growth, which can be demonstrated without doubt, by implying that there are negative consequences in terms of reduced nutrients in food that are grown in elevated CO2 levels, which is another scare.
If you search the internet, you will find many reports of this problem, and I've read them because I always try to get both sides of the story.
Basically, if you grow food in the same soil with the same nutrients and the same amount of water, but change only the level of CO2, as in a greenhouse, you will find that a doubling of CO2 in the greenhouse will result in a 30% increase in plant growth, or biomass.
However, when analysing the nutrient value of such food, such as rice, for example, it has been found that the uptake of nutrients by the rice, and the creation of proteins, does not match the total increase in biomass.
In other word, the carbohydrate biomass increase of, say, 30%, may be matched by only a 20% increase in protein and micronutrients. There's still an over all increase in protein and micronutrient compared with the rice grown in lower levels of CO2, but it's not as great as the increase in carbohydrates.
This is useful information for anyone interested in nutrition. However, the solution is not to reduce CO2 levels, at great expense, but to add more minerals to the soil, at less expense. Got it?
-
Ray why are you prattling on about climate change in a thread about Trump?
-
G20 financial leaders row back on free trade pledge:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-trade-idUSKBN16P0FN
Well, looks like the beginning of the end of open international trade with the USA is in the making, unless something changes before July next.
Guess the rest of the world will have to concentrate on more reliable partnerships?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Weather is always more violent compared to past weather that was less violent.
Weather in this year may be more violent than the weather you remember 10 years ago, but lees violent than the weather you don't remember 20 or 30 years ago.
If you've read my posts you should be aware of an important point on this issue. Whenever there is a claim that a particular weather event is the worst in living memory, or the worst on record, this is found to be usually untrue when the turbulence has settled down and the true, historical records are examined.
I can tell you categorically that the derecho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_North_American_derecho) we experienced back in 2012 was the worst thing I've experienced and that includes the 2010 Snowmageddon. I've been living here since 1978 and never experienced anything such as that before. The Washington Post Weather Gang do an excellent job of documenting current trends and comparing those with past trends.
The fact that CO2 might be a tremendous asset for mankind, and help reduce food shortages in undeveloped countries, and be a free fertilizer everywhere, is a disturbing fact for alarmists.
I don't think CO2 can be defined as a fertilizer as the conventional definition is something that is applied to the soil to promote plant growth.
Because the nature of such alarmists is to create alarm, they respond to this fact that CO2 increases plant growth, which can be demonstrated without doubt, by implying that there are negative consequences in terms of reduced nutrients in food that are grown in elevated CO2 levels, which is another scare.
I'm a biochemist by training (FWIW) and don't buy into this "scare" thesis.
If you search the internet, you will find many reports of this problem, and I've read them because I always try to get both sides of the story.
Basically, if you grow food in the same soil with the same nutrients and the same amount of water, but change only the level of CO2, as in a greenhouse, you will find that a doubling of CO2 in the greenhouse will result in a 30% increase in plant growth, or biomass.
However, when analysing the nutrient value of such food, such as rice, for example, it has been found that the uptake of nutrients by the rice, and the creation of proteins, does not match the total increase in biomass.
Greenhouse data is seldom applicable to what happens out in the real world. It may be useful data for those that cultivate in greenhouses or hydroponic farms but it's doubtful that it applies to field crops which are the biggies in agriculture.
In other word, the carbohydrate biomass increase of, say, 30%, may be matched by only a 20% increase in protein and micronutrients. There's still an over all increase in protein and micronutrient compared with the rice grown in lower levels of CO2, but it's not as great as the increase in carbohydrates.
This is useful information for anyone interested in nutrition. However, the solution is not to reduce CO2 levels, at great expense, but to add more minerals to the soil, at less expense. Got it?
It is extremely doubtful that you will see field corn, soybeans, or wheat with a 30% increase in biomass as a result of increased CO2 levels. Kudzu maybe so.
-
He's already surprising us on an almost daily basis ;)
Good one Pieter. You do have a sense of humor. But tell the truth. Would you rather look at ugly Hillary and her fat butt for 4 years and listen to her cackle? :)
-
Please provide a citation. I can find nothing in the German press to substantiate this.
My entire post was satire. I guess I'm not as funny as I think. :)
-
...Let me explain. The fact that increased CO2 levels encourages greater growth of plants, to varying degrees of course, according to the plant species, is a very inconvenient truth for AGW alarmists.
Unfortunately, global warming and increased CO2 doesn't help me. My plants still die before they should. :)
-
Good one Pieter. You do have a sense of humor. But tell the truth. Would you rather look at ugly Hillary and her fat butt for 4 years and listen to her cackle? :)
Well Alan, to tell you the truth I was happy that I didn't have to (or wasn't allowed to) vote in the US presidential elections. I felt in the end you guys were between a rock and a hard place. Probably my most favoured candidate was Kasich, but he didn't make it, too straight and non-controversial. It seems you have to be more and more extreme and controversial to stand a chance of getting through to the end these days. If that trend continues it doesn't bode well for 4 or 8 years from now. Btw, I don't think this is only happening in the US, it's happening all over the world in many countries.
-
G20 financial leaders row back on free trade pledge:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-trade-idUSKBN16P0FN
Well, looks like the beginning of the end of free international trade with the USA is in the making, unless something changes before July next.
Guess the rest of the world will have to concentrate on more reliable partnerships?
Cheers,
Bart
Trump believes in free trade as long as its fair. If you tax our exports and we don't tax your exports to us, that's not fair. Trump will threaten to put an import tax on your exports to us but would rather you drop your tax on ours. Then we'll have free and fair trade.
-
... I didn't have to (or wasn't allowed to) vote in the US presidential elections...
Oh!? So many others voted illegally, I am sure we'd fit you in ;)
-
Trump believes in free trade as long as its fair.
Fair? You mean the rest of the world should charge the USA higher tariffs because the USA is going to pollute our earth more?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well Alan, to tell you the truth I was happy that I didn't have to (or wasn't allowed to) vote in the US presidential elections. I felt in the end you guys were between a rock and a hard place. Probably my most favoured candidate was Kasich, but he didn't make it, too straight and non-controversial. It seems you have to be more and more extreme and controversial to stand a chance of getting through to the end these days. If that trend continues it doesn't bode well for 4 or 8 years from now. Btw, I don't think this is only happening in the US, it's happening all over the world in many countries.
Maybe we can get Melania to run or one of those Fox dolls.
I don't think it's because we want extreme and controversial by itself. I think what's happening is that the standard politicians have not done well for their people. The economy stinks for many. Jobs are down all over. People feel that most politicians are just phony. They think they should run things like it's a birthright. They talk a lot but don't mean what they say. So people are drawn to more exciting candidates. They want to shake things up. They appeal to patriotism. France for the French. The Netherlands for the Dutch. America for Americans.
Republican nominee Jeb Bush was a great guy. A decent fellow. His father and brother were Presidents. He comes from a terrific family. Had loads of money for his campaign. He was kind of boring but he spoke well, knew his stuff and clearly expressed himself. He was suppose to win. Well, he got 5% of the vote during the nomination process. An embarassment. But people were tired of the elite and their promises, who do nothing after they get into office. One thing. You may not like what Trump's going to do. But it's go to shake things up around the world. Those who said he had no plan were and are mistaken. Internationally, he intends to leverage American power and wealth to put America back into the driver's seat to protect its interests. It's going to tick off a lot of countries. Nationally, he intends to get rid of the usually government's go along to get along habits. He wants to give power back to the individual. He wants to "drain the swamp" of crony capitalism and government elitism where politicians and business people are joined at the hip and feed off the average American. If he pulls it off, and I think it will be difficult, he will change the way America had been doing business for decades.
-
Bart, it's easy not to pollute when you are not manufacturing anything :P
-
Oh!? So many others voted illegally, I am sure we'd fit you in ;)
I'd have to choose my state to vote (illegally) very carefully. If I'm not mistaken a vote only matters in less then 20% of the states. And then it needs to be one where there are sufficient loopholes for illegal voters to go unnoticed. So while it can be done I don't think it's real easy.
-
Maybe we can get Melania to run or one of those Fox dolls.
If Melania runs I might have a great tip for a good speechwriter for her ;).
But she can't, she's born in the wrong country so it has to be one of the Fox dolls.
Not that it matters, but I wasn't too enthusiastic about Jeb Bush. his father only managed one term (not a disgrace, but it tells something) and his brother started the whole Iraq disaster based on shaky intelligence (to say it mildly) and without a clear picture of the end-game in mind. Sure, some others piled in on top but if he hadn't gone in there would have been nothing to pile on. So I can understand why even the Republican voters weren't going to let him take a run at the presidency.
-
Ok, after 80 pages, the thread turned into jokes mostly. Or was it a joke from the beginning? Or just befitting the president? And how else shall I end this post but with :) :D :'(
-
... I wasn't too enthusiastic about Jeb Bush...
Who was?
-
Who was?
That's a funny picture. I love the orgasmic woman in the front who wants to give her baby to Trump. "Bless my child. Bless my child." And poor Bush in the background with everyone snoozing. The funniest moment that I remember from his campaign was when he was speaking to a group of towns people like the one in the picture. He made some interesting point, and the crowd didn't respond at all. So he looked around and said in disgust, "OK you can applaud now." I really felt bad for him. He lost the campaign right then.
-
Yes Slobodan, we haven't after 80 pages changed anyone's mind. So what's left but to tell jokes.
-
Bart, it's easy not to pollute when you are not manufacturing anything :P
Slobodan, that's why I asked "Fair?".
How to compare what is fair, if one party e.g. calculates the cost of the Carbon footprint and adds that to the cost price, while another doesn't even consider that cost element? That would also mean that the products that China currently produces, actually cost more than they are now sold for, not only because labor is cheaper or working conditions are poor. State subsidies is another thing. Research and Development cost, what if a country doesn't contribute anything but only produces stuff? Patents?
What is fair?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fair? You mean the rest of the world should charge the USA higher tariffs because the USA is going to pollute our earth more?
Cheers,
Bart
Trump will only match our tariffs to your tariffs to make it fair. If you have a tariff, then you should lower it to match ours. It would be fair also. Which is better for trade and fairness. Regarding pollution, we have to drive further to get places :)
-
Plus most Americans are fat and can't squeeze into those little Fiats. We need SUV's.
-
Trump will only match our tariffs to your tariffs to make it fair. If you have a tariff, then you should lower it to match ours.
Meaning others should also disregard environmental concerns, like the number 2 (?) polluter of the planet? Meaning others should also disinfect their chickens with chlorine? Meaning whom ever pays the lowest wages sets the price? Or who has the least efficient production process sets a higher price for others to match?
Fair?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Plus most Americans are fat and can't squeeze into those little Fiats. We need SUV's.
The metal on the Fiats is so thin, that you can easily stretch them to accommodate larger sizes.
My first car was a Citroen 2CV which was so light, that once after someone stole my starter (the hood was unlocked and opened only from outside), I was able to start the car alone by putting it into the second gear and pushing it myself on the road. That car with its tiny 2 cylinder, 421ccm engine took me on several trips from Italy and French Riviera through the Swiss Alps all the way to the Arctic Circle in northern Finland. Who needs a SUV?
-
The metal on the Fiats is so thin, that you can easily stretch them to accommodate larger sizes.
My first car was a Citroen 2CV which was so light, that once after someone stole my starter (the hood was unlocked and opened only from outside), I was able to start the car alone by putting it into the second gear and pushing it myself on the road. That car with its tiny 2 cylinder, 421ccm engine took me on several trips from Italy and French Riviera through the Swiss Alps all the way to the Arctic Circle in northern Finland. Who needs a SUV?
Well, with a SUV, you can slip a Fiat or Citroën in the back, and use it as a spare. :)
-
Meaning others should also disregard environmental concerns, like the number 2 (?) polluter of the planet? Meaning others should also disinfect their chickens with chlorine? Meaning whom ever pays the lowest wages sets the price? Or who has the least efficient production process sets a higher price for others to match?
Fair?
Cheers,
Bart
I don't understand what price and wages and price have to do with tariffs. He wants others to drop their tariffs to be equal to ours so we can compete fairly. Maybe I didn't understand your point? Also what do environmental concerns and chlorine have to do with tariffs and trade?
-
I don't understand what price and wages and price have to do with tariffs. He wants others to drop their tariffs to be equal to ours so we can compete fairly. Maybe I didn't understand your point? Also what do environmental concerns and chlorine have to do with tariffs and trade?
Okay. If tariffs are not to be used to discourage undercutting of local cost/price levels (by increasing tariffs for imported goods/services in one's own country), or making locally produced goods cheaper for others (by lowering tariffs for exported goods/services in other countries), then why not eliminate all tariffs?
Production costs differ. So why not lower e.g. American wages to, let's say, Mexican levels or raising Mexican wages to American levels? Same goes for environmental protection, product safety and health issues, etc., etc.
What Trump would like is a better deal, i.e. to reduce costprice for purchasing elsewhere, and at the same time increasing costprice for selling elsewhere. That's not how economy works.
He should know better than many other that location matters. Location, location, and location, are the three main ingredients in real-estate. Same applies for production, Research and Development, availability of resources, etc., etc.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Okay. If tariffs are not to be used to discourage undercutting of local cost/price levels (by increasing tariffs for imported goods/services in one's own country), or making locally produced goods cheaper for others (by lowering tariffs for exported goods/services in other countries), then why not eliminate all tariffs?
Production costs differ. So why not lower e.g. American wages to, let's say, Mexican levels or raising Mexican wages to American levels? Same goes for environmental protection, product safety and health issues, etc., etc.
What Trump would like is a better deal, i.e. to reduce costprice for purchasing elsewhere, and at the same time increasing costprice for selling elsewhere. That's not how economy works.
He should know better than many other that location matters. Location, location, and location, are the three main ingredients in real-estate. Same applies for production, Research and Development, availability of resources, etc., etc.
Cheers,
Bart
All Trump is saying is stop the tariffs. You can't change wage levels. There are also issues of dumping, currency manipulation, government subsidies, etc, some we use ourselves. Frankly, I don't think there's that much he can do or whether it's worth it. The best America or any country can do is lower corporate tax rates, reduce regulation, reduce taxes to bring money home that's overseas and then let free markets work. Also get the debt and stop borrowing and printing. A more dynamic economy with less taxes and more investment is the answer to more jobs and less angst about trade.
-
Or was it a joke from the beginning?
Well, Trump was a joke from the beginning...a bad joke mind you.
So...when you piss off artists, ya better expect an artistic reaction.
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17201238_10155832181973448_5540329006932152920_n.jpg?oh=bafc5e95e03be0ef3a96e969adc158d3&oe=5963C2BD)
Anti-Trump billboard artist receives death threats (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/03/18/anti-trump-billboard-artist-receives-death-threats/99349252/)
Artist Karen Fiorito knew backlash was bound to come. And it has.
Commissioned by a downtown Phoenix art gallery in January to create a billboard art piece that would comment on President Donald Trump's administration, Fiorito said what she had in mind was going to stir up a controversy.
"Billboards are perfect because you don't have to go to a gallery to see it," she said. "You're creating a dialogue with the public. You're reaching people you'd never reach with your artwork."
The completed billboard, now looming over Grand Avenue and Taylor Street, went up in downtown Phoenix on Friday afternoon amid the Art Detour event. Plastered on one side is a depiction of Trump's face staring down. The red background is mingled with mushroom-cloud explosions and dollar signs in typography imitating Nazi swastikas.
On the other side of the billboard, one word, "Unity," stretches across, accompanied by five hands spelling out the word in sign language.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/23a600a230dad0e7baa4834485bdc29a38305dc3/c=456-0-2667-1662&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2017/03/17/Phoenix/Phoenix/636253727672474413-billboard-1.jpg)
A billboard sign depicting President Donald Trump's face next to explosions and dollar signs created with typography imitating Nazi swastikas went up in downtown Phoenix on March 17, 2017. (Photo: Johana Restrepo/The Republic)
The pin Trump is wearing is, of course, the Russian flag :~)
The artist, Karen Fiorito (https://www.facebook.com/pg/Karen-Fioritos-Art-Page-433908533410664/posts/?ref=page_internal) has some interesting work (the GOPers probably hate it) and she has done controversial billboards for the gallery before including the following in 2004.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/975c1277ef08c65627a4470f6319651193043334/c=29-0-1283-943&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2017/03/18/Phoenix/Phoenix/636254504649992209-Dearamerica.jpg)
A 2004 billboard by Karen Fiorito. (Photo: Courtesy of Karen Fiorito)
-
And this...
‘That Food Saved My Life,’ and Trump Wants to Cut It Off (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/that-food-saved-my-life-and-trump-wants-to-cut-it-off.html)
First, a quiz: What is the most important crisis in the world today?
A.) President Trump’s false tweets that President Barack Obama wiretapped him.
B.) President Trump’s war on the news media.
C.) Looming famine that threatens 20 million people in four countries.
Kind of answers itself, doesn’t it?
“We are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations,” warned Stephen O’Brien, the U.N.’s humanitarian chief. “Without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death.”
How is Trump responding to this crisis? By slashing humanitarian aid, increasing the risk that people starve in the four countries — Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. The result is a perfect storm: Millions of children tumbling toward famine just as America abdicates leadership and cuts assistance.
Yeah, yeah...#FAKENEWS and all that crap, but more people both abroad and at home will die because of Trump's budget priorities...really.
You ok with that?
Trump will Make America Great Again...assuming you live that long to see it :~(
-
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17362870_1371520799553315_2324065464503378052_n.jpg?oh=d9fe8d403af7aad018e7fd276646c3f3&oe=5972B353)
Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world (https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world)
Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, according to a new report published by Oxfam today to mark the annual meeting of political and business leaders in Davos.
1. Bill Gates: America founder of Microsoft (net worth $75 billion)
2. Amancio Ortega: Spanish founder of Inditex which owns the Zara fashion chain (net worth $67 billion)
3. Warren Buffett: American CEO and largest shareholder in Berkshire Hathaway (net worth $60.8 billion)
4. Carlos Slim Helu: Mexican owner of Grupo Carso (net worth: $50 billion)
5. Jeff Bezos: American founder, chairman and chief executive of Amazon (net worth: $45.2 billion)
6. Mark Zuckerberg: American chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Facebook (net worth $44.6 billion)
7. Larry Ellison: American co-founder and CEO of Oracle (net worth $43.6 billion)
8. Michael Bloomberg: American founder, owner and CEO of Bloomberg LP (net worth: $40 billion)
6 of the 8 are American...and Trump wants tax reductions for rich guys?
-
I can tell you categorically that the derecho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_North_American_derecho) we experienced back in 2012 was the worst thing I've experienced and that includes the 2010 Snowmageddon. I've been living here since 1978 and never experienced anything such as that before.
What's that got to do with climate change, Alan? Every location on the planet, in every lifetime of every creature since the beginning of life, will receive a record temperature, a record rainfall, a record drought and a record storm, whether hurricane, tornado, cyclone or gusty wind.
Climate is an average of the weather events that occur over a number of decades. How many decades? One, two, ten, twenty, fifty? There's no scientifically precise definition, and that's part of the problem.
In Australia we might have increasingly dry conditions for one or two decades, then increasingly wet conditions for the next one or two decades. Is that climate change, or is it just a regular pattern or cycle of events that has occurred over thousands of years?
Research in paleopedology, examining soils of past geological eras, confirms that this pattern of oscillating droughts and floods has been occurring for millennia, yet people still build unelevated houses in potential flood plains.
The Washington Post Weather Gang do an excellent job of documenting current trends and comparing those with past trends.
Not even the best scientists can do an excellent job in this respect because of the absence of reliable data. This is why the final draft of the 'Working Group I' submission to the IPCC fifth assessment report specifically stated that there was low confidence in any increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, due to a lack of data.
As a psychologist, you must know that the emotional effect of any disastrous weather event will tend to influence any objective and impartial perspective on climate matters.
I'm still waiting to hear from Bart whether some of the findings in the Working Group I submission to the IPCC have been censored for political purposes.
We should bear in mind that the IPCC does not conduct any original research itself. It merely provides a summary of climatologists findings, and has the power to include or exclude any finding that it is uncomfortable with, or which is not in line with the political agenda that CO2 increases are bad.
I'm still waiting to hear from Bart whether some of the findings in the Working Group I submission to the IPCC have been censored for political purposes.
Bart, where art thou? ;D
I don't think CO2 can be defined as a fertilizer as the conventional definition is something that is applied to the soil to promote plant growth.
I'm getting the impression, Alan, that you haven't read much on this topic. The 'CO2 fertilization effect' is a standard phrase used in all studies on the issue. Increased levels of CO2 have a similar effect to adding chemical fertilizers to the soil, that is, increasing plant growth and biomass.
However, just as in the processes of climate change, there are great complexities. Some species of plants thrive better than others, under increased CO2 levels, for a variety of reasons which could be addressed with further research.
For those who are interested, I'll link to a very unbiased article on the issue, by Indur M. Goklany who is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.
Hey! Maybe Donald Trump has read this article. ;D
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits.pdf
I'll quote a few passages to get you interested, and also to satisfy Jeff Schewe who complained that I never quoted my sources like he did. ;)
"Evidence for enhanced plant growth
That carbon dioxide is plant food has been known since the publication in 1804 of Nicolas-Théodore de Saussure’s Recherches Chimiques sur la Végétation. Thousands of experiments since then have shown that the majority of plants grow faster and larger, both above and below ground, if they are exposed to higher carbon dioxide concentrations. The owners of commercial greenhouses routinely pump in carbon dioxide so as to enhance the growth rates of plants, and the optimal level for plant growth is considered to be between 700 and 900 ppm, roughly twice today’s ambient concentration of 400 ppm. However, plants may continue to respond positively at even higher carbon dioxide levels. For some species such as loblolly pine and cuphea, growth tops out at around 20,000 ppm or more. Indeed, it has been shown that the addition of supplemental carbon dioxide to a greenhouse enhances the growth of lettuces even if the temperature of the greenhouse is lowered, thus causing a net decrease in the carbon footprint of the operation.
A database of peer-reviewed papers assembled from studies of the effect of carbondioxide on plant growth by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and GlobalChange (CSCDGC) shows that for the 45 crops that account for 95% of global crop production, an increase of 300 ppm of carbon dioxide would increase yields by between 5% and 78%. The median increase for these crops was 41% and the productionweighted yield increase was 34.6%.
Experiments also show that the benefits of carbon dioxide for plants are not restricted to faster and greater growth; the efficiency with which they consume water is also increased. Consequently, all else being equal, under higher carbon dioxide conditions, less water is needed to increase a plant’s biomass by any given amount. In other words, higher carbon dioxide levels increase plants’ ability to adapt to waterlimited (or drought) conditions, precisely the conditions that some environmentalists claim are already occurring – notwithstanding IPCC’s findings to the contrary – or will occur in the future.
Previously it had been argued that these increases might not be sustainable over the long term, but AR5 reports that new experimental evidence from long-term free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) experiments in temperate ecosystems show that these higher rates of carbon accumulation can be sustained for ‘multiple years’.
Idso (2013) has attempted to translate these yield increases into a monetary value.
He finds that over the past 50 years the extra produce grown by farmers has been $274 billion for wheat, $182 billion for maize and $579 billion for rice, and that the current value of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect on all crops is currently about $140 billion a year.
Of course, these numbers cannot be precise, but note that they are based on actual experimental data and existing yields, so they are far less speculative than monetary measures of the harm due to future climate change and its impacts on food security using models that have not been externally validated.
Moreover, many crops are C3 plants and many weeds are C4 plants, which respond less to carbon dioxide enrichment. Thus as carbon dioxide levels rise, C3 crops may enhance their growth rates more than C4 weeds do. A Chinese experiment tested this idea by enriching carbon dioxide levels over plots of rice to almost twice the ambient level. This enhanced the ear weight of the rice by 37.6% while reducing the growth of a common weed, barnyard grass, by 47.9%, because the faster-growing rice shaded the weeds.
Conclusion to Part I
Both satellite and in situ data show that biological productivity has increased globally for a broad range of managed, lightly managed and also unmanaged ecosystems. Although this increase is not universal, in aggregate increased biological productivity has increased food resources per acre over what they would be otherwise for both human beings and the rest of nature. Consequently, the earth is greener, farms are more productive, and the planet can support both a larger biomass and more human beings, precisely as surmised by Arrhenius over a century ago."
Well, there you have it. Have a pleasant read. My purpose is to stimulate rational and objective thought.
-
Why don't you start another thread about the subject?
-
Increased levels of CO2 have a similar effect to adding chemical fertilizers to the soil, that is, increasing plant growth and biomass.
CO2 has effect also on the quality of lake water. In Canada, we have about 2 million lakes.
Carbon Dioxide in the Water
Carbon dioxide, also called CO2, is found in water as a dissolved gas. It can dissolve in water 200 times more easily than oxygen. Aquatic plants depend on carbon dioxide for life and growth, just as fish depend on oxygen. Plants use carbon dioxide during the process of photosynthesis. Sometimes carbon dioxide levels in water become too high. Pollution can produce too much carbon dioxide. In these conditions, fish have a hard time getting the oxygen they need from the water. They can even suffocate and die. Keeping a good balance of carbon dioxide and oxygen is one reason why plants and animals are both valuable in a lake. Each makes what the other uses.
-
Ray: Thanks for the report showing the good effects of C02. It's the kind of information that we're not getting. The politicians, scientists, and media are only interested in showing the negative effects to get us to spend money where, like climate change itself, there too will be winners and losers. There's a sense that we're being lied too. That causes people to deny climate change. When you see crony capitalism and government grants to Sylandra as a political payoff, and people like Al Gore making millions off the politics, you feel you're being conned. So your reaction is to deny the whole thing despite real evidence that change is real.
I'm a layman. But even to me it seems obvious there are positive as well as negative effects of climate change. There are winner and losers. All you hear about is the poor polar bear who in any case is adapting to less ice by finding different prey on land. But no one talks about the fact that warming in the north is creating more arable land for crops. Areas that were too cold to support much life, now have opened huge areas for expansion of grizzly, brown bear, wolves, trees, insects, birds, etc where there were none or few.
By focusing only on the negatives, and not even mentioning the positives, this feeling of being lied to has turned the whole thing into a political mess. People like Trump will then use it to get his supporters and then shut down the EPA. Instead of continuing the research into the effects, we might stop all of it. If we were all honest and give all the facts, everyone would feel that we should continue to look into it. Having all the facts will provide better information for policy makers. If we do start to write laws and spend money, we want to do it in a way the provides the most benefits. Otherwise will spend a lot of money and get nothing for it.
-
Publishing the facts and explaining the science related to climate change is a good thing. Denying / hiding the real data and resorting to alternative facts is counterproductive regardless which side does it.
However, the temperature change is only one factor and ignores other man-related causes leading to future problems. Consequences of pollution, building up of more roads and parking spaces, draining lakes, killing bees and butterflies, conversion of rain forests and northern tundras to agricultural uses will be even more detrimental for the future generations.
-
Why don't you start another thread about the subject?
Yeah, Ray, why don't you!? So that Stamper can enjoy only Trump bashing in this thread. God forbid someone would dare to provide counter-arguments (a.k.a. alternative facts).
-
What's that got to do with climate change, Alan? Every location on the planet, in every lifetime of every creature since the beginning of life, will receive a record temperature, a record rainfall, a record drought and a record storm, whether hurricane, tornado, cyclone or gusty wind.
While true in general, we're not talking about outliers but rather about a number of trends that basically point in the same direction.
Climate is an average of the weather events that occur over a number of decades. How many decades? One, two, ten, twenty, fifty? There's no scientifically precise definition, and that's part of the problem.
That's beside the point, and it's not a problem. It can actually be helpful for understanding a phenomenon or do exactly the opposite if the wrong choice is made. We're not defining whether a year or a decade or more decades can be linked to the definition of Climate. But when the trend shows that e.g. the last decades all show subsequent increases, we can say that the trend is increasing. One could also have used a moving average or other statistical process.
Why use a fixed period such as a decade in the first place? Well, for one it smooths out the effect of outliers, thus making patterns more easily visible. Another thing is that a given fixed period can amplify cycles (due to auto-correlation) which may help with better understanding of the phenomenon that's being studied. We may, or may not, want that correlation to happen, depending on how useful that is for the phenomenon we're describing. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories of governments hiding stuff, but noise removal just like we do with long exposures with low signal, to improve the S/N ratio.
*** Small practical example ***
We have a long-standing tradition in our country (described in poems back in 1749, now a formally organized event since 1909), and that is an organized trip that visits 11 cities in the north of our country during one day, but it is only possibly to do during severe winters because the trip (the eleven-city run) is done on ice skates along the almost 200 km stretch of frozen-over canals and waterways that connect those cities.
The years that the trip was held on ice that was thick enough to support the weight of the crowds (upto 10,000 skaters and cheering crowds with checkpoints, music bands, and stands with hot beverages along the stretch) were:
1909, 1912, 1917, 1929, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1947, 1954, 1956, 1963, 1985, 1986, 1997, and not possible since then.
While too short to describe a multi-century trend, there are 2 interesting observations.
1. It is becoming increasingly rare, which would correlate with a global trend of increasing average temperature,
2. There seems to be kind of a correlation with the 11-year solar sun-spot activity cycle, which is recognized by scientists to show up on local scale phenomenae in many places around the world, but not at a global scale when taken together.
So using an 11 year period may locally introduce noisy data that distracts from the underlying trend, and that are the insights that scientists may stumble upon, and have to discuss, and agree on how to tackle the distractions.
Not even the best scientists can do an excellent job in this respect because of the absence of reliable data. This is why the final draft of the 'Working Group I' submission to the IPCC fifth assessment report specifically stated that there was low confidence in any increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, due to a lack of data.
You seem to have difficulty in understanding how such a document evolves before being published. Different members contribute sections to such a document, as a kind of discussion points. The group members then try and find consensus from the larger groups until a relatively stable agreement is reached after which the final report can be published. It's similar to the Scientific method, which usually starts with a hypothesis, which is then under peer review either accepted or rejected. The final document is not a version that is falsified to please governments, but the generally accepted version based on the available data at the time. Sometimes the underlying data is somewhat modified versus earlier reports, because new/additional/more accurate data is available (because advances in technology make new analysis possible).
I'm still waiting to hear from Bart whether some of the findings in the Working Group I submission to the IPCC have been censored for political purposes.
Bart, where art thou? ;D
Besides this post, I don't see much reason having to keep disproving your conspiracy theories, because they are a bit of an off-topic distraction if they continue too long. You have your mind made up, fine. The large majority of Scientists around the world do not agree with you, and I know who to give more credit.
There is one more observation to be made that may bring us a bit more back on topic.
There is a large audience, particularly in the USA, that is skeptical of science in general. This phenomenon would be worth a study by itself, although the outcome would probably be distrusted ;)
What populists like Trump/Putin/Erdogan/etc. do, is similar. They claim (despite objective observation) it is false news, it's dishonest media, it someone else, and even inject Alternative facts (known falsehoods) into their responses. That is all done in order to make people doubt objective observations (could there be another explanation, is the earth flat after all?), and create enough confusion to distract from the real issue. It's all very transparent, but the sheeple fall for it, so it's effective to create an outside enemy, and have the supporters gather behind their visionary leader, the emperor without clothes.
I for one try to not fall for such tactics, but I will try to expose them for what they actually are, in the hope that some people will wake up from their state of cognitive dissonance.
Conspiracy theories can make nice entertainment, but this topic's subject is too serious, and I try to avoid too much (deliberate) distraction.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. some more reading on the skepticism about Climate Science:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/
and
https://arstechnica.co.uk/staff/2015/12/ars-science-qa-how-do-deal-with-science-denialists/
-
It would be interesting to know if science deniers insist that their surgeons use latex gloves or sterilize their medical instruments. And ask them why.
I love the idea that climate scientists the world over are part of some conspiracy. What would be their goal, exactly? In my experience, you can't get three researchers in the same room to agree on what colour the wall paper is.
-
G20 financial chiefs agree open trade is key to growth: Schaeuble
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-schaeuble-idUSKBN16P0L2?il=0
I appreciate that Reuters is trying to give a neutral account of what's officially communicated, but reports in my local press indicate that there is a bit more going on behind the scenes of the G20, and that the Germans are not pleased that this is happening under their chairing of the meetings.
The clear understanding about resisting all forms of protectionism, didn't make it in the official statements this year. Apparently, the USA delegation was opposed to having such a statement included, which was a disappointment for Germany who chair the conference this time.
Translation from the local media:
"At the G20 summit, the ministers of finance and central bankers have for the first time broken with the tradition of renouncing protectionism and making their support for open trade known.
The Trump government instead aims at protectionism and wants to significantly increase US import duties, in order to protect its own economy.
Also, a paragraph about the financing of activities to reduce Climate change is missing from Saturday's statements. Trump has called global warming rather a fabrication by China. Beijing purportedly wants to inflict damage to the competitive power of the USA by raising the issue of climate change."
The article then goes on mentioning the things that the members did agree on, like fighting tax evasion and how to address the unwanted financing of terrorism.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. also a preliminary summary here:
http://news.forexlive.com/!/protectionism-and-climate-change-removed-from-final-g20-statement-20170318
P.P.S. Markets welcome G20's FX stance, wary on trade split:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g20-germany-markets-analysis-idUSKBN16Q0H4
-
As a psychologist, you must know that the emotional effect of any disastrous weather event will tend to influence any objective and impartial perspective on climate matters.
Don't know where you got the idea that I am a psychologist. I have a PhD in biochemistry.
I'm getting the impression, Alan, that you haven't read much on this topic. The 'CO2 fertilization effect' is a standard phrase used in all studies on the issue. Increased levels of CO2 have a similar effect to adding chemical fertilizers to the soil, that is, increasing plant growth and biomass.
Not true, I have read a lot on this topic. CO2 is fixed by the photosynthetic pathway in plants and converted through the Calvin cycle into carbohydrates that can then be metabolized for cellular energy as well as the structural components of plants. The three major metabolic products of most plants/trees are cellulose, hemi-cellulose, and lignin that are the structural components. Nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers are required for the production of amino acids that are further metabolized into proteins/enzymes. Phosphate is part of the key energy compound Adenosine Triphosphate that is the central part of energy metabolism in virtually every living being/cell. So much for the biochemistry lesson.
However, just as in the processes of climate change, there are great complexities. Some species of plants thrive better than others, under increased CO2 levels, for a variety of reasons which could be addressed with further research.
the paper that you cite (which is just a very cursory review of the topic and lacks some of the required nuances to better understand the author's conclusions). the data in Table 1 (Page 5) comes from a single paper that I don't have access to and won't pay $40 to purchase it. I would be interested in understanding why he believes cotton yield increases are mainly a result of CO2 increases. Cotton is one of the most modified plants using genetic engineering and most of the yield increases come from breeding in resistance to the cotton bollworm and herbicide resistance allowing improved week control. Soybeans have similarly been engineered for herbicide resistance as has wheat. Against this any evaluation of CO2 enhancement must be evaluated.
For those who are interested, I'll link to a very unbiased article on the issue, by Indur M. Goklany who is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.
Dr. Goklany is not necessarily an unbiased scientist. His degrees are in electrical engineering and not climate science. The pamphlet that he has authored is a polemic just as many others are. Furthermore, he has done work with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group that I know quite well. I know the founder and general counsel very well. One of their members was on the Trump transition team and advocated the severe budget cutbacks that are in the Trump budget proposal. CEI gets a large amount of their funding from the petro-chemical industry. they are an advocacy group for reduced government regulation in many areas.
I'll leave it at that since this is a Trump thread as others have already pointed out. The incontrovertible fact about climate change is that we will see rising sea levels.
-
Pressure builds on Trump to back off wiretap accusations:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Q0LL
Germany rejects Trump's claim it owes NATO and U.S. 'vast sums' for defense:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-defence-idUSKBN16Q0D8
The allies are not amused.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump believes in free trade as long as its fair. If you tax our exports and we don't tax your exports to us, that's not fair. Trump will threaten to put an import tax on your exports to us but would rather you drop your tax on ours. Then we'll have free and fair trade.
Get rid of your subsidies, then we can talk about fair trade. That's the hidden "tax" that's used to make international trade unfair.
-
If PBS went away, the taxpayers would save money.
Yes, cutting any federal funding to the arts would save money. But at what cost to the arts and compared to what?
What does the NEA's $148-million budget buy? 7,789,473 taco bowls but not even one mile of the 405 Freeway (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/miranda/la-et-cam-nea-index-trump-budget-20170318-story.html)
President Trump has issued his federal budget, and it contains not a penny for the National Endowment for the Arts, the federal arts funding agency that has been the perennial whipping child of the right.
Culture critics, such as The Times’ Christopher Knight, immediately noted that the NEA’s annual budget — which was nearly $148 million in fiscal year 2016 — is minuscule compared to other federal expenditures. Defense, for example, is more than 3,600 times that — almost $583 billion a year. (Perhaps it’s time to ask the Pentagon to economize on toilet paper?)
All of this means that doing away with the NEA isn’t going to save much money, but it will hurt a lot of arts organizations — many of which cater to constituencies that include schoolchildren and military veterans.
Which raises the question: What exactly can one do with $148 million — besides fund thousands of arts programs in communities large and small across the nation? When it comes to big, infrastructure-y photo-op stuff — like expanding a freeway or building a border wall — not all that much. It won’t even get you an entire Picasso at auction.
— 0.004% of the total federal budget for 2015 (Quartz)
— 45 cents per person per year in the U.S., based on current population estimates
— 9.3% of a new Air Force One jet, per estimates issued by the Government Accountability Office
— 22.8 miles of pedestrian fencing (not a wall!) along the U.S.-Mexico border, at an estimated cost of $6.5 million per mile, per a 2009 government study
— Number of times you’d have to kill the NEA to build that pedestrian fence (not a wall!) along all 2,000 miles of U.S.-Mexico border: 88
— Less than 1 mile of freeway expansion on the 405 at the Sepulveda Pass, which cost roughly $160 million per mile
— One sixth of the Museum of Modern Art’s 2013 endowment of $870 million
— 1,014 to 1,165 days of security expenses for guarding Melania and Barron Trump at Trump Tower, per estimates released by the New York Police Department
— Number of days of security expenses if the President is at Trump Tower with them: 480
— 41 presidential weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago, at an estimate of $3.6 million per trip
Wow...that will save tax payers MILLIONS!!!
But there's some better ways of saving money for taxpayers...DON'T BUILD THE FRIGGIN WALL. The wall is stupid, will cost billions and not aid at keeping undocumented immigrants out of the US..because most undocumented immigrants come by overstaying their legal visas. A wall won't help with that at all. Reprot: The 2,000 Mile Wall in Search of a Purpose (http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/).
Another report this by Center for Economic and Policy Research (http://cepr.net (http://cepr.net)) asks: Paying for Legal Services or Keeping Melania Trump in NYC: Choices for Taxpayers (http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/paying-for-legal-services-or-keeping-melania-trump-in-nyc-choices-for-taxpayer)
We all know about the need to make trade-offs in budgeting, most of us have to do it on a regular basis in our daily lives. But what about the trade-offs for the federal government? Arguably there is no need for trade-offs right now. Both interest rates and inflation are at low levels, so it is not obvious that there is any problem with larger deficits, but folks in both parties are fixated on the need to run low budget deficits or even to have balanced budgets, so these politics dictate the need for trade-offs.
Then look at this chart...
(http://cepr.net/images/Book3_19072_image001.png)
It is interesting to compare the spending of these programs that face cuts or may be eliminated altogether with spending of security for President Trump and his family. In the past, presidents have generally tried to limit their own travel and that of their families so as not to create large security bills for the country. Apparently, this is not a concern of President Trump.
Unlike past presidents, he has requested Secret Service protection for his adult children. Given their travel habits running President Trump’s business, this is likely to be a considerable expense for the government. For example, the Washington Post reported that one trip to Uruguay by Eric Trump to open a hotel there cost the government almost $100,000 in security expenses. In addition, Trump’s decision to take his weekends at his golf club in Florida, rather the White House or Camp David, costs us more than $3 million a shot. And the decision by Melania Trump to stay in New York with her son is apparently costing taxpayers close to $2 million a day.
So, kill NPR/PBS & NEA/NEH so Melania Trump can stay in New York with her son...
And, do we really need to spend so much more money than the rest of the world on the military? Aren't we already the badasses of the world?
U.S. Military Spending vs. the World (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/)
The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.
U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined.
(https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/wolrd_military_spending_barchart_large.png)
So...can you honestly defend Trump's proposed budget? It seems some GOP congress people do not...
Gillibrand Leads Bipartisan Letter With 24 Senators Urging Trump Administration To Preserve Federal Funding For National Arts & Humanities Programs (https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/gillibrand-leads-bipartisan-letter-with-24-senators-urging-trump-administration-to-preserve-federal-funding-for-national-arts-and-humanities-programs)
From the NEA:
BUDGET
The National Endowment for the Arts’ FY2016 appropriation of $147.9 million constitutes approximately .004 percent of the federal budget. More than 80 percent of the appropriation is distributed as grants and awards to organizations and individuals across the country.
• 40 percent of the NEA’s grantmaking budget is awarded directly to the states through their state and regional arts agencies, reaching millions more people in thousands of communities. The NEA designates that a portion of every state and regional partnership grant be allocated to serving underserved communities
• The remaining 60 percent are awards made directly to organizations and individuals that apply through the NEA’s funding categories.
• NEA grants provide a significant return on investment of federal dollars with $1 of NEA direct funding leveraging up to $9 in private and other public funds, resulting in $500 million in matching support in 2016.
FUNDING DISTRIBUTION AND IMPACT
We are fully committed to ensuring that all Americans have access and opportunity to engage with the arts.
• In FY 2016, the NEA recommended more than 2,400 grants in nearly 16,000 communities in every Congressional District in the country.
A recent examination of NEA direct grants showed that the majority go to small and medium sized organizations, which tend to support projects that benefit audiences that otherwise might not have access to arts programming.
• Small sized organizations (less than $350,000 in prior year expenditures) received 30 percent of the NEA’s direct grants.
• Medium sized organizations ($350,000 to $1.75 million in prior year expenditures) received about 35 percent.
• Large organizations (over $1.75 million) 35 percent, of our grant awards.
A significant percentage of grants go to those who have fewer opportunities to participate in the arts.
• 40% of NEA-supported activities take place in high-poverty neighborhoods.
• 36% of NEA grants go to organizations that reach underserved populations such as people with disabilities, people in
institutions, and veterans.
• 33% of NEA grants serve low-income audiences.
So, it's really not the coastal elites that are getting the most benefit from the NEA, it's the flyover states, those states Trump won that are gonna be hurt the most. All so Melania can stay in NYC?
-
Get rid of your subsidies, then we can talk about fair trade. That's the hidden "tax" that's used to make international trade unfair.
I'm opposed to subsidies and we should end them. But most products we make aren't subsidized. This being a photo forum brings to mind complaints posted here from Europeans, Australians, and New Zealanders. A Nikon from Japan that would sell for let's say $1000 in B and H Photo Store in NYC sells for $1300-$1400 in those other countries. Posters plot trips to America where they will buy equipment and secret them back into their country or I guess claim they bought them in their country before they left on their trip. (I'm not familiar with the process. Maybe someone can fill us in how those other people get around the duties ;)
In any case, how is that fair to Japan?
-
Pressure builds on Trump to back off wiretap accusations:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16Q0LL
Germany rejects Trump's claim it owes NATO and U.S. 'vast sums' for defense:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-defence-idUSKBN16Q0D8
The allies are not amused.
Cheers,
Bart
America's not amused either. Germany and some other European countries are suppose to spend 2% of their budget on defense but are spending a lot less. I believe Germany pays 1.2% with promises to get it to 2% by 2024. If they spent 2%, their defense budget would be larger than Russia's. German's would feel proud of knowing they can defend themselves, or at least they should if they haven't forgotten how to fight.
Our new President feels 2024 is too slow and won't accept it. Germany is the richest country in Europe and 4th in the world. Let's look at it this way. If you were a landlord and rent was 500 Euros and I was paying you only 300, you would not wait until 2024 until I started to pay the full amount. You'd evict me. Especially when you learned I was really rich. Trump doesn't care about previous assumptions and non-binding agreements. America expects European countries to pay more. To prove he's serious, my guess he'll move a division from Germany to Poland who is paying their fair share Frankly, rotating the division back to America might be a better idea. We should at least reduce our forces there. NATO countries are going to get the point and everyone is suddenly going to start meeting their promises.
-
Jeff, NEA/PBS is decidedly Democrat and Liberal in much of their presentations. They are not balanced. They take political sides. So Republicans and Conservatives are opposed to funding them regardless of the relatively small cost. They are also symbolic of government involvement and control in too many of our affairs in all areas of living. We want government out of our lives as much as possible.
-
NEA/PBS is decidedly Democrat and Liberal in much of their presentations. They are not balanced.
Hum...where do you get that information? Do you listen to PBS? What programs are "decidedly Democrat and Liberal"? Austen City Limits, Masterpiece Theatre, Antiques Roadshow, Frontline, Nature, Nova, Great Performances, Sound Stage, Washington Week, America Revealed, Ken Burns America, PBS News Hour, Independent Lens?
Do you actually know that PBS is liberal from your personal experience or are you simply parroting the right wing mantra?
Heck even Media Bias/Fact Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pbs-news-hour/) web site lists the PBS News Hour as "slight liberal bias" but with a Factual Reporting of HIGH.
see, I'm pretty sure you aren't a frequent viewer of much of anything on PBS and don't personally know how biased PBS might be. And claiming that the NEA is "decidedly Democrat and Liberal" is simply silly. Conservatives aren't artists...and they arum all artists are liberal left wingers...
Sorry, your claim is particularly unconvincing...
-
I just received the following email from a friend. Is this fake news? Has it already been discussed in this thread?
"Supreme court, here we come.....
"First Muslim Woman Judge Carolyn Walker, hand-picked by President Obama, sworn in as judge of the 7th Municipal District, Brooklyn by holding the Holy Quran at Brooklyn Borough hall on December 10, 2015, it was an Historic Day!!
Since the Quran forbids all law but Sharia Law, it would seem she will head the first Federally sanctioned Sharia Court. Kind of makes you proud, doesn't it?
Very little media coverage on this ...... Another chink in the armour, no one cares, until it's too late!
Step by step by step....this is how our culture will end.
Obama supporters, your "Destroying America" dream is coming true......."
-
Hum...where do you get that information? Do you listen to PBS? What programs are "decidedly Democrat and Liberal"? Austen City Limits, Masterpiece Theatre, Antiques Roadshow, Frontline, Nature, Nova, Great Performances, Sound Stage, Washington Week, America Revealed, Ken Burns America, PBS News Hour, Independent Lens?
Do you actually know that PBS is liberal from your personal experience or are you simply parroting the right wing mantra?
Heck even Media Bias/Fact Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pbs-news-hour/) web site lists the PBS News Hour as "slight liberal bias" but with a Factual Reporting of HIGH.
see, I'm pretty sure you aren't a frequent viewer of much of anything on PBS and don't personally know how biased PBS might be. And claiming that the NEA is "decidedly Democrat and Liberal" is simply silly. Conservatives aren't artists...and they arum all artists are liberal left wingers...
Sorry, your claim is particularly unconvincing...
Every time a conservative or Republican says something, you and the left immediately call them stupid, prejudiced, uninformed. I must get all my info from Fox. I guess I'm just one of the deplorables. It's very insulting. It's one of the reasons Trump won.
I've been watching PBS for decades and enjoy a lot of their programming. However, their editorializing is to the left. For example, while the nature programs are nice, they are always tinged with "man bad" "Nature good". Business people are always greedy and are out to hurt the environment. Their political agenda is for big government. What's really strange is that you accuse me of providing an unconvincing claim as to their liberal bias. Then, you state in your own post and you provide a link that shows a chart indicating their "left center bias". You prove my claim.
They should be in the middle, in the 'least biased" part of the chart. It's being supported by public funds and should show no bias. Therefore Trump wants to cut the funding and I agree. The government should not take sides in a political debate.
-
I must get all my info from Fox. I guess I'm just one of the deplorables. It's very insulting.
And yet the numbers tell the story...
(http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-02/download/)
(http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/10-20-2014-2-31-55-pm/download/)
And then there's this...
(http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_2014-10-21_media-polarization-41/download/)
(http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_2014-10-21_media-polarization-01/download/)
So, yeah, statistically, you are more likely to get the majority of your news from few sources and distrust most news sources. And yes, this is from the http://www.pewresearch.org (http://www.pewresearch.org) but I'm pretty sure they aren't a left wing conspiracy group, right?
About Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.
Our mission
We generate a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and supports sound decision-making. We are nonprofit, nonpartisan and nonadvocacy. We value independence, objectivity, accuracy, rigor, humility, transparency and innovation.
And, again, the reason Trump won is the Russians put their thumb on the scale and pretty much screwed up our election.
-
Not true, I have read a lot on this topic. CO2 is fixed by the photosynthetic pathway in plants and converted through the Calvin cycle into carbohydrates that can then be metabolized for cellular energy as well as the structural components of plants. The three major metabolic products of most plants/trees are cellulose, hemi-cellulose, and lignin that are the structural components. Nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers are required for the production of amino acids that are further metabolized into proteins/enzymes. Phosphate is part of the key energy compound Adenosine Triphosphate that is the central part of energy metabolism in virtually every living being/cell. So much for the biochemistry lesson.
Then why do you object to the standard phrase of 'CO2 fertilization effect' which is used frequently in most scientific studies that address this issue?
Are you perhaps in a state of denial that CO2 has any beneficial effect in increasing plant growth, despite your apparent knowledge of biochemistry? (Sorry I confused with a psychologist. Must have been someone else who responded to one of your posts.)
Here's a scientific research paper that you don't have to pay for.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/full
"New study predicts a big jump in foliage growth in arid regions as carbon dioxide levels increase LONDON, 2 June – Australian scientists have solved one piece of the climate puzzle. They have confirmed the long-debated fertilization effect. Plants build their tissues by using photosynthesis to take carbon from the air around them. So more carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth – though until now this has been very difficult to prove. Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation in Canberra, Australia, and his colleagues developed a mathematical model to predict the extent of this carbon dioxide fertilization effect."
Okay? Or are you still in denial? ;)
In case you are not convinced by results from Australian scientists, perhaps you will be convinced by a similar report from NASA.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
"Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”
-
You seem to have difficulty in understanding how such a document evolves before being published. Different members contribute sections to such a document, as a kind of discussion points. The group members then try and find consensus from the larger groups until a relatively stable agreement is reached after which the final report can be published. It's similar to the Scientific method, which usually starts with a hypothesis, which is then under peer review either accepted or rejected. The final document is not a version that is falsified to please governments, but the generally accepted version based on the available data at the time. Sometimes the underlying data is somewhat modified versus earlier reports, because new/additional/more accurate data is available (because advances in technology make new analysis possible).
Bart,
You seem to have difficulty in understanding what I actually wrote. I stated that my source was the final draft of Working Group I, which is based on the Physical Sciences. If such findings of low confidence in the claimed increases of certain types of extreme weather events were removed from the final report, that would imply a political bias.
I was hoping you could find a reference in the full AR5 report to such statements. Anyway, after further searching on the internet, I came across the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
As I understand, this report synthesizes the main findings of the AR5, based on contributions from the various Working Groups (1, 2 and 3), plus other groups which investigate matters of climate change mitigation and managing the risks of extreme events.
Here's the final Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf
You'll find the section about extreme weather events on page 53. I'll just quote the references to low confidence, but in case you think I am biased, I am aware that for some extreme weather events in certain locations, the scientists do express a medium and sometimes even high confidence.
(1) There is low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of fluvial floods on a global scale.
(2) There is low confidence in observed global-scale trends in droughts...
(3) There is also low confidence in the attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century
(4) There is low confidence that long-term changes in tropical cyclone activity are robust, and there is low confidence in the attribution of global changes to any particular cause.
Okay? I'm glad we've clarified that issue. ;)
-
*** Small practical example ***
We have a long-standing tradition in our country (described in poems back in 1749, now a formally organized event since 1909), and that is an organized trip that visits 11 cities in the north of our country during one day, but it is only possibly to do during severe winters because the trip (the eleven-city run) is done on ice skates along the almost 200 km stretch of frozen-over canals and waterways that connect those cities.
The years that the trip was held on ice that was thick enough to support the weight of the crowds (upto 10,000 skaters and cheering crowds with checkpoints, music bands, and stands with hot beverages along the stretch) were:
1909, 1912, 1917, 1929, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1947, 1954, 1956, 1963, 1985, 1986, 1997, and not possible since then.
While too short to describe a multi-century trend, there are 2 interesting observations.
1. It is becoming increasingly rare, which would correlate with a global trend of increasing average temperature,
2. There seems to be kind of a correlation with the 11-year solar sun-spot activity cycle, which is recognized by scientists to show up on local scale phenomenae in many places around the world, but not at a global scale when taken together.
So using an 11 year period may locally introduce noisy data that distracts from the underlying trend, and that are the insights that scientists may stumble upon, and have to discuss, and agree on how to tackle the distractions.
To continue with the skating statistics after 1997, here is Canadian data about the winter ice on Rideau Canal in Ottawa, the largest naturally frozen skating rink in the world, as designated by Guinness World Records. The 2016-2017 season lasted 36 days, with the canal open for skating 25 of those days. The entire skateway was open for 18 days.
Rideau Canal skating season (http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017/02/24/rideau-canal-skating-season-was-short-but-sweet.html)
-
Here's a scientific research paper that you don't have to pay for.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/full
"New study predicts a big jump in foliage growth in arid regions as carbon dioxide levels increase LONDON, 2 June – Australian scientists have solved one piece of the climate puzzle. They have confirmed the long-debated fertilization effect. Plants build their tissues by using photosynthesis to take carbon from the air around them. So more carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth – though until now this has been very difficult to prove. Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation in Canberra, Australia, and his colleagues developed a mathematical model to predict the extent of this carbon dioxide fertilization effect."
Okay? Or are you still in denial? ;)
I'm not going to get into a debate about terminology. If you want me to accept "fertilization effect" that's fine with me. The critical point is that increase in biomass is unimportant except to ruminants who feed on grass. The more pertinent issue is whether the amount of harvested grain or seed increases. In this latter case more is accomplished via plant breeding than from any biomass improvement brought about through atmospheric CO2. Look at the development of hybrid corn in the 1920s. This had a huge impact on harvest yield. Same thing with the work on wheat. All of this took place while CO2 levels were pretty much stable. As I noted in an earlier post, CO2 increases are likely to improve growth in trees/plants that are highly dependent on biomass production. If we had better technologies for converting biomass to alcohol and other industrial chemicals this would be a net plus. Unfortunately, the rate limiting processes are not in the generation of biomass but in the downstream processing to convert the cellulose to usable chemicals.
I can't wait to see the huge increase in Kudzu yields.
-
And yet the numbers tell the story...
So, yeah, statistically, you are more likely to get the majority of your news from few sources and distrust most news sources. And yes, this is from the http://www.pewresearch.org (http://www.pewresearch.org) but I'm pretty sure they aren't a left wing conspiracy group, right?
The issue isn't trust. Stations preach to the choir, even PBS. More liberals and Democrats watch liberal PBS, so sure the trust is high. The real issue it's bias. And you were the one who said PBS was "left center bias" and then gave a link to prove it's bias. You made the case for me.
PBS should be as neutral as the IRS is in auditing non-profit corporations. :) Since they aren't, and won't be, their funding should be terminated.
-
Bart,
You seem to have difficulty in understanding what I actually wrote. I stated that my source was the final draft of Working Group I, which is based on the Physical Sciences. If such findings of low confidence in the claimed increases of certain types of extreme weather events were removed from the final report, that would imply a political bias.
I was hoping you could find a reference in the full AR5 report to such statements. Anyway, after further searching on the internet, I came across the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
As I understand, this report synthesizes the main findings of the AR5, based on contributions from the various Working Groups (1, 2 and 3), plus other groups which investigate matters of climate change mitigation and managing the risks of extreme events.
Here's the final Synthesis Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf
Thanks for posting the link. It's interesting that on page 51 they state "Assessment of many studies covering a wide range of regions
and crops shows that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence)."
Perhaps the increase in CO2 is not as beneficial as one would predict given increased biomass production. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
You should also read the page you cite a little more carefully. Some cases such as extreme precipitation are strongly linked to while others such as extreme drought are less certain primarily because of a lack of direct observation. The bottom line is that in some impact areas there is uncertainty while others there is a strong correlation. As I have noted, this area of research is complicated with many interconnecting parts. It's up to policy makers to determine whether more research is needed and in what areas as well as if mitigation efforts should be undertaken. I'm not encouraged by President Trump's proposed budget that we will continue to be informed about what is happening regarding climate change.
-
...I can't wait to see the huge increase in Kudzu yields.
Kudzu is all over lower Westchester county right above the NYC northern border of The Bronx. Probably replacing other species. You never saw it there a couple of decades ago. There are also more geese crapping all over the place then ever. But all that means that these species are expanding. Nature is growing. Or at least changing. That's my point.
Climate change and global warming supporters only push the negatives. What we need are analysis of all the changes, both negative and positive, so we can create policy that is fully informed. It would also go a long way in providing trust to those who suspect they're getting conned. I recently had someone try to sell me a retirement financial package. When he got done telling me how great it would be for me, I asked him about what the downside was. He said there wasn't any. "Rinnnggg." The bells went off and I showed him the door. There's a lot of snake-oil salesmen in the environmental and global warming industry as well. They want you to buy the package yet only show one side. People feel they're being fooled.
-
Okay? I'm glad we've clarified that issue. ;)
Not really, because it becomes increasingly more obvious that you've misinterpreted what the terms actually mean. Either that, or you are deliberately misstating the warnings of the report by cherry-picking of what you think supports your claims. But for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume the first.
From Box Introduction 1 Risk and the Management of an Uncertain Future
Risk is often represented as the probability of occurrence of hazardous events or trends multiplied by the magnitude of the consequences if these events occur. Therefore, high risk can result not only from high probability outcomes but also from low probability outcomes with very severe consequences. This makes it important to assess the full range of possible outcomes, from low probability tail outcomes to very likely outcomes. For example, it is unlikely that global mean sea level will rise by more than one meter in this century, but the consequence of a greater rise could be so severe that this possibility becomes a significant part of risk assessment. Similarly, low confidence but high consequence outcomes are also policy relevant; for instance the possibility that the response of Amazon forest could substantially amplify climate change merits consideration despite our currently imperfect ability to project the outcome.
Box Introduction.2 Communicating the Degree of Certainty in Assessment Findings
The IPCC Guidance Note on Uncertainty defines a common approach to evaluating and communicating the degree of certainty in findings of the assessment process. Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an assignment of confidence, especially for findings with stronger agreement and multiple independent lines of evidence. The degree of certainty in each key finding of the assessment is based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement. The summary terms for evidence are:
limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. Levels of confidence a include five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and are typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence.
You seem to interpret those qualifiers as level of likelihood, but that's an entirely different metric. Low confidence may mean that the amount of data was limited or prediction models were inaccurate. The key data could still show a trend or have mixed numbers of observations over time.
For example, when looking at a global picture the supporting data for a given parameter may be inconclusive, but on a regional level, they may very obvious. Think e.g. increasing level of rainfall in parts of the Northern hemisphere, and increasing drought in equatorial regions. Globally these may somewhat level each other out, but regionally they are a cause of concern. Also, more historical data sets may have fewer observations (thus lower confidence), while more recent ones may be readily available (higher confidence). That would reduce the confidence level over the longer period.
Another example straight from the report:Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979 (Figure 1.10). There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of natural internal variability in that region.
The more I read of the report, the more it looks like you are indeed cherry-picking, trolling. And by only focusing on extreme weather you make matters even worse.
For example:
There is low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of fluvial floods on a global scale. The strength of the evidence is limited mainly by a lack of long-term records from unmanaged catchments. Moreover, floods are strongly influenced by many human activities impacting catchments, making the attribution of detected changes to climate change difficult.
Do I need to go on? I'll emphasize the parts you conveniently left out of your quotes:
There is low confidence in observed global-scale trends in droughts, due to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the choice of the definition for drought, and due to geographical inconsistencies in drought trends. There is also low confidence in the attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century, due to the same observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decadal scale variability in drought from long-term trends.
So were you selectively quoting, cherry picking, without full understanding(?) or deliberately?.
Need more?
Why not let us stick to the summaries at the beginning of the chapters?
1.1 Observed changes in the climate system
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
1.2 Past and recent drivers of climate change
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era driven largely by economic and population growth. From 2000 to 2010 emissions were the highest in history. Historical emissions have driven atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to levels that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years, leading to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
1.3 Attribution of climate changes and impacts
The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since AR4. Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid- 20th century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.
Conclusion:
Trump's proposals to ignore climate change suck big time.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... It's up to policy makers to determine whether more research is needed and in what areas as well as if mitigation efforts should be undertaken. I'm not encouraged by President Trump's proposed budget that we will continue to be informed about what is happening regarding climate change.
The problem is policy makers are pushing the climate change agenda. They are not attempting to be fair and balanced and show both sides. So they continue to push research and present data that mainly "proves" one side. That's not science. That's politics. Additionally, most of the politics of it does not take into consideration the workers in the carbon fuel industry who lost or will lose their jobs due to changes in government regulations or because of the policies of environmentalists. Trump saw the opening and appealed to these people in the swing states and won the election because of it. Hillary never gave them hope. Instead, she spit on them. Elections have consequences.
-
I just received the following email from a friend. Is this fake news?
As you could have Googled:
http://www.snopes.com/muslim-woman-sworn-new-york-city-civil-judge/
or
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/15/muslim-judge-in-new-york-takes-oath-on-the-koran/?utm_term=.1448eb006f49
as two links at the top of the list with links. And BTW, she seems to have affirmed, not swear.
Has it already been discussed in this thread?
Why would it? What's the connection to Trump?
I'll skip commenting on the further drivel by 'your friend'.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And yet the numbers tell the story...
They might (tell the story) but what's the moral of the story?
The supposed moral is that the left is better informed, getting its news from a variety of sources. But when all those "various" sources are on the left, who cares? The left is just as biased as the right.
This leaves us, independents, who get our news and opinions from both (all) sides, from HuffPost to Breitbart, and anything in between, at a distinct advantage.
-
Since Jeff likes infographics, here is one for him :)
-
The problem is policy makers are pushing the climate change agenda. They are not attempting to be fair and balanced and show both sides. So they continue to push research and present data that mainly "proves" one side. That's not science. That's politics. Additionally, most of the politics of it does not take into consideration the workers in the carbon fuel industry who lost or will lose their jobs due to changes in government regulations or because of the policies of environmentalists. Trump saw the opening and appealed to these people in the swing states and won the election because of it. Hillary never gave them hope. Instead, she spit on them. Elections have consequences.
The report that Ray posted the link to was quite balanced and Bart already addressed the parts that I did not. Coal mining is not going to return in big numbers employment wise. Surface mining requires far fewer workers that underground mining. Power plants are switching to natural gas which is far cheaper than coal. A large amount of our coal is exported these days. It's interesting that they are now doing away with the safety monitoring at underground coal mines at both the federal and state level and going to rely on "education" to make the mines safe. We well know how that will turn out.
-
Thanks for posting the link. It's interesting that on page 51 they state "Assessment of many studies covering a wide range of regions
and crops shows that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence)."
Perhaps the increase in CO2 is not as beneficial as one would predict given increased biomass production. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Alan,
The statement on page 51 does not mention CO2 or its fertilization effect. The negative impacts could be due to natural fluctuations in climate, exacerbated by wars, conflicts, government incompetence, lack of proper storage facilities, and so on. The details are not mentioned.
However, I've had a look at the full Working Group I Assessment Report, which is 1535 pages long, so I won't link it here.
On page 502 there is a reference to the Carbon Dioxide Fertilisation Effect. Following is the extract.
"Box 6.3 | The Carbon Dioxide Fertilisation Effect
Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to higher leaf photosynthesis and reduced canopy transpiration, which in turn lead to increased plant water use efficiency and reduced fluxes of surface latent heat. The increase in leaf photosynthesis with rising CO2, the so-called CO2 fertilisation effect, plays a dominant role in terrestrial biogeochemical models to explain the global land carbon sink (Sitch et al., 2008), yet it is one of most unconstrained process in those models.
Field experiments provide a direct evidence of increased photosynthesis rates and water use efficiency (plant carbon gains per unit of water loss from transpiration) in plants growing under elevated CO2. These physiological changes translate into a broad range of higher plant carbon accumulation in more than two-thirds of the experiments and with increased net primary productivity (NPP) of about 20 to 25% at double CO2 from pre-industrial concentrations (Ainsworth and Long, 2004; Luo et al., 2004, 2006; Nowak et al., 2004; Norby et al., 2005;Canadell et al., 2007a; Denman et al., 2007; Ainsworth et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2012a).
Since the AR4, new evidence is available from long-term Free-air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments in temperate ecosystems showing the capacity of ecosystems exposed to elevated CO2 to sustain higher rates of carbon accumulation over multiple years (Liberloo et al., 2009; McCarthy et al., 2010; Aranjuelo et al., 2011; Dawes et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2011; Zak et al., 2011). However, FACE experiments also show the diminishing or lack of CO2 fertilisation effect in some ecosystems and for some plant species (Dukes et al., 2005; Adair et al., 2009; Bader et al., 2009; Norby et al., 2010; Newingham et al., 2013). This lack of response occurs despite increased water use efficiency, also confirmed with tree ring evidence (Gedalof and Berg, 2010; Peñuelas et al., 2011).
Nutrient limitation is hypothesized as primary cause for reduced or lack of CO2 fertilisation effect observed on NPP in some experiments (Luo et al., 2004; Dukes et al., 2005; Finzi et al., 2007; Norby et al., 2010). Nitrogen and phosphorus are very likely to play the most important role in this limitation of the CO2 fertilisation effect on NPP, with nitrogen limitation prevalent in temperate and boreal ecosystems, and phosphorus limitation in the tropics (Luo et al., 2004; Vitousek et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010a; Goll et al., 2012).
Micronutrients interact in diverse ways with other nutrients in constraining NPP such as molybdenum and phosphorus in the tropics (Wurzburger et al., 2012). Thus, with high confidence, the CO2 fertilisation effect will lead to enhanced NPP, but significant uncertainties remain on the magnitude of this effect, given the lack of experiments outside of temperate climates."
These results tend to be in agreement with most of the studies that I've read on the CO2 fertilization effect, except that some of the studies I've read claim that the increase in growth of certain C3 crops is as high as 41% for a doubling of CO2, and around 30% on average. So the IPCC is perhaps understating the value of increased CO2 levels at 20-25%, as I would expect. In fact, in one report involving water stressed plants it was found that a doubling of CO2 increased the growth of certain plants by as much as 60%.
-
FBI head Comey says no evidence of Trump wiretapping claim:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16R077
"And we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components: the department has no information that supports those tweets," he said.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The report that Ray posted the link to was quite balanced and Bart already addressed the parts that I did not. Coal mining is not going to return in big numbers employment wise. Surface mining requires far fewer workers that underground mining. Power plants are switching to natural gas which is far cheaper than coal. A large amount of our coal is exported these days. It's interesting that they are now doing away with the safety monitoring at underground coal mines at both the federal and state level and going to rely on "education" to make the mines safe. We well know how that will turn out.
The average person doesn't read these reports and wouldn't understand them if he did. What they depend on is popular media. Since they're bias toward implementing changes and keep pushing one side of the issue, most people are only hearing a distorted viewpoint. Even Congressmen can't understand these science reports and depend on accurate reporting to institute policies.
My comments on the workers were to explain Trump's win. But even there, climatologists pushing an agenda should include how recommended policies will influence jobs and the economy. It's not only about how high the water's going to get.
-
For example, while the nature programs are nice, they are always tinged with "man bad" "Nature good".
Are you saying that a documentary about bears in Alberta that mentions the negative impact of nearby oil field development on the bears has a liberal bias? Should this program about bears instead talk about the jobs boom and benefits of cheap gasoline? Are you suggesting that a program on Midway Island that shows lots of bird carcasses full of plastic bits should talk about the great jobs created by the plastics industry rather than the detrimental effect of the plastic on birds inhabiting Midway Island?
When I was a kid the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland used to actually catch fire due to all of the flammable crap being dumped into it by industry, and Lake Erie was said by locals to be "dead". The outrage of people caused by the burning river is one many reasons EPA was created. Those "burdensome regulations" cleaned up the river and brought aquatic life back to Lake Erie, which was previously declared "dead". Even back then industry said the regulations would be their doom, but somehow they survived and the most major polluter on the Cuyahoga River is still the among the largest paint manufactures on earth. Today people are still advised to eat no more than one meal per week of any sport fish due to the lingering mercury contamination, but at least there are some fish to catch. Even so, sport fishing has created around 2000 jobs and contributes tens of millions of dollars to the local economy. All of that was a positive contribution to nature by people.
-
For example, changing to non-carbon fuel will negatively effect workers in that industry. But they should also mention how many new jobs are anticipated in solar or how rising water will increase construction jobs along the ocean as homes are raised on stilts. Climate change effects more than the environment. It will effect the economy and other things. What will be the costs? Everything should be discussed so we can know where we are going. We can't only cry about the polar bear.
-
FBI head Comey says no evidence of Trump wiretapping claim:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16R077
"And we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components: the department has no information that supports those tweets," he said.
Cheers,
Bart
What did he say about Trump colluding with the Russians? I haven't been watching.
-
What did he say about Trump colluding with the Russians? I haven't been watching.
I'm not sure whether the hearing has been finalized yet, or that the news agencies are still writing their text.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. In his statement FBI head Comey said:
As you know our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations. Especially those investigations that involve classified matters. But, in unusual circumstances, where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so, as Justice department policies recognize. This is one of those circumstances. I've been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our Counter Intelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
Because it is an open ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we're doing and who's conduct we're examining.
At the request of Congressional leaders, we have taken the extraordinary step, in coordination with the Department of Justice, of briefing this Congress' leaders including the leaders of this committee, in a classified setting, in detail about the investigation, but I cannot go into those details here.
-
Are you saying that a documentary about bears in Alberta that mentions the negative impact of nearby oil field development on the bears has a liberal bias? Should this program about bears instead talk about the jobs boom and benefits of cheap gasoline? Are you suggesting that a program on Midway Island that shows lots of bird carcasses full of plastic bits should talk about the great jobs created by the plastics industry rather than the detrimental effect of the plastic on birds inhabiting Midway Island?
...
Yes. Both sides should be explained so you can assess the issue honestly. How would you like it if PBS only had documentaries that showed how the gasoline companies provided great wealth to our country and created less dependence on foreign oil and never mentioned that they were killing bears and polluting along the way? Wouldn't that upset you that only one side is presented?
That's what makes something biased. Only one side is shown.
-
Not really, because it becomes increasingly more obvious that you've misinterpreted what the terms actually mean. Either that, or you are deliberately misstating the warnings of the report by cherry-picking of what you think supports your claims. But for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume the first.
Bart,
Of course I was cherry picking from that rather long report. I was demonstrating to Jeff Schewe and others that the latest IPCC report really did express a low confidence in an increase in the frequency and severity of certain extreme weather events.
Do you think I have the time to discuss every point and detail that's in the report. It would be a long book. ;) I should also add that 'cherry picking' is what the AGW alarmist do when they make a case about the bad effects of global warming, mentioning only the negative aspects in order to create the maximum alarm. Whereas I provided a link to the whole report from which I selected the specific points I was addressing. A slight difference wouldn't you say.
Low confidence may mean that the amount of data was limited or prediction models were inaccurate.
Of course it does. That's my interpretation of low confidence. What other interpretation could there be? Low confidence does not mean low risk. It means an unknown or uncertain risk. If one was certain a risk was low, one would claim a high confidence that the risk was low.
One of the major problems with climatology is the unavailability of accurate records from the past with which to compare the more accurate measurements of the present.
The problem I see with the believers in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that they don't seem to even know the difference between skepticism and denialism.
Skepticism is a fundamental requirement for all scientific enquiry. If a theory doesn't lend itself to the rigorous processes of the scientific methodology, such as allowing a process of falsification or the achievement of consistent results with repeated experiments under controlled conditions, then a degree of skepticism must follow, unless you are wearing the religious hat.
The long time spans involved in climate trends, the inaccuracy or lack of past measurements, the tremendous complexity of interacting factors which can influence climate, with positive and negative feedbacks, all have the effect of reducing certainty.
-
One of the major problems with climatology is the unavailability of accurate records from the past with which to compare the more accurate measurements of the present.
It can simply be the lower frequency of past observations versus higher frequency now, that results in a lower confidence qualifier. Nothing to do with lower accuracy. There often is enough data to see the trend. It may also be more difficult to predict the future based on such data, but the data itself is a given.
Another complicating factor is that past anthropogenic effects are included in the current natural phenomenon.
The main problem with the deniers is that once they can no longer deny the facts, it's often too late to reverse the trend, simply because it can take a while for the effects to become measurable while the trend is developing (one can only analyze a given period after it has finished).
Do remember that Trump said that Global warming/Climate change is a hoax.
Well, it is not, it's a documented fact.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Do remember that Trump said that Global warming/Climate change is a hoax....
Jesus, people, that was a joke. You keep taking things literally, failing to account for the inherent wry sense of humor.
-
Jesus, people, that was a joke.
Really? Where is the Smiley:
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385
Cheers,
Bart
-
Really? Where is the Smiley:
Smilies are for the stupid. Smart people just get it.
-
It can simply be the lower frequency of past observations versus higher frequency now, that results in a lower confidence qualifier. Nothing to do with lower accuracy. There often is enough data to see the trend. It may also be more difficult to predict the future based on such data, but the data itself is a given.
Another complicating factor is that past anthropogenic effects are included in the current natural phenomenon.
The main problem with the deniers is that once they can no longer deny the facts, it's often too late to reverse the trend, simply because it can take a while for the effects to become measurable while the trend is developing (one can only analyze a given period after it has finished).
Do remember that Trump said that Global warming/Climate change is a hoax.
Well, it is not, it's a documented fact.
Cheers,
Bart
Seeing the trend is one thing. Attributing such a trend to the effects of rising CO2 levels is the main difficulty.
No sensible person denies that climate is changing, although some climatologists in the past have tried to obscure the existence of the Medieval Warm Period because they thought (and rightly so) that the existence of other similar warm periods in the past could lead people to think that the current warming period might be part of a natural cycle. I presume you've heard of the Hockey Stick graph.
Most politicians do not seem to have much understanding of science. Didn't Obama make the foolish statement, 'The science is settled'. Trump is using exaggerated language to appeal to his supporters who can identify with his style.
-
I know a few people at work like that.
When they say something stupid and are called out for it, they always respond "It was a joke" like that explains anything.
-
Alan,
The statement on page 51 does not mention CO2 or its fertilization effect. The negative impacts could be due to natural fluctuations in climate, exacerbated by wars, conflicts, government incompetence, lack of proper storage facilities, and so on. The details are not mentioned.
However, I've had a look at the full Working Group I Assessment Report, which is 1535 pages long, so I won't link it here.
Ray, I think you are missing the forest for the trees to use an appropriate idiom. Let me try to be clearer about the key issue. It really has nothing to do with biomass increase except for certain crops such as grasses and perhaps trees grown for lumber where biomass is important. For row crops biomass may not be a good thing as we want those crops to orient production to seeds which means they need to focus energy on reproduction (which is what seeds are used for by the plants). If biomass production is reducing seed production that is not a good thing. Additionally, crops such as wheat and corn are carefully bred so that they have standability in adverse weather. If the crop is beaten down by heavy rain or hail then yields are reduced. If my rows of corn are producing lots of biomass but the stalks are too high and somewhat weak that is not a good thing. It's a tricky balance for the plant breeder to optimize growth towards seed production. It may be that enhanced concentrations of CO2 can augment seed production in a way that plant breeders can take advantage of but my reading of the literature is that this is not necessarily a given.
I highly doubt that the authors of the report are getting data from conflict zones as you allude to so I don't think that is an issue at all. The focus is on plant growth.
-
It can simply be the lower frequency of past observations versus higher frequency now, that results in a lower confidence qualifier. Nothing to do with lower accuracy. There often is enough data to see the trend. It may also be more difficult to predict the future based on such data, but the data itself is a given.
I believe Washington DC has temperature and precipitation records that go back to the late 19th century. IIRC 4-5 of the last 10 years have been the warmest on record here.
-
Smilies are for the stupid. Smart people just get it.
Yes, just like the non-existent "air quotes."
-
I know a few people at work like that.
When they say something stupid and are called out for it, they always respond "It was a joke" like that explains anything.
...I knew some of these types as well and they looked increasingly foolish as time went on.
-
Trump's neighbors in Florida are not pleased with all the weekend visits: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hes-baaaack-trumps-visits-to-mar-a-lago-are-stretching-palm-beachs-budget-and-locals-patience/2017/03/19/9f87d3cc-0cc0-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_palmbeach-820a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.fdd422062919
-
Part of the reason why we give the PotUS an executive mansion and a vacation resort (Camp David) to use is to limit the adverse effects on presidential travel/protection on the local population.
It does not seem like President Trump has a lot of empathy for others that may be inconvenienced.
-
Trump's neighbors in Florida are not pleased with all the weekend visits: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hes-baaaack-trumps-visits-to-mar-a-lago-are-stretching-palm-beachs-budget-and-locals-patience/2017/03/19/9f87d3cc-0cc0-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_palmbeach-820a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.fdd422062919
I wonder about the taxpayers, are they comfortable with all the (millions of) avoidable additional cost involved?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I wonder about the taxpayers, are they comfortable with all the (millions of) avoidable additional cost involved?
Cheers,
Bart
Not this taxpayer!!! I also don't like that we are paying the sons' security on their "business" trips. The Trump companies should pay for this!!!
-
Part of the reason why we give the PotUS an executive mansion and a vacation resort (Camp David) to use is to limit the adverse effects on presidential travel/protection on the local population.
It does not seem like President Trump has a lot of empathy for others that may be inconvenienced.
I'm pretty sure that President Trump will never spend a night at Camp David.
-
Camp David was created as a place for presidents to rest and to take foreign dignitaries to schmooze with them. Since jets, however, Presidents have been going home for similar purposes. Bush 1 use to go to Chappaquiddick in Maine, Bush 2 would go home to rest or entertain foreigners at his ranch in Texas, Nixon in California. Obama didn't go back to Chicago. I think it was too cold for him there. So he went back to where he was born in Hawaii. He's no dummy. Do you realize how much it cost us for Air Force 1 and Obama's entourage to be flown to Oahu to play golf and back? But the law provides for it. I deny no President his time off. Plus, they usually continue working to a large degree while there. Being President is a tough job. Let's lighten up.
Regarding his sons, the law allows for protection. It doesn't say the children must reimburse the government. What if they aren't making too much? All children of Presidents are protected. We don't want Presidents black-mailed with a kidnapped relative and then decide to go to war to get his kid back. Which reminds me that a lot of people believe Bush2, the son of Bush 1, went into Iraq to get Saddam because Saddam tried to take out his father after Iraq lost in Gulf War 1 over Kuwait.
Regarding costs to Palm Beach and NYC for that matter, tax payers should pick up at least some of the costs. That would be fair.
-
Yes. Both sides should be explained so you can assess the issue honestly. How would you like it if PBS only had documentaries that showed how the gasoline companies provided great wealth to our country and created less dependence on foreign oil and never mentioned that they were killing bears and polluting along the way? Wouldn't that upset you that only one side is presented?
That's what makes something biased. Only one side is shown.
Obviously a documentary about wildlife should include information about the wildlife and the primary factors affecting survival of that wildlife. Those factors could include predation, disease, and even oil fields, but none of those factors is on any "side". Saying an oil field negatively affects some wildlife population is not a political statement. You obviously see it as one but it does not take a "side", it just states a fact. Why does it require more explanation than predation or disease? Anyone smart enough to turn on a television knows that oil fields generate lots of money and people work in them. That's probably better known than the meaning of "predation". There are documentaries about oil that discuss all of the points in your post, and I think that's where such a discussion belongs. Who watches wildlife documentaries to learn the economics of oil production?
-
Camp David was created as a place for presidents to rest and to take foreign dignitaries to schmooze with them. Since jets, however, Presidents have been going home for similar purposes. Bush 1 use to go to Chappaquiddick in Maine, Bush 2 would go home to rest or entertain foreigners at his ranch in Texas, Nixon in California. Obama didn't go back to Chicago. I think it was too cold for him there. So he went back to where he was born in Hawaii. He's no dummy. Do you realize how much it cost us for Air Force 1 and Obama's entourage to be flown to Oahu to play golf and back? But the law provides for it. I deny no President his time off. Plus, they usually continue working to a large degree while there. Being President is a tough job. Let's lighten up.
Regarding his sons, the law allows for protection. It doesn't say the children must reimburse the government. What if they aren't making too much? All children of Presidents are protected. We don't want Presidents black-mailed with a kidnapped relative and then decide to go to war to get his kid back. Which reminds me that a lot of people believe Bush2, the son of Bush 1, went into Iraq to get Saddam because Saddam tried to take out his father after Iraq lost in Gulf War 1 over Kuwait.
Regarding costs to Palm Beach and NYC for that matter, tax payers should pick up at least some of the costs. That would be fair.
Minor correction, Bush compound was at Kennebunkport in Maine. Chappaquiddick is where Teddy Kennedy drove off the bridge and his companion whose name I'm too lazy to look up was killed. Both Obama and Bush 2 used Camp David to entertain foreign visitors as well as relax. Obama was at Camp David 37 times during his presidency. I have no issues at all with Presidents taking vacations and of course they are still working during that time and "on call" Both New York City and West Palm Beach are paying for security though I'm certain they never budgeted for this and will have to include funds going forward.
Yes the law allows for protection of immediate family. However, should this be extended to millionaire businessmen who travel outside the country on business? You argue for reining in the Federal budget, well this is one area to look at as the Trump Companies can certainly afford this and it's a tax deduction in any event.
-
Obviously a documentary about wildlife should include information about the wildlife and the primary factors affecting survival of that wildlife. Those factors could include predation, disease, and even oil fields, but none of those factors is on any "side". Saying an oil field negatively affects some wildlife population is not a political statement. You obviously see it as one but it does not take a "side", it just states a fact. Why does it require more explanation than predation or disease? Anyone smart enough to turn on a television knows that oil fields generate lots of money and people work in them. That's probably better known than the meaning of "predation". There are documentaries about oil that discuss all of the points in your post, and I think that's where such a discussion belongs. Who watches wildlife documentaries to learn the economics of oil production?
That would be fine if PBS had an equal number of business programs showing the how fuel suppliers provide jobs and wealth to the country. Since they don't, then they're biased and in the tank for one side. Business bad, nature good.
Same with the EPA. Business bad, nature good. That's why Trump wants to defund them all.
-
From the Atlantic (a left leaning but accurate media source)
It's Official: The FBI Is Investigating Trump's Links to Russia (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/its-official-the-fbi-is-investigating-trumps-links-to-russia/520134/)
“I’ve been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” Comey told members of the House Intelligence Committee in a prepared opening statement. “That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.”
Though it was not surprising, Comey’s decision to publicly confirm a criminal investigation of possible collusion between the sitting president and a foreign power was a stunning revelation. Under questioning, he said that the FBI began the investigation in late July, a disclosure that likely will inflame criticism from Democrats that Comey chose to publicly discuss the bureau’s inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s emails during the campaign but did not reveal it was also investigating the Trump campaign and Russian meddling.
The FBI director warned that he would not be able to discuss the specifics of the probe, including which officials in the Trump campaign or administration might be under surveillance.
“Because it is an open, ongoing investigation, and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining,” Comey said. “I can’t go into those details here. I know that is externally frustrating to some folks, but it is the way it has to be.”
Yet the FBI director was willing to directly rebut President Trump’s tweeted claims that former President Barack Obama “wiretapped” him at Trump Tower. Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee, read aloud to Comey several of Trump’s tweets over the last several weeks, including the wiretap charge. “I have no information that supports those tweets,” the director said. He then explained that he had surveyed the entire Justice Department and that the department more broadly “has no information to support those tweets.”
So, FBI has no information to support Trump's tweets and it's actively investigating the Trump campaign's connections to Russia and Russian interference in our election.
Kinda bad news for a president on day 60 of the presidency...but don't worry, Trump is on a tweet storm:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
James Clapper and others stated that there is no evidence Potus colluded with Russia. This story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 9h9 hours ago
The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 8h8 hours ago
Just heard Fake News CNN is doing polls again despite the fact that their election polls were a WAY OFF disaster. Much higher ratings at Fox
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago
What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians? Also, is it true that the DNC would not let the FBI in to look?
Well, at least we have something to talk about not related to climate change and support of the arts :~)
-
Minor correction, Bush compound was at Kennebunkport in Maine. Chappaquiddick is where Teddy Kennedy drove off the bridge and his companion whose name I'm too lazy to look up was killed. Both Obama and Bush 2 used Camp David to entertain foreign visitors as well as relax. Obama was at Camp David 37 times during his presidency. I have no issues at all with Presidents taking vacations and of course they are still working during that time and "on call" Both New York City and West Palm Beach are paying for security though I'm certain they never budgeted for this and will have to include funds going forward.
Yes the law allows for protection of immediate family. However, should this be extended to millionaire businessmen who travel outside the country on business? You argue for reining in the Federal budget, well this is one area to look at as the Trump Companies can certainly afford this and it's a tax deduction in any event.
I got my Kennebunkports mixed up with my Chappaquiddicks. How could I forget about the heroic Ted Kennedy. Sorry about that.
I don't know what it costs to protect the President's children. I imagine it's a lot. The thing to remember is that it's not so much the protection of the kid. It's to prevent a kidnapping that puts the President in a blackmail situation. what if the kid says, well I don't want to reimburse the government for the $5 million in protection in might cost. I'll take my own chances with my own guards for $500,000. Then he gets kidnapped. This is really for the country's protection. What about past Presidents? Why is the country paying for protection of the Clinton's. They're worth $100's of millions. Do you know Bill Clinton even gets free postage for his mail as a past president. Certainly he can pay for a postage stamp. How about Obama and his wife? They got a $60 million advance for two books they're going to write. Certainly they can pay for a postage stamp, too.
-
If Trump directed someone in his campaign to have the Russians help swing the election for him, that would be very bad, probably impeachable. But what if someone like Manafort did it on his own? Then Trump found out about it and fired him but kept the real reason quiet. That would look pretty bad but not impeachable. Well, VP Mike Pence seems to be a nice Republican. Let's see what happens.
-
Aides Wrestle Drill From Trump’s Hands As He Tries To Remove Obama Listening Device From Skull (http://www.theonion.com/article/aides-wrestle-drill-trumps-hands-he-tries-remove-o-55576)
(http://images2.onionstatic.com/onion/5656/0/16x9/800.jpg)
WASHINGTON—Rushing toward the president as he pressed the eight-inch bit into his temple, several White House aides managed to wrestle a drill from Donald Trump’s hand Monday while he attempted to remove Obama’s listening device from his skull. “Obama implanted a microphone inside my head to record everything I say!” Trump reportedly shouted shortly before three White House staffers pinned him to the floor and pried apart his fingers to seize the power tool. “You don’t understand, he can hear everything we’re saying! Obama can even hear my thoughts! I have to get it out! I can feel it! I can feel it! I can feel it!” At press time, staffers were panicking after Trump locked himself in the bathroom and began cutting his stomach open with a razor blade in an attempt to find the tracking chip he said The New York Times had put in his food.
Courtesy of the onion (http://www.theonion.com)
-
Nice one Jeff. I thought the picture was your PS edit.
-
That would be fine if PBS had an equal number of business programs showing the how fuel suppliers provide jobs and wealth to the country. Since they don't, then they're biased and in the tank for one side. Business bad, nature good.
Same with the EPA. Business bad, nature good. That's why Trump wants to defund them all.
So any television program that specializes in nature is automatically liberal? You're joking, right? You conservatives aren't allowed to enjoy nature too? You're actually saying that programs about nature are intrinsically liberal, even if they only state facts. Wow. That's the part I just can't get past. Facts about nature are liberal, so there must be facts presented about resource extraction and the like (conservative facts, I guess) to balance them. Again, wow. I never realized that facts have a political affiliation dependent on their subject matter.
Do you long for the days of burning rivers and the acrid smell of smog in the air?
-
Ray, I think you are missing the forest for the trees to use an appropriate idiom. Let me try to be clearer about the key issue. It really has nothing to do with biomass increase except for certain crops such as grasses and perhaps trees grown for lumber where biomass is important. For row crops biomass may not be a good thing as we want those crops to orient production to seeds which means they need to focus energy on reproduction (which is what seeds are used for by the plants). If biomass production is reducing seed production that is not a good thing. Additionally, crops such as wheat and corn are carefully bred so that they have standability in adverse weather. If the crop is beaten down by heavy rain or hail then yields are reduced. If my rows of corn are producing lots of biomass but the stalks are too high and somewhat weak that is not a good thing. It's a tricky balance for the plant breeder to optimize growth towards seed production. It may be that enhanced concentrations of CO2 can augment seed production in a way that plant breeders can take advantage of but my reading of the literature is that this is not necessarily a given.
I can't quite believe you are making such an argument, Alan. Do you really think when researches discover that a doubling of CO2 increases the crop yield of wheat or rice, or whatever crop they are studying, they are referring only to the total biomass of the wheat or rice stalk, whilst ignoring any increase, decrease or lack of change in the mass of the edible crop yield?
It's always the yield of the food crop that features in their results. This is why many greenhouse farmers have been injecting CO2 into their greenhouses over many decades, for increased crop yields and increased profits.
At a basic scientific level, where results can be confirmed due to the controlled nature of the environment, whether in a laboratory or a greenhouse, the CO2 fertilization effect can be established with certainty, and with far greater certainty than the degree of any possible change in climate that might be due to current elevated levels of CO2.
However, it is true that growing crops in relatively uncontrolled conditions where one cannot always control the temperature, competing weeds and pests, and extreme weather events, then these other factor will influence crop growth whatever the levels of CO2 are. Temperatures which are higher than optimal for growth of a particular crop might partially or even completely negate any increase in crop yield that might have resulted under more ideal conditions, except with water-stressed plant. Under those conditions the benefits of elevated levels of CO2 are the most productive.
Are you still in denial, Alan? ;D
-
So any television program that specializes in nature is automatically liberal? You're joking, right? You conservatives aren't allowed to enjoy nature too? You're actually saying that programs about nature are intrinsically liberal, even if they only state facts. Wow. That's the part I just can't get past. Facts about nature are liberal, so there must be facts presented about resource extraction and the like (conservative facts, I guess) to balance them. Again, wow. I never realized that facts have a political affiliation dependent on their subject matter.
Do you long for the days of burning rivers and the acrid smell of smog in the air?
I never said nature was liberal. I said PBS presents all their nature programs with emphasis on how evil business is towards nature. They are making a political point in addition to explaining nature that's anti business. They never include the benefits of business. It's one-side and I don't want to pay for biased public broadcasting. From your post, I can tell you'll never understand my point much less agree to it. So why don't we just leave it that we have differing opinions on this.
-
On climate change:
Scientists have discovered as many as 7,000 (methane) gas-filled 'bubbles' expected to explode in Actic regions of Siberia after an exercise involving field expeditions and satellite surveillance
Fascinating stuff, and part of the + Feedbackloop Uncertainty that becomes certain, over time.
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0905-7000-underground-gas-bubbles-poised-to-explode-in-arctic/ (http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0905-7000-underground-gas-bubbles-poised-to-explode-in-arctic/)
Oh crap, now I am on THE LIST, because I read The Siberian Times. Ah well...shrugs ;)
-
Trump's cut to flood map program could trigger insurance rate hikes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-idUSKBN16R2FT
Yet another debatable plan by Trump.
Guess who's going to pay for the effects in the end ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
File this under "techniques learned from communist dictators"
com·mis·sar
ˈkäməˌsär/Submit
noun
an official of the Communist Party, especially in the former Soviet Union or present-day China and now the Trump administration, responsible for political education and organization.
a head of a government department in the former Soviet Union before 1946.
a strict or prescriptive figure of authority.
"our academic commissars"
(bold text added by me)
White House installs political aides at Cabinet agencies to be Trump’s eyes and ears (https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/white-house-installs-political-aides-at-cabinet-agencies-to-be-trumps-eyes-and-ears/2017/03/19/68419f0e-08da-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.479b17353b05&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1)
The political appointee charged with keeping watch over Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides has offered unsolicited advice so often that after just four weeks on the job, Pruitt has shut him out of many staff meetings, according to two senior administration officials.
At the Pentagon, they’re privately calling the former Marine officer and fighter pilot who’s supposed to keep his eye on Defense Secretary Jim Mattis “the commissar,” according to a high-ranking defense official with knowledge of the situation. It’s a reference to Soviet-era Communist Party officials who were assigned to military units to ensure their commanders remained loyal.
Most members of President Trump’s Cabinet do not yet have leadership teams in place or even nominees for top deputies. But they do have an influential coterie of senior aides installed by the White House who are charged — above all — with monitoring the secretaries’ loyalty, according to eight officials in and outside the administration.
This shadow government of political appointees with the title of senior White House adviser is embedded at every Cabinet agency, with offices in or just outside the secretary’s suite. The White House has installed at least 16 of the advisers at departments including Energy and Health and Human Services and at some smaller agencies such as NASA, according to records first obtained by ProPublica through a Freedom of Information Act request.
These aides report not to the secretary, but to the Office of Cabinet Affairs, which is overseen by Rick Dearborn, a White House deputy chief of staff, according to administration officials. A top Dearborn aide, John Mashburn, leads a weekly conference call with the advisers, who are in constant contact with the White House.
So, the plan is to instill loyalty by the use of fear rather than earning it...
Trump is gonna "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" whether you like it or not!
-
How Americans Think About Climate Change (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)
Interesting graphs representing what Americans think about climate change...
Americans overwhelmingly believe that global warming is happening, and that carbon emissions should be scaled back. But fewer are sure that the changes will harm them personally. New data released by Yale researchers (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/) gives the most detailed view yet of public opinion on global warming.
Americans want to restrict carbon emissions from coal power plants. The White House and Congress may do the opposite.
National average: 69%
(sorry, can't get the text to format correctly)
Percentage of adults per congressional district who support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
(https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/03/10/2017-03-yale-climate-opinion-maps/7a00bba33eb8e39385594239d91b74a3dcb3e118/co2-Large.png)
-
I can't quite believe you are making such an argument, Alan. Do you really think when researches discover that a doubling of CO2 increases the crop yield of wheat or rice, or whatever crop they are studying, they are referring only to the total biomass of the wheat or rice stalk, whilst ignoring any increase, decrease or lack of change in the mass of the edible crop yield?
I've taken a look at a fair amount of the literature on this and it's inconclusive regarding row crops.
[qutoe]It's always the yield of the food crop that features in their results. This is why many greenhouse farmers have been injecting CO2 into their greenhouses over many decades, for increased crop yields and increased profits.[/quote] Greenhouse or hydroponic gardening are not the real world that farmers confront. I don't think I have ever questioned whether increased CO2 levels enhance greenhouse levels.
[qutoe]At a basic scientific level, where results can be confirmed due to the controlled nature of the environment, whether in a laboratory or a greenhouse, the CO2 fertilization effect can be established with certainty, and with far greater certainty than the degree of any possible change in climate that might be due to current elevated levels of CO2.[/quote] Again, not the real world where farmers add exogenous nitrates and phosphates to the soil to improve yields.
However, it is true that growing crops in relatively uncontrolled conditions where one cannot always control the temperature, competing weeds and pests, and extreme weather events, then these other factor will influence crop growth whatever the levels of CO2 are. Temperatures which are higher than optimal for growth of a particular crop might partially or even completely negate any increase in crop yield that might have resulted under more ideal conditions, except with water-stressed plant. Under those conditions the benefits of elevated levels of CO2 are the most productive.
thank you for finally acknowledging that nature is indeed different'
Are you still in denial, Alan? ;D
No more than you are.
-
...com·mis·sar...
Or, as they were affectionately known as "politcom" (political commissar) ;)
P.S. To tell you the truth, the moment I heard about Trump's appointees, politcoms came to my mind.
-
From the Atlantic (a left leaning but accurate media source)
The Atlantic is NOT a left-leaning publication. I have always viewed it as slightly on the conservative side of moderate, but as you say it is accurate, and also presents in-depth, thoughtful, and perceptive articles, which sets it apart from so many right-wing publications that it may seem liberal to some.
-
Trump's cut to flood map program could trigger insurance rate hikes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-idUSKBN16R2FT
Yet another debatable plan by Trump.
Guess who's going to pay for the effects in the end ...
Cheers,
Bart
Why would an European concern themselves with such minutiae of government spending in America. 99.99% of Americans could care less about $190M deduction in federal spending for flood maps. It seems like you're just doing another "hit" on Trump. OK. We already know you don't like him. But flood maps???? Well, you are Dutch and know a lot about dikes, so maybe it's a big interest of yours.
In any case, since this effects how insurance companies figure out what to charge their customers, let them pay for the research and maps and add it to the cost of the premiums for those people who foolishly choose to live in flood zones. The bigger point is the government is going broke, well is broke. Why should all taxpayers be hit for maps that only effect certain people and whose cost should be paid for by private industry?
-
By the way, private industry does a better job then government. I've looked at the FEMA maps and also their 24K topo maps that have not be updated since the flood. (pun intended) Now check your smart phone and Google maps. Those all are updated regularly, extremely accurate, and even have pictures of every main street from street level. All done with private funds supplied by businesses who need the information to sell to their customers. Same with flood maps. If government stopped doing all sorts of things that business would like, entrepreneurs would start companies and provide better information at no cost to the government. Who would you buy a book from to learn about Photoshop and printing? The government or Schewe? Government should stick to making war and treaties and leave the rest of us alone.
-
This is all part of the swamp Trump and Bannon wants to drain. The incestuous relationship where elite business and politicians and lobbyists conspire to help each other. Crony capitalism. The big boys give money to the election campaigns and then get free subsidies like maps, and subsidized payments for electric cars call bought by rich guys who could afford it. The middle class pays for it. That's why they are trying to destroy Trump and Bannon. Not because of Russia or false charges of racism. But because they want to drain the swamp, get rid of things the way they are that benefits the elite class at the expense of the middle class and poor. Who went to jail for the 2008 recession and phony business and bank deals? If Sanders was doing these things, many of you would be supporting what Trump is doing. If Hillary was elected, the swamp would remain as is as that where the Clintons operate. Don't you get it?
-
Why would an European concern themselves with such minutiae of government spending in America. 99.99% of Americans could care less about $190M deduction in federal spending for flood maps. It seems like you're just doing another "hit" on Trump. OK. We already know you don't like him. But flood maps???? Well, you are Dutch and know a lot about dikes, so maybe it's a big interest of yours.
I was thinking of all the folks who are affected by flooding. It's obvious you don't care about anybody else besides yourself.
In any case, since this effects how insurance companies figure out what to charge their customers, let them pay for the research and maps and add it to the cost of the premiums for those people who foolishly choose to live in flood zones.
It doesn't occur to you that that data is useful for urban and infrastructure planning? Government could (I'm not saying should) also consider selling the data to commercial parties, instead of the other way around. It could also be more efficient if the effort does not have to be duplicated by competing companies. It also allows others to verify whether Insurance companies are not conning the public parties involved, and create a more level playing field for all.
The bigger point is the government is going broke, well is broke.
Mainly due to selfish war efforts, inefficiencies, and a (homegrown) financial/banking cricis that also was exported, for the rest of the world to enjoy. Not due to floodmaps.
Why should all taxpayers be hit for maps that only effect certain people and whose cost should be paid for by private industry?
A very narrow-minded view on how one could solve such things, but that's what you get by only trusting private industry, and never considering a higher level solution. That's part of the problem, the dogmatic view where thinking has stopped.
And indeed, we do (out of necessity) have a lot of experience with water-management, and we sell some of that know-how and experience and how to apply it locally and manage cost. Parts are organized at a government level, and parts in cooperation with private industry. Working together works better than fighting each other every step of the way, or leaving it entirely to private enterprise, is our experience over the centuries.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why would an European concern themselves with such minutiae of government spending in America. 99.99% of Americans could care less about $190M deduction in federal spending for flood maps. It seems like you're just doing another "hit" on Trump. OK. We already know you don't like him. But flood maps???? Well, you are Dutch and know a lot about dikes, so maybe it's a big interest of yours.
In any case, since this effects how insurance companies figure out what to charge their customers, let them pay for the research and maps and add it to the cost of the premiums for those people who foolishly choose to live in flood zones. The bigger point is the government is going broke, well is broke. Why should all taxpayers be hit for maps that only effect certain people and whose cost should be paid for by private industry?
Alan,
Private casualty insurers do not provide flood insurance (read your policy!!!). This is covered by Federal insurance that you have to proactively purchase. If the flood maps are not updated then the there is no way to know if you are living in a flood zone or not!!!!!
-
This is all part of the swamp Trump and Bannon wants to drain. The incestuous relationship where elite business and politicians and lobbyists conspire to help each other. Crony capitalism. The big boys give money to the election campaigns and then get free subsidies like maps, and subsidized payments for electric cars call bought by rich guys who could afford it.
Why then do we have lots of Goldman Sachs and other private equity investors working in the Trump White House. Do you think that they are looking after middle class people. Do you think the Paul Ryan health insurance proposal with it's incredible tax cuts to the wealthy looks after middle class people? And we haven't even gotten to the tax cut proposal yet which according to the President will be massive. Maybe it will provide more tax breaks to real estate developers.
-
Depending on one's interests, a potentially threatened service:
http://aqicn.org/city/newyork/
The level of detail depends on the type of local measurements.
Airborne Pollution is usually local, CO2 is more of an atmospheric issue (unless measured indoors with poor ventilation).
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Atlantic is NOT a left-leaning publication. I have always viewed it as slightly on the conservative side of moderate, but as you say it is accurate, and also presents in-depth, thoughtful, and perceptive articles, which sets it apart from so many right-wing publications that it may seem liberal to some.
Well, according to Media Bias/Fact Check, The Atlantic has a "LEFT-CENTER BIAS (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/)" (the same let-center bias as PBS News Hour).
That's the irony of the right claiming that the "liberal biased media" is the enemy of the people. But they are happy to allow a right biased media like Fox be the primary source of information to help them form their opinions. Here's the MB/FC RIGHT BIAS (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/) assessment of Fox...
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox (Wikipedia). Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting and promoting the Republican Party and has been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.
And this is what MB/FC said of PBS (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pbs-news-hour/)
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The PBS NewsHour is an American daily evening television news program that is broadcast on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), airing seven nights a week on more than 300 of the public broadcaster’s member stations. As the nation’s first hour-long nightly news broadcast, the program is known for its in-depth coverage of issues and current events (Wikipedia). PBS produces high quality journalism that is sourced and factual. They have a left-center bias in reporting.
And given the massive embarrassment that Fox just endured by having The Judge (Andrew Napolitano) claim that the British spied on Trump for Obama and induced Trump and Spicer to go on TV and reference the Fox reporting as "proof" of the allegation, I'm hoping Fox and Trump have learned a lesson. With Fox I suspect so since the judge has been sidelined indefinitely. In the case of the President, there is no such method of sidelining a president short of impeachment. And given Comey's testimony yesterday, that might not be too far off :~)
That's the irony I find so frustrating...the right seems so limited in their sources of news that when one of the right biased media is so wrong, that it's almost impossible to get them to to accept the actual reality of the facts.
The New Yorker (left biased) had this article WHY FACTS DON’T CHANGE OUR MINDS (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?intcid=popular)
In a new book, “The Enigma of Reason” (Harvard), the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber take a stab at answering this question....
Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.
“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.
Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them.
If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias. Imagine, Mercier and Sperber suggest, a mouse that thinks the way we do. Such a mouse, “bent on confirming its belief that there are no cats around,” would soon be dinner. To the extent that confirmation bias leads people to dismiss evidence of new or underappreciated threats—the human equivalent of the cat around the corner—it’s a trait that should have been selected against. The fact that both we and it survive, Mercier and Sperber argue, proves that it must have some adaptive function, and that function, they maintain, is related to our “hypersociability.”
Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.
The final paragraph, in mentioning all three books that were referenced said:
“The Enigma of Reason,” “The Knowledge Illusion,” and “Denying to the Grave” were all written before the November election. And yet they anticipate Kellyanne Conway and the rise of “alternative facts.” These days, it can feel as if the entire country has been given over to a vast psychological experiment being run either by no one or by Steve Bannon. Rational agents would be able to think their way to a solution. But, on this matter, the literature is not reassuring.
So yeah, The Atlantic is a bit Left-Center biased...but that's ok, the left tends to get their news and information from multiple places and sources so can filter out any bias. Unfortunately the right doesn't tend to rely on multiple sources and are getting most news and info from limited sources that can often be both biased and incorrect but the right doesn't get the advantage of multiple sources of news. Of course, the right will dispute that because it doesn't fit with their world view due to confirmation bias.
To the right, the left is wrong and only the right can be right.
-
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17353207_1294654097281465_6200023958832633080_n.jpg?oh=c5b4805d8632d334d4975c2569addc52&oe=596E2222)
EEEEEK!
The thought of Trump NAKED is a very, VERY scary thought!
How long will the GOP stand by and let this clown ruin the country?
-
... To the right, the left is wrong and only the right can be right.
And vice versa, Jeff.
What you posted above (quotes) is fair and square, except it is applicable to both sides of the debate, not just the right.
-
... How long will the GOP stand by and let this clown ruin the country?
Here is where are I am confused... initially, it looked like Trump hijacked the GOP. But today, it looks like GOP hijacked Trump. So far, he's been enacting a typical GOP playbook, and very little of what he was saying during the campaign that made him sound (then) as a not-so-traditional Republican.
-
Here is where are I am confused... initially, it looked like Trump hijacked the GOP. But today, it looks like GOP hijacked Trump.
It's pretty clear to me...Trump is not a politician and is being manipulated by the GOP on one hand and Bannon/Miller on the other hand. He doesn't have a friggin' clue how to govern because his only experience is running a relatively small, closely held corp where he was emperor and could do anything he wanted. Given the reality of being President, he's flailing about and getting outplayed by everybody including Fox News :~(
In any event, he's highly unlikely to fulfill enough of his promises to satisfy the people who voted for him and the GOP will face a midterm backlash not unlike the backlash the Democrats faced in 2010.
From Trumpgret on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Trumpgret/)
(http://i.imgur.com/xUgEUaw.jpg)
Trump voter James Walker, 31, from Nashville, says: "This is the first step: showing up and being honest."
-
Here is where are I am confused... initially, it looked like Trump hijacked the GOP. But today, it looks like GOP hijacked Trump. So far, he's been enacting a typical GOP playbook, and very little of what he was saying during the campaign that made him sound (then) as a not-so-traditional Republican.
I don't think we really know the answer yet. He has kept some of his promises through executive orders but he continues to make promises he can't possibly keep. Last night he was on the road again this time to Kentucky where he again railed against Obama care in a state where 10% of the populace have Obamacare policies and the level of uninsured went from over 20% to 7%; what happens to all these folks? He said how his new policies were going to put all the coal miners back to work. Don't know what they will be doing instead of mining coal as automation of mining and the switch to natural gas among the utilities have consigned manual coal mining into a death spiral. We still don't know if the GOP Congress can pass a replacement to Obamacare and tax reform is even on the table yet. We do have a proposed budget that like every other President's proposed budget is DOA in Congress (one of the great pleasures I used to have when I was not among the 94 million American out of work was doing the budget analysis for HHS every January and I can tell you that through Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama that none of their sweeping proposals were ever accepted by Congress). He did manage to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court who appears quite competent so I guess that's a plus.
-
The Telegraph (Right-Center Bias (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/)) mentioned this...
'This tweet didn't age well': Kellyanne Conway mocked for message about FBI probes as Trump inquiry confirmed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/tweet-didnt-age-kellyanne-conway-mocked-message-fbi-probes-trump/)
Kellyanne Conway has faced ridicule on social media for a tweet she posted five months ago that poked fun at Hillary Clinton's email saga.
The senior adviser to Donald Trump took a swipe at the Democratic presidential nominee on Twitter shortly before the election when James Comey, the FBI director, announced new emails were being investigated.
The new trove, which was found on the laptop of the husband of Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide, revived the scandal three months after the FBI announced after an 11 month inquiry that criminal charges were not warranted.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/03/21/conway-tweet-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqFOgdDOZBSSpUpWf9Rnp5s2AQ-GUH_N_Muve-_1yetwM.png)
So, let that sink in...the FBI is investigating Donald Trump's Presidential campaign for possible collusion with the Russians on impacting the 2016 election. So, ok...I guess there's only one overall Trump investigation by the FBI but that one investigation is sweeping up a lot of people...
-
I was thinking of all the folks who are affected by flooding. It's obvious you don't care about anybody else besides yourself.
It doesn't occur to you that that data is useful for urban and infrastructure planning? Government could (I'm not saying should) also consider selling the data to commercial parties, instead of the other way around. It could also be more efficient if the effort does not have to be duplicated by competing companies. It also allows others to verify whether Insurance companies are not conning the public parties involved, and create a more level playing field for all.
Mainly due to selfish war efforts, inefficiencies, and a (homegrown) financial/banking cricis that also was exported, for the rest of the world to enjoy. Not due to floodmaps.
A very narrow-minded view on how one could solve such things, but that's what you get by only trusting private industry, and never considering a higher level solution. That's part of the problem, the dogmatic view where thinking has stopped.
And indeed, we do (out of necessity) have a lot of experience with water-management, and we sell some of that know-how and experience and how to apply it locally and manage cost. Parts are organized at a government level, and parts in cooperation with private industry. Working together works better than fighting each other every step of the way, or leaving it entirely to private enterprise, is our experience over the centuries.
Cheers,
Bart
I appreciate that your country requires national involvement as it truly is an existential situation in the Netherlands. The problem in America with the government subsidizing insurance, is that it's rich people that are mainly supported. Beach and river locations are prime real estate fetching the highest price from the richest people around. By subsiding, the government encourages people to build in flood zones. Also since they will always get bailed out in case of flood, it encourages building without taking better measures for protecting their homes. Why should the public bail out rich people when the next Hurricane comes through? They can afford the insurance on their own. Flood program is $24 billion in debt. Additionally, government subsidization distorts the marketplace and raises the price of real estate. Middle class people and the poor are subsidizing the rich. How's that fair? How is that selfish on my part?
I do agree with your alternate suggestion that if the government has to do the surveys anyway for urban planning, military etc., then the insurance companies and others should reimburse the government if it uses the data and maps.
-
Why then do we have lots of Goldman Sachs and other private equity investors working in the Trump White House. Do you think that they are looking after middle class people. Do you think the Paul Ryan health insurance proposal with it's incredible tax cuts to the wealthy looks after middle class people? And we haven't even gotten to the tax cut proposal yet which according to the President will be massive. Maybe it will provide more tax breaks to real estate developers.
AG: Trump's Cabinet Secretaries are going to follow his ideas like any President's cabinet. He's the Boss. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin told G20 to forget climate control and protectionism is not off the table. Those are Trump's ideas. Regarding Goldman Sachs, we want people who have experience and know how to execute whether they have been generals or CEO's. He doesn't hire college professors and other "thinkers" who don't know how to negotiate and will be walked on. They have had to have proved their mettle.
If anything is going to get the economy moving it's reducing taxes for businesses. The increase in jobs and pay increase will help all workers. Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton did it. With the economy getting better, the lower business tax will be offset by increasing tax revenues from overall increased business. That happened under Reagan. I didn't check the others.
-
Well, according to Media Bias/Fact Check, The Atlantic has a "LEFT-CENTER BIAS (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/)" (the same let-center bias as PBS News Hour).
That's the irony of the right claiming that the "liberal biased media" is the enemy of the people. But they are happy to allow a right biased media like Fox be the primary source of information to help them form their opinions. Here's the MB/FC RIGHT BIAS (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/) assessment of Fox...
And this is what MB/FC said of PBS (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pbs-news-hour/)
And given the massive embarrassment that Fox just endured by having The Judge (Andrew Napolitano) claim that the British spied on Trump for Obama and induced Trump and Spicer to go on TV and reference the Fox reporting as "proof" of the allegation, I'm hoping Fox and Trump have learned a lesson. With Fox I suspect so since the judge has been sidelined indefinitely. In the case of the President, there is no such method of sidelining a president short of impeachment. And given Comey's testimony yesterday, that might not be too far off :~)
That's the irony I find so frustrating...the right seems so limited in their sources of news that when one of the right biased media is so wrong, that it's almost impossible to get them to to accept the actual reality of the facts.
The New Yorker (left biased) had this article WHY FACTS DON’T CHANGE OUR MINDS (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?intcid=popular)
The final paragraph, in mentioning all three books that were referenced said:
So yeah, The Atlantic is a bit Left-Center biased...but that's ok, the left tends to get their news and information from multiple places and sources so can filter out any bias. Unfortunately the right doesn't tend to rely on multiple sources and are getting most news and info from limited sources that can often be both biased and incorrect but the right doesn't get the advantage of multiple sources of news. Of course, the right will dispute that because it doesn't fit with their world view due to confirmation bias.
To the right, the left is wrong and only the right can be right.
It's true that Fox is one of the few right biased media. That's the point I've been making. Most people are exposed to left-biased media like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. Most of the press vote for Democrats, around 90%. So their reporting is biased. But these are all private owned and they can say whatever they want. However, PBS is public. It's agenda is on the left. It should not have an agenda and should be fair and balanced. Since it isn't, and the Republicans it opposes are in charge, they should stop funding. Why should conservatives and libertarians pay for public news media that supports liberal views? We can watch the liberal BBC and let the Brits pay for it.
-
I don't think we really know the answer yet. He has kept some of his promises through executive orders but he continues to make promises he can't possibly keep. Last night he was on the road again this time to Kentucky where he again railed against Obama care in a state where 10% of the populace have Obamacare policies and the level of uninsured went from over 20% to 7%; what happens to all these folks? He said how his new policies were going to put all the coal miners back to work. Don't know what they will be doing instead of mining coal as automation of mining and the switch to natural gas among the utilities have consigned manual coal mining into a death spiral. We still don't know if the GOP Congress can pass a replacement to Obamacare and tax reform is even on the table yet. We do have a proposed budget that like every other President's proposed budget is DOA in Congress (one of the great pleasures I used to have when I was not among the 94 million American out of work was doing the budget analysis for HHS every January and I can tell you that through Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama that none of their sweeping proposals were ever accepted by Congress). He did manage to nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court who appears quite competent so I guess that's a plus.
Some things he's done that he campaigned on: He's nominated Gorsuch. His issued the travel ban. He's requesting bids from contractors for building the wall. He's requiring all agencies to eliminate two regulations for any one they add. He's directed agencies to streamline regulations. (These his Secretaries will do once in office). He's advanced a budget that decreases spending in the EPA, NEA/PBS, and other government agencies that are part of the "swamp". He directed that appointed officials cannot become lobbyists for 5 years after leaving government, another swamp draining procedure. He approve the two pipeline projects. His budget expands the military. Obamacare replacement is under legislative action. He seriously warned NATO countries that they have to pay more. His Treasury Secretary told G20 that climate control is off the table and he may implement trade protectionism. He sent a carrier fleet through into the South China Sea to warn China. His secretary of State met with China's Xi to pressure them to help with North Korea. I'm sure I missed a few.
How much do you expect him to do? He's only been President two months. Oh, and he got in ten rounds of golf when he wasn't working.
-
Here is where are I am confused... initially, it looked like Trump hijacked the GOP. But today, it looks like GOP hijacked Trump. So far, he's been enacting a typical GOP playbook, and very little of what he was saying during the campaign that made him sound (then) as a not-so-traditional Republican.
Slobodan: See my last post. Also, keep in mind that he can't get exactly everything he wants. He' not a dictator. He has to get Congress, even a Republican one, to go along to pass legislation. So he's has to compromise to make deals, as will Congress. Half a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all.
-
He' not a dictator.
Hum, you sure?
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17362664_1275851195834051_4295031118372412025_n.jpg?oh=dca5af5029a2839a552ffeb942318f5d&oe=59552240)
-
How about threatening members of congress (Rep.) to loose their mandate. About 20 if not more may not agree with his affordable car act.... ?....
Cough cough... affordable care act of course.
Ah ok, Spicer cleared that up, it was a joke, of course. Right.
Next?
-
Half a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all.
That's true, but then it becomes more about which half ...
Especially in a country as divided as the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
-
@ Bart:
Do you get the american FOXnews channel in the Netherlands? I checked in Germany on SKY, not available here.
-
How about threatening members of congress (Rep.) to loose their mandate. About 20 if not more may not agree with his affordable car act.... ?....
Cough cough... affordable care act of course.
Ah ok, Spicer cleared that up, it was a joke, of course. Right.
Next?
Absolutely. The Republican members of Congress are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Trump, Koch brothers at odds over 'Trumpcare' vote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-kochs-idUSKBN16T07D
So they either piss-off Trump ("coming after" them if they do), or they risk losing their financial backing for the re-election.
Well, they created the situation themselves, they'll have to solve it somehow.
The screenplay writers of House of Cards Season 5, are having an easy time coming up with plotlines for the final episodes. I guess they'll already have enough for a season 6 as well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
@ Bart:
Do you get the american FOXnews channel in the Netherlands? I checked in Germany on SKY, not available here.
No, I don't, but there are two smaller Cable companies who do offer the channel here, so I just go with what appears online on their own website and on the internet.
But then looking at Trump's reactions also gives a good idea of what has been aired as news propaganda.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks, just wanted to know. Yeah well, I know the channel, from the years I lived in the US, and to be honest, nothing changed there. It is plain ridiculous.
No, I don't, but there are two smaller Cable companies who do offer the channel here, so I just go with what appears online on their own website and on the internet.
But then looking at Trump's reactions also gives a good idea of what has been aired as news propaganda.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hum, you sure?
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17362664_1275851195834051_4295031118372412025_n.jpg?oh=dca5af5029a2839a552ffeb942318f5d&oe=59552240)
Has absolute power over the judiciary? Trump? NO
Has power to over ride legislative action? Trump? NO
Dictates legislation to the legislative branch? Trump? NO
Can fire legisators and federal judges? Trump? NO
Has power to over ride executive actions and legislative actions of the individual states? Trump? NO
I am no Trump fan, but a dictator he ain't. He may want to be a dictator, but I think he is slowly learning that being PotUS is not as fun as he thought it would me.
-
AG: Trump's Cabinet Secretaries are going to follow his ideas like any President's cabinet. He's the Boss. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin told G20 to forget climate control and protectionism is not off the table. Those are Trump's ideas. Regarding Goldman Sachs, we want people who have experience and know how to execute whether they have been generals or CEO's. He doesn't hire college professors and other "thinkers" who don't know how to negotiate and will be walked on. They have had to have proved their mettle.
With due respect, it is really unclear to me whether the President has any ideas. He seems to flit around depending on what is on Fox and Friends each day. He has said on several occasions both during the campaign and after that his health insurance plan will cover everyone with lower deductibles (thanks to television, we have documentation of this). This is nigh to impossible and the current proposal being considered by the House falls well short of this. Furthermore, I think what you state is quite worrisome if the Cabinet secretaries are going to blindly follow what the President says. Yes, of course they are there to execute his policy but they are also there to offer their best advice.
If anything is going to get the economy moving it's reducing taxes for businesses. The increase in jobs and pay increase will help all workers. Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton did it. With the economy getting better, the lower business tax will be offset by increasing tax revenues from overall increased business. That happened under Reagan. I didn't check the others.
The Reagan tax cut was followed a couple of years later by a huge tax increase; you can look it up. Clinton actually raised taxes and there were a lot of Republicans who said this would cripple the economy. there was more economic expansion under Clinton than under Reagan. Here are the jobs created numbers under the Presidents starting with Carter in 1976:
Term Private Sector Jobs Added (000s)
Carter 9,041
Reagan 1 5,360
Reagan 2 9,357
GHW Bush 1,509
Clinton 1 10,883
Clinton 2 10,085
GW Bush 1 -811
GW Bush 2 414
Obama 1 1,937
Obama 2 9,867
You cannot argue against the data.
-
@ Bart:
Do you get the american FOXnews channel in the Netherlands? I checked in Germany on SKY, not available here.
Count yourself as very lucky!! Just stick to watching football (e.g., soccer); it's far better for the soul (Go Dortmund!!)
-
Has power to over ride legislative action? Trump? NO
The President can veto legislation but Congress, with enough votes, can pass it anyway.
-
Go Dortmund!!
Alan, thanks for the best comment of the entire thread! ;D
-
Count yourself as very lucky!! Just stick to watching football (e.g., soccer); it's far better for the soul (Go Dortmund!!)
LOL Alan! I never was into soccer, not a sausage, but knowing Fox from my time, I agree, I'd rather be damned to watch 100 hours soccer than 1 hour Fox.
Hmm, then again, what a punishment, should be listed on the convention against torture.
-
AP Exclusive: Manafort had plan to benefit Putin government:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_RUSSIA_MANAFORT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I've mentioned before (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=111632.0) that Paul Manafort could be a game changer in the Trump campaign, but this is getting more concrete now.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... You cannot argue against the data.
No, but one can surely argue about attribution (of data) and correlation vs. causality.
For instance, given that the Obama "recovery" is the longest recovery in the history of recoveries, the question is how much of it can be attributed to his (in)actions and how much of it would have happened anyway. You know, recessions and recoveries happen cyclically, and government policies can either help or hurt either or both. I failed to notice a single Obama policy measure that significantly contributed to the recovery.
-
Hum, you sure?...
Jeff, I usually read with interest your posts as they tend to provide a different angle. I might not always agree with your premises, but they are at least an interesting, and sometimes entertaining read.
However, posting such crude, simplistic and inaccurate Internet memes does not do justice to your cause.
-
No, but one can surely argue about attribution (of data) and correlation vs. causality.
For instance, given that the Obama "recovery" is the longest recovery in the history of recoveries, the question is how much of it can be attributed to his (in)actions and how much of it would have happened anyway.
That's correct. But it didn't get worse either, and of course, the fact that he did inherit a mess from his predecessor made it perhaps a bit easier to do better ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
With due respect, it is really unclear to me whether the President has any ideas. He seems to flit around depending on what is on Fox and Friends each day. He has said on several occasions both during the campaign and after that his health insurance plan will cover everyone with lower deductibles (thanks to television, we have documentation of this). This is nigh to impossible and the current proposal being considered by the House falls well short of this. Furthermore, I think what you state is quite worrisome if the Cabinet secretaries are going to blindly follow what the President says. Yes, of course they are there to execute his policy but they are also there to offer their best advice.
The Reagan tax cut was followed a couple of years later by a huge tax increase; you can look it up. Clinton actually raised taxes and there were a lot of Republicans who said this would cripple the economy. there was more economic expansion under Clinton than under Reagan. Here are the jobs created numbers under the Presidents starting with Carter in 1976:
Term Private Sector Jobs Added (000s)
Carter 9,041
Reagan 1 5,360
Reagan 2 9,357
GHW Bush 1,509
Clinton 1 10,883
Clinton 2 10,085
GW Bush 1 -811
GW Bush 2 414
Obama 1 1,937
Obama 2 9,867
You cannot argue against the data.
Trump has a grand strategy. Read my earlier post on the things he's already done to implement it. Like any good CEO, he takes day-to-day advice from his advisers and Cabinet Secretaries. He's given broad directives and let his Secretaries implement them on their own. He's not going to micro-manage them. They will have a lot of authority. He also has to adjust to changing political winds. But he's keeping his eye on the ball. While he's distracting us with his tweets, Russia and tapping phones, he's executing his policies. The hatred of Trump is blinding many to what's he's done and will do. While we're arguing whether CO2 is good or bad for corn production, he's shutting down spending for climate change and taking power away from the EPA.
Job statistics including unemployment rates are not the best measure of the economy. While Obama did add millions of jobs, those were only replacements of the millions of jobs that were lost under Bush due to a recession. A better yardstick would be the Labor Participation rate which measures how many people are working as a per cent of the population. It kept dropping during the entire 8 years of Obama to the lowest percentage since 1972. Less people were working at the end of Obama's administration than at the beginning.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate
Regardless of labor rates, lower taxes always helps an economy. The stock market is already increasing in value anticipating reduced taxes. More money in the hands of people and business allows for more investment. Expanding business adds jobs and more wealth to the country. Of course, other things can happen that could dampen growth such as a recession or war. Let's hope we only get the good.
-
AP Exclusive: Manafort had plan to benefit Putin government:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_RUSSIA_MANAFORT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I've mentioned before (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=111632.0) that Paul Manafort could be a game changer in the Trump campaign, but this is getting more concrete now.
Cheers,
Bart
The article states that Manafort worked on a Russian business project 10 years ago. So?
The article also states: "Manafort worked as Trump's unpaid campaign chairman last year from March until August. Trump asked Manafort to resign after AP revealed that Manafort had orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation until 2014 on behalf of Ukraine's ruling pro-Russian political party."
Nothing in the article indicates any collusion with the Russians by Trump or Manafort to swing the election. Just more fake news by the liberal press.
-
No, but one can surely argue about attribution (of data) and correlation vs. causality.
For instance, given that the Obama "recovery" is the longest recovery in the history of recoveries, the question is how much of it can be attributed to his (in)actions and how much of it would have happened anyway. You know, recessions and recoveries happen cyclically, and government policies can either help or hurt either or both. I failed to notice a single Obama policy measure that significantly contributed to the recovery.
He did do the stimulus but then nothing was possible legislatively after 2010. He appointed the members of the Federal Reserve who with their quantitative easing and purchasing of bonds kept interest rates at a historical low. This is why you saw housing which was in the crapper after the meltdown rebound nicely during the Obama time frame. The key point is that I was responding to Alan Klein's point about tax cuts and correcting a couple of errors. One cannot argue that tax cuts alone spark massive economic growth. there is no correlation in this regard. Arguably one might argue that the tax cuts under Bush 2 inhibited economic growth based on the job statistics that I posted. However, that would be a foolish argument as well.
The US economy is complicated and has lots of moving parts. Unintended consequences are quite common and unpredictable. A grand experiment such as the border adjustment tax that is being discussed has both proponents and opponents but it's safe to say that we really do not know what the impact will be. ONe can do all kinds of economic modeling but as one famous economist once said ".... our profession is really good at predicting the last recession." One needs to sift through a lot of data to make informed decisions and it's tough being an investor these days.
-
Regardless of labor rates, lower taxes always helps an economy. The stock market is already increasing in value anticipating reduced taxes. More money in the hands of people and business allows for more investment. Expanding business adds jobs and more wealth to the country. Of course, other things can happen that could dampen growth such as a recession or war. Let's hope we only get the good.
How can you say this in light of the Reagan and Clinton tax increases? Do you not remember that in the final two years of the Clinton administration there were even budget surpluses that were worrying to Fed Chair Greenspan? Using the stock market as any kind of barometer is foolish. I've been an independent investor all my adult life and don't put any faith at all in what the market tells us. One has to dig deep into 10-K filings to understand what a companies prospects are, not the stock price.
-
...This is why you saw housing which was in the crapper after the meltdown rebound nicely during the Obama time frame...
My house, as well as the whole Chicagoland area, is still about 10% down, compared to the purchase price in 2004.
-
The problem with Trickle Down Economics is that after a while, the middle class gets tired of being trickled on.
-
He did do the stimulus but then nothing was possible legislatively after 2010. He appointed the members of the Federal Reserve who with their quantitative easing and purchasing of bonds kept interest rates at a historical low. This is why you saw housing which was in the crapper after the meltdown rebound nicely during the Obama time frame. The key point is that I was responding to Alan Klein's point about tax cuts and correcting a couple of errors. One cannot argue that tax cuts alone spark massive economic growth. there is no correlation in this regard. Arguably one might argue that the tax cuts under Bush 2 inhibited economic growth based on the job statistics that I posted. However, that would be a foolish argument as well.
The US economy is complicated and has lots of moving parts. Unintended consequences are quite common and unpredictable. A grand experiment such as the border adjustment tax that is being discussed has both proponents and opponents but it's safe to say that we really do not know what the impact will be. ONe can do all kinds of economic modeling but as one famous economist once said ".... our profession is really good at predicting the last recession." One needs to sift through a lot of data to make informed decisions and it's tough being an investor these days.
You don't have to convince my wife. She always thinks spending is good. :)
-
The problem with Trickle Down Economics is that after a while, the middle class gets tired of being trickled on.
Which reminds me of when the British Prime Minister said that socialism works great until you run out of other people's money.
-
The wildly liberal Wall Street Journal is saying Trump's repeated lack of "respect for the truth" is putting him in jeopardy of being viewed as "a fake President".
-
My house, as well as the whole Chicagoland area, is still about 10% down, compared to the purchase price in 2004.
I was only considering new home building and not regional specific real estate prices which as you unfortunately know can be quite fickle. In contrast to your experience, our home never lost value and has increased each year.
-
Sorry about the dead in London. I wonder what the parliamentarians think of Trump now? I guess we'll find out after they come out of hiding from under their chairs.
-
Sorry about the dead in London. I wonder what the parliamentarians think of Trump now? I guess we'll find out after they come out of hiding from under their chairs.
?
-
I was only considering new home building and not regional specific real estate prices which as you unfortunately know can be quite fickle. In contrast to your experience, our home never lost value and has increased each year.
My resale house that I bought 3 1/2 years ago supposedly went up 15% in value. But you what? None of this means anything. There's another bubble in real estate. Not as great as 2008 but large enough to see a big decrease if we're hit with a recession. The problem is people have been putting their money in real estate and stocks because you can't make anything anywhere else. So too much money chasing these things have pushed the prices up causing a distortion in the market. Of course it will be worse in some areas and better in others. This is a retirement place for us so I'm not going to worry about it.
-
My resale house that I bought 3 1/2 years ago supposedly went up 15% in value.
15% increase in 3 1/2 years is pretty good, or not so bad - depending how you look at it. However, the recent home prices in Canada, especially in the big cities, are insane.
- The average price of a single-family home in suburban Toronto jumped by $108,000 in a month
- Average price of a detached home in Toronto is now more than $1.5 million
- Average price of homes sold in the Greater Toronto Area last month rose 27.7 per cent over last year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/news/toronto-house-prices/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/09/foreign-buyer-tax-ontario_n_15268576.html
-
However, posting such crude, simplistic and inaccurate Internet memes does not do justice to your cause.
Hum...what checkmarks were inaccurate in your eyes? I agree it was crude and simplistic but I think it's appropriate since Trump is, himself both crude and simplistic...right?
So how's this for an internet meme?
(http://www.itfarrag.com//Files/Articles/2016_09/79087_Top.jpg)
Guess who is under an active FBI Counterintelligence investigation...
Let’s Revisit All Those Times Trump Surrogates Said You Can’t Elect Someone Under FBI Investigation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-versus-hillary-fbi-investigation_us_58d01a73e4b0ec9d29de2c1e)
And so it came to pass on Monday, during the House intelligence committee’s hearings, that FBI director James Comey confirmed the veracity of the most-speculated-upon rumor in Washington: The agency is ― as numerous anonymous insiders have insisted to the press over the past few months ― investigating Russian-led efforts to “interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” And what’s more, this probe “includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
Ironic that America ended up electing a candidate who was and is still under FBI investigation and the candidate who lost is no longer under investigation. That kinda sucks, huh?
-
Following up on the internet meme theme comes this...
Trump Lawyers Swipe at Teen Over Cat Website (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/trump-lawyers-swipe-at-teen-cat-website-983518)
"I really just want people to be aware that this is a president who's clearly more concerned about what people think of him than doing things of substance," says the 17-year-old behind the site.
From viral videos to scores of memes, it's no secret cats dominate the internet — but President Donald Trump's legal team apparently wasted no time bearing its claws for a fight with a teenager over one kitten-centric website.
Lucy, the 17-year-old behind kittenfeed.com, tells The Hollywood Reporter she's received a cease and desist letter over the site — which allows users to virtually scratch at four photos of Trump's head using a cat's paws. The website launched in February, and within its first few weeks only had about 1,200 visitors, but it was enough to catch the attention of the White House.
(http://cdn2.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/scale_crop_768_433/2017/03/trump_cat_-_screengrab_-_h_2017.jpg)
I played it last nite and it was fun to put realistic looking scratches on Trump's faces...therapeutic it was. Sadly, kittenfeed.com (http://www.kittenfeed.com/) isn't working now :~(
-
One more for the nite...
Belief in conspiracies largely depends on political identity (https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden/)
(and before you ask, the YouGov/Economist Poll was sponsored by The Economist (http://www.economist.com/) is rated as a Least-Biased media source according to Media Bias/Fact Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/))
Belief in conspiracy theories depends largely on which side of the spectrum you fall on
Sometimes it seems that Americans will believe anything. And what we know as true or not true these days can depend on our political point of view. But there are many of us who are willing to give at least some credence to the possibility that a claim might be true.
At least that seems to be the case in the latest Economist/YouGov Poll. One of the most notorious internet rumors of the 2016 presidential campaign, that there was a pedophile ring in the Clinton campaign, with code words embedded in the hacked emails of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, is seen as “probably” or “definitely” true by more than a third of American adults. The poll was conducted after an armed North Carolina man tried to “self-investigate” the claim by going to the District of Columbia pizza restaurant that was alleged to be the center of the ring earlier this month and found nothing. But even afterwards only 29% are sure the allegation is “definitely” not true.
(Sorry, the sizes are pretty big)
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-12-27/kathy1.png)
So, 87% of Clinton voters thing Russia hacked emails to help Trump while 80% of Trump voters don't.
Once a story is believed, it also seems to stay believed. Donald Trump may have proclaimed that President Obama was born in the United States (having doubted that for years), but half of his supporters still think that it is at least probably true that the President was born in Kenya. And in the U.S. as a whole, a majority believes that in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that the U.S. never found.
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-12-27/kathy2.png)
Wait, 36% still think Obama was born in Kenya, 53% thinks there were WMDs in Iraq and about 1 in 3 still think vaccines have been shown to cause autism.
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-12-27/kathy3.png)
Yeah, 75% of Clinton voters don't think millions of illegal votes were cast but 62% of Trump voters still do.
You can read the entire The Economist/YouGov Poll PDF (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ljv2ohxmzj/econTabReport.pdf). Note: this is from December 17 - 20, 2016 - 1376 US Adults before the recent news...
-
...I played it last nite and it was fun to put realistic looking scratches on Trump's faces...therapeutic it was...
Realistic? You mean blood flowing down his face? Yeek! That's violence.
Ok, let's try something less violent: During Obama presidency, someone builds a web site with four Obama images and a basket of bananas, so that site visitors can feed him. Cute, no? No violence. Would you equally enjoy playing it, with therapeutic effects? Or lament a cease and desist order?
-
Realistic? You mean blood flowing down his face? Yeek! That's violence.
Ok, let's try something less violent: During Obama presidency, someone builds a web site with four Obama images and a basket of bananas, so that site visitors can feed him. Cute, no? No violence. Would you equally enjoy playing it, with therapeutic effects? Or lament a cease and desist order?
::) >:(:o
-
Cute, no?
Hitting Trump's face with a car's paw isn't racist...
-
Hitting Trump's face with a car's paw isn't racist...
Not racist, but also not heroic or gentlemanly - with a car or a cat
-
Not racist, but also not heroic or gentlemanly - with a car or a cat
I never claimed the site was heroic or gentlemanly...I said it was fun and therapeutic. :-)
BTW the site seems to be back up.
-
Hitting Trump's face with a car's paw isn't racist...
Precisely!
-
Precisely!
Or as a comedian (I didn't catch his name) said (something like),
"This is what it feels like when you get grabbed by a pussy ..."
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's a good one, Bart
-
"... get grabbed by a pussy ..."
:-)
Revenge of a 17yr old girl!
-
Trump got approval for his hotel in Washington. Whether you like Trump's policies or not, we can't destroy successful people's businesses when they become president. We should encourage people who have a lifetime of experience to want to bring that experience to government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/us/politics/trump-hotel-washington-lease.html
-
Trump got approval for his hotel in Washington.
What a shock...Kevin M. Terry of the GSA says his boss, the President of the United States being president doesn't violate the lease.
Steven L. Schooner, a former federal government contracting officer and a lawyer who is helping represent the restaurant owners, said that even with the ruling, the conflict of interest still existed, as Mr. Trump was both the landlord, in essence, and the tenant.
“The contracting officers’ decision favors the president, who, in effect, is his supervisor,” said Mr. Schooner, who is also a professor specializing in federal procurement law at George Washington University. “We want the public to have confidence in the integrity of the government, and this smacks of cronyism.”
The hotel has also become a target of criticism because, after Mr. Trump’s election, it marketed itself to foreign government officials, urging them to hold their events there.
Critics have suggested that Mr. Trump might be violating a provision in the Constitution that bars federal officials from taking payments or gifts from foreign governments, and he is being sued over the provision in federal court.
Mr. Trump has said that he intends to donate to the United States Treasury any profits at his hotels from foreign government payments.
Trump has also said he would not accept payment for being president...that he wouldn't keep any profits that it made by renting hotel rooms and banquet halls to foreign governments and that the committee that raised a record $90 million for Trump's inauguration pledged that, after running a no-frills celebration, the remaining funds would be given to charity.
So, how's that worked out?
Trump’s camp made three big promises to donate money to charity. What happened? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-camp-made-three-big-promises-to-donate-money-to-charity-what-happened/2017/03/17/7c9ebaec-0a72-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?utm_term=.89841fabb69a)
In all three cases, these pledges of generosity seemed designed to allay a concern about Trump expressed by some critics — that this wealthy president, who had refused to relinquish ownership of his businesses, might use his public office to enrich himself or his friends.
But nearly two months into the Trump presidency, little information has been released to show how, or if, those promises are being kept.
On Friday, for instance, the Trump Organization said it would not make its donations until the end of each calendar year. A spokeswoman provided few specifics about how the amount would be calculated.
Earlier in the week, the White House seemed to acknowledge that Trump has been keeping his monthly paycheck. He still intends to give the money away at year’s end, said press secretary Sean Spicer, but Trump has not yet chosen a charity to receive it.
The Trump inaugural committee has provided no details about what it plans to donate.
If “you have promised to take steps that would at least lessen the appearance of impropriety, and then you don’t take those steps, it would affect my evaluation of him,” said Erik Jensen, a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland who has studied conflict-of-interest rules.
But hey, don't take Trump "literally" (in air quotes) take him, uh, figuratively as in ya better figure if his lips are moving, he's lying. But hey, he don't mean anything by lying, his just negotiating with the truth and the truth lost. Very interesting and telling article in Time today...
Can President Trump Handle the Truth? (http://time.com/4710614/donald-trump-fbi-surveillance-house-intelligence-committee/?xid=homepage)
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/truth-final-cover.jpg?w=280)
Ya gotta read this to believe it.
Ultimately, democracy needs facts to allow for public debate and provide a check on abuses of power. "Truth has a despotic character," philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote in a 1968 essay on the subject. "It is therefore hated by tyrants who rightly fear the competition of a coercive force they cannot monopolize." Although Trump is a tyrant only in the minds of his most fevered critics, he often talks like one. "Any negative polls are fake news," he tweeted in his third week on the job. The Gallup daily tracking poll of Trump's approval fell below 40% after the release of his Obamacare replacement bill.
With time, Trump may find he has committed himself to a strategy that will deteriorate with reuse, because with each passing month the American people will be gathering their own data on his habits and tactics, and what they yield. They will decide whether it's true, as Trump has promised, that health care costs are lower and everyone has wonderful insurance. They will fact-check his pledge of millions of new manufacturing jobs. They will see whether their incomes rise and their taxes fall, whether Mexico pays for a giant wall. "In the end, Presidents aren't allowed to get away with excuses," explains Bill Galston, a presidential scholar who worked in the Clinton White House. "They pay a price for the promises they make." This is a truth that no one yet has been able to tweet away.
Before he got off the phone, I tried one more time to get Trump to answer a question about the risk to his reputation caused by false and ever changing utterances. Once again, he would not accept the premise. "Hey, look," he said. "I can't be doing so badly, because I'm President and you're not." As a factual matter, the last part of this statement is indisputably true. And with that, he graciously said goodbye and went back to running the affairs of the most powerful country in the world.
-
Whether you like Trump's policies or not, we can't destroy successful people's businesses when they become president.
Hum, ya sure that Trump is successful? Yeah, he's got a lot of money (less this year SAD: DONALD TRUMP DROPS 220 SPOTS IN ANNUAL BILLIONAIRE RANKING (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/donald-trump-net-worth)) but how did he make it...well he started off with a silver spoon in his mouth from daddy's money but he's done well sometimes and sometimes not and sometimes he simply ripped people off. So yeah Trump in the Whitehouse is worrisome.
DONALD TRUMP'S MANY BUSINESS FAILURES, EXPLAINED (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html)
Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. Call it the art of the bad deal, one created by the arrogance and recklessness of a businessman whose main talent is self-promotion.
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17308744_1430260270359830_2113580094444442936_n.jpg?oh=0802ad13be3c05313300f695f629d195&oe=595560A4)
I think Trump supporters seriously need to reevaluate what they consider a successful businessman. He's a slimedog, he's screwed people over and over to get to where he is today. At some point the facade will fall. He'll get pissed off with the difficulty of governing and leave or get impeached because, well he crooked or worse or he'll have a stroke or heart attack. But he sure is not cut out to be a good president and govern this country...
-
Republican Nunes apologizes over handling of Trump surveillance claim:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-surveillance-idUSKBN16U2FE
House panel seeking more testimony from FBI, NSA chiefs in Russia probe:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-surveillance-nunes-idUSKBN16V21O
It' ain't over till it's over ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Jeff,the election is over. It's ok to stop campaigning.
-
Jeff,the election is over. It's ok to stop campaigning.
You're talking to the wrong guy - it's Trump who keeps on and on about the election. As you say, it's over - get on and be President.
-
Does Trump have a driver's license? If he tried to be a truck driver he would loose his license in a minute (judging by his antics). Trying to be a president, but is going to loose it within 6 months (my bet).
Time article is worth reading, but of course one needs to be able to read first. So not many trumpists will see it.
-
Interesting that the President telephoned the two major 'fake news' outlets, the Washington Post and The New York Times, after the decision was made to pull the Republican healthcare bill because they lacked the votes to pass it.
-
Wow...after 7 years of plotting and planning the GOP punts on healthcare even with the full help and support of the "art of the deal" Donald J Trump. Heck the House and Senate couldn't even repass bills they had already passed that Obama vetoed.
So if the GOP was thinking Trump was the great white hope, well not so much...
Trump's approval? 37%
Heck Obamacare is polling at 53%.
Trump's rating keeps going down while ACA keeps going up. Maybe electing Trump was a huge mistake...let's blame it all on the Russians (who are involved)
-
You're talking to the wrong guy - it's Trump who keeps on and on about the election. As you say, it's over - get on and be President.
Good point. But I actually think he's stopped. At least I haven't heard him say anything about popular voters or crowds for awhile. He seems to be focusing on being president. Like I said before, he's a quick learner.
-
Wow...after 7 years of plotting and planning the GOP punts on healthcare even with the full help and support of the "art of the deal" Donald J Trump. Heck the House and Senate couldn't even repass bills they had already passed that Obama vetoed.
So if the GOP was thinking Trump was the great white hope, well not so much...
Trump's approval? 37%
Heck Obamacare is polling at 53%.
Trump's rating keeps going down while ACA keeps going up. Maybe electing Trump was a huge mistake...let's blame it all on the Russians (who are involved)
The Democrats wanted to keep Obamacare so you would have complained about the Republicans if it was repealed. So why are you complaining now that it wasn't? Are you ever happy?
-
So why are you complaining now that it wasn't? Are you ever happy?
It's probably none of my business, but let me "help" anyway ;)
I don't think Jeff was complaining, to me it sounds more like pointing out a certain level of incompetence.
-
At least I haven't heard him say anything about popular voters or crowds for awhile. He seems to be focusing on being president. Like I said before, he's a quick learner.
Not so much...read the Time article...he tried to relitigate all of his recent lies. Presidential? Naw...
-
So Hillary lied, Obama lied, Trump lied. Heck they're politicians. Regarding incompetence, the Republicans were blowhards about Obamacare. When it came to put up or shut up, they blew it. All talk. But that wasn't Trump's fault. He really tried to work with them, down to a one on one level. He's willing to get into it unlike Obama. That bodes well for the future. He'll bring Democrats into health care and other legislation in the future. He's interested in making deals and getting things done even if it's only 80% of what he wants. So he'll work with everyone. Unlike Obama, he really likes to work with people. He's hands on, a good trait, and not off in an ivory tower.
-
I get such a kick out of "they all lie, they're politicians", as if the level of lying was equivalent.
Trump stood there at a Republican debate and claimed that he saw a doctor vaccinate a baby using a horse needle in a 2 year baby who later become autistic. That's the intellectual equivalent of claiming that the earth is flat.
It's pathetic.
-
I get such a kick out of "they all lie, they're politicians", as if the level of lying was equivalent.
Trump stood there at a Republican debate and claimed that he saw a doctor vaccinate a baby using a horse needle in a 2 year baby who later become autistic. That's the intellectual equivalent of claiming that the earth is flat.
It's pathetic.
Lies Presidents tell:
Obama: "Benghazi attack on the embassy was caused by a movie." (Hollywood almost awarded it on Oscar for Best Picture.)
Obama: "Under the ACA you'll be able to keep your doctor and your insurance plan. Cost for insurance will go down $2500." (It's a good thing the ex-President will get free medical care.)
Clinton: "There were no classified emails on my private server." (don't worry about it because she bleached her server drives absolutely clean)
Clinton: "I came under sniper fire in Bosnia during my 2008 campaign." (luckily she was wearing body armor under her tan pants suit.
-
Lies Presidents tell:
Really, you want to go there? BTW, Clinton wasn't actually president...almost but the Russians beat her. As for the lies of Presidents, wow, you got two whoppers (although truth be told I'm pretty sure it was Clinton not Obama that blamed Benghazi on the video).
So, compare your paltry list of Lies Presidents tell to Trump...The First 100 Lies: The Trump Team’s Flurry Of Falsehoods (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-administration-lies-100_us_58ac7a0fe4b02a1e7dac3ca6)
(sorry, due to the length of this post, I'll have to split it into 2 posts)
PART ONE
All presidents lie, but lying so brazenly and so frequently about even silly factoids like his golf game has put Trump in his own category. His disregard for the truth is reflected in his top aides, who have inflated easily disproved figures like the attendance at his inauguration and even cited terror attacks that never happened.
The Huffington Post tracked the public remarks of Trump and his aides to compile a list of 100 incidents of egregious falsehoods. Still, it is likely the administration has made dozens of other misleading and exaggerated claims.
1- White House press secretary Sean Spicer falsely claimed the crowd on the National Mall was “largest audience to ever witness an inauguration.” (Jan. 21)
2- Trump falsely claimed that the crowd for his swearing-in stretched down the National Mall to the Washington Monument and totaled more than 1 million people. (Jan. 21)
3- As Trump fondly recalled his Inauguration Day, he said it stopped raining “immediately” when he began his speech. A light rain continued to fall throughout the address. (Jan. 21)
4- During his speech at CIA headquarters, Trump claimed the media made up his feud with the agency. In fact, he started it by comparing the intelligence community to “Nazi Germany.” (Jan. 21)[/li][/list]
5- During his speech at CIA headquarters, Trump repeated the claim that he “didn’t want to go into Iraq.” He told Howard Stern in 2002 that he supported the Iraq War. (Jan. 21)
6- During his speech at CIA headquarters, Trump said he had the “all-time record in the history of Time Magazine. … I’ve been on it for 15 times this year.” Trump had been featured on the magazine a total of 11 times. (Jan. 21)
7- Trump claimed that his inauguration drew 11 million more viewers than Barack Obama’s in 2013. It didn’t, and viewership for Obama’s first inauguration, in 2009, was even higher. (Jan. 22)
8- Spicer said during his first press briefing that there has been a “dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years.” This is false. (Jan. 23)
9- While pushing back against the notion of a rift between the CIA and Trump, Spicer claimed the president had received a “five-minute standing ovation” at the agency’s headquarters. He did not. The attendees were also never asked to sit down. (Jan. 23)
10- Spicer claimed that “tens of millions of people” watched the inauguration online. In fact, about 4.6 million did. (Jan. 23)
11- Trump told CBN News that 84 percent Cuban-Americans voted for him. It’s not clear where Trump got that number. According to the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of Cuban-Americans in Florida voted for him. (Jan. 23)
12- While meeting with congressional leaders, Trump repeated a debunked claim that he only lost the national popular vote because of widespread voter fraud. (Jan. 24)
13- In remarks with business leaders at the White House, Trump said, “I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment. I have received awards on the environment.” There is no evidence that Trump has received such awards. (Jan. 24)
14- In signing an executive memo ordering the construction of the Keystone pipeline, Trump said the project would create 28,000 construction jobs. According to The Washington Post Fact Checker, the pipeline would create an estimated 16,000 jobs, most of which are not construction jobs. (Jan. 25)
15- Spicer said in a press briefing that Trump received more electoral votes than any Republican since Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush won 426 electoral votes in 1988, more than Trump’s 304. (Jan. 24)
16- In remarks he gave at the Homeland Security Department, Trump said Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border patrol agents “unanimously endorsed me for president.” That’s not true. (Jan. 25)
17- Spicer said during a press briefing that a draft executive order on CIA prisons was not a “White House document.” Citing three administration officials, The New York Times reported that the White House had circulated the draft order among national security staff members. (Jan. 25)
18- In an interview with ABC, Trump again claimed he “had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches.” False. (Jan. 25)
19- Trump claimed during an interview with ABC that the applause he received at CIA headquarters “was the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning had won the Super Bowl.” It wasn’t even a standing ovation. (Jan. 25)
20- In an interview with ABC, Trump attacked the Affordable Care Act and said there are “millions of people that now aren’t insured anymore.” Twenty million people have gained health coverage because of the law so far. The estimated 2 million people who did not qualify under the law received waivers that kept the plans going until the end of 2017. (Jan. 25)
21- At the GOP retreat in Philadelphia, Trump claimed he and the president of Mexico “agreed” to cancel their scheduled meeting. Enrique Peña Nieto said he had decided to cancel it. (Jan. 26)
22- At the GOP retreat in Philadelphia, Trump said the national homicide rate was “horribly increasing.” It is down significantly. (Jan. 26)
23- On Twitter, Trump repeated his false claim that 3 million votes were illegal during the election. (Jan. 27)
24- In an interview on “Good Morning America,” Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway said Tiffany Trump, the president’s daughter, had told her she was “not registered to vote in two states.” A local election official confirmed to NBC News twice that the younger Trump indeed was. (Jan. 27)
25- Trump said he predicted the so-called “Brexit” when he was in Scotland the day before the vote. He was actually there the day after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. (Jan. 27)
26- Trump claimed The New York Times lost subscribers “because their readers even like me.” The Times experienced a sharp uptick in subscribers after Election Day. (Jan. 27)
27- Trump claimed two people were fatally shot in Chicago during Obama’s last speech as president. That didn’t happen. (Jan. 27)
28- Trump claimed that under previous administrations, “if you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible.” In fact, almost as many Christian refugees were admitted to the U.S. as Muslim refugees in fiscal year 2016. (Jan. 27)
29- Trump defended the swiftness of his immigration order on the grounds that terrorists would have rushed into the country if he had given the world a week’s notice. Even if terrorists wanted to infiltrate the refugee program or the visa program, they would have had to wait months or even years while being vetted to get into the country. (Jan. 30)
30- The White House maintained that Trump’s immigration order did not apply to green card holders and that was “the guidance from the beginning.” Initially, the White House said the order did include green card holders. (Jan. 30)
31- Trump said his immigration order was “similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” Obama’s policy slowed resettlement of refugees from Iraq, but did not keep them from entering the country. Moreover, it flagged the seven countries included in Trump’s order as places the U.S. considered dangerous to visit. (Jan. 30)
32- Spicer said that “by and large,” Trump has been “praised” for his statement commemorating the Holocaust. Every major Jewish organization, including the Republican Jewish Coalition, criticized it for omitting any specific references to the Jewish people or anti-Semitism. (Jan. 30)
33- A Trump administration official called the implementation of Trump’s travel ban a “massive success story.” Not true ― young children, elderly people and U.S. green card holders were detained for hours. Some were deported upon landing in the U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) even criticized the rollout as “confusing.” (Jan. 30)
34- Spicer equated White House adviser Steve Bannon’s appointment to the National Security Council Principals Committee with Obama adviser David Axelrod attending meetings pertaining to foreign policy. Axelrod, however, never sat on the Principals Committee. (Jan. 30)
35- Spicer said people would have “flooded” into the country with advance notice of Trump’s immigration order. Not true. (Jan. 30)
36- Spicer insisted that only 109 travelers were detained because of Trump’s immigration order. More than 1,000 legal permanent residents had to get waivers before entering the U.S. An estimated 90,000 people in total were affected by the ban. (Jan. 30)
37- Trump tweeted the false claim that “only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning.” (Jan. 30)
38- Trump took credit for cutting $600 million from the F-35 program. But Lockheed Martin already had planned for the cost reductions for the next generation fighter plane. (Jan. 31)
39- Trump accused China of manipulating its currency by playing “the money market. They play the devaluation market, and we sit there like a bunch of dummies.” According to The Washington Post, the United States is no longer being hurt by China’s currency manipulation, and China is no longer devaluing its currency. (Jan. 31)
40- In defending the GOP’s blockade of Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Spicer said no president had ever nominated a justice “so late” in his term. It previously happened three times. (Jan. 31)
41- Spicer repeatedly insisted during a press conference that Trump’s executive order on immigration was “not a ban.” During a Q&A event the night before, however, Spicer himself referred to the order as a “ban.” So did the president. (Jan. 31)
42- White House officials denied reports that Trump told Peña Nieto that U.S. forces would handle the “bad hombres down there” if the Mexican authorities don’t. It confirmed the conversation the next day, maintaining the remark was meant to be “lighthearted.” (Jan. 31)
43- Trump claimed that Delta, protesters and the tears of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) were to blame for the problems over his travel ban. In fact, his administration was widely considered to blame for problems associated with its rollout. (Jan. 31)
44- Trump said the Obama administration “agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia.” The deal actually involved 1,250 refugees. (Feb. 1)
45- Trump said the U.S. “has the most generous immigration system in the world.” Not really. (Feb. 2)
46- Trump said the U.S. was giving Iran $150 billion for “nothing” under the Iranian nuclear deal. The money was already Iran’s to begin with, and the deal blocks Iran from building a nuclear bomb. (Feb. 2)
47- Spicer called a U.S. raid in Yemen “very, very well thought out and executed effort” and described it as a “successful operation by all standards.” U.S. military officials told Reuters the operation was approved “without sufficient intelligence, ground support, or adequate backup preparations.” (Feb. 2)
48- Spicer said that Iran had attacked a U.S. naval vessel, as part of his argument defending the administration’s bellicose announcement that Iran is “on notice.” In fact, a suspected Houthi rebel ship attacked a Saudi vessel. (Feb. 2)
49- In his meeting with union leaders at the White House, Trump claimed he won union households. He actually only won white union households. (Feb. 2)
50- Conway cited the “Bowling Green massacre” to defend Trump’s travel ban. It never happened. (Feb. 3)
END PART ONE
-
BEGIN PART TWO
51- Conway said citing the nonexistent “Bowling Green massacre” to defend Trump’s immigration order was an accidental “slip.” But she had mentioned it twice prior to that interview. (Feb. 3)
52- Trump approvingly shared a story on his official Facebook page which claimed that Kuwait issued a visa ban for five Muslim-majority countries. Kuwait issued a statement categorically denying it. (Feb. 3)
53- Trump claimed people are “pouring in” after his immigration order was temporarily suspended. Travelers and refugees cannot simply rush into the U.S. without extensive and lengthy vetting. (Feb. 5)
54- After a judge halted his immigration ban, Trump claimed that “anyone, even with bad intentions, can now come into the U.S.” Not true. (Feb. 5)
55- Spicer said nationwide protests of Trump are not like protests the tea party held, and called them “a very paid AstroTurf-type movement.” Although Democrats have capitalized on the backlash against Trump by organizing, the massive rallies across dozens of cities across the country ― which in some cases have been spontaneous ― suggests they are part of an organic phenomenon. (Feb. 6)
56- During an interview with Fox News before the Super Bowl, Trump repeated his debunked claim of widespread voter fraud during the presidential election. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Republican and Democratic state officials have said so, as have Trump’s own campaign attorneys. (Feb. 6)
57- During an interview with Fox News before the Super Bowl, Trump repeated his false claim that he has “been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.” (Feb. 6)
58- Conway said she would not appear on CNN’s “State of the Union” because of “family” reasons. CNN, however, said the White House offered Conway as an alternative to Vice President Mike Pence and that the network had “passed” because of concerns about her “credibility.” (Feb. 6)
59- Spicer claimed CNN “retracted” its explanation of why it declined to take Conway for a Sunday show appearance. CNN said it never did so. (Feb. 6)
60- Trump cited attacks in Boston, Paris, Orlando, Florida, and Nice, France, as examples of terrorism the media has not covered adequately. “In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it,” he said at CENTCOM. Those attacks garnered wall-to-wall television coverage, as well as thousands of news articles in print and online. (Feb. 6)
61- The White House released a more expansive list of terrorist attacks it believed “did not receive adequate attention from Western media sources.” Again, the list includes attacks that were widely covered by the media. (Feb. 6)
62- Trump said sanctuary cities “breed crime.” FBI data indicates that crime in sanctuary cities is generally lower than in nonsanctuary cities. (Feb. 6)
63- Trump claimed The New York Times was “forced to apologize to its subscribers for the poor reporting it did on my election win.” The paper has not issued such an apology. (Feb. 6)
64- Trump claimed the murder rate is the highest it’s been in 47 years. The murder rate rose 10.8 percent across the United States in 2015, but it’s far lower than it was 30 to 40 years ago. (Feb. 7)
65- Spicer explained that the delay in repealing Obamacare was a result of the White House wanting to work with Congress. Unlike during the Obama administration, he asserted, the legislature ― not the White House ― was taking the lead on health care. Various congressional committees worked on drafting multiple versions of the bill that would become the Affordable Care Act ― a lengthy process that took over a year. (Feb. 7)
66- Trump accused Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) of misrepresenting “what Judge Neil Gorsuch told him” in response to the president’s attacks against the judiciary. Gorsuch called Trump’s tweets attacking federal judges “demoralizing.” A spokesman for Gorsuch confirmed the judge’s remarks. (Feb. 9)
67- Trump has repeatedly said he doesn’t watch CNN. But he had to in order to see and offer and opinion on the network’s interview with Blumenthal. (Feb. 9)
68- Former national security adviser Michael Flynn has said that phone calls he made to Russia prior to Trump’s inauguration were not related to sanctions. According to a Washington Post report, however, Flynn held private discussions with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, before Trump took office, suggesting that sanctions against Moscow would be eased by the incoming administration. (Feb. 9)
69- Trump took credit for Ford’s decision not to open an auto factory in Mexico and instead expand its Michigan plant. The company said Trump was not responsible for its decision. (Feb. 9)
70- Trump told a room full of politicians that “thousands” of “illegal” voters had been driven into New Hampshire to cast ballots. There is no evidence of such a claim. (Feb. 11)
71- During an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” White House senior policy aide Stephen Miller falsely said the “issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics.” Again, not true. (Feb. 11)
72- Miller cited the “astonishing” statistic that 14 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote. The study the stat is based on has been highly contested. (Feb. 11)
73- Trump said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was “cut off” on CNN for “using the term fake news the describe the network.” The senator was joking and he was not cut off. (Feb. 12)
74- Trump accused the media of refusing to report on “big crowds of enthusiastic supporters lining the road” in Florida. There were a few supporters, but they were vastly outnumbered by hundreds of protesters. (Feb. 12)
75- White House officials told reporters that Flynn decided on his own to resign. However, Spicer said during a press briefing that the president asked Flynn to resign. (Feb. 13)
76- Trump denied in a January interview that he or anyone on his campaign had any contact with Russia prior to the election. However, The New York Times and CNN both reported that Trump campaign officials and associates “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials” before Nov. 8. (Feb. 15)
77- Spicer denied in a daily briefing that anyone on the Trump campaign had had any contact with Russian officials. (Feb. 15)
78- Trump complained he “inherited a mess” upon being elected to office. The stock market is experiencing record highs, the economy is stable and growing, and unemployment is low. (Feb. 16)
79- Trump disputed the notion that his administration is experiencing turmoil, telling reporters it is working like a “fine-tuned machine.” His poorly executed travel ban has been suspended by the courts, a Cabinet nominee was forced to withdraw his nomination, and Trump’s national security adviser resigned after less than four weeks on the job. (Feb. 16)
80- Trump said his 306 Electoral College votes was the biggest electoral votes victory since Ronald Reagan. He actually received 304 electoral votes. Moreover, Obama got 332 votes in 2012. (Feb. 16)
81- Trump said his first weeks in office “represented an unprecedented month of action.” Obama accomplished much more during his first weeks in office. (Feb. 16)
82- Defending himself from charges of hypocrisy on the matter of leaks ― which he frequently celebrated when they pertained to his campaign opposition but now denounces ― Trump said that WikiLeaks does not publicize “classified information.” It does, often anonymously. (Feb. 16)
83- Trump repeated his claim that Hillary Clinton gave 20 percent of American uranium to the Russians in a deal during her tenure as secretary of state. Not true. (Feb. 16)
84- Trump said drugs are “becoming cheaper than a candy bar.” They are not. (Feb. 16)
85- Trump said his administration had a “very smooth rollout of the travel ban.” His immigration caused chaos at the nation’s airports and has been suspended by the courts. (Feb. 16)
86- Trump said the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is in “chaos” and “turmoil.” It is not. (Feb. 16)
87- Flynn lied to FBI investigators in a Jan. 24 interview about whether he discussed sanctions with Russian officials prior to Trump’s inauguration, according to The Washington Post. (Feb. 16)
88- Trump falsely suggested at a Florida rally that Sweden had suffered a terror attack the night before his speech. It had not, and Trump was likely referring to a Fox News segment on crime in Sweden. (Feb. 18)
89- During his Florida rally, Trump repeated his false claim that the United States has already let in thousands of people who “there was no way to vet.” Refugees undergo the most rigorous vetting process of any immigrants admitted to the United States, often waiting upwards of two years to be cleared for entry. (Feb. 18)
90- White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said in a “Fox News Sunday” interview that Trump “has accomplished more in the first 30 days than people can remember.” Obama accomplished much more during his first weeks in office. (Feb. 19)
91- Trump said during his campaign that he would only play golf with heads of state and business leaders, not friends and celebrities like Obama did. Trump has golfed with world leaders like Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Most recently, however, he hit the links with golf pro Rory McIlroy, International Sports Management’s Nick Mullen and his friend Rich Levine. (Feb. 19)
92- A White House spokesperson told reporters that Trump only played a “couple” of holes at his golf resort in Florida. A day later, as reports came out saying the president had played 18 holes with Mcllroy, the White House admitted he played “longer.” (Feb. 19)
93- Trump said the media is “trying to say large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully. NOT!” Sweden’s crime rate has fallen in recent years, and experts there do not think its immigration policies are linked to crime. (Feb. 20)
94- Spicer said Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) asked for a meeting with Trump at the White House. John Weaver, a former campaign aide of the governor, said the president asked for the meeting. (Feb. 21)
95- Vice President Mike Pence called Obamacare a “job killer.” Overall, job growth has been steady since it was signed into law. And the number of unwilling part-time jobs has also gone down, contrary to GOP claims. (Feb. 22)
96- Trump claimed that he negotiated $1 billion in savings to develop two new Boeing Co. jets to serve as the next Air Force One. The Air Force can’t account for that number. (Feb. 22)
97- During a meeting with the nation’s CEOs at the White House, Trump claimed his new economic adviser Gary Cohn “paid $200 million in tax” to take a job at the White House. Cohn didn’t have to pay taxes, he had to sell more than $200 million of Goldman Sachs stock. (Feb. 23)
98- Trump claimed there were “six blocks” worth of people waiting to get into the Conservative Political Action Conference to see him. People filled only three overflow rooms. (Feb. 24)
99- At CPAC, Trump said that Obamacare covers “very few people.” Nearly 20 million people have gotten health insurance under the law. (Feb. 24)
100- At CPAC, Trump said companies like Intel were making business investments in the United States because of his election. The company planned their new investments before the election. (Feb. 24)
END PART TWO
You'll note that the list ends on Feb 24 and doesn't include some of the more recent doozies like Obama wiretapped Trump Tower or that the jobs report may have been false before but were real now.
So...yes, politicians lie...sometimes they don't mean to but time turns them into lier. Trump isn't a politician as this week's healthcare debacle shows. Trump is a con man and a fraud...
Why Lying Is So Easy for Trump (https://newrepublic.com/article/140973/lying-easy-trump)
For New York developers, blatant deception isn't just good for business—it's completely legal.
Political pundits, staggered by Donald Trump’s exaggerated boasts, false promises, and outright lies, have offered various theories for what’s wrong with him. Does he suffer from mental illness? Is he experiencing early-onset dementia? Andrew Sullivan recently argued in New York magazine that Trump’s chronic, stubborn dishonesty—unlike normal political fibbing—is “delusional” and “deranged,” a frightening sign that the president is living in an alternative universe. “There is no anchor any more,” Sullivan writes. “At the core of the administration of the most powerful country on earth, there is, instead, madness.”
But such dramatic theories miss the simplest explanation for Trump’s lying: He’s a real estate developer from New York City. Lying isn’t a personal failure. It’s a business model.
-
The Democrats wanted to keep Obamacare so you would have complained about the Republicans if it was repealed. So why are you complaining now that it wasn't? Are you ever happy?
To be clear, I wasn't all that happy about ACA...but it did do some really good things like eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion–which is a big deal for me since I have preexisting conditions. The GOP bill did a lot of bad things...but I have to ask, do you even know what was in the GOP plan that the GOP couldn't pass?
What's inside the Republican health care bill? (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/24/news/economy/obamacare-repeal-republican-health-care-bill/index.html)
The irony is that it was the conservative group the House Freedom Caucus (AKA Tea Party) that sunk the bill. They refused to accept the compromise bill that then the moderate GOP couldn't stomach.
So, Trump has learned a lesson...being CEO of a closely held inc is not good on the job training for being the leader of the free world.
And the way it looks, moving onto tax reform is gonna be even harder than healthcare because, well, he lost all the saving the GOP healthcare bill would have provided so now he's gonna have to cut even more out of the budget which already is a sore point for the GOP and the next aim of the democratic resistance.
If you would have told me on Jan 20th that the GOP would be scared to repeal and replace the ACA because of the resistance of their hometown constituents town hall meetings I would not have believed that liberals could have shut Trump down so handily...
Just wait till the resistance takes on the Trump budget :~)
-
Trump is so entertaining that I had to take up the Washington Post subscription for a year (it will be enough to see this through). Like to read the funnies first thing in the morning.
Like this article describing his telephone call to WP reporter Robert Costa. A 50-word vocabulary moron trying to run a country????
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/president-trump-called-my-cellphone-to-say-that-the-health-care-bill-was-dead/2017/03/24/8282c3f6-10ce-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.c6439ce7511a
If you can not link to it it is worth the $1 they ask for the first 8 weeks.
-
Trump is so entertaining that I had to take up the Washington Post subscription for a year (it will be enough to see this through). Like to read the funnies first thing in the morning.
Like this article describing his telephone call to WP reporter Robert Costa. A 50-word vocabulary moron trying to run a country????
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/president-trump-called-my-cellphone-to-say-that-the-health-care-bill-was-dead/2017/03/24/8282c3f6-10ce-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.c6439ce7511a
If you can not link to it it is worth the $1 they ask for the first 8 weeks.
Hilarious. Worth a dollar of anyone's money :-)
-
To be clear, I wasn't all that happy about ACA...but it did do some really good things like eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion–which is a big deal for me since I have preexisting conditions. The GOP bill did a lot of bad things...but I have to ask, do you even know what was in the GOP plan that the GOP couldn't pass?
What's inside the Republican health care bill? (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/24/news/economy/obamacare-repeal-republican-health-care-bill/index.html)
The irony is that it was the conservative group the House Freedom Caucus (AKA Tea Party) that sunk the bill. They refused to accept the compromise bill that then the moderate GOP couldn't stomach.
So, Trump has learned a lesson...being CEO of a closely held inc is not good on the job training for being the leader of the free world.
And the way it looks, moving onto tax reform is gonna be even harder than healthcare because, well, he lost all the saving the GOP healthcare bill would have provided so now he's gonna have to cut even more out of the budget which already is a sore point for the GOP and the next aim of the democratic resistance.
If you would have told me on Jan 20th that the GOP would be scared to repeal and replace the ACA because of the resistance of their hometown constituents town hall meetings I would not have believed that liberals could have shut Trump down so handily...
Just wait till the resistance takes on the Trump budget :~)
Jeff, we finally get to agree on a few things. Health care is a loser for both parties. Probably more so now for the Republicans because they're in charge. Obama won because now that many people are getting care, many Republicans don't want to repeal it. The issue now is how it's going to play out. With the Republican right being against it and the Democrats refusing to give it votes to repeal, how are they going to get together to get it corrected as it implodes? I suspect, Trump the dealmaker, who's more interested in getting things done than he cares about the Republican party who abused him during the election, will go to the Democrats and make a deal with them to help it. Single payer?
With an emboldened Republican right due to yesterday's vote, Trump's going to have problems with lowering taxes if he can't prove that they will bring in more revenue. The Democrats are going to filibuster making it even tougher. Same issue with budget busting Infrastructure except he might get Democrat support to make up for the Republican right's NO votes. The Democrats are going to filibuster everything the Republicans want to do as was done to them when Obama was President.
We may be seeing the continuation of government shutdown.
-
Trump the dealmaker
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Stop it, no really, please stop it, my sides are killing me!
-
Health care is a loser for both parties.
It's not a loser; it's just that the US has a terribly fragmented healthcare system. Businesses get a tax break when they pay for employee health insurance but they seldom provide a choice for employees (other than the Federal government program which has a choice of many plans). those who are self employed like my two daughters are at the mercy of the individual market place. They do get a tax write off but have to shop around each year for what plan is best. Obamacare worked for both of them (the youngest is now on the plan of her boyfriend as the company he works for provides for domestic partner benefits). They found good Silver plans in both cities where they work. Neither qualified for any premium support. They were happy to have the covered benefits provide for under the law.
I recommend reading TR Reid's "The Healing of America" which surveys healthcare in about some foreign countries that provide universal coverage: Canada, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Switzerland. Each has a different model. Switzerland decided to implement universal coverage in 1993, the same year as the failed Clinton effort. Germany extended coverage in the late 1800s under Bismarck.
-
Ex-CIA Director: Mike Flynn and Turkish Officials Discussed Removal of Erdogan Foe From U.S. (without going through U.S. extradition process):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-cia-director-mike-flynn-and-turkish-officials-discussed-removal-of-erdogan-foe-from-u-s-1490380426
Who needs enemies with friends like that?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sorry, Jeff, I tried to go through your list of "lies," but had to give up after the first few, realizing that many items on the list are lies themselves.
-
Sorry, Jeff, I tried to go through your list of "lies," but had to give up after the first few, realizing that many items on the list are lies themselves.
Sorry Slobadan, I just went through the list again and as far as I can recall, all of the items are either true or mostly true. So I rate your claim untrue or mostly untrue - 4 Pinocchios!
The fact is Trump is the bigest liar I've ever seen and heard. He li s so much he has a reality distortion field around him that mak s other people lie about his lies...
Tell the truth, does he ever tell the truth?
-
Sorry, Jeff, I tried to go through your list of "lies," but had to give up after the first few, realizing that many items on the list are lies themselves.
You must be clairvoyant, giving up after a "few" and still concluding "many" on the list weren't true. Amazing :P
-
You must be clairvoyant, giving up after a "few" and still concluding "many" on the list weren't true. Amazing :P
And not (able to) mention a 'few' lies either.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here's 4 pages of around 80 lies Obama told.
Of course, you didn't have the liberal press gang up on him. They protected him.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
-
I feel I really must congratulate Alan and Slobodan on their steadfast commitment to the defense of the indefensible.
-
I think the Dutch posters here should look home and stop with their constant attacks on our President and look at what their own leader and his supporters stand for. During the Dutch election just held, PM Mark Rutte who was re-elected, said during the campaign aiming his comments toward immigrants especially Muslims, "If you don't like it here, get out of the country, go away", he said to newspaper AD. "That's a choice you have. If you live in a country where you are continually outraged at how we deal with each other. You have the choice to go away! You do not need to be here."
http://nltimes.nl/2017/01/23/dont-like-get-country-says-dutch-pm
Don't you think you ought to deal with your own country's bigotry? Or maybe by looking at our President and how America does things, you can lie to yourself that your s**t doesn't stink too.
-
Here's 4 pages of around 80 lies Obama told.
Of course, you didn't have the liberal press gang up on him. They protected him.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
Good one Alan, although it spans some 9.5 years?
Trump is approx. 60 days into his term, one cannot comprehend the amount of pages that would produce ...
He's already on page 7 at PolitiFact, most within the last 3 years since getting into politics:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/?page=1
Cheers,
Bart
-
Don't you think you ought to deal with your own country's bigotry?
Bigotry? It was not aimed at immigrants, and not against Muslims. People who have double passports, were born here, enjoy all the freedoms and benefits that this country has to offer, yet prefer the policies of the country they do not live in, are advised to choose.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think the Dutch posters here should look home and stop with their constant attacks on our President and look at what their own leader and his supporters stand for. During the Dutch election just held, PM Mark Rutte who was re-elected, said during the campaign aiming his comments toward immigrants especially Muslims, "If you don't like it here, get out of the country, go away", he said to newspaper AD. "That's a choice you have. If you live in a country where you are continually outraged at how we deal with each other. You have the choice to go away! You do not need to be here."
http://nltimes.nl/2017/01/23/dont-like-get-country-says-dutch-pm
Don't you think you ought to deal with your own country's bigotry? Or maybe by looking at our President and how America does things, you can lie to yourself that your s**t doesn't stink too.
I thought, we are talking about lying politicians. In contrast to the American leader, this fellow seems like a straight shooter.
-
Bigotry? It was not aimed at immigrants, and not against Muslims. People who have double passports, were born here, enjoy all the freedoms and benefits that this country has to offer, yet prefer the policies of the country they do not live in, are advised to choose.
Cheers,
Bart
The Dutch know who he was talking about. It was the immigrants and Muslims. People who aren't "Dutch" enough. You just don't want to look at your own country's bigotry. You'd rather look elsewhere at the sins of others. Then you can hide in your own self-righteousness.
-
The Dutch know who he was talking about. It was the immigrants and Muslims.
Do explain, how does someone who is born in a country, from Dutch parents, in your view, become an immigrant in that country? I have no idea what religion those who were addressed subscribe to if any, and it makes no difference either.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bigotry? It was not aimed at immigrants, and not against Muslims. People who have double passports, were born here, enjoy all the freedoms and benefits that this country has to offer, yet prefer the policies of the country they do not live in, are advised to choose.
The Dutch know who he was talking about. It was the immigrants and Muslims. People who aren't "Dutch" enough. You just don't want to look at your own country's bigotry. You'd rather look elsewhere at the sins of others. Then you can hide in your own self-righteousness.
Coincidentally, Germany is contemplating doing away with dual passports for immigrants.
Germany’s CDU votes to limit immigrants’ rights to dual citizenship (https://www.ft.com/content/557a5ec0-bc7b-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080)
And that's no lie.
-
I think the Dutch posters here should look home and stop with their constant attacks on our President and look at what their own leader and his supporters stand for. During the Dutch election just held, PM Mark Rutte who was re-elected, said during the campaign aiming his comments toward immigrants especially Muslims, "If you don't like it here, get out of the country, go away", he said to newspaper AD. "That's a choice you have. If you live in a country where you are continually outraged at how we deal with each other. You have the choice to go away! You do not need to be here."
http://nltimes.nl/2017/01/23/dont-like-get-country-says-dutch-pm
That's not bigotry, that's exactly the same as the US. Live by the rules and you're most welcome stay, if you don't live by the rules (or don't like it here) you're free to go. And that doesn't have anything to do with religion or country you come from.
And don't think we'll stop the attacks on Trump if he continues to behave like he has been doing during his campaign and first few month in office. If he wants to be a world leader he will have to face the criticism of the world, whether you like that or not.
-
People who aren't "Dutch" enough.
I think your problem is with people who aren't "pro Trump" enough. They have to shut up so you don't have to face the reality the emperor has no clothes.
If we would be pro Trump you would welcome our contribution here, but when we're against it's "none of our business". Well, given the way he's screwing the whole world around I think it is our business so your efforts to shut us up are pointless.
-
Do explain, how does someone who is born in a country, from Dutch parents, in your view, become an immigrant in that country? I have no idea what religion those who were addressed subscribe to if any, and it makes no difference either.
Cheers,
Bart
The Dutch know who their Prime Minister was talking about. They are the Dutch of Turkish Muslim heritage. Second class citizens who hold dual passports. These are the people the Dutch don't think are Dutch enough. Their customs aren't Dutch; their religion isn't Dutch. Your PM was addressing who they were when he said that they should get out if they can't become more Dutch. And you have the nerve to criticize Trump who wants to deport illegal immigrants from our country. Not legal citizens. That Trump wants to prevent foreigners, not citizens, who don't want to become Americans from even entering this country. The hypocrisy from The Netherlands stinks to high heaven.
-
The Dutch know who their Prime Minister was talking about. They are the Dutch of Turkish Muslim heritage. Second class citizens who hold dual passports. These are the people the Dutch don't think are Dutch enough. Their customs aren't Dutch; their religion isn't Dutch. Your PM was addressing who they were when he said that they should get out if they can't become more Dutch. And you have the nerve to criticize Trump who wants to deport illegal immigrants from our country. Not legal citizens. That Trump wants to prevent foreigners, not citizens, who don't want to become Americans from even entering this country. The hypocrisy from The Netherlands stinks to high heaven.
Alan, you're misquoting the Dutch prime minister. These immigrants (and Turkish muslims aren't the only ones) don't have to become more "Dutch", they just have to follow our rules. They can keep their religion, they can keep their customs, they don't get deported. But if they don't follow the rules and start acting violently that they don't want to follow the rules it's probably better they go to place they like better, however nobody forces them to go. I don't think the USA is any different in that matter. We have plenty of immigrants who still execute their faith and are loyal to their immigrant community but hold positions of high influence and power in the Dutch public and private sector. They are well respected and only the xenophobic have a problem with them, but not the majority of the Dutch. So the only thing that stinks is your lack of understanding of the situation.
-
The hypocrisy from The Netherlands stinks to high heaven.
As are your remarks, but
So maybe Erdogans statements are true and we live in a that we are a banana republic...
-
I feel I really must congratulate Alan and Slobodan on their steadfast commitment to the defense of the indefensible.
Show me where I defended "indefensible."
-
Alan, you're misquoting the Dutch prime minister. These immigrants (and Turkish muslims aren't the only ones) don't have to become more "Dutch", they just have to follow our rules. They can keep their religion, they can keep their customs, they don't get deported. But if they don't follow the rules and start acting violently that they don't want to follow the rules it's probably better they go to place they like better, however nobody forces them to go. I don't think the USA is any different in that matter. We have plenty of immigrants who still execute their faith and are loyal to their immigrant community but hold positions of high influence and power in the Dutch public and private sector. They are well respected and only the xenophobic have a problem with them, but not the majority of the Dutch. So the only thing that stinks is your lack of understanding of the situation.
You can dress it up all your want. But the truth is the "real" Dutch just don't like those "other" Dutch.
-
And where is the evidence to support your assertions, Alan?
-
You can dress it up all your want. But the truth is the "real" Dutch just don't like those "other" Dutch.
Do you have any real arguments? Feel free to believe what you want, but it's just like Trump, if somebody spews bullshit he will be called out on it.
-
You can dress it up all your want. But the truth is the "real" Dutch just don't like those "other" Dutch.
Your REAL dutch is Wilders .. He got 14% of the votes
Leaves us 86% sane Dutch
-
And, for a little relief from the angst:
https://bullshit.ist/ex-presidents-say-if-trump-wants-to-play-tough-guy-theyre-ready-24a02c2ec53f#.gis9rf9q0
-
Bigotry? It was not aimed at immigrants, and not against Muslims...
Riiight.
Let's hear it from the horse's mouth who "we" are and what Muslim immigrants (shouldn't) do (bold mine):
If you live in a country where you are continually outraged at how we deal with each other. You have the choice to go away! You do not need to be here."
Rutte himself is rather annoyed with the way people deal with each other in the country. As an example he names a case in which bus company Qbuzz rejected a job seeker because he refused to shake women's hands for religious reasons. The College of Human Rights recently ruled in the job seeker's favor. Rutte calls this ruling bizarre. "Qbuzz is of course completely correct", he said to the newspaper. "It can not be that a driver says: I refuse to shake women's hands because it does not suit my beliefs. That's exactly why I'm revolting and lots of people revolt. Because the standard here is that you shake each other's hands."
The VVD leader is also annoyed by ... about immigrants who abuse the freedoms here to impose their cultural values on us."
[/i]
Btw, I fully side with the Dutch Prime Minister. I am arguing not against his comments, but against the silly defense of our Dutch friends that it is not "us" against "them," or not about immigrants, or not about Muslims. And if that was said by Trump, our Dutch friends would certainly cry bigotry, racism, islamophobia, etc.
-
Riiight.
Indeed. The case that Alan spoke about had to do with some folks who expressed their agreement with the thwarted Turkish coup, and said to reporters that they had to fuck off and go away. The reaction of our PM was that we have freedom of speech and press, and that if those guys (the same trouble makers that were involved in the later consulate riots) didn't like that freedom, they could always leave. Nothing to do with immigrants, nothing to do with their faith. Indeed.
Let's hear it from the horse's mouth who "we" are and what Muslim immigrants (shouldn't) do (bold mine):
The article you quoted from appears to be this one:
http://nltimes.nl/2017/01/23/dont-like-get-country-says-dutch-pm
I don't know the website, so I have no idea about their accuracy in reporting, but they combined 2 different cases.
The other case was mentioned in their article, where an applicant was refused for a job interview, and the grounds for refusal (not shaking hands with women, due to religious beliefs) were overthrown by a court. Indeed, it seems a bit odd to refuse a busdriver on those grounds. I've never met a busdriver who personally had to shakes hands with boarding passengers. I'm not familiar with the details of that job interview, maybe there was another aspect to the jobrequirements that does require to mingle with others. Anyway, our PM's personal opinion was incorrect as far as the law is concerned.
Anyhow, it again has nothing to do with immigrants, and only the not shaking hands might be connected with the applicant's behavior (stemming from his cultural/religious beliefs), behavior which is uncommon in our country. It's not about the man's religion, but about his actions/behavior.
So we have 2 different cases that only have a common aspect of culture clash. I do not see how that makes bigots of an entire population. It's a good thing we're generally level-headed folk, but we do get tested by people with Xenophobic and Islamophobic tendencies (even some politicians, who also have freedom of speech) as well as by people with different customs (and sometimes habits) than most others. That's to be expected in a multicultural society. Good thing that we have a legal system that, if needed, ultimately sorts those differences of opinion out if it can't be solved in open debate.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Do you have any real arguments? Feel free to believe what you want, but it's just like Trump, if somebody spews bullshit he will be called out on it.
Here are two articles I found in a couple of minutes that discuss the problems the Dutch have had with Muslims and the problem Muslims have had with the Dutch recently and in their history. The first is from The Atlantic a liberal magazine.
It seems your hands aren't very clean. At least America didn't go around killing Muslims as part of an empire like the Dutch did after WWII.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/netherlands-geert-wilders-islam-election-empire/519648/
http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/03/20/the-dutch-elections-is-a-reality-check-that-islamophobia-is-mainstream-in-europe/
Here's a paragraph from the first link:
"The war did little to soften Dutch imperial ambitions. In 1946, while Nazi leaders faced prosecution in The Hague in the Netherlands, Dutch soldiers were rounding up and slaughtering Indonesian freedom fighters in a brutal counter-insurgency designed to take back control over their former colonies. Indonesia has claimed that 40,000 died after World War II in a years-long killing spree by the murderous Dutch captain Raymond Westerling on the eastern Indonesian island of Sulawesi."
The second article discusses the hatred of Muslims by the PVV which is your second largest party. Not one politician in America ever says the things that Geert and some of your other politicians say. Geert calls Muslims "scum". Yet you go on and on how bad America and Trump is and his policies. Why don't you straighten out your own country before giving hypocritical advice to others?
-
Let's go back to the OP.
Of much more concern is the polarization between the pro-Trump and anti-Trump camps in USA. This afternoon, there was a violent clash in Huntington Beach between Trump supporters and counter-protesters. From the initial reports it appears that the anti-Trumps showed a bad behavior.
-
Of much more concern is the polarization between the pro-Trump and anti-Trump camps in USA.
I'm sure there's bad behavior with both camps...and yet some wingnutz will go out of their way to join the lunatic fringe...
It seems Pizzagate won't die...today at the Whitehouse, in addition to Trump supporters the lunatics that actually believed Alex Jones, who perpetuated the Pizzagate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory) protested.
Alex Jones is that far right radio host who actually had Trump call into his radio show to praise him. Ironically, even though he apologized for Pizzagate coverage (https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/03/24/alex-jones-apologizes-pizzagate-coverage-blames-other-media-outlets/215804), some people refused to believe the whole thing was a hoax.
Pizzagate Will Never Die: Here's Why the Conspiracy Theory Has New Life (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54126/pizzagate-will-never-die/).
Like a villain in a bad horror movie, Pizzagate, the conspiracy theory that went mainstream, refuses to die. Just when you think the final nail is in the coffin, and Pizzagate has been vanquished to the depths of hell, it once again rears its ugly head like it did this past week.
On Saturday true believers attended a Pizzagate protest in Washington, D.C.'s Lafayette Park and attended by a "couple dozen people," Hill writer Will Sommer reported. For the uninitiated, Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory borne out of emails obtained by Wikileaks from Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, John Podesta. Some conspiracy theorists claimed that Podesta's emails contained code for child sex trafficking. For example, they claim "cheese pizza" is code for child pornography. They surmise that this alleged trafficking took place at popular D.C. pizza joint Comet Ping Pong, because the venue was also mentioned in Podesta's correspondence.
In the run up to the election and after, Pizzagate became so prevalent that one believer Edgar Maddison Welch, disturbed by the allegations and believing they were true, drove to Comet from North Carolina armed with a 9mm AR-15 rifle and .38-caliber revolver and fired shots inside the restaurant in December 2016. No one was injured, but Welch was arrested and pled guilty to gun and assault charges; Welch's plea was finalized in court Friday, March 24. But this did not put an end to the conspiracy theories. In fact, they may be gaining in popularity.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7xrAnhXQAAaUjj.jpg)
Tweeted by Will Sommer (https://twitter.com/willsommer)
Campaign editor @thehill
Now, I'm not saying these people are Trump supporters...but the odds are they didn't vote for Hillary, ya know? In fact, Will also posted a tweet A giant Trump trailer blasting God Bless America has arrived. (https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/845670312456916993)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7xsqkpWsAEi1T_.jpg)
Pretty sure this is an example of the #FAKENEWS campaign that was instigated and or spread by the Russians...It looks like Russia hired internet trolls to pose as pro-Trump Americans (http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-internet-trolls-and-donald-trump-2016-7).
This would be mildly troublesome except that a 2nd amendment nut decided to go to the pizza parlor and shoot it up. He recently pleaded out in the case: 'Pizzagate' Gunman Pleads Guilty to Comet Ping Pong Shooting (http://time.com/4712875/pizzagate-edgar-maddison-welch-guilty-comet-ping-pong/)
How does this relate to Trump? Well, what person in his right mind would associate with somebody like Alex Jones? The right wing lunatic that said Sandy Hook was a hoax and the Orlando shooting was a false flag operation orchestrated by the Obama admin. Why did Trump do a 30 minute interview with him? You can listen to this on YouTube video Jones & Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJqLAleEnKw).
But Jone's isn't done...InfoWars posted this: ALEX JONES: WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY KILL TRUMP? (https://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-what-happens-if-they-kill-trump/)
As violent rhetoric against the president becomes the new norm, Trump strives to restore the Republic and bring back true Americana.
True Americana?
Like the people who believe the theory, which claimed that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contained coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring.
Well, at least Jones apologized for that yet there are still people protesting near the Whitehouse to save our children from Pedestal...
Hopefully, we here on LuLa can all agree that InfoWars is an example of REAL FAKE NEWS...right?
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c8/13/1e/c8131edb53988f02a78343cb985a81f4.jpg)
From breitbart.com...
Judge Jeanine: ‘Paul Ryan Needs to Step Down’ (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/25/judge-jeanine-paul-ryan-needs-step/)
During her opening statement on Fox News Channel’s “Justice,” host Jeanine Pirro ripped House Speaker Paul Ryan, calling for him to step down after his healthcare bill to replace Obamacare failed miserably.
“Paul Ryan needs to step down as speaker of the house,” Pirro began. “The reason? He failed to deliver the votes on his healthcare bill, the one trumpeted to repeal and replace Obamacare, the one that he had seven years to work on, the one he had under lock and key in the basement of Congress, the one that had to be pulled to prevent the embarrassment of not having enough votes to pass.”
Later, Pirro said, “I want to be clear, this is not on President Trump. No one expected a business man to completely understand the nuances, the complicated ins and outs of Washington and its legislative process. How would he know which individuals upon which he would be able to rely?”
Saturday morning, President Trump tweeted out a teaser for “Justice,” telling everyone to watch.
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Watch @JudgeJeanine on @FoxNews tonight at 9:00 P.M.
7:41 AM - 25 Mar 2017
Wow, it's like Donald is able to tell the future, huh?
-
Then there' this...
Woolsey: Flynn discussed sending Erdogan foe back to Turkey (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/25/politics/james-woolsey-mike-flynn-cnntv/index.html)
(CNN)Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey told CNN Friday that former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn met with representatives of the Turkish government in 2016 and discussed potential ways to send a foe of Turkey's president back to face charges in that country,
As a representative of his consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, Flynn met with senior representatives of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government in September 2016, Woolsey said. Woolsey was a Trump campaign adviser at the time and attended the meeting, but said he arrived after it was already well underway.
Woolsey claims that those present discussed sending Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim leader who Erdogan has accused of being behind a failed military coup to overthrow him, back to Turkey to face charges -- possibly outside the legal US extradition system.
Wait, what? Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was conspiring to kidnap Fethullah Gulen to hand him back to Turkey? Flynn is the same guy who failed to register as a foreign agent and went to Moscow and had dinner with Putan?
Hum...interesting...bet he's one of the guys being investigated by the FBI (unless he's already cut a deal). I think that calls for another RUH ROH!
-
I think your problem is with people who aren't "pro Trump" enough. They have to shut up so you don't have to face the reality the emperor has no clothes.
If we would be pro Trump you would welcome our contribution here, but when we're against it's "none of our business". Well, given the way he's screwing the whole world around I think it is our business so your efforts to shut us up are pointless.
Nails it! +1
To no surprise, this wellknown form of rhetoric can be observed in many countries lately, usually applied by reactionary or right leaning minds. Personally, I perceive this as utterly childish to say the very least.
-
Here are two articles I found in a couple of minutes that discuss the problems the Dutch have had with Muslims and the problem Muslims have had with the Dutch recently and in their history. The first is from The Atlantic a liberal magazine.
It seems your hands aren't very clean. At least America didn't go around killing Muslims as part of an empire like the Dutch did after WWII.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/netherlands-geert-wilders-islam-election-empire/519648/
http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/03/20/the-dutch-elections-is-a-reality-check-that-islamophobia-is-mainstream-in-europe/
Here's a paragraph from the first link:
"The war did little to soften Dutch imperial ambitions. In 1946, while Nazi leaders faced prosecution in The Hague in the Netherlands, Dutch soldiers were rounding up and slaughtering Indonesian freedom fighters in a brutal counter-insurgency designed to take back control over their former colonies. Indonesia has claimed that 40,000 died after World War II in a years-long killing spree by the murderous Dutch captain Raymond Westerling on the eastern Indonesian island of Sulawesi."
The second article discusses the hatred of Muslims by the PVV which is your second largest party. Not one politician in America ever says the things that Geert and some of your other politicians say. Geert calls Muslims "scum". Yet you go on and on how bad America and Trump is and his policies. Why don't you straighten out your own country before giving hypocritical advice to others?
Thanks for providing some argumentation Alan, but you should have looked a bit longer then "a few minutes" because the first link is irrelevant to the discussion we're having here and the second proves my point. Let me explain:
The first article talks about a situation in the latter half of the 1940's, we're 2017 now. Secondly that was a freedom fight between the natural inhabitants of an area with the western colonizer. The Dutch did some stuff there we need to be ashamed of, but the whole war had nothing to do with a clash of faith or religion. In case the natural inhabitants would have been Buddhists, Taoists or Christians still the same dirty war would have been fought. It was also the time that in the US blacks still had to sit in the back of the bus, couldn't use the same park benches and were publicly lynched without any form of decent trial based on rumours of a crime against the whites. But all that was more then half a century ago, this discussions is what's happening here and now.
The second article blows up Wilders influence to non realistic proportions, but the truth of the matter is he only got 13% of the votes. I personally believe that's 13% too many because he's a populist that will not solve any problems, only create more. However the fact is that no other party wants to do business with him, so that leaves 87% Dutch who don't agree with him. So indeed Wilders and his followers conform to your stereotype of "the Dutch", however it's by far a small minority and as kers said, we still have 87% "sane Dutch".
-
I'm sure there's bad behavior with both camps...and yet some wingnutz will go out of their way to join the lunatic fringe...
It seems Pizzagate won't die...today at the Whitehouse, in addition to Trump supporters the lunatics that actually believed Alex Jones, who perpetuated the Pizzagate protested.
Only in America! Well, without your pictures I wouldn't have believed it. Now I admit that those Pizzagate protesters really needed a dose of pepper spray.
And that gullible family could have a bought a couple of extra large pizzas instead of those stupid T-shirts.
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbSNnHeV_AE
-
While he's in favour of big showy missions like a manned mission to Mars, Trump is intent on de-funding Earth observation activities.
I wonder why?
Those working in NASA's Earth sciences division, however, were disappointed to learn that $102 million will be cut from their budget, forcing the cancellation of four Earth-monitoring satellite programs: the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) satellite; the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3) experiment; the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) Pathfinder; and the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR).
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-cuts-earth-science-1.4040181
I mean, really. How just how bad <deleted> is this guy?
-
Time for President Trump to ask President Underwood for advice on how to pass a legislation? ;)
-
... the truth of the matter is he only got 13% of the votes....
Here is an alternative fact (yes, fact) for you: that 13% still puts him in the second place, thanks to the Dutch fragmented voting system, with 28 parties vying for the votes.
So, the second most popular party in Holland! That's a fact.
Another alternative fact: Geert got five more parliament seats, compared to the last election, and the #1 party lost eight.
Not to mention that the #1 party got there by stealing Geert's voters, using horses, dogs, batons, and tough immigrant rhetorics just days before the election (that's an opinion, not a fact, but something to think about nevertheless).
-
Here is an alternative fact (yes, fact) for you: that 13% still puts him in the second place, thanks to the Dutch fragmented voting system, with 28 parties vying for the votes.
So, the second most popular party in Holland! That's a fact.
Another alternative fact: Geert got five more parliament seats, compared to the last election, and the #1 party lost eight.
Not to mention that the #1 party got there by stealing Geert's voters, using horses, dogs, batons, and tough immigrant rhetorics just days before the election (that's an opinion, not a fact, but something to think about nevertheless).
Yes, I also don't like they got 13% of the votes, but if nobody else wants to work with them they will not come into power, even if they had double that amount. It still means 87 % is against him and his ideas. That's still pretty reassuring and quite a strong majority against xenophobic/populist ideas to limit minorities and immigrants. An they didn't get these votes by using horses, dogs, batons, and tough immigrant rhetorics just days before the election, the dogs and batons were ordered by a mayor (the mayor is the head of the police, not the national government) who is an immigrant, a muslim and doesn't belong to the party of the prime minister. So he did that to restore order, not to gain votes for another party then his own. So I think your opinion on this matter is pretty far from reality.
-
... ordered by a mayor (the mayor is the head of the police, not the national government)...
In response to the turmoil created by the Prime Minister's (un)diplomatic moves...same difference.
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbSNnHeV_AE
Well crafted and delivered point of view.
-
During the Dutch election just held, PM Mark Rutte who was re-elected, said during the campaign aiming his comments toward immigrants especially Muslims, "If you don't like it here, get out of the country, go away",
Looks like Trump is listening to the Dutch:
Palestinian Terrorist and Leader of Women’s March Stripped of U.S. Citizenship, Will Be Deported (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/winning-palestinian-terrorist-leader-womens-march-stripped-u-s-citizenship-will-deported/)
-
In response to the turmoil created by the Prime Minister's (un)diplomatic moves...same difference.
Nope, PM had no influence on ordering the police. The Mayor was in charge. Why would he help the PM a few days before the election, he's a different party and an immigrant muslim. No need for conspiracy theories here.
-
Pieter, you apparently have the same knowledge of how politics work as President Trump. I suggest both of you watch House of Cards ;)
-
Pieter, you apparently have the same knowledge of how politics work as President Trump. I suggest both of you watch House of Cards ;)
oooooh, that's a pretty low blow Slobodan, but on the other hand also not very impressive.
Conspiracy theory rhetoric is a pretty good defense if you're out of arguments (or understanding), but I think most people see through that :P
And Trump doesn't need to watch the house of cards either, he is the house of cards.
-
...From the initial reports it appears that the anti-Trumps showed a bad behavior.
Surprise, surprise! The only organized, mass violence comes from the left. Historically, as well as today.
-
...
Not to mention that the #1 party got there by stealing Geert's voters, using horses, dogs, batons, and tough immigrant rhetorics just days before the election (that's an opinion, not a fact, but something to think about nevertheless).
Not to mention that this No1 party and others said before the elections that they will not make a government with Wilders...and they don't...
(and Wilders really does not want to be in the government; he wants to provoke and cannot compromise)
But, yes, we do have a problem here as in other EU-countries and the US that a substantial part of the people do not think the politics are to serve them. And these voters are in the rural areas, doing the more traditional kind of work.
-
Surprise, surprise! The only organized, mass violence comes from the left. Historically, as well as today.
I wouldn't call the KKK left ;)
-
Surprise, surprise! The only organized, mass violence comes from the left. Historically, as well as today.
Can we have a few examples?
-
Can we have a few examples?
Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. - common thread: imposing one single idea of what's right (a.k.a. political correctness) onto everyone by force.
Recently: preventing Trump rally in Chicago, beating Trump supporters when leaving rallies in other cities. Beating Trump supporters during inauguration, setting cars on fire, destroying property. Organized and paid by Soros and MoveOn.org
-
You have evidence of illegal acts being sponsored by those entities and have forwarded it to the appropriate authorities so they can initiate prosecutions, right?
Oh, wait, you don't actually have any evidence? I see.
-
Estimates of the number of deaths ordered or caused by Stalin range from 3 million to 60 million.
If we add the other mentioned left dictators, the number would exceed 100 millions.
In western Europe, in not so distant history, there was a West German far-left revolutionary group supported by the east-German Stasi, called Red Army Faction (originally Baader Mainhof Bande).
Also the Italian Red Brigades, the French Action Directe (AD), and the Belgian Communist Combatant Cells.
-
If we add the other mentioned left dictators, the number would exceed 100 millions.
A convincing argument. Lenin, Stalin et al were off my radar as leftists, but of course you're right.
-
You have evidence of illegal acts being sponsored by those entities and have forwarded it to the appropriate authorities so they can initiate prosecutions, right?
Oh, wait, you don't actually have any evidence? I see.
Who do you think printed all those t-shirts, placards, signs, organized calls to protests through social media, provided busses, etc.?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/project-veritas-action-robert-creamer-donald-trump-rallies/
Washington (CNN)A Democratic operative whose organization was helping Hillary Clinton's campaign announced Tuesday that he would be "stepping back" from the campaign after an edited video suggested that he and other staffers hired people to attend Donald Trump's campaign rallies and incite violence...
... Creamer told CNN that the national field director of Americans United for Change, Scott Foval, who was also recorded in the video, made false comments that are wrong about inciting violence at the rallies. Foval has since been fired from Americans United for Change, which had a contracting relationship with Democracy Partners.
"I mean, honestly, it's not hard to get some of these a------- to pop off," Foval purportedly says at one point in the video. "It's a matter of showing up, to want to get into their rally, in a Planned Parenthood T-shirt. Or 'Trump is a Nazi,' you know. You can message to draw them out, and draw them out to punch you."
-
Surprise, surprise! The only organized, mass violence comes from the left. Historically, as well as today.
Hum...I guess you didn't spend too much time studying history huh? The Boston Tea Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party) by the Sons of Liberty was an act of terrorism/revolution which precipitated the American Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution). Which ironically gave birth to American Liberalism and the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution). In the context of the times, the Constitution was a revolutionary and liberal document. As such George Washington, a general of the American Revolution was considered a leftist liberal. Thomas Jefferson was perhaps America's greatest intellectual liberal and subscribed to the political ideals expounded by John Locke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), Francis Bacon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon), and Isaac Newton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton), whom he considered the three greatest men that ever lived.
So, who you calling a LEFTIST?
It's ironic that the original Jefferson political party was called the Democratic-Republican Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party) or Jeffersonian Republicans. This is not to be confused with the resulting Democratic or Republican parties of today...Andrew Jackson took the then Democratic party towards the view that the central government was the enemy of individual liberty-like the GOP does now. Ironically, it was Lincoln that brought the Republicans (GOP) into power. The further irony was that back then, it was the Democrats that were conservative and the Republicans that were liberal-particularly when Theodore Roosevelt was in power in the 1907–1912 period. Now it's the Democrats that are liberal and the Republican that are conservative.
Personally, I'm fine with being given a "liberal" today...Modern liberalism in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States).
John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:
"...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal'."
Yeah, I'm really ok with that description...I'm down with being a liberal.
But I rather strongly disagree with Conservatism in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) particularly after the crap the GOP proposed with American Health Care Act of massive tax breaks for the wealthy and yanking support for Medicaid...it came off as mean spirited and typically Republican. Read the wikipedia article and see if it describes today's GOP:
American Conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, economic liberalism, anti-communism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from threats posed by "creeping socialism", moral relativism, multiculturalism, and liberal internationalism.
Wow..."defense of Western culture from threats posed by "creeping socialism", moral relativism, multiculturalism, and liberal internationalism"
I had to look up "creeping socialism"...it seems that Dwight Eisenhower used the phrase which was first in F.A. Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom. It seems Ike was afraid of communism–which conservatives like to lump with socialists because they don't understand the differences. Then of course, there's Democratic socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) like Bernie Sanders and that, of course, makes conservative's heads explode...
Yeah, I have a real problem with the conservative wing of the GOP–particularly that forcing support for Judeo-Christian values, the bullshit about American exceptionalism and defense of Western culture.
Really? We're "special"? Why?
This whole Left–right politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_politics) is what is destroying America. You want to make America Great Again? Quit polarizing and demand the political parties work across the isle. After 7 years, the GOP couldn't pass their AHCA bill, why? aside from the fact it sucked, the GOP couldn't even address the radical splits in their own party. It never occurred to the GOP to even talk to the Democrats...
Oh, and I'll let you in on a little secret, that whole Judeo-Christian values stuff? Yeah, no so much for me...I'm a secular humanist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism)
Secular humanism embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.
Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith.
Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality.
I always find it the utter height of hubris and hypocrisy that the far right GOP who claim to be defenders of Christian values exhibit none of those values when trying to develop policy and govern. I think the Pope got it right when he suggested that it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/world/pope-atheists-again/)
I would rather be left than right...ya know?
Power to the people!
-
Who do you think printed all those t-shirts, placards, signs, organized calls to protests through social media, provided busses, etc.?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/project-veritas-action-robert-creamer-donald-trump-rallies/
Well, of course anything released by Project Veritas Action is always truthful and accurate, oh wait, it's that the same group lead by James O'Keefe that doctors videos? See: The Lies Of James O'Keefe (https://mediamatters.org/research/2011/10/24/updated-the-lies-of-james-okeefe/183780).
I guess you didn't read or believe the part down lower in the CNN article where the DNC responded:"While Project Veritas has been known to offer misleading video out of context, some of the language and tactics referenced in the video are troubling even as a theory or proposal never executed," Zac Petkanas, a spokesman for Clinton's campaign, said in a statement. "We support the Democratic National Committee's appropriate action addressing this matter and look forward to continue waging a campaign of ideas worthy of our democratic process."
In 2010, O'Keefe plead guilty to a misdemeanor for breaking into former Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office to tamper with her phone.
In 2013, O'Keefe had to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a former employee of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, after O'Keefe and fellow activist Hannah Giles allegedly solicited advice from ACORN workers on setting up a brothel and evading taxes.
The videos led to some employees being fired and contributed to the disbanding of ACORN, which advocated for low- and middle-income families and worked to register voters.
But prosecutors in New York and California found no evidence of wrongdoing by the group, and the California probe found the videos had been heavily edited.
So, this proves what exactly?
-
One more post highlighting a show CBS Sunday Morning that I think is a useful look at The great divide: Politics in the Age of Trump (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-divide-politics-in-the-age-of-trump/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab8c&linkId=35865795).
Interesting back and forth between Hannity and Ted Koppel...
However, Sean Hannity said, “We have to give some credit to the American people that they are somewhat intelligent and that they know the difference between an opinion show and a news show. You’re cynical.”
“I am cynical,” said Koppel.
“Do you think we’re bad for America? You think I’m bad for America?”
“Yeah.”
“You do?”
“In the long haul I think you and all these opinion shows --”
“Really? That’s sad, Ted. That’s sad.”
“No, you know why? Because you’re very good at what you do, and because you have attracted a significantly more influential --”
“You are selling the American people short.”
“No, let me finish the sentence before you do that.”
“I’m listening. With all due respect. Take the floor.”
“You have attracted people who are determined that ideology is more important than facts.”
The bolding was mine...and that pretty much spells out a lot of the problem with all media of any stripe that doesn't have a respect for facts...if we can't agree on basic facts how can we communicate anything?
-
I thought that, adding to the insults directed at Angela Merkel during the election campaign, this was an awkward moment, and a bit disrespectful towards Angela Merkel, but that that would be the end of it.
Donald Trump refuses to shake Angela Merkel's hand:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-angela-merkel-shake-hand-refuse-a7635911.html
Nice summary: John Oliver: 'Donald Trump treated Angela Merkel like a drunk masturbating in a subway car'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pf2tgQKsZU
But apparently, things were even worse behind the scenes.
Donald Trump printed out made-up £300bn Nato invoice and handed it to Angela Merkel:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-angela-merkel-nato-bill-defence-ignore-usa-germany-spending-a7650636.html
Trump’s awkward meeting with Angela Merkel just got more cringeworthy:
https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-awkward-meeting-with-angela-merkel-just-got-more-cringeworthy-853ca0b84ca4#.wqodxn92y
Luckily Angela Merkel doesn't get intimidated by such provocations, which apparently was the idea behind the idiotic plan.
And according to this source (note the creative 'shoots down' wording), the White House denies everything:
White House shoots down German officials' claim that Trump gave Merkel a $374 billion bill to pay for NATO:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/26/white-house-shoots-down-german-officials-claim-that-trump-gave/22012666/
Cheers,
Bart
-
So evidently Trump never said that he would immediately overturn and replace the ACA.... despite the numerous times he said exactly that during the campaign.
So he was for immediately repealing it, until it was not immediately repealed, so now he was never for immediately repealing it.
In Trump's mind, Trump is never wrong. A concerning characteristic for a person who is in charge of a large military.
-
So evidently Trump never said that he would immediately overturn and replace the ACA.... despite the numerous times he said exactly that during the campaign.
So he was for immediately repealing it, until it was not immediately repealed, so now he was never for immediately repealing it.
Ah well, he can hardly be blamed for a Republican health plan alternative that they have been working on for 7 (?) years. What's hard to understand for me, is why it has to be totally replaced and it seemingly is impossible to improve a plan that is not perfect. Such a drastic change will cause more issues than it solves, while a more gradual improvement might lead to something tangible. And there are structural changes needed to bring total cost down first.
Anyhow, that something has to change, so much is clear (see attached).
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. the attached graph is from the following article, but it may not load depending on browser settings, I therefore attached it to make sure it's visible.
Trump tastes failure as U.S. House healthcare bill collapses:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN16V149
-
Donald Trump's team 'wiping their electronic devices' in anticipation of giving evidence:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-staff-wiping-electronic-devices-subpoena-fbi-investigation-russia-a7651276.html
Too late, and it only incriminates more.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...Power to the people!
How fitting to end your post with a communist slogan.
-
John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows: "...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, ..."
Yeah, I'm really ok with that description...I'm down with being a liberal.
How do you reconcile the fact that so many liberals try and keep developing technologies at bay just so people don't loose their jobs? The fact that this is commonplace with liberal big government flies in the face of your definition.
Look at the USPS; it's going bankrupt. We could easily fix it by automating the system more and making it more efficient, which of course would mean laying people off. However, so many liberals are against this because of the loss of jobs.
Look at the fast food industry and how they want to automate. So many liberals are trying to keep that from happening, or at the very least creating a smear campaign. Not very future looking.
My brother is very liberal, and he recently complained about how Philly's train system started checking tickets on the platform, instead of on the train, because it would cost conductors' jobs. If it was up to him, we would still be using brakeman and cabooses to stop trains, instead of modern brakes, just to keep jobs.
-
So evidently Trump never said that he would immediately overturn and replace the ACA.... despite the numerous times he said exactly that during the campaign.
So he was for immediately repealing it, until it was not immediately repealed, so now he was never for immediately repealing it.
In Trump's mind, Trump is never wrong. A concerning characteristic for a person who is in charge of a large military.
The failure to approve the bill does make the Republicans look bad. But it shows that our democracy and constitution is strong. We are not a dictatorship where the President is a king and makes rules unilaterally. Even with a Republican Congress, you can't get a bill passed that won't satisfy at least half the lawmakers who the people voted for. It was a bad bill, and Congress spoke.
Obama won because it seems like they can't reverse some form of health care. Since Trump also says the pre-existing mandate has to stay, there's no way to pay for it unless the government is all in. If they try to make people pay for it who don't want it, they're going to have to raise the "tax" and make it stiffer. Roberts of the Supreme Court approved the ACA because he felt the charge was a tax because there wasn't enough cost to make people buy the insurance. If a new law raises it to be a penalty, he would consider it unconstitutional because it would force Americans to illegally buy a product they don't want to buy. So only the government can pay for the shortfall.
This is becoming a major millstone around our necks, something we can't afford. People will be screaming to cut other expenses like for NATO. This will force Germany and others to shift the money they use for their own health care to their own military for defense.
-
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-trump-the-destroyer-w473144
Matt Taibbi's superbly written review of TrumpWorld to date.
Long.
-
Look at the USPS; it's going bankrupt. We could easily fix it by automating the system more and making it more efficient, which of course would mean laying people off. However, so many liberals are against this because of the loss of jobs.
Sorry Joe you picked a bad example here. The leadership of the USPS has advocated a number of changes that would make it more fiscally responsible. Congress keeps vetoing the suggestions. They are not permitted to account for pension obligations in the same manner that US businesses do and this ends up showing as a big deficit on the ledger when it really is not. They have to pre-fund the pension system way in excess of what is actuarially needed. They have advocated cutting back delivery from the current six days a week and that's a no go as well. Congress privatized the postal service years ago but won't let it operate like a private company.
-
Hum...I guess you didn't spend too much time studying history huh?...
While some people have to read about recent history on Wikipedia (of all "reliable" sources), I've been living it. I left a crippling socialism only to end up in a creeping one here.
-
Sorry Joe you picked a bad example here. The leadership of the USPS has advocated a number of changes that would make it more fiscally responsible. Congress keeps vetoing the suggestions. They are not permitted to account for pension obligations in the same manner that US businesses do and this ends up showing as a big deficit on the ledger when it really is not. They have to pre-fund the pension system way in excess of what is actuarially needed. They have advocated cutting back delivery from the current six days a week and that's a no go as well. Congress privatized the postal service years ago but won't let it operate like a private company.
But BIG government is a liberal concept. The mess that USPS is in is exactly due to the way government works, or doesn't work. The VA is other example as will be national health care. But liberals continue to believe that big government is the answer to all our problems. Even state government is incompetent. In NY State, Off Track Betting (OTB) handling racing bets went bankrupt. It became a place where politicians gave jobs to their supporters and where no one really cared about making a profit. How anyone could lose money in gambling where there's no risk boggles the mind. But we did it in NY. We should have left it with the Mafia and just taken a percent off the top.
-
While some people have to read about recent history on Wikipedia (of all "reliable" sources), I've been living it. I left a crippling socialism only to end up in a creeping one here.
Unfortunately, we in America have been blessed with not having to live what you did. So today, here in America, ignorant people buy into the feel good concept. But you think they'd just look around and see what happened to the Soviet Union. What is happening to Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, a country so rich in oil. 80% of their people aren't getting enough to eat. Their economy is in a shambles because of Socialism. They've lost most of their political and economic and personal freedoms in a few short years, Our media and education system have failed us. We all should be getting a re-education about these countries. But no one's doing it. You have guys like Sanders, who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, getting close to being President. And people buying into his Marxist ideas.
-
Sorry Joe you picked a bad example here. The leadership of the USPS has advocated a number of changes that would make it more fiscally responsible. Congress keeps vetoing the suggestions. They are not permitted to account for pension obligations in the same manner that US businesses do and this ends up showing as a big deficit on the ledger when it really is not. They have to pre-fund the pension system way in excess of what is actuarially needed. They have advocated cutting back delivery from the current six days a week and that's a no go as well. Congress privatized the postal service years ago but won't let it operate like a private company.
I remember a few years ago, a new automated center was going to be built, but every congressman who would have had jobs lost in his/her district whined to the high heavens, and it got killed. I'll admit both Ds and Rs whined, but if we had a smaller government, it would lead to less whining from the Rs, at least.
Liberals also whined over and over again when recently the USPS signed a partnership with Staples, allowing Staples to collect mail and sell stamps, because that would also kill jobs. I even remember seeing protesters outside my local Staples over it. (Of course, this partnership certainly helps Staples, but that is what partnerships are about, helping each other.)
The very fact that the USPS can not operate like a private business (while being privatized) and needs to run its pension program the way it has to is big government liberal ideology.
They are not looking to the future and remaining competitive. It seems so many liberals wold rather see the whole USPS fail then to allow them to make the necessary changes to keep it afloat just to prove a point. Reminds me of recent Union battles where compromises were offered but turned down, only resulting in the company moving with all jobs lost.
Cutting off your nose off to spit your face is a ridiculous habit.
-
While some people have to read about recent history on Wikipedia (of all "reliable" sources), I've been living it. I left a crippling socialism only to end up in a creeping one here.
About a year ago, I had a conversation with another photographer who emigrated here from Venezuela, before all hell broke loose. He saw the writing on the wall, Socialism does not work.
The more and more Socialistic a society becomes, the more cronyism becomes part of the society.
I really wish I saved the study, but I remember reading about 4 or 5 years ago a research paper that looked at how easy was it to create wealth based on how capitalist or socialistic the country was. It found that in the most capitalistic societies, creating wealth was equal and very possible, regardless of how you started in life. In the most socialistic society, only those who had connections to the government ever created wealth, the rest lived in poverty.
-
About a year ago, I had a conversation with another photographer who emigrated here from Venezuela, before all hell broke loose. He saw the writing on the wall, Socialism does not work.
The more and more Socialistic a society becomes, the more cronyism becomes part of the society.
I really wish I saved the study, but I remember reading about 4 or 5 years ago a research paper the looked at how easy was it to create wealth based on how capitalist or socialistic the country was. It found that in the most capitalistic societies, creating wealth was equal and very possible, regardless of how you started in life. In the most socialistic society, only those who had connections to the government ever created wealth.
+1 And large government combined with too-close business creates crony capitalism, a soft form of socialism. Only the elites in politics and business get the goodies while the rest have to struggle. It's all part of what Trump calls the "swamp" that needs to be drained if we are to get back to real capitalism and free markets.
-
It became a place where politicians gave jobs to their supporters and where no one really cared about making a profit. How anyone could lose money in gambling where there's no risk boggles the mind. But we did it in NY. We should have left it with the Mafia and just taken a percent off the top.
This is what happens whenever something is taken over by the government. People who should have no right to run something suddenly become in charge, and regardless of how piss poor they do, so long as the politician who got them the job remains in power, they are never fired.
The next best thing to being immortal is working for the government.
On top of that, if you're the only game in town, why bother providing great service? There's no reason to because people cant go somewhere else.
Once again, look at the USPS, or the DMV, does any one actually enjoy going to those locations? Is this really what we want to turn our healthcare into, an extension of the DMV?
-
Ah well, he can hardly be blamed for a Republican health plan alternative that they have been working on for 7 (?) years. What's hard to understand for me, is why it has to be totally replaced and it seemingly is impossible to improve a plan that is not perfect.
I think it is pretty straightforward. The GOP is not interested in fixing the ACA because that would make the ACA a success. The ACA is linked to the Democratic party and Obama specifically. If the ACA is fixed than an Obama plan would be a success and that just can't be allowed.
I seriously doubt the GOP thought process goes much deeper than that.
-
The very fact that the USPS can not operate like a private business (while being privatized) and needs to run its pension program the way it has to is big government liberal ideology.
They are not looking to the future and remaining competitive. It seems so many liberals wold rather see the whole USPS fail then to allow them to make the necessary changes to keep it afloat just to prove a point. Reminds me of recent Union battles where compromises were offered but turned down, only resulting in the company moving with all jobs lost.
Cutting off your nose off to spit your face is a ridiculous habit.
Joe, it's Congress that is doing all this and not the "big government administration." the Republicans in Congress are just as complicit (probably more as they espouse free market ideals and then vote against them when it come to post office issues). Let's call it like it is. The post office has modernized pretty darn well if you ask me. I can print mailing labels for priority packages from my home computer, drop them off at the post office and then track their delivery. this is the same way UPS and FedEx work except for me it's a lot cheaper. I've probably mailed out well over 100 prints in mailing tubes this way and have never had a missed delivery or damaged package. How is this a failed institution?
-
... Socialism does not work.
Right. Tell that to the Norwegians, who have low scores on crime and corruption, enjoy universal education and health care, constantly score near the top in the "best place to live" sweepstakes, have nearly a trillion dollars in the bank and are reportedly among the happiest people on earth.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/iraqi-farouk-al-kasim-behind-norway-oil-fund-that-is-envy-of-world-1.2604105
-
Right. Tell that to the Norwegians, who have low scores on crime and corruption, enjoy universal education and health care, constantly score near the top in the "best place to live" sweepstakes, have nearly a trillion dollars in the bank and are reportedly among the happiest people on earth.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/iraqi-farouk-al-kasim-behind-norway-oil-fund-that-is-envy-of-world-1.2604105
Okay, next time I'm in Cuba, I'll be sure to stop by the Capital and explain to Raul that the solution to all of his problems is just to visit Norway.
"Raul, you're doing it all wrong, be socialist like the country that relies on all protection from invading armies, such as from Russia, from foreign forces and can do whatever they choose with all the capital that that saves them. Raul, you just need to find that right patriarch to replace the now dead USSR and reap the rewards of foreign and free protection, like eastern Europe does with USA protection."
Or better yet, since my comment related to Venezuela, why not just explain to Maduro how he could so much better, especially since he has the largest oil reserves in the World right. I mean how could you possible screw up a country that bad if you have the largest amount of one of the most sought after natural resources?
-
Joe, it's Congress that is doing all this and not the "big government administration." the Republicans in Congress are just as complicit (probably more as they espouse free market ideals and then vote against them when it come to post office issues). Let's call it like it is. The post office has modernized pretty darn well if you ask me. I can print mailing labels for priority packages from my home computer, drop them off at the post office and then track their delivery. this is the same way UPS and FedEx work except for me it's a lot cheaper. I've probably mailed out well over 100 prints in mailing tubes this way and have never had a missed delivery or damaged package. How is this a failed institution?
I think you're missing my point. Congress keeps the USPS from updating itself at an appropriate speed. Congresses intervention into the affairs of the USPS is big government liberalism.
Take Congress out of the decision making picture, and the USPS will more then likely run much better and be able to change with the times easier.
Now please comment on the protest against Staples by USPS employees and other liberal groups complaining about a loss of jobs.
-
Okay, next time I'm in Cuba, I'll be sure to stop by the Capital and explain to Raul that the solution to all of his problems is just to visit Norway.
"Raul, you're doing it all wrong, be socialist like the country that relies on all protection from invading armies, such as from Russia, from foreign forces and can do whatever they choose with all the capital that that saves them. Raul, you just need to find that right patriarch to replace the now dead USSR and reap the rewards of foreign and free protection, like eastern Europe does with USA protection."
I really hope we move more towards isolationism, not as drastic as we were in the 1930s, but more towards allowing foreign countries deal with their own problems with their own money.
Let Europe deal with Europe, and let the Middle East handle themselves.
My biggest fear right now is that our ally in the Middle East is making a bed so bad that that whole part of the world is going to come down on them, and when that happens, let them sleep in it, alone!
Another one for the Ignore list.
-
...be socialist like the country that relies on all protection from invading armies, such as from Russia, from foreign forces and can do whatever they choose with all the capital that that saves them.
Not all countries can or wish to share America's defense spending tactics. Nor should they be coerced into it by specious scare tactics like "invading armies, such as from Russia".
Before you begin your counterattack with "Crimea!" and "Ukraine!", those issues may provide Russia with at least a shred of plausible deniability because history. To my knowledge, Norway has no such recent links with Russia. An invasion of Norway by Russia ranks pretty low on the likelihood list.
Slobodan may come to your defense. Apparently he knows more about Russia than I do.
The fact remains that Norway has an account balance vs the western nations' account balance that ranks in the multiple trillions of dollars. That is a result of careful (social) management, not capitalism. And certainly not resulting from underspending slightly on their NATO account.
-
Peter, it seems we have vastly different definitions of socialism.
-
Not all countries can or wish to share America's defense spending tactics. Nor should they be coerced into it by specious scare tactics like "invading armies, such as from Russia".
Before you begin your counterattack with "Crimea!" and "Ukraine!", those issues may provide Russia with at least a shred of plausible deniability because history. To my knowledge, Norway has no such recent links with Russia. An invasion of Norway by Russia ranks pretty low on the likelihood list.
Slobodan may come to your defense. Apparently he knows more about Russia than I do.
The fact remains that Norway has an account balance vs the western nations' account balance that ranks in the multiple trillions of dollars. That is a result of careful (social) management, not capitalism.
First, my opinions on Crimea and Ukraine and Russia are currently indifferent, so long as we do not get involved. That is another country many 1000s of miles away, and the amount of time our press and former president gave to that conflict was ridiculous. I could care less what happens there.
Moving one, I don't expect other countries to spend like we do on the military, and I really wish we did not spend as much as we do. I think the number should be halved or more. Let us go back to pre-WWII military size and spending. There is no reason we should have a military as big as we do, especially since the idea of an army invading the USA is crazy due to the Atlantic and Pacific, and our (currently) friendly neighbors above and below. Canada will never become hostile; Mexico will probably become/continue to be more upset with us, but I doubt ever hostile.
So, if we were to cut spending as far as I would like to see it and stop policing the world, that would mean many others would need to pick up the slack and spend money, taking money from other areas.
Moving onto Norway, it is a small country with a population that is very homogeneous. Operating a country such as that is much easier than a large swath of land with many different peoples and many different ideologies. Socialism will work better there, but probably not as much as capitalism, but in the USA, you're crazy to think it could be applied here. Plus, Norway is not really socialist, aka "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
As far as I know, you can still own your own business and property in Norway. If you want to talk socialism, lets talk about Cuba and Venezuela, or even better the DPRK.
Our economy is too large and effected by too many uncontrollable things (like our huge differences in weather) to even dream of making socialism a success.
I just find it crazy that if you look at history, capitalism worked the moment it was created, but pure socialism has yet to work in any country it has been applied to. Did the capitalist just get lucky right out of the gate and the socialists are still trying to find the secret sauce to make it work?
-
I just find it crazy that if you look at history, capitalism worked the moment it was created,
I would be interested in reading any citation that supports your point that any country/society with a 100% capitalistic system worked for very long?
-
I would be interested in reading any citation that supports your point that any country/society with a 100% capitalistic system worked for very long?
Provide me a source that shows a country that was purely socialist worked for very long.
But let us get back to the real subject, healthcare. I just don't trust a single source, private or public, to ever run anything well, just because they don't need to.
If you're the only game in town and no one can go anywhere else, why bother going above and beyond.
I am not a Hassy user, but I don't want to see Hassy go out of business because it forces Phase One to stay on their toes, and vice versa.
PS, if you're going to selectively quote me, at least include the entire sentence. I may write fast and not proof read everything I write before posting, but I do not write using only phrases and incomplete sentences.
-
Not all countries can or wish to share America's defense spending tactics.
Well, invading Afhjanistan was quite costly. Maybe the idea is that the Norwegians find a faraway country to invade, and hence bump up their defence expenditures?
-
Is there a way to ignore an entire conversation?
I think the best course of action would be to do so with this one.
-
Is there a way to ignore an entire conversation?
Back to the thread's topic.
Trump to sign order on Tuesday easing energy regulations: officials:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-regulation-idUSKBN16X150
And oh, the irony: "Trump plans to sign the executive order at the EPA ..."
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Threatened U.S. pullout might help, not hobble, global climate pact:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-agreement-idUSKBN16Y1SP
-
But let us get back to the real subject, healthcare. I just don't trust a single source, private or public, to ever run anything well, just because they don't need to.
If you're the only game in town and no one can go anywhere else, why bother going above and beyond.
Joe, read TR Reid's wonderful book, "The Healing of America." Reid is now Rocky Mountain bureau chief for the Washington Post but served as a foreign correspondent in multiple countries during his tenure at the Post. He and his family were covered under the local healthcare authorities in each of those countries and he describes those experiences as well as others in his efforts to better understand how the foreign healthcare agencies work as well as what the prognosis might be for his ailing shoulder that was a result of an injury suffered many years ago (I won't spoil it but the best treatment he received was in the strangest of the countries he visited). Did you know that Germany has about 200 health insurance cooperatives; that the Swiss decided to extend healthcare to all citizens the same year that Clintoncare crashed and burned; that the Canadians are reasonably happy with their provincial model of coverage. Do read the book, it takes only a couple of hours and you will quickly realize that this country can and should do better.
Why we tolerate high infant mortality rates and lessor life expectancy for those who reach 60 (this weeds out all the homicide and traffic accident victims) compared to other countries is beyond me. Also, don't think every other country takes the same approach or that it's socialized medicine; they don't and it isn't.
-
Back to the thread's topic.
Trump to sign order on Tuesday easing energy regulations: officials:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-energy-regulation-idUSKBN16X150
And oh, the irony: "Trump plans to sign the executive order at the EPA ..."
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Threatened U.S. pullout might help, not hobble, global climate pact:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-agreement-idUSKBN16Y1SP
Bart, I am not sure how you interrupted my quote, but I meant it as maybe I am spending too much time looking at this thread as opposed to getting work down.
I am sure you know as someone else who works for yourself how easy it is to get distracted when you're the boss.
But anyway, I do agree there is a good deal if irony there.
-
Joe, read TR Reid's wonderful book, "The Healing of America." Reid is now Rocky Mountain bureau chief for the Washington Post but served as a foreign correspondent in multiple countries during his tenure at the Post. He and his family were covered under the local healthcare authorities in each of those countries and he describes those experiences as well as others in his efforts to better understand how the foreign healthcare agencies work as well as what the prognosis might be for his ailing shoulder that was a result of an injury suffered many years ago (I won't spoil it but the best treatment he received was in the strangest of the countries he visited). Did you know that Germany has about 200 health insurance cooperatives; that the Swiss decided to extend healthcare to all citizens the same year that Clintoncare crashed and burned; that the Canadians are reasonably happy with their provincial model of coverage. Do read the book, it takes only a couple of hours and you will quickly realize that this country can and should do better.
Why we tolerate high infant mortality rates and lessor life expectancy for those who reach 60 (this weeds out all the homicide and traffic accident victims) compared to other countries is beyond me. Also, don't think every other country takes the same approach or that it's socialized medicine; they don't and it isn't.
I'll try and check it out.
However, what I see from the left is single payer and socialized healthcare. I would prefer to see private enterprise continue to be a part of the process just because competition leads to better quality. Also, streamlining the payment process would be great too, but with government nothing ever seems to be streamlined.
It's funny, NYC passed a law that states all private business must pay freelancers within 30 days, or the freelancers can automatically sue for interest and lawyer fees. I am at about 75 days past due with the City on a 5 figure invoice and there is nothing I can do but wait; just goes to my point.
-
Also, streamlining the payment process would be great too, but with government nothing ever seems to be streamlined.
I've been on Medicare for four years now and believe me there are zero hassles other than our premiums are high because Part B is means tested and we still are earning too much money (good position to be in). With BlueCross, almost 1/4 of the claims required a phone call to question decisions. Now I just show my Medicare card and everything is taken care of.
-
Peter, it seems we have vastly different definitions of socialism.
Many Americans point to Canada as a socialistic country, yet we are far from your apparent definition of it.
Are there not degrees of socialism?
-
I've been on Medicare for four years now and believe me there are zero hassles other than our premiums are high because Part B is means tested and we still are earning too much money (good position to be in). With BlueCross, almost 1/4 of the claims required a phone call to question decisions. Now I just show my Medicare card and everything is taken care of.
I did not mean for you, but for your medical provider. How much of a hassle do they have to go through to get paid.
Personally though, I don't know how we get rid of the hassle while having a middle man, whether it be government or insurance.
Ron Paul made a point that he practiced medicine before insurance and it worked fine, but then again healthcare was much cheaper (and less modern) then too.
-
Bart, I am not sure how you interrupted my quote, but I meant it as maybe I am spending too much time looking at this thread as opposed to getting work down.
Then I misinterpreted.
I am sure you know as someone else who works for yourself how easy it is to get distracted when you're the boss.
Yes.
But anyway, I do agree there is a good deal if irony there.
We'll have to wait and see if he really does it there, and what the people think of that ...
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. And then there's this; Senators press Icahn on White House influence, business conflicts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biofuels-icahn-trump-idUSKBN16Y2D4
-
How fitting to end your post with a communist slogan.
That's pretty funny Slobodan...the image you pointed to is actually on www.redbubble.com (https://www.redbubble.com) as a teeshirt design.
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.178315729.5372/ra,unisex_tshirt,x1350,ff4c00:b001c7b98d,front-c,30,60,940,730-bg,f8f8f8.u1.jpg)
The reason it's funny is you think it's a "communist slogan" except, it's not. Lenin never said that...
It is however, a John Lennon song released in 1971. Maybe you got Lenin and Lennon mixed up?
It's somewhat suspect that a line like that, giving the power to the people is suspected of being communist propaganda . I also find it a bit ironic that it was President Donald J. Trump who in his inaugural speach promised to take the power from the Washington elite and return it to the people, and he stressed that his priority will be to put the U.S. ahead of other nations. Communist propaganda?
It's also funny that Trump has picked a a phrase "America First" which was the motto of Nazi-friendly Americans in the 1930s, and Trump has more than just a catchphrase in common with them. Read about it in the #FAKENEWS Washington Post Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/14/donald-trumps-new-favorite-slogan-has-a-nazi-friendly-history/?utm_term=.c06298b43250) Dog whistle much?
Going back to the phrase I used, power to the people, I was using it as a rallying cry for the new resistance Indivisible! (https://www.indivisibleguide.com) which so terrified moderate Republicans that they dug in their heals against the changes being demanded by the far right in the AHCA. The power of people going to town hall meetings and demonstrating outside their representative's offices is what won the day.
So, were they communists Slobodan?
-
I've been on Medicare for four years now and believe me there are zero hassles other than our premiums are high because Part B is means tested and we still are earning too much money (good position to be in). With BlueCross, almost 1/4 of the claims required a phone call to question decisions. Now I just show my Medicare card and everything is taken care of.
Except that many doctors have opted out. The better ones, at least. I went to a NYC doctor who charged $500. Because he opted out, Medicare paid nothing. Because they paid nothing, my secondary insurance and tertiary insurance companies would not pick up their payments because they only pay when a primary accepts. So although I have Medicare, I wound up paying the full $500 out-of-pocket. I dropped that doctor and went to one who wasn't as good.
As Obamacare kicks in, more and more doctors will opt out of that too. They will only accept payments from their patients and then let you worry about getting reimbursed from the insurance company, if you can get it. Huge deductibles are already a problem for many. Also, as payments decrease, more smart people are going to forego medicine and go into more lucrative professions. So the doctor class just won't be as good as we've had.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
-
Another example of opting out of Medicare. My cancer doctor, tops in his field, who saved my life 15 years ago, also dropped out of Medicare a few years ago. Fortunately, I only see him once annually for a checkup and his charge that I pay fully is around $175. So unless you have a lot of money to pay for doctors on your own, Medicare patients are not going to get the best care going forward. Pray you stay healthy and then end it by getting hit by a truck.
-
While some people have to read about recent history on Wikipedia (of all "reliable" sources), I've been living it. I left a crippling socialism only to end up in a creeping one here.
Yep, Wikipedia is a great aid and advance to research...I use it a lot. I don't believe it's 100% correct but it's generally factual and a useful source for beginning a research endeavor.
But the question is, since I have zero idea where you came from, did you flee socialism or a communist dictatorship? Many people confuse/combine the two but they are quite different. From a source other than the suspect Wikipedia, this page spells out the differences well: Communism vs. Socialism (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism)
In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries - including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. - have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. "Socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism" but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.
And then there's a further distinction between socialism and democratic socialism (espoused by Bernie Sanders). What is Democratic Socialism? (http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism)
Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US.
It's that greater economic and social democracy that sticks in the craw of the alt-right GOP. Which is itself delicious irony because the GOP claim they want a democracy in America...right up to the point where the people start reclaiming their power such as in the town hall meetings the GOP tried to escape from.
While I kinda like the term democratic socialism, the term I think is better is Progressivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) which says "Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."
But these are all just labels we put on ourselves or others. What matters more than beliefs are actions. Can anybody here justify Trump's actions and his meanness? How about the meanness of the AHCA or the way Paul Ryan talks about less fortunate people.
Don't we want to help our fellow men and women? Or would you rather step on them to gain advantage for yourself?
-
That's pretty funny Slobodan...the image you pointed to is actually on www.redbubble.com (https://www.redbubble.com) as a teeshirt design.
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.178315729.5372/ra,unisex_tshirt,x1350,ff4c00:b001c7b98d,front-c,30,60,940,730-bg,f8f8f8.u1.jpg)
The reason it's funny is you think it's a "communist slogan" except, it's not. Lenin never said that...
It is however, a John Lennon song released in 1971. Maybe you got Lenin and Lennon mixed up?
It's somewhat suspect that a line like that, giving the power to the people is suspected of being communist propaganda . I also find it a bit ironic that it was President Donald J. Trump who in his inaugural speach promised to take the power from the Washington elite and return it to the people, and he stressed that his priority will be to put the U.S. ahead of other nations. Communist propaganda?
It's also funny that Trump has picked a a phrase "America First" which was the motto of Nazi-friendly Americans in the 1930s, and Trump has more than just a catchphrase in common with them. Read about it in the #FAKENEWS Washington Post Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/14/donald-trumps-new-favorite-slogan-has-a-nazi-friendly-history/?utm_term=.c06298b43250) Dog whistle much?
Going back to the phrase I used, power to the people, I was using it as a rallying cry for the new resistance Indivisible! (https://www.indivisibleguide.com) which so terrified moderate Republicans that they dug in their heals against the changes being demanded by the far right in the AHCA. The power of people going to town hall meetings and demonstrating outside their representative's offices is what won the day.
So, were they communists Slobodan?
Jeff, You point is silly. Power To The People is under a picture of Lenin, the Communist who started the Soviet Union where millions of innocent people were killed. Are you trying to compare Lenin to Americans who want to democratically change our government's policies?
Also, comparing me to wanting to place American interests first before others as a Nazi concept is just plain insulting to this Jew. Talk about dog whistles.
-
That's pretty funny Slobodan...the image you pointed to is actually on www.redbubble.com (https://www.redbubble.com) as a teeshirt design.
For a better impact, I'd pick another model, a proven T-shirt seller.
i.e. this model's T-shirts keep generating more revenue than all sugar export by a medium size Caribbean island.
-
Jeff, You point is silly. Power To The People is under a picture of Lenin, the Communist who started the Soviet Union where millions of innocent people were killed.
You are confused Alan...go back and read Slobodan's response to my post where I ended the post with the phrase "Power To The People". Slobodan was accusing me of using a communist phrase–which it isn't. Lenin never said that, John Lennon did. Slobodan found the design graphic on the web and didn't know it was from a teeshirt company. :~)
And it was Trump who started using the phrase America First claiming he didn't know the American Nazi party used it first as a slogan to keep America out of the 2nd world war...so, if you are Jewish, you don't see Trump's use as an antisemitic dog whistle? Sorry but I was offended on my Jewish friends' behalf...
-
...While I kinda like the term democratic socialism, the term I think is better is Progressivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) which says "Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."
But these are all just labels we put on ourselves or others. What matters more than beliefs are actions. Can anybody here justify Trump's actions and his meanness? How about the meanness of the AHCA or the way Paul Ryan talks about less fortunate people.
Don't we want to help our fellow men and women? Or would you rather step on them to gain advantage for yourself?
Who determines where that help comes from and how much? You? This is "The Road to Serfdom". As much as Trump and Ryan say things you don't agree with, they are limited by our Constitution. But the Constitution also protects us from people like you who would make the world in their own image of what they think is "right". The road to hell is made with good intentions.
You also offer a false choice. It's not a matter of helping our fellow man or stepping on them. We all help our fellow man with government aid through taxes and with private help. But too many taxes strangle business, jobs and freedom. Taxes are not friendly. In effect they are putting a gun to your head and forcing you to "pay up". You lose economic and personal freedoms the more government takes your money and forces you to do things through regulation and taxes.
-
Okay, next time I'm in Cuba, I'll be sure to stop by the Capital and explain to Raul that the solution to all of his problems is just to visit Norway.
Next time you go to Cuba, you might look around and realize it's not a socialist state but a Communist dictatorship...
Even Forbes has something nice to say about Norway The World's Happiest Countries (https://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries.html)
What’s the most prosperous country in the world? Norway. What’s it got that the rest of the world doesn’t? The biggest bump comes from having the world’s highest per capita GDP of $53,000 a year. Norwegians have the second-highest level of satisfaction with their standards of living: 95% say they are satisfied with the freedom to choose the direction of their lives; an unparalleled 74% say other people can be trusted.
Although Norway just slipped to number 2 from number 1. New Zealand beat them out. THE LEGATUM PROSPERITY INDEX™ 2016 (http://www.prosperity.com/rankings). USA is #17...ouch!
-
Yep, Wikipedia is a great aid and advance to research...I use it a lot. I don't believe it's 100% correct but it's generally factual and a useful source for beginning a research endeavor.
But the question is, since I have zero idea where you came from, did you flee socialism or a communist dictatorship? Many people confuse/combine the two but they are quite different. From a source other than the suspect Wikipedia, this page spells out the differences well: Communism vs. Socialism (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism)
And then there's a further distinction between socialism and democratic socialism (espoused by Bernie Sanders). What is Democratic Socialism? (http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism)
It's that greater economic and social democracy that sticks in the craw of the alt-right GOP. Which is itself delicious irony because the GOP claim they want a democracy in America...right up to the point where the people start reclaiming their power such as in the town hall meetings the GOP tried to escape from.
While I kinda like the term democratic socialism, the term I think is better is Progressivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) which says "Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."
But these are all just labels we put on ourselves or others. What matters more than beliefs are actions. Can anybody here justify Trump's actions and his meanness? How about the meanness of the AHCA or the way Paul Ryan talks about less fortunate people.
Don't we want to help our fellow men and women? Or would you rather step on them to gain advantage for yourself?
Jeff, there are so many problems with this post, it's amazing.
First Wikipedia is not a good resource for any research. No professor would accept Wikipedia as a noted source on any paper.
Second, reclaiming, or claiming, your power in a democracy by voting for representatives is a lot different then insisting the general public has control over private companies and their decisions, which is what you are suggesting. Sure, protection is key, and you can argue preventing pollution through regulations is protection for health reason, but over regulating other areas, such as banking, is nonsense.
Virtually every business has an effect on the public, so should all businesses (including yours and mine) need to confirm to how the general public feels?
I mean, I have clients I need to answer to, but I could care less about how the average person feels about my business. If you're not paying me, take your song and dance somewhere else. As a matter of fact, if you're not a designer, architect, GC or CM, art producer, or a consultant I hired, I really don't care about your opinions on how I should run my business.
Insofar as the less fortunate, the day is what you make of it. I have found that many people end up in the position they do from their own bad decisions. Of course some are dealt a bad hand, but most are there due to themselves.
In all my years teaching, only two of my students who failed did so because they were just not smart enough. All the rest failed because they put forth no effort, some on purpose with the idea that working for 2 months during the summer was better then for 9 months during the rest of the year. Try talking someone out of that decision.
Last, you imply that in order to make wealth you need to take wealth from others (step on as you put it). There is no economic theory or evidence that proves this point. It is a fallacy that many people need to be suppressed in order for someone to become wealthy.
This is further supported by the fact that the creation of money is not finite. Although the amount of currency a government can make to represent value is, money and wealth are created by interest from investing, which has no limit. Point being, people who are wealthy actually create their wealth, not steal it from others.
-
Who determines where that help comes from and how much?
The "people" should...and before you say "the people spoke and elected Trump", no, 27% of the people with a right to speak elected Trump...something I think will radically change in the midterm elections. I don't see people sitting on the sidelines any longer. Look what happened with the AHCA...the people scared their representatives into not voting for a terrible law. Haven't seen something like that since, oh, I don't know, the Tea Party :~)
-
Next time you go to Cuba, you might look around and realize it's not a socialist state but a Communist dictatorship...
Even Forbes has something nice to say about Norway The World's Happiest Countries (https://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries.html)
Although Norway just slipped to number 2 from number 1. New Zealand beat them out. THE LEGATUM PROSPERITY INDEX™ 2016 (http://www.prosperity.com/rankings). USA is #17...ouch!
From an economic stand point, communism and socialism are the same. In both cases, the common good owns everything and central planning is incorporated for all businesses. The difference is really how the system is run, either though an elected government or dictatorship.
The problem though, an elected government usually starts to move towards a dictatorship in a socialist state. Look at the USSR, which did have elections in the beginning. Although Joseph Stalin was elected and was continued to be elected, his election was a farce.
Venezuela is quickly turning into a dictatorship with Maduro clamping down on opposition. Remember, he did actually jail his running mate over made-up and erroneous charges.
Anyway, why do you insist on talking positively about socialism but refuse to use actual socialist states to prove your points?
If socialism is so great, you should be siting the amazing aspects of Venezuela.
-
You are confused Alan...go back and read Slobodan's response to my post where I ended the post with the phrase "Power To The People". Slobodan was accusing me of using a communist phrase–which it isn't. Lenin never said that, John Lennon did. Slobodan found the design graphic on the web and didn't know it was from a teeshirt company. :~)
And it was Trump who started using the phrase America First claiming he didn't know the American Nazi party used it first as a slogan to keep America out of the 2nd world war...so, if you are Jewish, you don't see Trump's use as an antisemitic dog whistle? Sorry but I was offended on my Jewish friends' behalf...
Jeff, the singer Lennon may have said it first, I really don't care. But it became associated with Communists and Marxists. That's why Communist Vladimir Lenin's picture is on the same shirt as the saying.
In typical liberal fashion, the media immediately associate Trump's statement of America First (and Make America Great Again) with the Nazis. Why wouldn't they? They've been calling him Hitler ever since he ran for office. It's typical liberal smearing and guilt by association.
The fact is that although German supporters in America used America First slogans to help keep America out of the war, most Americans in the 1930's through 1941 did NOT want to get involved in that war "over there". They had enough of Europe in WWI. We were struggling with the depression. America's pacifism in the 1930's through December 7, 1941 ended in Pearl Harbor just like our war response to the 9-11 terrorist attack. Even then, we declared war only on Japan. It wasn't until three days later when Hitler declared war on the US, that the US declared war on Germany and joined the battle in Europe.
Trump has clearly stated that while America will be friends with any friend of ours, the relationship must be with the understanding that we will place America First. I think that's a good policy.
-
Last, you imply that in order to make wealth you need to take wealth from others (step on as you put it). There is no economic theory or evidence that proves this point. It is a fallacy that many people need to be suppressed in order for someone to become wealthy.
Well, that's the way Trump made his money...for him it's a zero-sum game. I've known many people in business that behave the same way. I know from personal experience that was the way my father did business. He was a pretty slimy operator although he never actually broke the law.
I personal think thing should be decided on a win-win situation where one builds a consensus where everybody gains and nobody actually looses...sadly that's not the way politics is running these days.
BTW, as it relates to Wikipedia, your position may be a bit behind the times...Professors See Shift in Academic Attitudes on Wikipedia (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/2/changing-wikipedia-attitudes-professors/)
While professors, scholars, and other academics in the early 2000s cautioned students not to consult Wikipedia at all when researching, attitudes concerning the popular online encyclopedia are shifting, according to some Harvard professors.
Some professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences said they see Wikipedia as more acceptable, even as a website that students can peruse for somewhat reliable information. Although they still warned students to be wary when using Wikipedia, some professors no longer look at the site with the same criticism.
Of course, I can understand if Wikipedia is seen as a socialist tool for the liberation of knowledge and information. Academia is slow to accept anything new that will rattle certain cages...
Personally I admire the Wikimedia Foundation (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home) and the volunteers.
What is Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is the largest collection of free, collaborative knowledge in human history. Millions of people from around the world have written and added to Wikipedia since it was created in 2001: anyone can edit it, at any time. Wikipedia contains more than 40 million volunteer-authored articles in nearly 300 languages. It is viewed more than 15 billion times every month, making it one of the most popular sites in the world. Wikipedia means something a little different to everyone -- but the people who support it are united by their curiosity, joy of knowledge, and belief in the fact that we can know much more together than any of us can alone.
What is the Wikimedia Foundation?
The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that supports and operates Wikipedia and the other free knowledge projects. All of our work is guided by our mission to share the sum of all knowledge with every person in the world. We keep the websites fast, secure, and available. We support the community of volunteers who contribute to the Wikimedia projects. We make free knowledge accessible wherever you are — on your phone or laptop, on a boat in the South Pacific, or in the hills of Nepal. We help bring new knowledge online, lower barriers to access, and make it easier for everyone to share what they know.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization with offices in San Francisco, California, USA. You can also review our letter of tax-exemption and our financial reports and annual filings.
What, is this too "liberal" for you?
-
Jeff, the singer Lennon may have said it first, I really don't care. But it became associated with Communists and Marxists. That's why Communist Vladimir Lenin's picture is on the same shirt as the saying.
Only in your mind...do a Google search on power to the people (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=power+to+the+people&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)...
There's nothing in the results relating to communists and marxists. The only thing relating to Russia is a book Power to the People! : Russian Strength Training Secrets for Every American (https://www.amazon.com/Power-People-Strength-Training-American/dp/0938045199).
Or maybe you were thinking of the right-wingnut Laura Ingraham's book Power to the People (https://www.amazon.com/Power-People-Laura-Ingraham/dp/1596985534)
In her latest, radio personality and author Ingraham (Shut up and Sing) calls on the American people to take back the phrase "Power to the People" from the anti-establishment groups of yesterday that, today, have made the country, according to Ingraham, "a slave to fringe groups, political correctness, expanding bureaucracies, and our own consumerism."
Yeah, maybe it was that...or could it be Power to the People: The World of the Black Panthers (https://www.amazon.com/Power-People-World-Black-Panthers/dp/1419722409) although their phrase was "All Power to the People".
Sorry bud, Lennon didn't take that phrase "Power To The People" from anybody. The fact you think it's a communist phrase is your own baggage that I don't carry.
-
Well, that's the way Trump made his money...for him it's a zero-sum game. I've known many people in business that behave the same way. I know from personal experience that was the way my father did business. He was a pretty slimy operator although he never actually broke the law.
I personal think thing should be decided on a win-win situation where one builds a consensus where everybody gains and nobody actually looses...sadly that's not the way politics is running these days.
BTW, as it relates to Wikipedia, your position may be a bit behind the times...Professors See Shift in Academic Attitudes on Wikipedia (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/4/2/changing-wikipedia-attitudes-professors/)
Of course, I can understand if Wikipedia is seen as a socialist tool for the liberation of knowledge and information. Academia is slow to accept anything new that will rattle certain cages...
Personally I admire the Wikimedia Foundation (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home) and the volunteers.
What, is this too "liberal" for you?
On Wikipedia, you do realize that Universities tend to be more liberal then conservative overall. So I guess that means Wikipedia is too liberal even for the liberals. ;D
Anyway, the reason you cant use Wikipedia as a reliable, or scholarly, source is because any person can alter the content. A source is no longer scholarly when it is edited by a person who is not highly educated in the subject and not peer reviewed. To even suggest that Wikipedia is reliable is ludicrous, especially since there have been several examples, sited in the press, of Wikipedia pages be grossly wrong.
Some professors changing their view on it is different then most professors. The consensus is still it is not reliable, and this has nothing to do with Socialism vs Capitalism, liberalism vs. conservatism.
You claim to be for science and technology advancement, for greater education, but then you're perfectly fine with using a source that is not verified or peer reviewed.
That is not very scientist like and a contradiction.
Second, who and how is it decided what a win-win situation is? How does innovation happen when things need to get approval first?
Should we do things like single out Solyndra for a massive amount of government money, but then oops, they went bankrupt because their idea and management sucked.
How do we deiced who the next Steve Jobs is? How do we find him, and should we suppress other possibilities as well?
Last, your still are not proving your point with the Trump reference. Bad deals happen and some business people are slimy, sometimes, but that does not imply that all wealth is created by robbing the poor. Not to mention, business don't last that don't produce an overall positive.
Furthermore, loosing is a part of growing. To create a society without loss would be fool hearty, regressive, and probably impossible. People like to say wisdom comes with age, but I prefer the German take on it. We gain knowledge from our successes and wisdom from our failures.
I've had my failures, they were a source of great growth.
-
...do a Google search ... There's nothing in the results relating to communists and marxists...
Except the essence of the phrase, that is. Why do you think there is Lenin on that t-shirt?
Btw, that's what happens when one's knowledge of the subject is based on a PhD in googling ;)
-
Well, that's the way Trump made his money...for him it's a zero-sum game. I've known many people in business that behave the same way. I know from personal experience that was the way my father did business. He was a pretty slimy operator although he never actually broke the law.
I personal think thing should be decided on a win-win situation where one builds a consensus where everybody gains and nobody actually looses...sadly that's not the way politics is running these days.
You can't run a successful business if you screw people all the time. You've got to give them value for value over the long term. Win-lose or Lose-win make lousy deals. If you get stuck as a loser in one that isn't Win-Win, you cut corners to make it work for you. Nobody is happy. Now I wouldn't work for Trump because of his reputation as a tough real estate builder. But then again he never offered me a job.
Now I agree with you that the same is true in politics. It wasn't good when the Democrats jammed Obamacare down everyone's throat. It created resentment. The same would have been true had the Republicans unilaterally succeeded with their legislation. Interestingly, Trump is not an absolutist. He tried real hard to satisfy the Republicans on the right and left to get Repeal and Replace passed. He just couldn't split the baby. I think now that he was burned, he's going to go to the Democrats to get help the next time. Remember he ran against the Republican elites who wanted and some still want to destroy him. So he owes them nothing. He will work with anyone to get his policies implemented. He doesn't have to get 100% of everything he says he wants. Those are just negotiating positions to work down from. As long as he gets a deal that's Win-Win, he'll be happy and so should we.
-
Anyway, I'm still waiting for a list of all the positives on the actual socialist countries in the world, like Venezuela. You know, a response to the areas of my posts selectively edited out.
-
... I personal think thing should be decided on a win-win situation where one builds a consensus where everybody gains and nobody actually looses...
And while we are at it, why not have a free ice-cream day in the land of butterflies and unicorns at the same time? ;)
-
Anyway, I'm still waiting for a list of all the positives on the actual socialist countries in the world, like Venezuela. You know, a response to the areas of my posts selectively edited out.
Hum, is Venezuela a socialist government? According to the CIA, it's a "federal presidential republic" and as far as I can tell, while the ruling party claims to be socialist, (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) it's really just a communist dictatorship. The irony here is a next door neighbor to Venezuela is a successful socialist country, Bolivia. As socialist Venezuela collapses, socialist Bolivia thrives. Here’s why. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/01/05/as-socialist-venezuela-collapses-socialist-bolivia-thrives-heres-why/?utm_term=.934d0b33cbc2)
What’s clear is that the supposedly obvious link between socialism and economic ruin doesn’t check out. It’s not just that it’s easy to find counter examples of socialist governments that fail to set off economic collapse, like Bolivia. It’s also that catastrophe has more often than not come at the hand of committed anti-socialists. Bouts of acute economic chaos ending in hyperinflation broke out in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, and even in Bolivia itself back in the 1980s, each time under centrist or right-wing governments deeply at odds with the socialist left.
Socialism, it turns out, explains nothing about why some countries turn into economic basketcases. Instead, it muddles the debate for political ends, delegitimizing progressive policies that have often been shown to work while convincing conservatives that it’s okay when they recklessly overspend. After all, if it isn’t economic recklessness that causes economic chaos, but rather an abstract noun (“socialism”), why shouldn’t right-wingers overspend?
When it comes down to discussions of Capitalism vs. Socialism (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism) the lines get blurred because nothing is ever completely anything in a political or governmental sense.
Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposing schools of thought in economics. The central arguments in the socialism vs. capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government. Socialists believe economic inequality is bad for society, and the government is responsible for reducing it via programs that benefit the poor (e.g., free public education, free or subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, higher taxes on the rich). On the other hand, capitalists believe that the government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprises do, and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers.
The U.S. is widely considered the bastion of capitalism, and large parts of Scandinavia and Western Europe are considered socialist democracies. However, the truth is every developed country has some programs that are socialist.
Pure capitalism is unworkable...the free market determining economic winners and losers is a rigged system (in that both Trump and Sanders were correct). Is it right that 8 men own over 50% of the world's wealth? (Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world (https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half-world). Yeah, they earned it...but shouldn't they be willing to give back to the society that allowed them to succeed? Do the "1%" really need more tax breaks? Should people over 65 receive less tax breaks for health insurance?
Socialism or more properly democratic socialism (which I prefer). I think this article tells it well Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/). Scandinavia is, by one measure, a freer market than the United States.
Heck, even Albert Einstein had socialist leanings...Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein (https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
Nobody can live and work in a vacuum...nobody can personally prosper without the help and encouragement of the society around them. Pure capitalism is a fantasy...
-
Why do you think there is Lenin on that t-shirt?
Why does anybody put anything on a teeshirt?
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxxKWhok6vdD19M1Aq7IuyvL2Gogt5b7ns7JEExqDG6-vAnag_SoZhsAxrLslEbg9FmL5MRg8&usqp=CAE)
Gang signals (useful for living on the South Side of Chicago)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0DBbVlCOMH6pfwZd6NUfRnIMvwmgDsNQCt9wdWMJVfU3X5pFleHKKN3_WiA&usqp=CAE)
Ironically, the same site selling the Lenin teeshirt
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6q-JS2LAmKHf7nf-q-juyd3F50qsrEUa4HVL6-CqljKwP7t5pmxQMOz3Ux-qa44wITcLMHMM&usqp=CAE)
I like this one, but not in green
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzSZa6kZkspKrGqD8HiQOYJQP8N0X5FKq5TG2DdtuvX7ceZFsgC7UfpxJTEzvzXJ2UKlmuu_2X&usqp=CAE)
If you don't like Trump you probably won't like me...and I'm okay with that (you probably would like that one).
Get the point? It was a teeshirt somebody might buy in the great tradition of capitalism.
-
Schewe, From your article:
"The point here isn’t to idealize Bolivia’s socialists: The country remains badly governed in important ways. Corruption remains endemic in Bolivia’s public sector, with most infrastructure contracts given out on a no-bid basis to ruling-party cronies. And while nowhere near as extreme as Venezuela’s turn to dictatorship, Bolivia’s political scene has seen worrying authoritarian drift, closing down the spaces for dissent that any proper democracy needs to function.
Even the social achievements have to be taken with a grain of salt. There’s a good case to be made that poverty reduction would’ve been faster and more sustainable if the Bolivians hadn’t needlessly antagonized the private sector. As it stands, facing a sometimes hostile administration, the foreign companies that actually operate Bolivia’s mines and gas fields are working aggressively to squeeze out their deposits as fast as possible and get out, investing little or nothing on risky exploration and development."
So in essence, your example works ... so long as you know someone in government who can give you contracts, you say nothing out of line with what you are told, and already have the needed investment in place before things turn towards socialism.
Lets see how they fair in 10 years when all the private companies that actually did the hard work of exploring no longer are willing to foot the bill, just like what is happening next door. Let's not forget that Venezuela did fine in the beginning, living off of the work done by the companies that built the mines and drilling operation. After they depleted what was being mined/drilled and needed to explore themselves, things went south pretty damn fast.
Socialism really sucks as soon as you run out of other peoples' money, or, in this case, investments.
It's also great that you provide me with an article that backs up my point that socialistic governments almost always move towards dictatorships. I thank you for that.
Furthermore, what is wrong with the free market deciding who are losers and winners? Should we, like I mentioned before prop up losers, like Solyndra, just because they knew someone, with tax payers' money?
Or should we, for example, give the contract to design and administer the national health care website to a company just because an executive there went to school with the first lady while ignoring the fact that they massively screwed up Canada's website a year before, all on the tax payers' dime of course?
-
I did not mean for you, but for your medical provider. How much of a hassle do they have to go through to get paid.
I think Medicare is pretty automatic but the doctors might not like the reimbursement rates. It's all computerized these days.
-
Who determines where that help comes from and how much? You? This is "The Road to Serfdom". As much as Trump and Ryan say things you don't agree with, they are limited by our Constitution. But the Constitution also protects us from people like you who would make the world in their own image of what they think is "right". The road to hell is made with good intentions.
Remember that Hayek who wrote that book was in favor of government sponsored healthcare. From the book, "Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong."
-
Anyway, I'm still waiting for a list of all the positives on the actual socialist countries in the world, like Venezuela. You know, a response to the areas of my posts selectively edited out.
I believe the Nordic countries are all socialistic to a degree. Certainly other European countries have had such governments in the past and still have many of the programs those governments put into place. The most socialistic healthcare is probably the UK's National Health Service and no government has ever touched it since it's implementation after WW-II. Most countries other than the US have government imposed price controls on healthcare services and products. Singapore which is always held up as a beacon by many libertarians have some of the most stringent price controls.
-
Heck, even Albert Einstein had socialist leanings...Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein (https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/)
Nobody can live and work in a vacuum...nobody can personally prosper without the help and encouragement of the society around them. Pure capitalism is a fantasy...
I think you are mixing up Socialism with charity. With Socialism, the government puts a gun to your head over your objection. It decides where your hard work and resources that you earned should go. It decides which anonymous people deserve the fruit of your labor. In the process you lose liberty. Political, economic and personal freedoms are reduced and lost in Socialism's extreme. Resentment toward your fellow man follows because you're being forced. No one sends their tax reimbursement back to the US Treasury.
Charity is something way different. It's commanded by God; one circumcises their heart with humility as one helps his fellow man. It is given with delight. It frees the spirit. It changes ego and self-centerness into love. If you re-read your Einstein quote, there is nothing there that spoke of government doing what man himself should do on his own.
-
No one sends their tax reimbursement back to the US Treasury.
I do because I owe estimated taxes every year and as much as I try to get it to even out I usually have a small refund coming. ;D
-
Although Norway just slipped to number 2 from number 1. New Zealand beat them out. THE LEGATUM PROSPERITY INDEX™ 2016 (http://www.prosperity.com/rankings). USA is #17...ouch!
This shows that the idea of growth at any cost and large size required for prosperity is outdated and flawed. A small and well managed enterprise will result in a much more favourable outcome.
-
Schewe, unless you can answer yes to this, all your comments are for not.
Are you willing to give up your studio, all that you own in Chicago, all those nice computers and that studio space behind you in your profile image on your website, to the government to be controlled by people whom you don't know for the greater good? Would you give all that up, all that you worked for to be controlled by others?
-
Remember that Hayek who wrote that book was in favor of government sponsored healthcare. From the book, "Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong."
You took my post out of context You also left out my second paragraph. I was responding to an "all or nothing" false choice statement. Here's my whole post.
-------------------
Who determines where that help comes from and how much? You? This is "The Road to Serfdom". As much as Trump and Ryan say things you don't agree with, they are limited by our Constitution. But the Constitution also protects us from people like you who would make the world in their own image of what they think is "right". The road to hell is made with good intentions.
You also offer a false choice. It's not a matter of helping our fellow man or stepping on them. We all help our fellow man with government aid through taxes and with private help. But too many taxes strangle business, jobs and freedom. Taxes are not friendly. In effect they are putting a gun to your head and forcing you to "pay up". You lose economic and personal freedoms the more government takes your money and forces you to do things through regulation and taxes.
-
Would you give all that up, all that you worked for to be controlled by others?
That's not socialism, that's communism...and no, I don't espouse that. Socialism doesn't demand total public ownership, that's communism.
I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes for the government to provide services for myself and society in general. But again, you are demanding a binary answer while the actual reality of "socialist government" is far more complex and is a blend of multiple ideologies...
Pure capitalism couldn't work any better than pure communism.
-
That's not socialism, that's communism...and no, I don't espouse that. Socialism doesn't demand total public ownership, that's communism.
I'm perfectly happy to pay taxes for the government to provide services for myself and society in general. But again, you are demanding a binary answer while the actual reality of "socialist government" is far more complex and is a blend of multiple ideologies...
Pure capitalism couldn't work any better than pure communism.
+1
Many of the EU-countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism. One of the basic ideas is that the state has to do the things that are neglected by the companies.
The companies only think for what is good for them- the state has to deal with the welfare of the country and the people in it as a whole.
Who would otherwise built the roads? and public transport? etc and more discussed here: who takes care that people can make use of some basic healthcare no matter what they earn.
Is that something the state should care about? In the EU we think it should; if you are living in one of the richest countries in the world than you should have a proper healthcare system that works for everybody.
To pay tax is not so bad if you see it is well spend.
-
With Socialism, the government puts a gun to your head over your objection. It decides where your hard work and resources that you earned should go.
Preposterous and indefensible. I live in a "socialist" country and nobody's putting a gun to my head, metaphorically or realistically. We're smarter than that.
I pay taxes willingly, given the benefits that accrue TO ME as a result. Would you prefer a for-profit system for, say, the fire department? The police? Or gawd help us, the prison system? How about libraries? Do you really think that in the current capitalism-at-all-costs climate that anyone could countenance public libraries? Piracy! Copy protection! You're stealing my work! Ask Schewe what he thinks about public libraries letting people use his work for free.
Alan, it's not an all-or-nothing thing. There are degrees, shadings, subtleties. Kinda like midtones.
A clever blend of capitalism and socialism is what gave Norway their trillion dollar bank account and health care for everyone and superb highways relatively devoid of potholes, unlike some other countries I've driven in.
-
... A clever blend of capitalism and socialism is what gave Norway their trillion dollar bank account..
Not dumb oil?
-
Not dumb oil?
yes, same as in Kuwait
-
Preposterous and indefensible. I live in a "socialist" country and nobody's putting a gun to my head, metaphorically or realistically. We're smarter than that.
I pay taxes willingly, given the benefits that accrue TO ME as a result. Would you prefer a for-profit system for, say, the fire department? The police? Or gawd help us, the prison system? How about libraries? Do you really think that in the current capitalism-at-all-costs climate that anyone could countenance public libraries? Piracy! Copy protection! You're stealing my work! Ask Schewe what he thinks about public libraries letting people use his work for free.
Alan, it's not an all-or-nothing thing. There are degrees, shadings, subtleties. Kinda like midtones.
A clever blend of capitalism and socialism is what gave Norway their trillion dollar bank account and health care for everyone and superb highways relatively devoid of potholes, unlike some other countries I've driven in.
First Norway, they have all that money because they have the good fortune to be sitting on trillions of dollars in oil in the North Sea. Socialism did not give them that wealth. Neither did Capitalism. They found the goose that laid the golden egg.
Second, I never said there was no place for government. You're right, it's a matter of degree. Maybe you don't realize it, but America spends 36.5% of its GDP on government expenditures: federal, state and local. That's $7 trillion dollars out of $17 trillion. A huge amount, most of it, is for social programs. We're already a socialist country.
Here's the breakout: Governments at all levels, federal, state, and local, spend about $1.3 trillion a year on pensions, including Social Security and government employee pensions. Governments spend about $1.6 trillion a year on health care, principally Medicare and Medicaid. Governments spend about $1.1 trillion a year on education at all levels, principally at the local government level. The federal government spends about $0.9 trillion a year on defense, including the Departments of Defense, State, and Veterans Affairs. Governments spend $0.5 trillion on welfare programs other than Medicaid. All other spending amounts to $1.8 trillion, including interest on the national debt. The grand total of all the spending is $7.0 trillion, most for social programs.
The portrayal of America like some Ebenezer Scrooge passing out pennies to its Cratchit citizens is just untrue. The problem is we can't afford any more. We're spending $600 billion extra this year over our budget with borrowed and printed money. We're $20 trillion in debt. Both democrats and republicans are fearful of even touching these social welfare programs. They want to get re-elected.
We're at the crossroads. If citizens continue to demand more things like "free" medical care, we're going to hit a wall that destroys the country's wealth. People will demand we cut back on our foreign adventures, reduce the military, leave NATO for the locals to handle. Even Democrat and Liberals will be that we insist on America First.
-
Oh. Whenever America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. The rest of the world should hope that we keep our head too. That we somehow get back on track of good governance, good stewardship of our resources.
-
Alan, Social Securit and Medicare are funded by employees and employer contributions, thus not exactly government handouts, no?
-
Alan, Social Securit and Medicare are funded by employees and employer contributions, thus not exactly government handouts, no?
Yes that's true. Certainly I wouldn't want to give up any of those payments now that I'm over 65 :)
But the truth is, it's all part of the budget that is funded with money collected by the government. Call the funding a tax, or Medicaid and SS payments, it's all money going into the treasury to be redistributed back out to people. It's money spent on social programs. It's just collected differently. And there are "guarantees" for SS payments but as we know, congress can change the rules and have. Especially now that SS and especially Medicare are having a direct finding problem. Will it be there for our children? Also, the problem is that the higher collections becomes, there's less money available for investment and capital formation to grow the economy. Higher SS and Medicare payments are like higher taxes. They both starve the economy.
-
Also, another issue is state funding. Many state pensions are in great difficulty. Will they be there in coming years? My prediction is that we'll be hit with another recession before Trump's first term ends, especially if he can't get tax reform passed. We have to get the economy moving better than it is to make up the shortfalls. The new real estate and stock market bubbles will collapse and we'll be back in 2008. The Fed's already used up the arrows in its quiver. They can't lower interest rates any further and printing more money will finally cause heavy inflation. I doubt if the Chinese will loan us money.
-
Not dumb oil?
Canada has oil and gas, too. More of it than Norway, probably. Unfortunately our management skills are not as good as Norway's and we have enormous national debt like most other countries. It was clever "socialist" management by her government of the oil revenues that gave Norway her lovely bank balance.
-
Just as I was thinking it was just me...
Gibberish Is the White House’s New Normal (http://billmoyers.com/story/gibberish-white-houses-new-normal/)
That was then. Now we have a president who, when he speaks, spatters the air with unfinished chunks, many of which do not qualify as sentences, and which do not follow from previous chunks. He does not release words into a stream of consciousness but into a heap. He heaps words on top of words, to overwhelm meaning with vague gestures. He does not think, he lurches.
I noticed it particularly last week in the Time interview:
Scherer: So you don’t feel like Comey’s testimony in any way takes away from the credibility of the tweets you put out, even with the quotes?
Trump: No, I have, look. I have articles saying it happened. But you have to take a look at what they, they just went out at a news conference.
Scherer: Mitch McConnell has said he’d rather you stop tweeting, that he sees it as a distraction.
Trump: Mitch will speak for himself. Mitch is a wonderful man. Mitch should speak for himself.
Trump: Now the problem, the thing is, I’m not sure they are watching anything other than that, let’s see members of Donald Trump transition team, possibly, oh this just came out.
Trump: I took a lot of heat when I said Brexit was going to pass. Don’t forget, Obama said that UK will go to the back of the line, and I talked about Sweden, and may have been somewhat different, but the following day, two days later, they had a massive riot in Sweden, exactly what I was talking about, I was right about that.
Trump: And then TIME magazine, which treats me horribly, but obviously I sell, I assume this is going to be a cover too, have I set the record? I guess, right? Covers, nobody’s had more covers.
Trump: But the real story here is, who released Gen. Flynn’s name? Who released, who released my conversations with Australia, and who released my conversation with Mexico? To me, Michael, that’s the story, these leakers, they are disgusting. These are horrible people.
Scherer: And apparently there is an investigation into that as well.
Trump: Well should be, because that’s where the whole, who would think that you are speaking to the head of Mexico, the head of Australia, or Gen. Flynn, who was, they are not supposed to release that. That is the most confidential stuff. Classified. That’s classified. You go to prison when you release stuff like that. And who would release that? The real story is, they have to work, intelligence has to work on finding out who are the leakers. Because you know what? When things get involved with North Korea and all the problems we have there, in the Middle East, I mean, that information cannot be leaked out, and it will be by this, this same, and these people were here in the Obama years, because he had plenty of leakers also.
Trump: I inherited a mess in the Middle East, and a mess with North Korea, I inherited a mess with jobs, despite the statistics, you know, my statistics are even better, but they are not the real statistics because you have millions of people that can’t get a job, OK. And I inherited a mess on trade. I mean we have many, you can go up and down the ladder. But that’s the story. Hey look, in the meantime, I guess, I can’t be doing so badly, because I’m president, and you’re not. You know. Say hello to everybody, OK?
I like that I can’t be doing so badly, because I’m president, and you’re not. You know. Yeah, he's president...but I wouldn't say things are going well :~(
And yes, this article link goes to billmoyers.com (http://billmoyers.com) which is about as far left as breitbart.com is to the right. Ya gotta be balanced in one's media consumption, right :~)
Bill even has a special section just for a #TRUMP RESISTANCE PLAN (http://billmoyers.com/tag/trump-resistance-plan/)
-
Ya know, when you go onto Twitter to lambast the president (Obama at the time) ya might want to explain that maybe it's tough to understand what the president goes through and explain why maybe you were wrong?
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
@BarackObama played golf yesterday. Now he heads to a 10 day vacation in Martha's Vineyard. Nice work ethic.
12:36 PM - 15 Aug 2011
Fast forward to last year when Trump says: If I'm POTUS I don't think I'd see any of my golf courses again, I just want to stay in WH and "work in my ass off"
So now of course, it turns into a story because, well Trump made it one: Donald Trump’s golfing is a political problem thanks to Donald Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/27/donald-trumps-golfing-is-a-political-problem-thanks-to-donald-trump/?utm_term=.54ff94548715)
It's sorta funny because now Fox News gets excited when Trump stays in Washington over a weekend...
Fox News ✔@FoxNews
News Alert: @POTUS spending weekend working at the White House.
4:30 PM - 26 Mar 2017
Note to mention the money he saved this weekend by not going to Mar-a-Lago.
And speaking of Mar-a-Lago, the Democrats decided to put forth a bill Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness Act. Yes, the "MAR-A-LAGO Act."
Democrats introduce the 'MAR-A-LAGO Act' (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/25/democrats-mar-a-lago-act.html)
The legislation would require the publication of White House visitor logs, something that was done regularly by the Obama administration but has since ended since President Trump took office. It would also mandate the release of visitor logs at other locations where the president conducts business -- for example, Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Florida resort that he has recently called the Southern White House.
Introduced by Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Tom Carper of Delaware and Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, it comes after the president spent five weekends in Mar-a-Lago since his inauguration.
Think it'll pass? Highly unlikely...think it'll irk The Donald? Very likely :~)
-
It was clever "socialist" management by her government of the oil revenues that gave Norway her lovely bank balance.
Norway also resisted the temptation to enter the European Union that Great Briton is now leaving...
So why is Norway rich? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-185956/So-Norway-rich.html)
Norway turned down the Common Market in a referendum in 1972 and turned it down again when it had become the EU in 1994 - each time by about 53 per cent to 47 per cent.
Norway is prosperous, happy and free. Its countryside is neat and well husbanded, its towns and cities orderly and comfortable. Its people shame much of Europe by their command of foreign languages, and it runs its own affairs, trading cheerfully with the EU.
Its fisheries and farms have not been wrecked or bankrupted, as ours have, by 'Common' policies that suit France, Germany or Spain. Its supreme court is in Oslo, not Luxembourg, where ours is.
Its monarchy is not menaced by a European president and its flag doesn't have to fly alongside the EU's yellow stars.
In the 30 years from 1971 to 2001, its gross domestic product rose by 177 per cent. Denmark, which has been in the EU for much of that period, increased its GDP by 75 per cent and the UK, which has been in the EU almost the whole period, saw an increase of 98 per cent.
This suggests, at least, that non-membership has not held Norway back.
Norway runs its own armed forces inside Nato, and had its own policy on the Iraq war. It makes its own laws, keeps its own currency and sets its own interest rates. It is a real nation which controls its own destiny.
Yeah, must just be the oil huh? Good governing was just a side benefit?
-
Canada has oil and gas, too. More of it than Norway, probably. Unfortunately our management skills are not as good as Norway's and we have enormous national debt like most other countries. It was clever "socialist" management by her government of the oil revenues that gave Norway her lovely bank balance.
Very true! And it seems that you don't need to be big to enjoy higher prosperity. The smaller countries (Norway, Finland, New Zeeland) with better management of existing resources and infrastructure, coupled with controlled population growth fare much better than Canada or USA. Surprisingly, Canada's official prosperity policy is still anchored around growing the population rather than to foster manufacturing and research.
-
Back to Trump.
Unpredictably, but not uncharacteristically, he had a change of heart about Angela. Does he think she needs his advice how to win elections?
I thought that, adding to the insults directed at Angela Merkel during the election campaign, this was an awkward moment, and a bit disrespectful towards Angela Merkel, but that that would be the end of it.
Donald Trump refuses to shake Angela Merkel's hand:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-angela-merkel-shake-hand-refuse-a7635911.html
Nice summary: John Oliver: 'Donald Trump treated Angela Merkel like a drunk masturbating in a subway car'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pf2tgQKsZU
But apparently, things were even worse behind the scenes.
Donald Trump printed out made-up £300bn Nato invoice and handed it to Angela Merkel:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-angela-merkel-nato-bill-defence-ignore-usa-germany-spending-a7650636.html
Trump’s awkward meeting with Angela Merkel just got more cringeworthy:
https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-awkward-meeting-with-angela-merkel-just-got-more-cringeworthy-853ca0b84ca4#.wqodxn92y
Luckily Angela Merkel doesn't get intimidated by such provocations, which apparently was the idea behind the idiotic plan.
March 27: US President Donald Trump congratulated German Chancellor Angela Merkel on a surprise local election win that bolstered her reelection bid. The White House said the two leaders spoke by phone after the tiny southwestern state of Saarland backed Merkel in a vote Sunday.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/03/trump-congratulates-merkel-modi-election-wins/
-
Back to Trump.
Unpredictably, but not uncharacteristically, he had a change of heart about Angela. Does he think she needs his advice how to win elections?
...
March 27: US President Donald Trump congratulated German Chancellor Angela Merkel on a surprise local election win that bolstered her reelection bid. The White House said the two leaders spoke by phone after the tiny southwestern state of Saarland backed Merkel in a vote Sunday.
Well, it could have been labeled as fake news, if it weren't so Trumpishly strange. It's a regional election, and Angela Merkel was not a candidate one could vote for. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer as leader of the CDU (Merkel's party), was. So while it was a nice signal for Merkel's party, in an election race that's to finish on September 24th later this year, why the congratulations? German media qualify it as "unusual" (especially after the reception Merkel got in the USA).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Surprisingly, Canada's official prosperity policy is still anchored around growing the population rather than to foster manufacturing and research.
Unfortunately, this is what will really tighten the noise. In the USA, all pensions and social programs are based off of the premise that the next generation will be bigger then the previous.
With the average family having 1.8 children, that is no longer the case, and unfortunately so many unions just don't want to accept the fact that their pensions plans are just not practical anymore.
Things will come crashing down.
Anyway, I think some need to learn the actual definition of words. In pure Socialism Jeff, the government owns all businesses and property and manages those assets for the people. (Marx's) Communism is different only in the premise that the people own all and a government is formed to manage those assets. In both, central planning is key, which always works so well like in 1960s China, and their is little reason to over produce since you only produce what you need.
In a pure socialism regime, you would loose your studio; in communism you would still own part of it, about 1/3.5M worth, but would loose management of it.
-
Unfortunately, this is what will really tighten the noise. In the USA, all pensions and social programs are based off of the premise that the next generation will be bigger then the previous.
..
Things will come crashing down.
Classic pyramid scheme! And not only in USA.
-
In a pure socialism regime, you would loose your studio; in communism you would still own part of it, about 1/3.5M worth, but would loose management of it.
In a pure capitalistic society only a limited few will have a studio, the rest will live in a shantytown or be at the mercy of the happy few to be able to live somewhere dry and warm without the chance of ownership and at a high cost.
Fortunately pure capitalism and pure socialism doesn't exists in many developed countries, it's always a mix, relatively far away from these extremes, that fluctuates in time (which I think is a good thing)
-
Norway also resisted the temptation to enter the European Union that Great Briton is now leaving...
So why is Norway rich? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-185956/So-Norway-rich.html)
Yeah, must just be the oil huh? Good governing was just a side benefit?
No one says the Norwegians aren't smart. They did stay out of the EU. But there are only 5 million Norwegians in Norway. (there are 4.5 million in the USA). They could fit into Brooklyn and Queens. They have US$1 trillion dollars or more in oil reserves and their oil fund is about US$200,000 per person. So sure, it's easier to govern and live well when you're loaded and you have a homogenous culture and people with a small population.
-
In a pure capitalistic society only a limited few will have a studio, the rest will live in a shantytown or be at the mercy of the happy few to be able to live somewhere dry and warm without the chance of ownership and at a high cost.
Fortunately pure capitalism and pure socialism doesn't exists in many developed countries, it's always a mix, relatively far away from these extremes, that fluctuates in time (which I think is a good thing)
Looking at the pure, or near pure, socialist countries, shantytowns is all I see, not to mention only cronies get a chance to make money. The rest are all equal, equally poor.
Look back to the article Jeff post about Bolivia, which he has yet to counter my points from it. It clearly states contracts are given on a no-bid basis to friends of politicians. Does not sound very pleasant, or fair.
-
Looking at the pure, or near pure, socialist countries, shantytowns is all I see.
Can you name a few?
-
Can you name a few?
DPRK, Venezuela, Mao's China
Remember, I said pure, or near pure, socialism.
As Jeff has pointed out in his own posts, the Nordic countries are mostly capitalistic (even more so then the USA, although he did not explain how) with some markets socialized.
-
Can you name a few?
Insofar as pure capitalism, that has never existed, so there is really no examples to look at.
PS, one could argue that Hong Kong prior to China taking over was as close to a pure capitalistic society ever formed, and it did pretty well.
-
Insofar as pure capitalism, that has never existed, so there is really no examples to look at.
I think the two problems in the US is, first, that our capitalism has slipped into crony capitalism where government conspires with business to protect businesses and re-elect the politicians that support them. The destructive and constructive forces of a free marketplace is stopped from doing its good work. Companies are rewarded by politicians who they support rather than relying on free market forces. Lobbyists make millions influencing legislation to reward the politically connected elites. This is the "swamp" Trump refers too that he wants to drain. The elites, both Republican and Democrat, who fought him during the election still fight him today. These critters have gotten rich and powerful living in the swamp. They're not going to give it up without a fight.
Second, politicians supports socialist giveaway programs for the vote. We've reached the point where both parties are afraid to touch any programs that people depend upon for their welfare. So our continued spending will kill the golden goose. Obamacare and these other programs sound great until you have to figure out where the money will come from that won't kill the goose at the same time. Like Venezuela, we're sowing the seeds of our own destruction. Who needs to worry about North Korea and Russia when we have ourselves?
-
In the USA, all pensions and social programs are based off of the premise that the next generation will be bigger then the previous.
This is not quite true. Companies have a reporting obligation to say how much their pension plans are funded. I get a yearly statement from my former employer regarding the pension plan funding. It is fully funded to account for all current and future retirees. I was one of the lucky ones to retire when I did as the trade association eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in favor of an enhanced 401(k) plan two years after I retired. Certainly there are some well known states such as Illinois that are very deficient in the funding of the plan for state employees.
both Medicare and Social Security have trust funds that are paid into. The problem with Medicare is Part A that covers hospitalization; this is the part that is in financial jeopardy. Part B (doctor's visits) and Part D (prescription drugs) are not in trouble because Medicare enrollees pay monthly premiums for these two. Part B is means tested and wealthier people pay more for their coverage (as I well know!!!!). I don't know about Part D as I get my Rx benefit from my employer. Social Security has been "fixed" several times since the inception to make it more financially stable. One easy fix that could be done is to remove the cap on Medicare Social Security tax payments. Right now any income over $127K is not taxed. I used to always celebrate in July when I reached the cap and got an extra $100 or so in every pay check.
Alan
-
No one says the Norwegians aren't smart. They did stay out of the EU.
Yes, they stayed out of the EU but there are a number of EU policies that they have to follow in return for preferential trade status with the EU. The UK will also have to negotiate on some of this stuff if they want to maintain decent trade. Brexit is not going to be a free lunch for the UK>
-
This is not quite true. Companies have a reporting obligation to say how much their pension plans are funded. I get a yearly statement from my former employer regarding the pension plan funding. It is fully funded to account for all current and future retirees. I was one of the lucky ones to retire when I did as the trade association eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in favor of an enhanced 401(k) plan two years after I retired. Certainly there are some well known states such as Illinois that are very deficient in the funding of the plan for state employees.
both Medicare and Social Security have trust funds that are paid into. The problem with Medicare is Part A that covers hospitalization; this is the part that is in financial jeopardy. Part B (doctor's visits) and Part D (prescription drugs) are not in trouble because Medicare enrollees pay monthly premiums for these two. Part B is means tested and wealthier people pay more for their coverage (as I well know!!!!). I don't know about Part D as I get my Rx benefit from my employer. Social Security has been "fixed" several times since the inception to make it more financially stable. One easy fix that could be done is to remove the cap on Medicare tax payments. Right now any income over $127K is not taxed. I used to always celebrate in July when I reached the cap and got an extra $100 or so in every pay check.
Alan
Okay, so maybe all was a little too generous.
However, there are many pension plans that are based on this premise, and it is not going to end well. We live in an aging population, and naturally born Americans are having much less kids. With immigration how it is, I don't see this changing.
Insofar as your fix for SS, that is one thing I would like to not see. I pay ~15% for SS being self-employed, and that is always a big check to write out this time of year.
-
Insofar as your fix for SS, that is one thing I would like to not see. I pay ~15% for SS being self-employed, and that is always a big check to write out this time of year.
We need enterprising young workers such as you to let me lead a life of luxury!!! Seriously though, I sympathize with you as I have two daughters that are free lance workers and they also pay that 15%. Social Security alone certainly doesn't allow one to lead a life of luxury in retirement. When one takes out he Medicare premiums there is even less. I really don't know how those who live on just Social Security alone manage things.
-
This is not quite true. Companies have a reporting obligation to say how much their pension plans are funded. I get a yearly statement from my former employer regarding the pension plan funding. It is fully funded to account for all current and future retirees. I was one of the lucky ones to retire when I did as the trade association eliminated the defined benefit pension plan in favor of an enhanced 401(k) plan two years after I retired. Certainly there are some well known states such as Illinois that are very deficient in the funding of the plan for state employees.
both Medicare and Social Security have trust funds that are paid into. The problem with Medicare is Part A that covers hospitalization; this is the part that is in financial jeopardy. Part B (doctor's visits) and Part D (prescription drugs) are not in trouble because Medicare enrollees pay monthly premiums for these two. Part B is means tested and wealthier people pay more for their coverage (as I well know!!!!). I don't know about Part D as I get my Rx benefit from my employer. Social Security has been "fixed" several times since the inception to make it more financially stable. One easy fix that could be done is to remove the cap on Medicare tax payments. Right now any income over $127K is not taxed. I used to always celebrate in July when I reached the cap and got an extra $100 or so in every pay check.
Alan
The problem with pension plans are their funding is dependent on valuation of their investments. If the economy takes a big hit again, and doesn't recover quickly, pension funds are really going to have problems. They're higher invested in the market. In NYS, its constitution requires that public pensions cannot be reduced by legislative action. So theoretically, the state legislature has to cut everything else first before lowering our pensions and pay them out of the yearly budget. But you never know. This year is the 20th anniversary where NYS can review its constitution if the people vote for a review. So naturally, the government unions are working very hard not to even have a convention, so scared they are of losing that constitutional protection. Me too.
By the way, I think you meant to say to remove the cap on Social Security. There already is no cap on Medicare. However, before you remove that cap, you know that the employer's cap also ends. Since a business already has figured a person's salary in the costs to do business, any resultant increases in SS taxes the employee pays has no effect on the company. However, since the company would have to match increases in social security, this would suddenly become a major cost increase in running their business that wasn't in the price of their products. If Congress does it, it would have to be phased in to allow for adjustment. But more taxes just hurts the economy even more. A better way might be to increase the age to 67 from 66. Or make all illegal immigrants citizens and encourage more immigration to increase SS deductions. Someone has to pay for my SS. :)
-
Yes, they stayed out of the EU but there are a number of EU policies that they have to follow in return for preferential trade status with the EU. The UK will also have to negotiate on some of this stuff if they want to maintain decent trade. Brexit is not going to be a free lunch for the UK>
That's true. But you know sometimes you have to give something to get something. Having the pride of running your own country and not having to turn over important decisions to the gnomes in Brussels means a lot too many people. They want to be the captain of their own ship of state. They want to feel that their democratic vote on how their country runs is not watered down or eliminated by foreigners concerned with their own wealth and power. That self-sufficiency is worth a lot to many people.
Freedom costs!
-
The problem with pension plans are their funding is dependent on valuation of their investments. If the economy takes a big hit again, and doesn't recover quickly, pension funds are really going to have problems. They're higher invested in the market.
The same thing happens with 401(k) plans and is also a key reason why I oppose privatization of Social Security. I know some folks who were scheduled to retire in 2009-10 whose 401(k) portfolios were way too risky. They didn't have enough money to retire on. In the new economy, workers have to be much more savvy because defined benefit plans are a thing of the past.
In NYS, its constitution requires that public pensions cannot be reduced by legislative action. So theoretically, the state legislature has to cut everything else first before lowering our pensions and pay them out of the yearly budget. But you never know. This year is the 20th anniversary where NYS can review its constitution if the people vote for a review. So naturally, the government unions are working very hard not to even have a convention, so scared they are of losing that constitutional protection. Me too.
I'm not sure if there are other states in the same position. The workers are clearly worried that a promise will be broken.
By the way, I think you meant to say to remove the cap on Social Security.
Yes, and I fixed it in the original post.
However, before you remove that cap, you know that the employer's cap also ends. Since a business already has figured a person's salary in the costs to do business, any resultant increases in SS taxes the employee pays has no effect on the company. However, since the company would have to match increases in social security, this would suddenly become a major cost increase in running their business that wasn't in the price of their products. If Congress does it, it would have to be phased in to allow for adjustment. But more taxes just hurts the economy even more. A better way might be to increase the age to 67 from 66. Or make all illegal immigrants citizens and encourage more immigration to increase SS deductions. Someone has to pay for my SS. :)
I would not make the employer pay more Social Security tax as per your point, just the employee. I think the age to take full retirement is going up to 67 for those born after 1960. As to the immigrant issue, some illegal immigrants get EITN number and do pay taxes (there was a story on the radio about this about 18 months ago which was quite interesting). The farm worker program in California that allowed Mexican nationals to work parts of the year in the fields did require the payment of Social Security even though the employees might not stay here long enough to gain citizenship and qualify for Social Security.
-
Insofar as pure capitalism, that has never existed, so there is really no examples to look at.
Yet earlier in this thread you wrote
"I just find it crazy that if you look at history, capitalism worked the moment it was created, but pure socialism has yet to work in any country it has been applied to. "
Your story is not consistent.
-
Yet earlier in this thread you wrote
"I just find it crazy that if you look at history, capitalism worked the moment it was created, but pure socialism has yet to work in any country it has been applied to. "
Your story is not consistent.
In that quote, I did not use the phrase "pure capitalism," only "pure socialism." ;)
Nice try; read more thoroughly next time. In all honesty, I wrote that quote with conscience and purposely avoided that phrase knowing it has never existed. And if you don't believe that I would be careful with the words I use and consistent with their use, ask yourself why then did I use prefix the latter with pure but not the former?
I think considering whenever a country is mostly socialistic, it fails, and whenever it is mostly capitalistic, it survives, proves my point.
-
...I would not make the employer pay more Social Security tax as per your point, just the employee...
Yes, I agree. We should just keep squeezing them youngins as long as we get our Social Security. Screw 'em.
-
... whenever a country is mostly socialistic, it fails, and whenever it is mostly capitalistic, it survives...
-
Interesting that Singpore is brought up. They provide universal healthcare for all their 5M plus citizens. they do so with some of the most stringent price controls on medical products and procedures. Hardly the free market in this case! ;D
-
Interesting that Singpore is brought up. They provide universal healthcare for all their 5M plus citizens. they do so with some of the most stringent price controls on medical products and procedures. Hardly the free market in this case! ;D
As does Cuba, but they lost so many good doctors due to the Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy and the now booming Paladars, where one can make more waiting tables then practicing medicine.
Still, overall Cuba has dropped off of a cliff after it became mostly socialistic. Did you know the average Cuban in the 1950s was just as wealthy as the average Southerner of the time. After visiting in January, I would say they are far from that now.
I tell you another thing about Cuba, it's quite annoying to do any night photography there. More then a 1/3 of all the street lights don't work
-
DPRK, Venezuela, Mao's China
Remember, I said pure, or near pure, socialism.
As Jeff has pointed out in his own posts, the Nordic countries are mostly capitalistic (even more so then the USA, although he did not explain how) with some markets socialized.
Neither of those three are pure or near-pure socialist (more communist dictatorships) as well as that in neither of them you see only shantytowns. For me this is more proof that pure or near pure socialistic states don't exist, just like there are no pure or near pure capitalistic states. There's very little black and white, but plenty shades of grey (more then 50 ;) )
-
Neither of those three are pure or near-pure socialist (more communist dictatorships) as well as that in neither of them you see only shantytowns. For me this is more proof that pure or near pure socialistic states don't exist, just like there are no pure or near pure capitalistic states. There's very little black and white, but plenty shades of grey (more then 50 ;) )
Okay, shades of grey, I agree.
With that being said, I think it needs to be stated (for the benefit of this conversation, not a knock on you) that governance does not imply economic policy. Yes, I know, civics is not very sexy, but maybe we should brush up on it.
Just because a country is a dictatorship does not automatically rule them out of being socialist, nor any other economic policy; it's an erroneous red herring to bring it up.
Socialism is defined as the government owning all and using central planning; the definition never mentions what type of government needs to be in place.
Cuba is socialist and a dictatorship. Venezuela is socialist, but a democracy. (You could argue on the way to dictatorship since Maduro did jail his opponent over made up charges to keep him from winning.) Hong Kong (prior to China rule) was a dictatorship, although benevolent, and capitalist.
-
As does Cuba, but they lost so many good doctors due to the Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy and the now booming Paladars, where one can make more waiting tables then practicing medicine.
Still, overall Cuba has dropped off of a cliff after it became mostly socialistic. Did you know the average Cuban in the 1950s was just as wealthy as the average Southerner of the time. After visiting in January, I would say they are far from that now.
I tell you another thing about Cuba, it's quite annoying to do any night photography there. More then a 1/3 of all the street lights don't work
A little correction here, the (now defunct) Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy is not the main reason why doctors leave. They leave because it's Cuba and it sucks, they also leave to other countries, not only the US.
-
A little correction here, the (now defunct) Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy is not the main reason why doctors leave. They leave because it's Cuba and it sucks, they also leave to other countries, not only the US.
The sad thing is there is such potential! They are highly educated (better literacy rate then the USA) and healthy, great resources too.
If ever Cuba reopens its stock market, I would certainly invest in the country.
-
Three good things regarding Cuba:
1. You need that free health care after the police beat the crap out of you for opening your mouth against the 55 year old Castro regime.
2. You also have an almost 100% literacy rate in the country. Of course, if you try to read what you want they beat the crap out of you again. See 1.
3. there is no 3. All you get is 1 and 2.
-
Sadly...
Trump dramatically changes US approach to climate change (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/trump-climate-change-executive-order/)
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order Tuesday at the Environmental Protection Agency, which officials said looks to curb the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations by putting American jobs above addressing climate change.
The order represents a clear difference between how Trump and former President Barack Obama view the role the United States plays in combating climate change, and dramatically alters the government's approach to rising sea levels and temperatures -- two impacts of climate change.
Trump said during the signing that the order will "eliminate federal overreach" and "start a new era of production and job creation."
"My action today is latest in steps to grow American jobs," Trump added, saying his order is "ending the theft of prosperity."
...ending the theft of prosperity
Really? And this is a good idea why?
But it get more serious...
I am an Arctic researcher. Donald Trump is deleting my citations (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/arctic-researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations)
s an Arctic researcher, I’m used to gaps in data. Just over 1% of US Arctic waters have been surveyed to modern standards. In truth, some of the maps we use today haven’t been updated since the second world war. Navigating uncharted waters can prove difficult, but it comes with the territory of working in such a remote part of the world.
Over the past two months though, I’ve been navigating a different type of uncharted territory: the deleting of what little data we have by the Trump administration.
At first, the distress flare of lost data came as a surge of defunct links on 21 January. The US National Strategy for the Arctic, the Implementation Plan for the Strategy, and the report on our progress all gone within a matter of minutes. As I watched more and more links turned red, I frantically combed the internet for archived versions of our country’s most important polar policies.
I had no idea then that this disappearing act had just begun.
So, some people were called alarmists when scientists started copying data and moving it off shore...seems they were right to do so otherwise important work would be lost.
As Trump would tweet: Lost data, bad hombres at work...SAD
-
It's what Trump ran on. The pendulum is swinging the other way.
-
It's what Trump ran on.
So deleting data is a good thing why?
-
So deleting data is a good thing why?
No, data should be saved. Frankly, it's hard to believe they deleted it I'm sure there are backups somewhere.
But, I was referring to his changes at the EPA to back off some of the more oppressive regulations. When someone can't develop their property because an endangered species once lived there 100 years earlier, and the EPA hopes that somehow the species will re-establish itself there, that's oppressive. When regulations stop the transportation of oil (XL pipeline) because of some BS ruling that it's no good for the environment or climate control or whatever, that's also oppressive. Government control is out-of-hand. We're turning the environment and climate changes into false religions, idols where people are being sacrificed on its alters. While man should be a good steward of nature, there's also man's right to use nature. There has to be a better balance.
-
So deleting data is a good thing why?
Could be that some US or Canadian groups have already archived the data. In Canada, we went through similar political meddling with our previous government, which started defunding scientific research, altering websites to align with the political party's goals, and trying to gag scientists by restraining them from releasing information before the bureaucrats had vetted it. Other Canadians jumped into the fray and started archiving public data. And as soon as Trump was elected, some of these groups started archiving public scientific data on U.S. sites. Last December, in fact, researchers at the University of Toronto held a "guerrilla archiving" event to preserve information and data from the Environmental Protection Agency.
-
So, some people were called alarmists when scientists started copying data and moving it off shore...seems they were right to do so otherwise important work would be lost.
Yes, there have been people in my country as well, who have been busy with backing up USA scientific data since November 2016 before it could disappear.
I wonder, isn't the destruction of government property a crime? And when the research was funded by government, isn't it somehow also property of the citizens of the USA, so they too can file complaints and demand repairs? I foresee a lot of litigation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, data should be saved. Frankly, it's hard to believe they deleted it...
+1
-
Sadly...
Trump dramatically changes US approach to climate change (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/politics/trump-climate-change-executive-order/)
...ending the theft of prosperity
Really? And this is a good idea why?
But it get more serious...
I am an Arctic researcher. Donald Trump is deleting my citations (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/arctic-researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations)
So, some people were called alarmists when scientists started copying data and moving it off shore...seems they were right to do so otherwise important work would be lost.
As Trump would tweet: Lost data, bad hombres at work...SAD
The author Victoria Hermann of the data "loss" article seems to be the only one I could find in Google making the same claim. I did find this article panning her claim though.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/03/28/i-am-an-arctic-researcher-donald-trump-is-deleting-my-citations/
There's so much "fake" news about how Trump is just blowing up the entire world in between his tweetings in the middle of the night, that it's hard to believe any negative claim on the left. What's going to happen, like the boy who cried wolf, is that a really important issue will come up. And it will be brushed off as just another BS attack on Trump. No one's going to pay attention.
-
Between golfing and tweeting, it seems fair to question whether Trump really has the time to do anything (like blowing up the world), so Alan may have a point.
-
Those few defending Trump only reinforce the stereotype of what the rest of the world thinks of Americans. :'(
Lucky for us that there are some Americans who don't fit this stereotype.
Lies and stupidity should always be called out . Politically being left or right doesn't always equal right and wrong we see this attitude in politics everywhere.
Anyone who thinks a rich egotistical narcissist actually cares about the poor is blatantly stupid, be assured he will do what is best for him and his friends.
He may have some good policy we have yet to see but judging by policy announced he is constructing an environment where he and his friends can do what they want with no restraint.
Good Luck America
-
The word of the day is
Kakistocracy
A word we may be hearing a lot of in the next four years
-
There's so much "fake" news about how Trump is just blowing up the entire world in between his tweetings in the middle of the night, that it's hard to believe any negative claim on the left. What's going to happen, like the boy who cried wolf, is that a really important issue will come up. And it will be brushed off as just another BS attack on Trump. No one's going to pay attention.
It works the other way too. Trump tweets out so much "fake" news that it is hard to believe any of his claims. What's going to happen, like the boy who cried wolf, is that a really important issue will come up. Trump may respond sensibly and accurately, but his claims will be brushed off as just another uninformed inaccurate exaggeration. No one's going to pay attention.
"If President Trump announces that North Korea launched a missile that landed within 100 miles of Hawaii, would most Americans believe him? Would the rest of the world? We’re not sure, which speaks to the damage that Mr. Trump is doing to his Presidency with his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods." -- Wall Street Journal
-
The author Victoria Hermann of the data "loss" article seems to be the only one I could find in Google making the same claim. I did find this article panning her claim though.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/03/28/i-am-an-arctic-researcher-donald-trump-is-deleting-my-citations/
Just to be clear, the blog post by William M. Connolley wasn't disputing the underlying fact that when Trump and his admin took over the Whitehouse web site, that entire chunks of data was removed–particularly relating to the environment. The ONLY way to access a lot of that data is to find the backup archive of the original web site at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov). So, any website or documents that referenced the document that Victoria Herrmann was involved creating. So, anybody who had a link off the old website will find broken links...is that bad? Well, it ain't good...and I've not heard anybody from the Whitehouse explain why they decided to blow out the entire old website.
And, yes, Victoria may have been a bit strident in her complaints, but the situation she mentioned regarding wholesale changes and data deletions that happened in Canada How the Harper Government Committed a Knowledge Massacre (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/capt-trevor-greene/science-cuts-canada_b_4534729.html).
So, what Trump did was delete access to anybody who tries to use the old urls to access the PDF. And actually, the PDF is interesting reading...The National Strategy for the Arctic Region (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nat_arctic_strategy.pdf)
The National Strategy for the Arctic Region sets forth the United States Government’s strategic priorities for the Arctic region. This strategy is intended to position the United States to respond effectively to challenges and emerging opportunities arising from significant increases in Arctic activity due to the diminishment of sea ice and the emergence of a new Arctic environment. It defines U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region and identifies prioritized lines of effort, building upon existing initiatives by Federal, state, local, and tribal authorities, the private sector, and international partners, and aims to focus efforts where opportunities exist and action is needed. It is designed to meet the reality of a changing Arctic environment, while we simultaneously pursue our global objective of combating the climate changes that are driving these environmental conditions.
So, it wasn't #FAKENEWS as Alan claimed...and the interesting thing is that the blog poster is actually a professional attacker of everything, even Alan's precious Donald. See: Donald trump, ha ha ha (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/03/25/donald-trump-ha-ha-ha/)
Since repeal of Obamacare was a major campaign promise, Trump looks (a) stupid and (b) a failure. It is worth noting, in passing, that even if the bill had been passed it would have broken any number of promises but I’m doubtful that would have mattered too much, because everyone has a memory like a goldfish nowadays and most of those promises were forgotten seconds after they were uttered. The only meaningful promise was repeal-and-replace; that failed. To me, Trump’s failure to persevere looks… I struggle to find the one key word that sums it up.
Instead of knuckling down to it, instead of rolling up his sleeves and settling in for some hard work persuading doubters, threatening the malleable, and reworking the bill to make it acceptable to enough Republicans, he just gave up. It looks lightweight; careless; petulant. He has long been indifferent to the truth; this makes him indifferent to reality. To say the obvious thing that everyone else has said, it makes his much-vaunted claims to be a peerless dealmaker look suspect. Naturally, he’ll move quickly on to the next thing in the hope that the public’s goldfish-like mind forgets all about it.
So, William M. Connolley isn't much of a friend of Trump...heck, based on his other blog posts, he's not much of a friend of anybody's, not even you Alan :~)
-
Really? Doesn't he know this is an American tradition?
Donald Trump declines Nationals' invitation to throw out first pitch on opening day (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-donald-trump-nationals-opening-day-20170328-story.html)
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-58da7b27/turbine/ct-donald-trump-nationals-opening-day-20170328-001/750/750x422)
Donald Trump throws out the ceremonial first pitch before a Red Sox-Yankees game on Aug. 18, 2006, at Fenway Park. (Charles Krupa / Associated Press)
Presidents have regularly thrown out the ceremonial first pitch on Opening Day for Washington's major league team going back more than a century, but the tradition will not resume this year. The Nationals invited President Donald Trump to do the honors on Monday afternoon, when the team opens its 2017 season at Nationals Park against the Miami Marlins, but the White House declined the invitation on Tuesday, citing a scheduling conflict, according to Nationals spokeswoman Jen Giglio.
"The White House has announced that President Trump will not be joining us on Opening Day due to a scheduling conflict," the spokesperson said on Tuesday. "As all of you know, inviting the president is a 100-plus year tradition here in Washington baseball. It began with the Senators back in 1910 and when baseball came back to Washington the Nats continued that tradition."
If he can't throw the ball any better than that, I don't blame him :~)
-
Ooooops!
Hawaii judge extends halt on Trump travel ban (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/hawaii-judge-extends-halt-trump-travel-ban/99793954/)
A federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday placed a stronger hold on President Trump's plan to temporarily suspend immigration from six majority Muslim countries, striking another legal blow against the president's attempts to institute a travel ban.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued the first nationwide halt against Trump's revised executive order on March 15. That made Watson's ruling the prevailing block to Trump's plans, but one only designed to last for about two weeks.
On Wednesday, Watson heard arguments from the attorneys for the Hawaii attorney general and the Department of Justice to determine if the block should be extended. Watson did so, issuing a preliminary injunction that will take a more lasting hold. The next step for the Trump administration would be an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which previously ruled against Trump's first travel ban.
#MAGA
-
Trump’s loose grip on history is biting him (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-history-facts-236659)
Riffing during a fundraising dinner before the National Republican Congressional Committee, President Donald Trump asked if anyone knew Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
“Great president. Most people don't even know he was a Republican," Trump said earlier this month. "Does anyone know? Lot of people don't know that.”
The president’s statement was met with ridicule — and this wasn’t the first time. From implying famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass was still alive to praising both Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, two bitter rivals, within a week, presidential historians say Trump is showing a lack of a solid grasp on history.
Most recent presidents have entered the Oval Office with a fierce curiosity about their predecessors, but Trump acknowledged not reading any presidential biographies before he clinched the Republican nomination — and he hasn’t indicated he intends to read one soon.
Trump’s remarks Wednesday to the Women’s Empowerment Panel showcased his free-wheeling approach to history. Although he was factually correct about the history of Abigail Adams, Harriet Tubman and Susan B. Anthony, his delivery raised eyebrows. After describing Harriet Tubman as “very, very courageous, believe me,” he asked the audience a strange question about Anthony.
“Have you heard of Susan B. Anthony?” he asked.
No, do tell us about Susan B. Anthony Donald!
-
Ooooops!
Hawaii judge extends halt on Trump travel ban (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/29/hawaii-judge-extends-halt-trump-travel-ban/99793954/)
#MAGA
Trump should ignore the travel ban and just move ahead with developing more stringent vetting. By the time he appeals the ruling, the 90 days will be up in any case. So he should be working on the vetting process on its own. I could be missing something, but stopping or not stopping people from coming in doesn't seem to have any relationship to updating vetting. If after the 90 days he hasn't done anything, then it would seem that he was issuing the order for political reasons and wasn't serious about the revising the vetting procedures.
-
Those few defending Trump only reinforce the stereotype of what the rest of the world thinks of Americans. :'( ...
Welcome to Lula, Rodney.
One can only wish that you didn't start your forum activity with insults.
Assuming you included me in the "few," I am curious what is the stereotype and how do I fit it?
-
Welcome to Lula, Rodney.
One can only wish that you didn't start your forum activity with insults.
Assuming you included me in the "few," I am curious what is the stereotype and how do I fit it?
We know your type, Slobodan. You're not fooling us.
-
We know your type, Slobodan. You're not fooling us.
You mean highly educated (like most participants on this thread); well-travelled (33 countries, 39 U.S. states, living, working or visiting); lived, worked, and educated in Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the U.S.; work experience in the U.S. government, 4 Fortune 200 U.S. corporations, private startups; speaking three languages fluently, and two elementary; teaching at European and American colleges; etc.?
If that is a stereotypical American, then guilty as charged ;)
-
You mean highly educated (like most participants on this thread); well-travelled (33 countries, 39 U.S. states, living, working or visiting); lived, worked, and educated in Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the U.S.; work experience in the U.S. government, 4 Fortune 200 U.S. corporations, private startups; speaking three languages fluently, and two elementary; teaching at European and American colleges; etc.?
If that is a stereotypical American, then guilty as charged ;)
To be accurate, I don't see a lot of Trump-defending coming from you, though I admit to being somewhat perplexed by some of the conclusions you draw about what America ought to be. That said, if the typical American had your breadth of experience, the national debate would be far more fascinating.
-
Welcome to Lula, Rodney.
One can only wish that you didn't start your forum activity with insults.
Assuming you included me in the "few," I am curious what is the stereotype and how do I fit it?
Thank you for the welcome Slobodan.
I wish that in the affairs of the world I would not feel concerned enough to comment.
In regards to the stereotype I have to admit that your qualifications experience and wealth are most likely atypical of the majority of your fellow Americans.
And your civil manner in debate is a credit to you also atypical.
However the stereotype I was referring to was more along the lines of Bumptious egotistical blowhard.
The Inability to see the truth and acknowledge mistakes is not a virtue, If the world is a safer and better place because of trump in the coming years I will be the first to admit I was wrong.
-
Thank you for the welcome Slobodan.
I wish that in the affairs of the world I would not feel concerned enough to comment.
In regards to the stereotype I have to admit that your qualifications experience and wealth are most likely atypical of the majority of your fellow Americans.
And your civil manner in debate is a credit to you also atypical.
However the stereotype I was referring to was more along the lines of Bumptious egotistical blowhard.
The Inability to see the truth and acknowledge mistakes is not a virtue, If the world is a safer and better place because of trump in the coming years I will be the first to admit I was wrong.
Let me welcome you too, Rodney. However, I think they got a rule here that you have to post ten times in some photo section before posting in the Coffee Table section. Then you're promoted to a Bumptious egotistical blowhard and can post here like the rest of us.
-
Ok, ok, back to some levity ;)
"This Candy Company Is Selling ‘Trump Sucks’ Lollipops To Support Planned Parenthood"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-sucks-lollipops-planned-parenthood-global-gag-rule_us_58dd073fe4b05eae031d7a3e?
-
Ok, ok, back to some levity ;)
"This Candy Company Is Selling ‘Trump Sucks’ Lollipops To Support Planned Parenthood"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-sucks-lollipops-planned-parenthood-global-gag-rule_us_58dd073fe4b05eae031d7a3e?
At 5 GBP a lollipop, I really hope they don't suck!
-
The new news about Flynn asking for immunity got me thinking. Flynn illegally acted as a foreign agent for Turkey because he didn't file papers as such as required by law. He tried to file after the fact a couple of weeks ago to try to cover his tracks. Also, if he was acting as a foreign agent and failed to mention that in federal forms relating to his position in the administration, that too is a violation of the law he can go to jail for. So he's trying to offer testimony to get Congress to grant him immunity. His lawyers said he has great stuff to give in testimony. Well of course, they're going to say that. Would Congress offer immunity if the lawyers said he's got nothing really to talk about especially about collusion? This all is about his lawyers trying to get him out of trouble because of his own greed.
-
Uh oh...Scottie, we have a problem!!!
Oklahoma Bar Association opens investigation of ex-AG Pruitt (https://www.yahoo.com/news/oklahoma-bar-association-opens-investigation-ex-ag-pruitt-213907265.html)
"It appears that Mr. Pruitt misrepresented material facts that bore on the Senate committee's analysis of Mr. Pruitt's fitness to serve as EPA Administrator," the complaint states.
Emails and other documents released by the attorney general's office indicate Pruitt coordinated closely with fossil-fuel companies and special interest groups who worked to undermine federal efforts to curb planet-warming carbon emissions.
It's that darn pesky email problem...
Thousands of emails detail EPA head’s close ties to fossil fuel industry (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/22/oklahoma-attorney-generals-office-releases-7500-pages-of-emails-between-scott-pruitt-and-fossil-fuel-industry/?utm_term=.ef94efe6d6a8)
In his previous role as Oklahoma’s attorney general, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new administrator regularly huddled with fossil fuel firms and electric utilities about how to combat federal environmental regulations and spoke to conservative political groups about what they called government “overreach,” according to thousands of pages of emails made public Wednesday.
“The newly released emails reveal a close and friendly relationship between Scott Pruitt’s office and the fossil fuel industry, with frequent meetings, calls, dinners and other events,” said Nick Surgey, research director for the Center for Media and Democracy, which has sued to compel the release of the emails.
The emails highlight an often-chummy relationship between Pruitt’s office and Devon Energy, a major oil and gas exploration and production company based in Oklahoma City. The correspondence makes clear that top officials at the company met often with Pruitt or people who worked for him. Devon representatives also helped draft — and redraft — letters for Pruitt to sign and send to federal officials in an effort to stave off new regulations.
And if you actually go through the changes to Obama's EO's you find that there's a lot of hand waving with little chance for substantial increases in jobs or the reemergence of coal for wide spread power generation...
TRUMP'S PLAN TO GUT OBAMA'S CLIMATE POLICIES: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-climate-executive-order-guts-obama-policies-575222)
President Donald Trump will issue his long-promised executive order rolling back federal government efforts to fight climate change Tuesday.
The wide-ranging order, which will be accompanied by other environmental directives, targets Obama-era policies across the government, including in the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, and the Department of Defense. It directs the EPA to revisit the Clean Power Plan, which limits carbon pollution from power plants and was considered the center-piece of former President Barack Obama's climate policy. Additionally, Trump is asking the Justice Department to stop defending the plan in court.
The president will instruct agencies to rescind a moratorium on coal leasing on public lands; rewrite limits on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry; and ignore the EPA's current calculation on the costs of carbon pollution. There are also broad directives reversing an Obama initiative requiring that federal departments consider climate mitigation strategy and the national security risks of global warming.
One of Trump's more notable "Day One" promises is missing, however: The United States will remain in the landmark Paris climate accord for the time being—despite Trump's pledge to "cancel" it.
All of this for what? More coal jobs? Uh, no...
Mass Employment In Coal Mining Is Never Coming Back, No Matter Trump's Promises Or Regulations (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/03/29/mass-employment-in-coal-mining-is-never-coming-back-no-matter-trumps-promises-or-regulations/#18a5ef0a71e8)
It's an obvious truism that regulations which make a certain activity more expensive are going to reduce the amount of that activity. Supply curves do slope downwards, demand ones up, after all. Thus it is equally obvious that if we rescind those regulations creating that greater expense then, at the margin, there will be more of that activity again. And since activity is often linked to employment level we would think that Trump's rolling back some of the regulations which make coal mining more expensive will increase the employment of miners. And we would be right to think so. And yet the effect of that will be trivial because it's not in fact regulation which has been killing off mining as a source of mass employment. It's technological change and the change in regulation isn't going to affect that in the slightest.
Read that again, And yet the effect of that will be trivial because it's not in fact regulation which has been killing off mining as a source of mass employment. It's technological change and the change in regulation isn't going to affect that in the slightest.
Coal mining and coal jobs will not be coming back to any serious degree, but the changes may indeed by very, very bad for the long term...
In U.S., there are twice as many solar workers as coal miners (http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/)
More than 31,000 new solar jobs were created in the U.S. in 2014 bringing the total to 173,807—a 21.8 percent increase in employment since November 2013, according to a report released Thursday by The Solar Foundation. This is the second consecutive year that solar jobs have increased by at least 20 percent.
The solar industry is still dwarfed by the 9.8 million workers that the American Petroleum Industry says are employed the oil and gas industry. However, the Solar Foundation is quick to point out the industry is starting to surpass some fossil fuel-related job categories.
Solar already employs more people than coal mining, which has 93,185 workers, and has added 50 percent more jobs in 2014 than the oil and gas pipeline construction industry (10,529) and the crude petroleum and natural gas extraction industry (8,688) did combined, according to the Solar Foundation.
One out of every 78 new jobs created in the U.S. over the past 12 months were created by the solar industry, representing nearly 1.3 percent of all jobs created in the country. Solar companies surveyed for the fifth annual census plan to add another 36,000 employees this year.
“That’s just insane,” Rive says. “The solar industry is literally contributing to the job growth of the U.S. economy—and it’s just so understated.”
Yeah, ya know, maybe Obama got something right in trying to spur advances in clean-energy technologies...and in point of fact, while the jobs numbers above in 2014 indicate American Petroleum Industry is still above in 2015 the clean-energy workforce surpassed oil related jobs for the 1st time.
Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/clean-energy-jobs-surpass-oil-drilling-for-first-time-in-u-s)
The number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the first time last year, helping drive a global surge in employment in the clean-energy business as fossil-fuel companies faltered.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i1ND6Ra5hrUg/v2/800x-1.png)
And...here's a scary thought...just as Trump is trying to Make America Great Again, China is making massive changes in clean energy industries. So, China is reducing their use of coal while Trump wants more coal use in the US...what does China know that Trump doesn't?
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iYODZtuyvxRQ/v2/800x-1.png)
China installed the most new renewable capacity in the world in 2015 with 65 gigawatts. It employed 35 percent more people in its clean energy industry than in oil and gas.
China, Brazil and the U.S. were at the front of the pack for renewable energy jobs. Asia is home to 60 percent of the world’s renewable energy employees, up from just over 50 percent in 2013. Japan saw jobs in its solar PV industry gain by 28 percent in 2014.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ieg3eDxNXyvM/v2/800x-1.png)
So, is Trump right or does the rest of the world get it...fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas) are finite, non-renewable resources. At some point, we will run out of the stuff. Not to mention the negative impact on the climate (pretty sure we can all agree that air pollution is not a good thing), we need to find alternative energy sources...and China and Brazil are kicking our butts.
-
Uh oh...Scottie, we have a problem!!!
Oklahoma Bar Association opens investigation of ex-AG Pruitt (https://www.yahoo.com/news/oklahoma-bar-association-opens-investigation-ex-ag-pruitt-213907265.html)
It's that darn pesky email problem...
Thousands of emails detail EPA head’s close ties to fossil fuel industry (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/22/oklahoma-attorney-generals-office-releases-7500-pages-of-emails-between-scott-pruitt-and-fossil-fuel-industry/?utm_term=.ef94efe6d6a8)
And due to his rejection of Scientific recommendations, Pruitt is possibly tied to other interests (Chemical industry) as well.
Pruitt defies scientists recommendation to ban harmful pesticide:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/epa-head-defies-scientists-recommendation-to-ban-harmful-pesticide/
"Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced late Wednesday that a widely used pesticide will remain available to farmers, despite agency scientists recommending last year that it be banned due to neurotoxicity risks to farm workers and children. Chlorpyrifos, already banned from most household products, affects memory, learning."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Chlorpyrifos, already banned from most household products, affects memory, learning.
That stuff must have been used in USA for some time now.
-
That stuff must have been used in USA for some time now.
Either the empirical evidence is overwhelming, or it is purely self-serving conduct (or both), at the expense of the sheeple. (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/sad.gif)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Chlorpyrifos has important agriculture applications. It's important to note that in the US, a pesticide can be banned for household use because the risks cannot be well managed and still used for agriculture where they can.
-
Chlorpyrifos has important agriculture applications. It's important to note that in the US, a pesticide can be banned for household use because the risks cannot be well managed and still used for agriculture where they can.
While it may be a common pesticide;
"We've banned pesticides before, and farmers have turned to safer alternatives. The notion that we should continue to use a pesticide linked to autism because it's needed to feed the world is an outrageous, ridiculous statement," said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental research organization.
Faber said Dow Agrosciences itself makes safer alternatives, which Dow confirmed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/health/epa-chlorpyrifos-decision/
Cheers,
Bart
-
A view from the Economist: Overview of Trump's first 70 days. (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21719794-and-bad-americaand-world-trump-presidency-hole)
-
... a pesticide linked to autism..
Wait, I thought vaccines are linked to autism!? ;)
-
"Utah economic mobility to rival Denmark"
“'Big government' does not appear to have been key to Utah’s income mobility...The state has not invested a lot in fighting poverty, nor on schools; Utah is dead last in per-pupil education spending. This should at least give pause to those who view educational programs as the natural path to economic mobility."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive
-
Wait, I thought vaccines are linked to autism!? ;)
Cute reaction, but not funny.
Chapter 33 – Lasting Behavioral Consequences of Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure During Development:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123743671000331
Neurodevelopmental effects in children associated with exposure to organophosphate pesticides: A systematic review:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X13001514
Of course, nothing interesting there for a science denier like Pruitt. Wait, isn't he the head of the Environmental Protection Agency? Right, so why not phase out this dangerous substance in favor of a safer alternative? Let me guess, lower profit for Dow?
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Utah economic mobility to rival Denmark"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive
Of course Utah is a very religious state with 60% of the citizens practicing Mormons. There must be something special going on here as the 'religiosity' of states in Appalachian and southern states is also very high but Christian; however, these states are much worse off than Utah in a number of areas. Interesting!
-
Of course Utah is a very religious state with 60% of the citizens practicing Mormons. There must be something special going on here as the 'religiosity' of states in Appalachian and southern states is also very high but Christian; however, these states are much worse off than Utah in a number of areas. Interesting!
When I taught Business Calc at LaSalle University, I would always show the students the per capita alcohol consumption in the USA going back to the 1930s and use that data to determine models to predict future consumption.
We always had to ignore Utah when doing this since their numbers were about a fourth, or less, than the rest of the states.
We then would look at revolutionary times when they consumed about 12 gallons of alcohol a year and figure out exactly how much you would need to drink to do that. I was always amazed whenever we figured that out that anything ever got done back then. (The current figure is about 2.6 gallons per year.)
-
Of course Utah is a very religious state with 60% of the citizens practicing Mormons. There must be something special going on here as the 'religiosity' of states in Appalachian and southern states is also very high but Christian; however, these states are much worse off than Utah in a number of areas. Interesting!
I bet it has to do with more intact families in Utah.
-
...Coal mining and coal jobs will not be coming back to any serious degree, but the changes may indeed by very, very bad for the long term...
You missed the point about jobs. Smaller numbers of workers for coal which create about a third of all energy produced is better than larger numbers workers in the clean fuel sector that produces a much smaller amount of total energy.
A rich economy isn't based on the number of people working. Rather, it's how much each worker produces. It's about productivity. The more he produces, the richer he and the country is. Otherwise you could argue that China should go back to picks and shovels and let millions of people dig ditches rather than as it is today when they use efficient construction equipment. China today is rich because they have become very productive per unit of work. The best fuel would be where only one person could produce the complete supply for the entire country.
-
The best fuel would be where only one person could produce the complete supply for the entire country.
Huh?
What does that mean?
-
Meaning a lot of methane?
-
EPA scientific integrity office reviewing Pruitt's comments on carbon:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-carbon-idUSKBN1722SU
"The request by Sierra Club ramps up tension between the U.S. environmental movement and the administration of President Donald Trump, who has called global warming a hoax meant to weaken the U.S. economy and has packed his cabinet with people who question the science of climate change."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Huh?
What does that mean?
It means that all those 75000 coal miners and 100's of thousands of clean energy workers could be adding other wealth to the economy by doing different work. Or to put it another way, that one guy would be awfully productive doing the same work as all of those coal and clean energy workers combined who wouldn't be needed in the energy field any more.
-
A view from the Economist: Overview of Trump's first 70 days. (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21719794-and-bad-americaand-world-trump-presidency-hole)
Another biased hit job on Trump.
-
Sec of State Tillerson warns Germany and Europe regarding 2% and NATO requirements. Even the NATO chief agrees. The US should move a battalion or even a division from Germany to Poland where they meet the 2%, or better yet rotate it back to the states. Until America takes some concrete action, these countries won't do anything. Once they start staring at the bear by themselves, they'll wake up. What gets me is how broke Greece can meet the 2% yet the rich nations cannot.
-
Another biased hit job on Trump.
Not so much... The Economist is rated as in the Least Biased by Media Bias/Fact Checking (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/).
So when neutral media is castigating the Trumpster who ya gonna turn to? The Far Right Fox News?
Sad...
-
Not so much... The Economist is rated as in the Least Biased by Media Bias/Fact Checking (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/).
So when neutral media is castigating the Trumpster who ya gonna turn to? The Far Right Fox News?
Sad...
It's called faith.
It's the same juice fires ISIS. You can't reason with it, regardless of the contradicting evidence the faithful have right under their noses. It's why I gave up trying.
-
It's called faith.
It's the same juice fires ISIS. You can't reason with it, regardless of the contradicting evidence the faithful have right under their noses. It's why I gave up trying.
It's actually quite amusing to observe the Trumpettes desperately pretending that the Small Handed One is really following a deep plan and that everything is under control, when the evidence is clearer every day that it's one giant **** up :-)
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.8236990.5361/raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.jpg)
-
Sec of State Tillerson warns Germany and Europe regarding 2% and NATO requirements. Even the NATO chief agrees. The US should move a battalion or even a division from Germany to Poland where they meet the 2%, or better yet rotate it back to the states. Until America takes some concrete action, these countries won't do anything. Once they start staring at the bear by themselves, they'll wake up. What gets me is how broke Greece can meet the 2% yet the rich nations cannot.
You see the problem with logic?
Greece simply borrows. She's so indebted already to every international lending service in the world that they suppose that she's going to have to be supported if there's to be even a prayer of their expectation hopes of getting those debts repaid. When you have nothing, you have nothing further to lose, and so the game takes on a different dimension.
That's why debt doesn't bother some people: psychologically, repayment becomes not their problem, but that of the lenders.
-
You see the problem with logic?
Greece simply borrows. She's so indebted already to every international lending service in the world that they suppose that she's going to have to be supported if there's to be even a prayer of their expectation hopes of getting those debts repaid. When you have nothing, you have nothing further to lose, and so the game takes on a different dimension.
That's why debt doesn't bother some people: psychologically, repayment becomes not their problem, but that of the lenders.
More to the point - Greece faces an existential threat from a belligerent and heavily armed neighbour which violates their teriitory on a daily basis, This led them to make the mistake of entering into arms purchases with France and Germany, under circumstances which look extremely strange and have given rise to suspicions (to say the least) of corruption on both sides. The net result is that German savers' money goes to Greece and then directly into the pockets of Siemens etc. (who supply weapons that don't even work). Meanwhile the poor of Greece are expected to pay.
But this is a whole different story. For the 2% thing - it's amazing how much money you can save by not invading far-away countries!
-
The net result is that German savers' money goes to Greece and then directly into the pockets of Siemens etc. (who supply weapons that don't even work). Meanwhile the poor of Greece are expected to pay.
I was unaware that Siemens are a weapons manufacturer. Can you tell me what types they make?
-
I was unaware that Siemens are a weapons manufacturer. Can you tell me what types they make?
Submarines for example.
-
From the newest Spiegel article:
The US President has his own relationship to facts, denies climate change and sees environmental protection as an industrial obstacle. Donald Trump's policy scares many scientists in the US. They are afraid of the attacks on universities, some even from a departure from rationality.
Thanks to the Brexit and Trump's choice, a lot more top scientists are interested in German universities. If foreign scientists leave the country, hopefully this will be a wake-up call for the US. On the other hand, Germany as a science location in Europe will benefit enormously.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/31/as-islamic-extremist-grows-in-latin-america-some-want-trump-to-take-action.html
... As Islam grows in Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly in places like Brazil, Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago, experts say Islamic radicalization in parts of these regions is growing as well – which is particularly disconcerting because of their proximity to the United States.
Of particular concern is the tri-border region of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, 800 miles north of Buenos Aires, where the Islamic militant group Hezbollah has set up its most important base outside of Lebanon.
But other threats include Trinidad and Tobago, a small island nation off the coast of Venezuela that has become a breeding ground for ISIS. About 70 of the 100 Latin Americans who have joined ISIS originated from the island nation, which is about 1,600 miles southeast of Florida...
-
Submarines for example.
nope, they don't make submarines... you are confused with Siemens selling some parts to Thyssen Krupp which actually designs and makes u-boats ... if I make a nail and sell it to a somebody who builds a house that does not make me a housebuilder... it does not matter how complicated those Siemens parts are - they are not weapons...
-
nope, they don't make submarines... you are confused with Siemens selling some parts to Thyssen Krupp which actually designs and makes u-boats ... if I make a nail and sell it to a somebody who builds a house that does not make me a housebuilder... it does not matter how complicated those Siemens parts are - they are not weapons...
What kind of parts does Siemens sell them?
-
Not sure about Siemens, but if you need a periscope, Gus-Visionsystems from Lubbecke makes good ones.
-
What kind of parts does Siemens sell them?
Mostly to do with electronics and infrastructure. Here are some links (http://Siemens site:https://www.defense.gov/) for US DoD contracts with Siemens.
Cheers,
Bart
-
nope, they don't make submarines... you are confused with Siemens selling some parts to Thyssen Krupp which actually designs and makes u-boats ... if I make a nail and sell it to a somebody who builds a house that does not make me a housebuilder... it does not matter how complicated those Siemens parts are - they are not weapons...
Whatever. The general point is not affected by the name of the company.
-
Mostly to do with electronics and infrastructure. Here are some links (http://Siemens site:https://www.defense.gov/) for US DoD contracts with Siemens.
Cheers,
Bart
they also make quiet running engines.
-
Another biased hit job on Trump.
You'll have to offer a better refutation than that.
Unlike Fox News, the Economist is one of the world's most universally respected journals.
-
You'll have to offer a better refutation than that.
Unlike Fox News, the Economist is one of the world's most universally respected journals.
It doesn't matter what the journal is considered. The link is to an opinion/op-ed article within their magazine. Opinions by their very nature are biased. The opinion they presented was mostly a hit job on Trump.
-
Opinions by their very nature are biased. The opinion they presented was mostly a hit job on Trump.
And...that magazine is noted for being very unbiased. It's merely YOUR opinion–which has already proven to be blindly biased in favor of Trump–that the op/ed is biased. In point of fact, they very deftly eviscerated Trump's actions and inactions...he's not draining the swamp, he's simply repopulating it in his likeness...he's not repealing/replacing Obamacare, he's moving on to tax reform–which has been made harder now. He's had two attempts to ban muslims rebuked. He's pissed off friends and enemies alike yet still loves Putin in spite of all evidence that Putin is out to get us. The only thing he's done is go EO-happy by signing a bunch of stuff to do and/or undo that he's unlikely to have read or understood...
See, the sad thing is, if somebody actually tells the truth about Trump and what's he's doing, it's a hit job by the unfair lying media...uh, no, The Economist just point out what a failure his first 70 days in office has been.
If that's a hit job, then by your standard, there can be no reporting of what Trump says or does won't be a hit job...
DONALD TRUMP won the White House on the promise that government is easy. Unlike his Democratic opponent, whose career had been devoted to politics, Mr Trump stood as a businessman who could Get Things Done. Enough voters decided that boasting, mocking, lying and grabbing women were secondary. Some Trump fans even saw them as the credentials of an authentic, swamp-draining saviour.
After 70 days in office, however, Mr Trump is stuck in the sand. A health-care bill promised as one of his “first acts” suffered a humiliating collapse in the—Republican-controlled—Congress (see Lexington). His repeated attempts to draft curbs on travel to America from some Muslim countries are being blocked by the courts. And suspicions that his campaign collaborated with Russia have cost him his national security adviser and look likely to dog his administration (see article). Voters are not impressed. No other president so early in his first term has suffered such low approval ratings.
True? Untrue? Hit job?
The nature of political power is different, too. As owner and CEO of his business, Mr Trump had absolute control. The constitution sets out to block would-be autocrats. Where Mr Trump has acted appropriately—as with his nomination of a principled, conservative jurist to fill a Supreme Court vacancy—he deserves to prevail. But when the courts question the legality of his travel order they are only doing their job. Likewise, the Republican failure to muster a majority over health-care reflects not just divisions between the party’s moderates and hardliners, but also the defects of a bill that, by the end, would have led to worse protection, or none, for tens of millions of Americans without saving taxpayers much money.
Far from taking Washington by storm, America’s CEO is out of his depth. The art of political compromise is new to him. He blurs his own interests and the interests of the nation. The scrutiny of office grates. He chafes under the limitations of being the most powerful man in the world. You have only to follow his incontinent stream of tweets to grasp Mr Trump’s paranoia and vanity: the press lies about him; the election result fraudulently omitted millions of votes for him; the intelligence services are disloyal; his predecessor tapped his phones. It’s neither pretty nor presidential.
True? Untrue? Hit job?
The character question
The Americans who voted for Mr Trump either overlooked his bombast, or they saw in him a tycoon with the self-belief to transform Washington. Although this presidency is still young, that already seems an error of judgment. His policies, from health-care reform to immigration, have been poor—they do not even pass the narrow test that they benefit Trump voters. Most worrying for America and the world is how fast the businessman in the Oval Office is proving unfit for the job.
True? Untrue? Hit job?
Naw...actually, it's a pretty well articulated assessment of Trump's incompetence so far...
Hit job?
Not so much...the truth hurts don't it?
-
Well, the
Trumpster #DumbDonald! is back to name calling...
Trump mocks Chuck Todd's appearance, Russia reporting in Saturday morning tweet (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-chuck-todd-nbc-russia-236774)
President Donald Trump went after Chuck Todd and NBC News on Saturday morning, asking when they will stop reporting on "the fake Trump/Russia story."
"When will Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd and @NBCNews start talking about the Obama SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL and stop with the Fake Trump/Russia story," the president tweeted. Nearly 20 minutes later, he added: "It is the same Fake News Media that said there is "no path to victory for Trump" that is now pushing the phony Russia story. A total scam!"
--snip--
Trump has drawn criticism in the past for mocking reporters' appearances. During the 2016 campaign, Trump mocked New York TImes reporter Serge F. Kovaleski, who has a physical disability. Last July, Trump tweeted about Todd, referring to him as "sleepy eyes."
Todd responded to Trump's tweet, saying he "slept well" and doesn't feel "sleepy at all."
"For those wondering, I slept well even tho I stayed up late watching the #msstate upset of UConn. #cowbell. Don't feel sleepy at all though," Todd wrote.
So, the leader of the free world is still acting like a schoolyard brat and calling people names?
Well, let's call him #DumbDonald!
-
#NewSwamp
Trump Couple, Now White House Employees, Can’t Escape Conflict Laws (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/us/politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-conflicts-business-empire.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
But the financial disclosure report released late Friday for Mr. Kushner, which shows that he and his wife still benefit financially from a real estate and investment empire worth as much as $740 million, makes clear that this most powerful Washington couple is walking on perilous legal and ethical ground, according to several prominent experts on the subject.
Unlike Mr. Trump, who is exempt from conflict of interest laws, both Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump — who took a formal White House position this past week — are forbidden under federal criminal and civil law to take any action that might benefit their particular financial holdings.
Then there's Bannon...Bannon Made Millions in Shaping Right-Wing Thought (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/business/dealbook/how-some-top-trump-aides-made-their-fortunes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
The personal wealth and holdings of President Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, were detailed for the first time on Friday in a filing that showed a large chunk of his income coming from right-leaning political news, film and consulting companies.
The filing was included in a huge release of financial disclosures made late Friday evening by the White House, which is obligated to make public the financial assets and income of scores of officials now serving in the Trump administration.
A conservative media impresario and producer of documentary films before joining the Trump campaign, Mr. Bannon has assets (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015b-26d1-d119-a9ff-27df6d510001) worth $11.8 million to $53.8 million, his filing showed.
#SwampRats
#MAGA
Yeah, right...if you believe that, I got a bridge I'll sell you...
-
... Naw...actually, it's a pretty well articulated assessment of Trump's incompetence so far...
+1
-
Cutting budgets is one thing, but erasing valuable scientific data borders on sheer stupidity, ignorance and criminal neglect. Worse than burning bibles.
Since January, Trump's administration has been systematically deleting datasets, webpages and policies about the Arctic.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/28/arctic-researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations
-
For April Fools' Day, the Russian Foreign Ministry put out an "official joke" - a video of a proposed voice-mail message for its embassy answering machines. In the clip, recorded in Russian and English, an automated recording tells callers to press 1 for "a call from a Russian diplomat to your political opponent." You can press 2 "to use the services of Russian hackers," or 3 "to request election interference."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-russia-april-fools-day-joke-20170401-story.html
:D
-
No joke...
So...then there's this: Trump walks out on signing ceremony without actually signing order (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/04/01/trump-walks-out-signing-ceremony-after-questions-flynn/99909002/)
President Trump walked out on his own Oval Office signing ceremony without actually signing his two executive orders on trade.
Trump's abrupt departure from Friday's ceremony came after a reporter shouted questions about the president's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who has offered to testify before Congress on Russian involvement in the U.S. election in return for immunity from prosecution.
If you watch the video, he looked determined to escape the press and made Pence go back to the table and grab the bills and pens.
Poor Donald...he just doesn't seem to be having any fun any more.
Donald Trump’s joyless presidency (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/01/donald-trumps-joyless-presidency/?utm_term=.60d5e4ca8596)
Is President Trump having any fun as the leader of the free world? I ask because sometimes it seems he lets media scrutiny suck all enjoyment out of a job that represents the ultimate fulfillment of his principal goal in life: winning.
--snip--
In office, Trump has appeared highly susceptible to souring by critical coverage. He had been president for all of 75 hours when White House press secretary Sean Spicer described him as demoralized by the media:
The default narrative is always negative, and it’s demoralizing. And I think that when you sit here and you realize the sacrifice the guy made, leaving a very, very successful business because he really cares about this country and he wants — despite your partisan differences, he cares about making this country better for everybody. He wants to make it safer for everybody.
And so when you wake up everyday and that’s what you’re seeing over and over again, and you’re not seeing stories about the Cabinet folks that he’s appointing or the success that he’s having trying to keep American jobs here. Yes, it is a little disappointing.
--snip--
The Washington Post's Philip Rucker, Robert Costa and Ashley Parker (the same Ashley Parker who previously worked with Haberman at the Times) reported in early March that “the president has been seething as he watches round-the-clock cable news coverage.”
Their story chronicled the extent to which Trump's spirits rise and fall, according to the news cycle: up amid praise for his first address to Congress, down a day later, when The Post reported on undisclosed campaign-year conversations between Jeff Sessions, now the attorney general, and Russia's ambassador to the United States. Up again when the media covered Trump's unsubstantiated accusation of wiretapping by former president Barack Obama, back down when the Sunday political talk shows featured Republicans unwilling to defend the baseless charge.
It's almost enough for me to feel sorry for him...then I remember all the crap he's said and done and that sympathy dries right up.
-
For April Fools' Day, the Russian Foreign Ministry put out an "official joke" - a video of a proposed voice-mail message for its embassy answering machines. In the clip, recorded in Russian and English, an automated recording tells callers to press 1 for "a call from a Russian diplomat to your political opponent." You can press 2 "to use the services of Russian hackers," or 3 "to request election interference."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-russia-april-fools-day-joke-20170401-story.html
:D
Fake news. The Republicans must have planted that article.
-
From the newest Spiegel article:
The US President has his own relationship to facts, denies climate change and sees environmental protection as an industrial obstacle. Donald Trump's policy scares many scientists in the US. They are afraid of the attacks on universities, some even from a departure from rationality.
Thanks to the Brexit and Trump's choice, a lot more top scientists are interested in German universities. If foreign scientists leave the country, hopefully this will be a wake-up call for the US. On the other hand, Germany as a science location in Europe will benefit enormously.
Contrast the current US science cutback with the ambitious German science program.
The most expensive scientific experiment ever in Germany - eight years of construction, costing more than 1.2 billion euros: This year, the brightest X-ray source in the world is to be put into operation at Hamburg.
International research groups will decipher here atomic details of viruses and cells, filming chemical reactions and gaining insights into the interior of planets.
Researchers will be able to eject the electrons through the accelerator tunnel and accelerate the particles slowly but surely to near-light speed. Then come the so-called undulators employed to generate X-rays using the electrons in the 200-meter-long device.
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/roentgenlaser-european-xfel-besuch-bei-deutschlands-teuerstem-experiment-a-1135736.html
German text only, accompanied by really cool, high quality images (couldn't find English version of the document yet, but Google Translate may help).
-
For April Fools' Day, the Russian Foreign Ministry put out an "official joke" - a video of a proposed voice-mail message for its embassy answering machines. In the clip, recorded in Russian and English, an automated recording tells callers to press 1 for "a call from a Russian diplomat to your political opponent." You can press 2 "to use the services of Russian hackers," or 3 "to request election interference."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-russia-april-fools-day-joke-20170401-story.html :D
This will surely divert attention from the current anti-corruption protests in Russia.
-
Contrast the current US science cutback with the ambitious German science program.
The most expensive scientific experiment ever in Germany - eight years of construction, costing more than 1.2 billion euros: This year, the brightest X-ray source in the world is to be put into operation at Hamburg.
International research groups will decipher here atomic details of viruses and cells, filming chemical reactions and gaining insights into the interior of planets.
Researchers will be able to eject the electrons through the accelerator tunnel and accelerate the particles slowly but surely to near-light speed. Then come the so-called undulators employed to generate X-rays using the electrons in the 200-meter-long device.
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/roentgenlaser-european-xfel-besuch-bei-deutschlands-teuerstem-experiment-a-1135736.html
German text only, accompanied by really cool, high quality images (couldn't find English version of the document yet, but Google Translate may help).
Les, That looks like a wonderful science program. I wish the Germans a lot of sucess. I'm sure we'll all benefit by the research. Regarding Trump, yes, he's going to cut some R&D, most of it relating to climate change. There may be other changes as well. But America's R&D will still be pretty major and probably biggest in the world overall. I hope so anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending
They say he's going to increase NASA and space R&D. NASA has a soft spot in my heart having grown up at the dawn of the space age, Apollo, the moon, etc. It's the one of the few areas I like government spending. But interestingly, private space exploration has taken off with Space-X and others being paid for by rich companies and individuals. They're making better products at cheaper cost, the advantages of competition you didn't have when the government was the only game in town.
Anyway, having studied the German language in college, and stopped after getting a D and an F, I don't think too many Americans will go to Germany looking for jobs in science. Well maybe in climatology. :)
-
Les, That looks like a wonderful science program. I wish the Germans a lot of sucess. I'm sure we'll all benefit by the research. Regarding Trump, yes, he's going to cut some R&D, most of it relating to climate change. There may be other changes as well. But America's R&D will still be pretty major and probably biggest in the world overall. I hope so anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending
They say he's going to increase NASA and space R&D. NASA has a soft spot in my heart having grown up at the dawn of the space age, Apollo, the moon, etc. It's the one of the few areas I like government spending. But interestingly, private space exploration has taken off with Space-X and others being paid for by rich companies and individuals. They're making better products at cheaper cost, the advantages of competition you didn't have when the government was the only game in town.
Anyway, having studied the German language in college, and stopped after getting a D and an F, I don't think too many Americans will go to Germany looking for jobs in science. Well maybe in climatology. :)
Maybe not many Americans. But quite a few Europeans and also some returning Germans who were initially attracted to the US research facilities. I've read several Brexit related reports about UK engineers and scientists who want to live and work in Germany (and other EU countries). A good friend of mine with a PhD from Berkeley spent most of his IT career with Siemens in Germany.
Edited: One reason could be that in many European countries you are entitled to 6 weeks of paid vacations and you get to ski in Dolomites.
-
#NewSwamp
Trump Couple, Now White House Employees, Can’t Escape Conflict Laws (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/01/us/politics/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-conflicts-business-empire.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
Then there's Bannon...Bannon Made Millions in Shaping Right-Wing Thought (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/business/dealbook/how-some-top-trump-aides-made-their-fortunes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
#SwampRats
#MAGA
Yeah, right...if you believe that, I got a bridge I'll sell you...
So we only want to elect poor folks who haven't accomplished anything or know much to make major decisions about the running of our economy and government. Sure won't be any conflict there. Maybe we have to take a chance and hire rich, bright, creative and effective people who know how to execute and then hold their feet to the fire to make sure there are no conflicts.
All this gnashing of teeth from liberals and the elite about Trump when the Clintons were selling their souls for speaking engagements to give rich people, companies, and sovereigns access to their power.
-
Maybe not many Americans. But quite a few Europeans and also some returning Germans who were initially attracted to the US research facilities. I've read several Brexit related reports about UK engineers and scientists who want to live and work in Germany (and other EU countries). A good friend of mine with a PhD from Berkeley spent most of his IT career with Siemens in Germany.
Yeah, but we got Wernher von Braun from Germany for NASA. And a bunch more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip#Key_members_of_Operation_Paperclip_.28incomplete_list.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_aerospace_engineers_in_the_United_States
-
They say he's going to increase NASA and space R&D. NASA has a soft spot in my heart...
He's selectively defunding satellites that look at Earth. Good luck defending this.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-budget-cuts-ldquo-critical-rdquo-nasa-climate-missions/
-
Yeah, but we got Wernher von Braun from Germany for NASA. And a bunch more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip#Key_members_of_Operation_Paperclip_.28incomplete_list.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_aerospace_engineers_in_the_United_States
True! But in the Wernher von Braun's era nobody thought that one day Americans will be buying cars made in Korea and computers made in Taiwan. And using Russian rockets to commute to ISS.
-
He's selectively defunding satellites that look at Earth. Good luck defending this.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-budget-cuts-ldquo-critical-rdquo-nasa-climate-missions/
Wow!
(shortened extract)
The cancelled OCO-3 mission would address previous OCO-2 limitations: The idea is to use spare parts from OCO-2 and mount them on the International Space Station, which would allow the instrument to be pointed at any spot on Earth to, for example, measure emissions from different cities or detect signs of drought stress in crops before such signs become visible to the naked eye. The orbit of the ISS also precesses, meaning it passes over the same spot at different times of the day, allowing the instrument to see how carbon fluxes change with the time of day.
Because the parts for OCO-3 already exist, the mission is essentially ready to go after some routine testing. It would likely be launched on a commercial rocket already making a resupply trip to the station. These factors make it a relatively cheap mission, with a total cost target of about $115 million to build, launch and operate the instrument for three years.
Compare it with the cost of ads for 2017 Super Bowl - $5 million for 30 seconds or $150 millions for 15 minutes of Super Bowl ads. It shows the Make America Great priorities.
-
True! But in the Wernher von Braun's era nobody thought that one day Americans will be buying cars made in Korea and computers made in Taiwan. And using Russian rockets to commute to ISS.
Yes using Russian rockets is really a sad state of affairs. If we really get into a fight with them, our Astronauts will be stranded. It reminds of living through the Sputnik era before we got into space. Beep...Beep...Beep on our radios, looking up, straining our eyes to see the Russkies.
Of course, our commercial space companies seem to be coming along. I wouldn't buy a Korean car; I drive reliable Japanese Acuras. And speaking of cars, Germany shouldn't be so proud of that diesel fiasco from VW. Talk about polluting the atmosphere and global warming. Well, I guess no one's perfect.
-
Yes using Russian rockets is really a sad state of affairs. If we really get into a fight with them, our Astronauts will be stranded. It reminds of living through the Sputnik era before we got into space. Beep...Beep...Beep on our radios, looking up, straining our eyes to see the Russkies.
Of course, our commercial space companies seem to be coming along. I wouldn't buy a Korean car; I drive reliable Japanese Acuras. And speaking of cars, Germany shouldn't be so proud of that diesel fiasco from VW. Talk about polluting the atmosphere and global warming. Well, I guess no one's perfect.
Well, engineering of the engine and exhaust system are two different things. When driving on Autobahn at 200kmh, you'll leave all fumes behind.
-
He's selectively defunding satellites that look at Earth. Good luck defending this.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-budget-cuts-ldquo-critical-rdquo-nasa-climate-missions/
He wants NASA to spend resources in dark space and not looking at the earth to check for global warming. He's not interested in the latter so why spend money on those satellites? But I do agree with you in one respect. Basic science can be used for different purposes regardless of their original intent. I just hope he's not throwing out the baby with the bath water.
-
Well, engineering of the engine and exhaust system are two different things. When driving on Autobahn at 200kmh, you'll leave all fumes behind.
Cough...Cough...Yes that's pretty fast...Cough...
-
Cough...Cough...Yes that's pretty fast...Cough...
I wouldn't do it today.
-
So we only want to elect poor folks who haven't accomplished anything or know much to make major decisions about the running of our economy and government.
Hum, so Trump is "accomplished" all right...accomplished at screwing people and stepping on them to advance...Ivanka is successful, uh, maybe because of daddy? Jared Kushner accomplished? Well, he got a jumpstart in business from his father Charles who, wait for it, was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering, and served time in federal prison. So, the Trumps and Kushners are, uh, maybe not the right people making "major decisions about the running of our economy and government", ya know?
Steven Mnuchin? Your idea of accomplished business leader? After leaving Goldman Sachs a wealthy man, he along with others (including George Soros-yeah the same evil democrat supporting Sorros) bought residential lender IndyMac renamed it OneWest and made a killing out of aggressively foreclosing on homeowners. The high foreclosure rate may have been a result of the loss sharing agreement with the FDIC, whereby the FDIC had to reimburse OneWest for losses. So, the more foreclosures, the more money from the FDIC. According to The New York Times, OneWest "was involved in a string of lawsuits over questionable foreclosures, and settled several cases for millions of dollars." Then he went to Hollywood to make movies...So, Mnuchin is a great choice for Secretary of the Treasury right? The phrase fox in charge of the hen house comes to mind.
Bannon? Was in the Navy, so good for him and his service, but then he left and worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers and Acquisitions Department. But he left Wall Street for Hollywood where he bankrolled wing nut movies like including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The Undefeated, and Occupy Unmasked. But he did invest in Seinfeld. :~) Then he was a founding member of the board of Breitbart News. So, "accomplished"? I supposed he's "accomplished" if you want a rich-boy hate mongered who want to destroy the American government so he can rebuild it to his own liking...Good choice huh?
I won't bother mentioning Steve Miller other than to say he might be the scariest of the scary guys...
Wilber Ross? Hum...he joined with a Russian oligarch and a former KGB official to run a troubled bank in Cyprus. Say, isn't that the same bank that Paul Manafort used handle all his illicit Russian funding needs? Why, yes, I think it is...
Scott Pruit for EPA, well why not select a guy who has sued the EPA 12 times and wants to dismantle the agency to run the agency. After all, climate change is a hoax by the Chinese to make our companies less competitive!
Department of Energy? Why not select the guy who couldn't remember the name of the agency he said he wanted to close. Rick Perry didn't even know he was in charge of the nation's nuclear weapons program. He replaced a PHD scientist.
Dept of HHS? Why not hire a guy who makes money off of stock trades because of laws he enabled to pass? HUD? Why not hire a Dr who has zero administration experience? Secretary of Education a woman who had never stepped into a public school until she tried to visit a school and was barred from entering by protesters. Jeff Sessions isn't a racist, right? Rex Tillerson will be tough on his good friend Putin who gave him the Russian Order of Friendship...
And how about that Flynn guy for National Security Adviser? Oh, sorry, he got fired...hum, in the Whitehouse report I guess he forgot to report all his Russian speaking fees but that's ok, he now wants immunity for his testimony...
The only people Trump has gotten rightish are the former military people, well except for Flynn.
But if you think this group of people are anything other than a keystone cop routine, just look at the news since Trump's inauguration...oh, yeah, sorry, all those #FAKENEWS stories, right?
So, no, let's not hire "poor folks who haven't accomplished anything" even though the likelihood is they would have more honor and dedication than Trump's Rogues.
Edited for typos
-
So we only want to elect poor folks who haven't accomplished anything or know much to make major decisions about the running of our economy and government. Sure won't be any conflict there. Maybe we have to take a chance and hire rich, bright, creative and effective people who know how to execute and then hold their feet to the fire to make sure there are no conflicts.
All this gnashing of teeth from liberals and the elite about Trump when the Clintons were selling their souls for speaking engagements to give rich people, companies, and sovereigns access to their power.
That is not what is at issue here. Real estate companies are terribly complicated with lots of LLC. Jared Kushner is reported to have resigned from direct oversight of 200 of these family controlled LLCs but is still associated with others. Kushner also has current lines of credit from two Israeli banks and a couple of European banks. Ivanka is deriving income from the Trump hotel in Washington DC. Her clothing line is manufactured overseas and will be subject to the proposed border adjustment tax. Contrast this to Rex Tillerson who sold off all his Exxon stock (I would not want to have his tax bill next year!!) and put the returns into Treasure bonds and diversified mutual funds. I believe that Sec of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, did the same thing. Anyone who only has stock holdings can do this quite easily, real estate developers cannot. Because of the complexities of real estate tax law, there will be potential conflicts of interest when tax reform comes up.
-
Ivanka is successful, uh, maybe because of daddy? Jared Kushner accomplished?
Could be that the young couple are looking at their stints in the White House as apprenticeship, with an eye to become the next president and first lady following Trump's presidential term(s).
-
Could be that the young couple are looking at their stints in the White House as apprenticeship, with an eye to become the next president and first lady following Trump's presidential term(s).
Ouch!
-
Well, maybe we are witnessing the birth of a new dynasty.
-
About them, fake news...
-
Could be that the young couple are looking at their stints in the White House as apprenticeship, with an eye to become the next president and first lady following Trump's presidential term(s).
And all this despite the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110
Unfortunately the President has powers directly vested by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause (https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii/article-ii-section-2-treaty-power-and-appointments-mcginnis-shane/clause/24). Article II, Section 2, provides that some officials need to be approved by the Senate, while other “inferior” officers may be appointed directly by the President.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hum, so Trump is "accomplished" all right...accomplished at screwing people and stepping on them to advance......
Why are you so angry at all these people? "Bannon worked for Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in Mergers and Acquisitions" So?
Anyway, all these people are going to follow Trump. He makes policy whether you agree or not with it. His Secretaries have the experience to execute the president's policies because they've run things whether as governor, CEO, general, entrepreneur, etc. That's my point. Also, you didn't address my comment about Hillary who proved she was a corrupt politician by selling access to get rich. At least Trump's people have not shown any corruption politically yet except for Flynn who was fired. They may at some point in the future, but you've already tried and convicted them. You forget that voters had a choice and selected Trump. Maybe you should have run an honest democrat. If you want to be angry at someone or something, how about the DNC, Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Podesta, and Donna Brazille. And of course Hillary.
-
Could be that the young couple are looking at their stints in the White House as apprenticeship, with an eye to become the next president and first lady following Trump's presidential term(s).
Maybe President and first man. :)
-
That is not what is at issue here. Real estate companies are terribly complicated with lots of LLC. Jared Kushner is reported to have resigned from direct oversight of 200 of these family controlled LLCs but is still associated with others. Kushner also has current lines of credit from two Israeli banks and a couple of European banks. Ivanka is deriving income from the Trump hotel in Washington DC. Her clothing line is manufactured overseas and will be subject to the proposed border adjustment tax. Contrast this to Rex Tillerson who sold off all his Exxon stock (I would not want to have his tax bill next year!!) and put the returns into Treasure bonds and diversified mutual funds. I believe that Sec of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, did the same thing. Anyone who only has stock holdings can do this quite easily, real estate developers cannot. Because of the complexities of real estate tax law, there will be potential conflicts of interest when tax reform comes up.
I agree that real estate is hard to get rid of. If you try to sell, it will become a fire sale and you'll never get what it's really worth. Sure, Tillerson basically owned only stock. So it's easy to sell. The main point is we should not as a democracy make it too hard for rich people to go into politics. "Sorry, you don't qualify to work in government. You're too rich." Of course you don't want conflicts. But people like Trump have very complicated ownership issues. But all classes of Americans should have the opportunity to serve the country, not just poor people and professors.
This reminds me when I lived in NYC when rich businessman Bloomberg became mayor. He put his business in a blind trust. He says he never discussed his business with the trust. Well, OK. In any case, he was worth $5 billion when he became mayor. Two terms and 8 years later he convinced the NYC council to allow him to run for a third term, something that was forbidden at the time. The voters still liked him so gave him another 4 years. So after three terms and 12 years in a blind trust he left the mayoralty worth $35 billion, a 7 fold increase in his wealth. But he never took a dime for being mayor. What a guy! But if you ask New Yorkers, I bet he'll get pretty good marks as mayor despite becoming one of the richest people in the world during his mayoralty. Maybe Trump should hire Bloomberg.
-
Why are you so angry at all these people?
By my reading, Schewe's not angry at those people, he's angry at their track record.
-
And all this despite the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3110
Neither Jared or Ivanka are drawing salaries so the nepotism statute unfortunately does not apply. The ethics declarations may trip them up at some point.
-
That is not what is at issue here. Real estate companies are terribly complicated with lots of LLC. Jared Kushner is reported to have resigned from direct oversight of 200 of these family controlled LLCs but is still associated with others. Kushner also has current lines of credit from two Israeli banks and a couple of European banks. Ivanka is deriving income from the Trump hotel in Washington DC. Her clothing line is manufactured overseas and will be subject to the proposed border adjustment tax. Contrast this to Rex Tillerson who sold off all his Exxon stock (I would not want to have his tax bill next year!!) and put the returns into Treasure bonds and diversified mutual funds. I believe that Sec of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, did the same thing. Anyone who only has stock holdings can do this quite easily, real estate developers cannot. Because of the complexities of real estate tax law, there will be potential conflicts of interest when tax reform comes up.
Oh well, at least that means the Palestians really are up there with a good chance of fairness regarding the "settlements"!
Right.
Rob
-
Neither Jared or Ivanka are drawing salaries so the nepotism statute unfortunately does not apply. The ethics declarations may trip them up at some point.
Presidents have used their wives as powerful allies and advisors. Hillary comes to mind with Bill Clinton. In fact, she was pushing national health care on her own as first lady. Since Melania has chosen to take a back seat, even staying in NYC to raise their son for much of the time, the President wants another family member and her husband, who've both been close advisors before the presidency. So he's making it official by actually giving them unpaid jobs. I don't see why a wife can be a confident and adviser but not a adult child and son-in-law who's advised you in the past. The law was to prevent people from getting relatives jobs, especially "no show" positions, that actually pay a salary.
-
Maybe President and first man. :)
Alan, you are raising an intriguing possibility.
Who knows, maybe after all, Hillary will get her wish fulfilled - a woman breaking glass ceiling and becoming first female president.
-
Alan, you are raising an intriguing possibility.
Who knows, maybe after all, Hillary will get her wish fulfilled - a woman breaking glass ceiling and becoming first female president.
Pretty much have to be an improvement on the incumbent.
-
Pretty much have to be an improvement on the incumbent.
Even the glass ceiling manages that!
It'll only crack if it's hit by a truck... the other's already in that happy state.
Rob
-
Neither Jared or Ivanka are drawing salaries so the nepotism statute unfortunately does not apply. The ethics declarations may trip them up at some point.
I suspect that we may see some changes to these laws to fill up these loopholes.
-
I suspect that we may see some changes to these laws to fill up these loopholes.
"Sorry, you can't advise the president. You're too successful. "
-
New Trump Late-Night Show:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/president-show-comedy-central-launches-weekly-trump-aimed-late-night-show-990727
Cheers,
Bart
-
"Sorry, you can't advise the president. You're too successful. "
"Sorry, you can't advise the President because you have a conflict of interest."
Fixed it for you.
-
"Sorry, you can't advise the President because you have a conflict of interest."
Fixed it for you.
If there's a conflict, then a party can recluse themself. But we live in a democracy. We shouldn't stop people from serving our country because they've been successful. I suppose you'd make the requirement for being Secretary of the Treasury if you can't reconcile your checkbook against your bank statement. Now there's someone we could hire.
-
It seems more and more that the Obama Administration was in fact playing fast and loose with surveillance info they had on Trump and his campaign people. No, Obama wasn't listening in exactly, but Susan Rice and others were. It may have been coincidental to NSA taps, but still, the dems unmasked people illegally. And still no proof of Trump collusion with the Russians to tilt the election.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel
-
If there's a conflict, then a party can recluse themself.
Like THAT'S ever happened.
We shouldn't stop people from serving our country because they've been successful.
Of course not. But it might be a good idea to stop people from serving your country who have recently damaged it, willfully, for their own financial gain. I'm looking at YOU, bankers.
I suppose you'd make the requirement for being Secretary of the Treasury if you can't reconcile your checkbook against your bank statement. Now there's someone we could hire.
I think you suppose wrong.
-
Like THAT'S ever happened.
Of course not. But it might be a good idea to stop people from serving your country who have recently damaged it, willfully, for their own financial gain. I'm looking at YOU, bankers.
The Attorney General just recused himself in the Russian investigation matter before Congress and the FBI. Judges do it all the time. It's a common practice. If anyone uses their position to benefit themselves financially, they'll be breaking law. Also, if you don't like the President's selection, you can vote him out of office. That's the way a democracy works, not based on your opinion.
-
The Attorney General just recused himself in the Russian investigation matter before Congress and the FBI. Judges do it all the time. It's a common practice.
Yes, for the supposedly law abiding judiciary. But for the "advisors" et al? Not so much.
If anyone uses their position to benefit themselves financially, they'll be breaking law.
When has that stopped them? Any of the 2008 bankers go to jail?
Also, if you don't like the President's selection, you can vote him out of office.
By then, it's waaaaay too late.
-
Yes, for the supposedly law abiding judiciary. But for the "advisors" et al? Not so much.
When has that stopped them? Any of the 2008 bankers go to jail?
By then, it's waaaaay too late.
Let's face it, Alan likes nepotism.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Any of the 2008 bankers go to jail?..
Which law was broken?
-
Let's face it, Alan likes nepotism.
Cheers,
Bart
Only if the job is for one of my relatives.
-
Things that make you go "hum"
Op/Ed in the LA Times in four parts...one and two are posted, three and four later in the week.
Part One: Our Dishonest President (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/)
t was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”
Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office.
Instead, seventy-some days in — and with about 1,400 to go before his term is completed — it is increasingly clear that those hopes were misplaced.
Part Two: Why Trump lies (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-why-trump-lies/)
Donald Trump did not invent the lie and is not even its master. Lies have oozed out of the White House for more than two centuries and out of politicians’ mouths — out of all people’s mouths — likely as long as there has been human speech.
But amid all those lies, told to ourselves and to one another in order to amass power, woo lovers, hurt enemies and shield ourselves against the often glaring discomfort of reality, humanity has always had an abiding respect for truth.
In the United States, born and periodically reborn out of the repeated recognition and rejection of the age-old lie that some people are meant to take dominion over others, truth is as vital a part of the civic, social and intellectual culture as justice and liberty. Our civilization is premised on the conviction that such a thing as truth exists, that it is knowable, that it is verifiable, that it exists independently of authority or popularity and that at some point — and preferably sooner rather than later — it will prevail.
#MAGA
#LIESLIKEADOG
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17457853_1852187985056239_4847529044512167740_n.jpg?oh=700756641129a7ea80a661b11dfb8582&oe=594EF219)
-
Yes, you're right. The president has lied constantly. "You can keep your doctor." "The ACA will lower insurance costs." "Benghazi was caused by a movie."
-
Yes, you're right. The president has lied constantly...
Didn't bother to read all of both articles, right?
There's a massive difference in scale and frequency to the point where your post is, well, simply pathetic. Yes polititions lie but nothing like Trump's lies have been seen in the history of the office of the president of the USA...it's magnificently grotesque and hideous...like a fatal car wreck on the side of the highway. You slow down to gawk but not stop.
-
There's a massive difference in scale and frequency...
Yes, Obama's lies got people killed and screwed up the entire medical insurance industry.
-
Didn't bother to read all of both articles, right?
HA!
There's a massive difference in scale and frequency to the point where your post is, well, simply pathetic.
Yup. "My mind's made up. No way am I reading anything that might change my mind."
Superb articles. Beautifully written. Can't wait for the next.
-
Which law was broken?
A valid, but specious point. One also made ad nauseum by the bankers.
However, depriving the global economy of something in the order of ten trillion dollars* and half a decade of economic growth still constitutes a crime by any reasonable measure.
*https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/business/economy/the-cost-of-the-financial-crisis-is-still-being-tallied.html?_r=0
-
A valid, but specious point. One also made ad nauseum by the bankers.
However, depriving the global economy of something in the order of ten trillion dollars and half a decade of economic growth still constitutes a crime by any reasonable measure....
You can't create a crime retroactively. You can't create one just because you do not like consequences of otherwise legal actions. Recessions are cyclical. Shall we send a couple of hundred of people to jail every couple of years when recessions happen again? While capitalism goes through boom and bust cycles, and wealth destruction happens, it is still superior to a five-year socialist planning. Allowing for failure is a virtue of capitalism, not sin.
-
You can't create a crime retroactively. You can't create one just because you do not like consequences of otherwise legal actions.
Please. I understand your adherence to the literal term "crime". I agreed to that.
Recessions are cyclical... wealth destruction happens...allowing for failure is a virtue of capitalism, not sin.
This was no cyclical recession. This was a systematic attack. A gaming of the system on a scale not seen before.
it is still superior to a five-year socialist planning.
It's unnecessary and irrelevant to escalate this to a socialism vs capitalism issue. This is a greed and ethics issue.
-
A gaming of the system on a scale not seen before ...
This is a greed and ethics issue.
Although I do agree there is culpability with the bankers over the last rescission, none of which was illegal nor should they be punished in a court of law for any of it, do you give any culpability to those whom took out loans they knew they could not pay? Or how about all of the people whom took out loans who could not pay them back but were too stupid to realize it?
I think there is plenty of blame to go around. There were plenty of really stupid people on both sides here, and never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Of course, all of this was made more possible by the really stupid people at the department of education whom feel every student is college bound and took home economics out of the course curriculum. (Former high school math teacher here and I cant remember ever discussing the teaching of home economics as a course requirement.)
With all of this said though, boom and bust and grows the economy in the long run faster then not having any recessions.
-
Yes, you're right. The president has lied constantly. "You can keep your doctor." "The ACA will lower insurance costs."
Ahhh if only, if only Obama didn't "gruber" us on health care, and I believe it was revealed he knew when he made those statements that it would most likely not be the case.
So much for truthfulness I guess.
Thankfully my doctor is a family friend, it was never a question of me loosing my doctor. But my insurance rates has skyrocketed; this year they went up 43%.
-
do you give any culpability to those whom took out loans they knew they could not pay? Or how about all of the people whom took out loans who could not pay them back but were too stupid to realize it?
Yes. Of course. But not nearly as much culpability as those who laughingly, greedily took advantage of their ignorance to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
-
Yes. Of course. But not nearly as much culpability as those who laughingly, greedily took advantage of their ignorance to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
Look, a guy making $35,000 a year buys a house for $600,000 figuring he'd flip it in 6 months at $725,000 and pocket the difference. Certainly he had no allusions he could afford the house long term. He was greedy and took a chance. Of course the bank should have checked his salary and insisted on 20% down like now and in the old days. But Congress looking for votes was insisting that banks loan money to people who shouldn't own a home so they could own a home. So the banks complied under Congressional pressure and gave money to anyone who could write an X in the signature line. Meanwhile, the Fed opened the spigots to provide the financing to the banks for this purpose and the rating agencies triple AAA rated the instruments to help their buddies and customers the banks that made up these bad loans so the banks could unload them on unsuspecting buyers also looking to make a fast buck. Then the real estate bubble was pricked as all bubbles eventually are and it all came crashing down. Whew!
Send them all to prison!
-
Yes, Obama's lies got people killed and screwed up the entire medical insurance industry.
Aside from the fact that the "entire medical insurance industry" was screwed up well before Obama was elected, exactly what lies did Obama tell that got people killed?
-
Well DOOOOH!
Trump can quietly draw money from trust whenever he wants, new documents show (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-can-quietly-draw-money-from-trust-whenever-he-wants-new-documents-show/2017/04/03/7f4c0002-187c-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumptrust-0739pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e01d19c93752)
Newly released records show the trust agreement that Donald Trump used to put his adult sons in charge of his company allows him to draw money from it upon his request, illustrating the thin divide between the president and his private fortune.
The filing, first reported by ProPublica and found on Page 161 of 166 of a bundle of documents released last week by the General Services Administration, says the trust that owns hundreds of Trump businesses “shall distribute net income or principal to Donald J. Trump at his request,” or whenever his son and a longtime employee “deem appropriate.”
I guess that "trust" he set up isn't in the least bit "blind" and I think we all can see behind that phony trust and it's not even subtle. I guess he want us to "trust" him that he won't do any self dealing...
-
Sorry gals...
Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-pulls-back-obama-era-protections-women-workers-n741041)
With little notice, President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order that advocates say rolls back hard-fought victories for women in the workplace.
Tuesday's "Equal Pay Day" — which highlights the wage disparity between men and women — is the perfect time to draw more attention to the president's action, activists say.
On March 27, Trump revoked the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/31/executive-order-fair-pay-and-safe-workplaces) order then-President Barack Obama put in place to ensure that companies with federal contracts comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws. The Fair Pay order was put in place after a 2010 Government Accountability Office investigation showed that companies with rampant violations were being awarded millions in federal contracts.
In an attempt to keep the worst violators from receiving taxpayer dollars, the Fair Pay order included two rules that impacted women workers: paycheck transparency and a ban on forced arbitration clauses for sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination claims.
Yeah, so how is that gonna help make America great again? Trump wants companies with federal contracts to NOT have to comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws? Probably not gonna make those women who voted for Trump happy that they voted for him.
-
Oh goodie...a TV show based on a reality TV show...
A Trump Talk Show, Courtesy of Comedy Central (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/arts/television/trump-talk-show-comedy-central-anthony-atamanuik-the-president-show.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/03/arts/television/03Itzkoff-comedy/03Itzkoff-comedy-master768.jpg)
Comedy Central is going to start a new late-night weekly series “The President Show” hosted by Anthony Atamanuik as Donald J. Trump. Credit Gavin Bond
President Trump has been the target of the late-night comics for long enough, so it’s only fair that he should get a late-night program of his own.
On Monday, Comedy Central said that it had picked up a new weekly late-night series, called “The President Show, (https://www.youtube.com/embed/bsGawGjQIpY)” created by and starring Anthony Atamanuik, a noted Trump impersonator, who will play the president as he hosts his desk segments, comedy bits and guest interviews from the Oval Office. Peter Grosz (“Veep,” “The Colbert Report”) will also appear on the program as Mr. Trump’s sidekick, Vice President Mike Pence.
--snip--
In a statement, Mr. Atamanuik said: “Laughing at the president is a proud American tradition and we hope not to disappoint anyone in that department. But our political system is too broken for us to be content joking about one man, even though he is a disastrous silly little toddler boy.”
I think I feel a Twitter Rant coming on by the Big Cheeto...
-
Is Trump Suffering from Dementia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3CFwkoqxIs
8 minutes, and quite interesting worrisome
-
Yes, you're right. The president has lied constantly. "You can keep your doctor." "The ACA will lower insurance costs." "Benghazi was caused by a movie."
I kept my doctor and my medical costs (my expenses and my company's expenses) went down.
I seriously doubt that I am in a unique position.
-
Which law was broken?
Slobodan, it's a really complicated issue. there were a number of laws and regulations that were broken but the Obama Justice Department and the Federal Attorney in New York did not want to prosecute but rather settle the cases. This was something that I really disagreed with. Some very big penalties $100s million have been paid by a number of big banks. One of the better summaries is by William Cohan who follows banking issues: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/ Matt Tabibi documented the one prosecution of a very small bank in NY's Abacus Bank in Chinatown: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-tiny-chinatown-bank-that-was-scapegoated-after-the-financial-crisis
-
Look, a guy making $35,000 a year buys a house for $600,000 figuring he'd flip it in 6 months at $725,000 and pocket the difference. Certainly he had no allusions he could afford the house long term. He was greedy and took a chance. Of course the bank should have checked his salary and insisted on 20% down like now and in the old days. But Congress looking for votes was insisting that banks loan money to people who shouldn't own a home so they could own a home. So the banks complied under Congressional pressure and gave money to anyone who could write an X in the signature line. Meanwhile, the Fed opened the spigots to provide the financing to the banks for this purpose and the rating agencies triple AAA rated the instruments to help their buddies and customers the banks that made up these bad loans so the banks could unload them on unsuspecting buyers also looking to make a fast buck. Then the real estate bubble was pricked as all bubbles eventually are and it all came crashing down. Whew!
Send them all to prison!
Congress had very little if anything to do with the housing meltdown. It was a failure of the bank regulatory authorities but also the presence of unregulated shadow banks (Countrywide Mortgage is the best example here) along with investment banks that were repackaging mortgages into securities that nobody could understand and fools like Lehman and AIG that were insuring these securities only to find out that the insurance policies were not a 'cash machine' but a dagger aimed at the heart of the company when things went south.
-
Congress had very little if anything to do with the housing meltdown. It was a failure of the bank regulatory authorities but also the presence of unregulated shadow banks (Countrywide Mortgage is the best example here) along with investment banks that were repackaging mortgages into securities that nobody could understand and fools like Lehman and AIG that were insuring these securities only to find out that the insurance policies were not a 'cash machine' but a dagger aimed at the heart of the company when things went south.
Come on Alan, although I do agree with all of these points, it has to be recognized that congress encouraged homeownership to the point of irresponsibility.
Sure, they did not directly have anything to do with the recession, but they sure encouraged the actions that lead up to it.
-
Sorry gals...
Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-pulls-back-obama-era-protections-women-workers-n741041)
Yeah, so how is that gonna help make America great again? Trump wants companies with federal contracts to NOT have to comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws? Probably not gonna make those women who voted for Trump happy that they voted for him.
Jeff, perhaps if, instead of huffing and puffing and stomping his feet around, Obama worked with congress in the last 6 years, laws, instead of just orders, would have gotten passed. You know, sort of like George W Bush and Bill Clinton did.
This is the problem with our current situation, not that we have strong opinions on either side, but that the executive office has over reached in the past couple of presidencies, especially with Obama. Trump is just putting the natural order of things back in place.
(This is why he choose all of those "unqualified" appointees. I certainly agree most of them are unqualified to run those organizations, like the EPA and Dept. of Education, but they are all qualified to deregulate them, which is what their purpose is.)
Congress is suppose to create laws through compromise; we are not suppose to be force feed executive orders from a president voted into office by one side. This does nothing but create dissidents, and puts us ever closer to another 1861. This is why I am also for states rights, not because I support the crazy ideas coming out of some of them, but because it is impossible to run a country with such a large geography and peoples under a strong federal government in the long run. In this situation, Civil War becomes inevitable.
Sure Norway, the pinnacle for all the leftists, does it, but then again Norway is small and pretty much consisted of one people. We are not small nor consist of only one people.
Insofar as the equal pay argument, it has been debunked several times. As someone with mathematics degrees and significantly higher understanding of statistics then the average person, I consider the left's argument here to be a great example of "liars figure and figures lies."
If you look at a sample of men and women, with the sample of men stratified to the sample of women according to job title and years experience, not all men vs. all women, which is statistically inequivalent according to the merits of the study, the wage gap all but disappears.
Not to the mention the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (passed by congress I should mention, not executive order) already grants equal pay for equal work and qualifications regardless of sex.
My other half laughs at this all of the time. In the world of commercial photography, women make less then men. However, almost all commercial photographers are self-employed, so it really has nothing to do with discrimination, and all with negotiations. She, has on several occasions, gotten much more then I would have tried for with a certain project.
-
Aside from the fact that the "entire medical insurance industry" was screwed up well before Obama was elected, exactly what lies did Obama tell that got people killed?
He lied in 2011 that the reason he's pulling out all troops was that the Iraqi President wouldn't agree to all terms for keeping them in. That was a fig leaf. He promised in 2008 he was going to remove the troops. So that's what he did. The removal of US troops created a vacuum for the Sunni insurgency and subsequently ISIS. He lied all during the 2012 campaign for re-election that the terrorists had been stopped to help him win, that no terrorist were filling the vacuum he created. Of course, we learned after the election just how bad it was when ISIS swept across Iraq and Syria killing thousands and conquering cities like Mosul and a third of Iraq. Now we have thousands more people killed as Iraqi troops are re-conquering these ISIS areas. He should have told the truth and reinserted troops back in or not removed them in the first place. But he assumed that would lose him the election.
The lies also continued in Libya in Benghazi for the same reason of the election here. He claimed the attackers were demonstrating because of a video. The truth was again, he didn't want to acknowledge those were terrorists or militia attacking our consulate and ambassador and troops because it would confirm the terrorists are getting an upper hand before our election. That would make him look bad to American voters. Heck, even I figured out the next day that it was a terrorist attack because demonstrators don't demonstrate shooting AK-47's and RPG's. Anyone who read about that had to know immediately it was a planned attack. Yet his National Security Adviser Susan Rice was still lying about it on 5 different Sunday TV news programs the following week. And because they wanted to down play that it was a terrorist attack as it was going on, they failed to act to help the ambassador as he and the others were under attack. He and Clinton also lied that before the attack that additional security was requested that they failed to provide.
He lied about the "red line" in Syria giving hope and encouragement to Syrians who were fighting the Syrian dictator Assad. He knew he wasn't going to do anything. When he failed to act as he promised, all those additional thousand of Syrians were killed who stuck their necks out against Assad.
-
I kept my doctor and my medical costs (my expenses and my company's expenses) went down.
I seriously doubt that I am in a unique position.
Count yourself lucky you get yours from your employer. Those people who have to buy their own insurance will see an average rise of 25% this year.
-
Come on Alan, although I do agree with all of these points, it has to be recognized that congress encouraged homeownership to the point of irresponsibility.
Sure, they did not directly have anything to do with the recession, but they sure encouraged the actions that lead up to it.
Joe, please point out to me how Congress encouraged the housing bubble that began in 2000. Do not use the Community Reinvestment Act which has been thoroughly debunked. Tell me how Congress interacted with WaMu, IndyMac, Wachovia, and Countrywide (the four largest subprime lenders). There is nothing there.
-
Congress had very little if anything to do with the housing meltdown. It was a failure of the bank regulatory authorities but also the presence of unregulated shadow banks (Countrywide Mortgage is the best example here) along with investment banks that were repackaging mortgages into securities that nobody could understand and fools like Lehman and AIG that were insuring these securities only to find out that the insurance policies were not a 'cash machine' but a dagger aimed at the heart of the company when things went south.
The facts prove otherwise. Congress forced Fannie May and Freddie Mac and banks to meet quotas for mortgages for low income people who couldn't afford to buy homes. (50% under Clinton and 55% under Bush). Congressman Barney Franks was the major instigator. Although he claims to have tried to reverse course as early as 2003, that was the year he made the oft-quoted remark, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation toward subsidized housing." When it became obvious what was happening in 2007, Congress reversed course. But it was too late. The bubble was humongous (over $1 trillion) and ready to burst and did in 2008.
Sure the banks contributed to it, as did credit rating agencies, the Fed and the people who got mortgages to make a quick buck. But Congress's hands were just as dirty.
Here's an article from the liberal The Atlantic, not exactly a magazine that favors banks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
-
Jeff, perhaps if, instead of huffing and puffing and stomping his feet around, Obama worked with congress in the last 6 years, laws, instead of just orders, would have gotten passed. You know, sort of like George W Bush and Bill Clinton did.
Joe, the Republicans were not willing to work with Obama one bit but rather adopted "just say no" to anything that was proposed. Does it not bother you that Obama's Supreme Court justice selection was never accorded a hearing or a vote. If the cowardly Republicans wanted to wait until after the election they should have just had a floor vote on it.
This is the problem with our current situation, not that we have strong opinions on either side, but that the executive office has over reached in the past couple of presidencies, especially with Obama. Trump is just putting the natural order of things back in place.
The Presidency has reached this powerful state because Congress has totally abdicated its responsibilities. Can you remember the last time they brought a budget in on time for all executive agencies? This is due on October 1 but never happens. they just careen from one Continuing Resolution to the next.
Congress is suppose to create laws through compromise; we are not suppose to be force feed executive orders from a president voted into office by one side. This does nothing but create dissidents, and puts us ever closer to another 1861.
There is no way that we are even close to what was happening in the pre-1861 era. Trump, as poor a President as he might be, will never approach Fillmore, Pierce or Buchannan.
This is why I am also for states rights, not because I support the crazy ideas coming out of some of them, but because it is impossible to run a country with such a large geography and peoples under a strong federal government in the long run.
We need to have a lot of standards in all kinds of areas that are enforced on a national level in order to promote interstate commerce. I can remember in the early 1970s when interstate banking was prohibited and there were even some intrastate regulations that kept banks from competing. this was not a good thing.
Insofar as the equal pay argument, it has been debunked several times. As someone with mathematics degrees and significantly higher understanding of statistics then the average person, I consider the left's argument here to be a great example of "liars figure and figures lies."
If you look at a sample of men and women, with the sample of men stratified to the sample of women according to job title and years experience, not all men vs. all women, which is statistically inequivalent according to the merits of the study, the wage gap all but disappears.
Not to the mention the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (passed by congress I should mention, not executive order) already grants equal pay for equal work and qualifications regardless of sex. [/qutoe]
And there is a lot of litigation when it turns out that women are getting paid less than men. Walmart is a prime example here
-
Joe, please point out to me how Congress encouraged the housing bubble that began in 2000. Do not use the Community Reinvestment Act which has been thoroughly debunked. Tell me how Congress interacted with WaMu, IndyMac, Wachovia, and Countrywide (the four largest subprime lenders). There is nothing there.
This a false equivalency and red herring. Of course congress did not interact with those banks, ethically they can not, and I put most blame on the banks and both class of idiots who both gave out loans who could afford them and who took out loans who couldn't afford them.
It more has to do with how congress encouraged quotas for low income individuals.
-
Here's an article from the liberal The Atlantic, not exactly a magazine that favors banks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
Alan,, that's not an article but rather an op-ed from Peter Wallinson of the American Enterprise Institute. His views have been debunked so many times it's not even funny. His only claim to fame was that he authored a minority report on the issue. The trouble is one really has to do a lot of reading to understand what transpired with the melt down. Short magazine pieces won't do it.
EDIT: Good piece on Peter Wallison and the Big Lie: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html
-
This a false equivalency and red herring. Of course congress did not interact with those banks, ethically they can not, and I put most blame on the banks and both class of idiots who both gave out loans who could afford them and who took out loans who couldn't afford them.
It more has to do with how congress encouraged quotas for low income individuals.
You might profit from reading this short piece from Barry Ritholtz: http://ritholtz.com/2009/06/cra-thought-experiment/ there are a lot of other good sources that debunk this but they are much longer and in some cases in books that I've got sitting on the bookshelf.
-
Joe, the Republicans were not willing to work with Obama one bit but rather adopted "just say no" to anything that was proposed. Does it not bother you that Obama's Supreme Court justice selection was never accorded a hearing or a vote. If the cowardly Republicans wanted to wait until after the election they should have just had a floor vote on it.
The Presidency has reached this powerful state because Congress has totally abdicated its responsibilities. Can you remember the last time they brought a budget in on time for all executive agencies? This is due on October 1 but never happens. they just careen from one Continuing Resolution to the next.
There is no way that we are even close to what was happening in the pre-1861 era. Trump, as poor a President as he might be, will never approach Fillmore, Pierce or Buchannan.
We need to have a lot of standards in all kinds of areas that are enforced on a national level in order to promote interstate commerce. I can remember in the early 1970s when interstate banking was prohibited and there were even some intrastate regulations that kept banks from competing. this was not a good thing.
Insofar as the equal pay argument, it has been debunked several times. As someone with mathematics degrees and significantly higher understanding of statistics then the average person, I consider the left's argument here to be a great example of "liars figure and figures lies."
If you look at a sample of men and women, with the sample of men stratified to the sample of women according to job title and years experience, not all men vs. all women, which is statistically inequivalent according to the merits of the study, the wage gap all but disappears.
Not to the mention the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (passed by congress I should mention, not executive order) already grants equal pay for equal work and qualifications regardless of sex. [/qutoe]
And there is a lot of litigation when it turns out that women are getting paid less than men.
Walmart is a prime example here
Okay, mostly good points.
On the supreme court nomination, both parties are equally guilty of it, but that does make it right. Obama tried to filibuster GW Bush's nomination at the end of his presidency for the same reason. Biden approved of the same idea too as did Schumer under similar circumstances. Really, since the 60s, the supreme court has become too much of a political tool by both sides.
I do agree that congress has abdicated it responsibilities and this adding to the problem of the executive office over reach. Maybe this would be a great reason for term limits, since that would dampen this a bit. Never going to happen though; no one would vote to reduce the length of their employment.
However, that does not mean a president should force feed his agenda down the throats of the other half if he can not compromise and get it through congress. Nor should those on the left, or the right, be upset with the undoing of temporary orders when their president failed at governing.
Also, I do agree our current leadership will not reach the lows of the pre-civil war era, but that was not my point. As wrong as the reasons where (slavery), the dissidents in the South was created by an over reach of the growing political power of the North. This is sort of happening again, just with conservatives vs liberals. (My primary concern is with fiscal issues and the size of government, so someone else, lets not turn this statement to social issues.)
National standards are needed in some areas, but not others. Of course, if we want to encourage interstate commerce, like in banking, having a national standard would be good, but it should not become a Frankenstein of regulations. On other things though, like education, it makes no sense since we do not trade education over state lines.
The litigation currently happening with inappropriate wage for women, if it turns out to be true, will be settled under the Far Pay Act, not any of Obama's executive orders. Trumps undoing will not effect this.
However, liked I mentioned before, with this issue, everyone on the left always points out the averages of every man vs every woman, which is not statistically appropriate. I have yet to see anyone on the left use a stratified study on the issue, which is what is appropriate, probably because it would not prove their point.
Liars figure and figures lies, and unfortunately its become cool to say, "well, I'm really bad at math" without being embarrassed by saying it. If you're bad at math, you should be just as embarrassed by it as if you couldn't read. Maybe if we reverse this, less people would be fooled by the liars that figure.
-
Alan,, that's not an article but rather an op-ed from Peter Wallinson of the American Enterprise Institute. His views have been debunked so many times it's not even funny. His only claim to fame was that he authored a minority report on the issue. The trouble is one really has to do a lot of reading to understand what transpired with the melt down. Short magazine pieces won't do it.
You can believe what you want. But the fact is quotas for banks to give money to people who could not afford mortgages caused banks to lower their underwriting standards. I personally witnessed it in 2003/2004 when my wife an I were looking for a home. When I asked our mortgage broker if we should supply pay stubs and other asset papers, he said that the bank doesn't need them. I was stunned that the standards had so decreased from the way it use to be. So naturally, the banks, being stuck with bad mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, unloaded them in the form of securitization conspiring with rating agencies to lie about their lousy value. But the whole mess wouldn't have happened if Congress didn't set up these quotas to loan money to poor people.
-
Okay, mostly good points.
On the supreme court nomination, both parties are equally guilty of it, but that does make it right. Obama tried to filibuster GW Bush's nomination at the end of his presidency for the same reason. Biden approved of the same idea too as did Schumer under similar circumstances. Really, since the 60s, the supreme court has become too much of a political tool by both sides.
I do agree that congress has abdicated it responsibilities and this adding to the problem of the executive office over reach....
...Also, I do agree our current leadership will not reach the lows of the pre-civil war era, but that was not my point. As wrong as the reasons where (slavery), the dissidents in the South was created by an over reach of the growing political power of the North. This is sort of happening again, just with conservatives vs liberals. (My primary concern is with fiscal issues and the size of government, so someone else, lets not turn this statement to social issues.)
National standards are needed in some areas, but not others. Of course, if we want to encourage interstate commerce, like in banking, having a national standard would be good, but it should not become a Frankenstein of regulations. On other things though, like education, it makes no sense since we do not trade education over state lines....
Beside Congress abdicating its power to the President, the Supreme Court has added to the overall power of the federal government reducing State's rights. The court has expanded the Federal government right to Regulate Interstate Commerce, privacy and "human rights" to mean practically anything they want it to mean. So states can no longer run their communities as the people democratically wish to live. Your education is a perfect example. It has nothing to do with interstate commerce. I remember one time the Supreme Court overruled Congress. Based on Interstate Commerce, Congress passed a law outlawing guns within a near distance of schools to make them safer for kids, a noble idea. Even the Supreme Court couldn't figure out how that had anything to do with commerce and declared it unconstitutional. Let the states decide how they want to educate and protect their kids. Parents will demand their local officials do their jobs. We don't need congressman and senators from other states who don't understand our local situation to decide how we should live. And the Constitution, as written, didn't intend to give that power to D.C.
-
Okay, mostly good points.
On the supreme court nomination, both parties are equally guilty of it, but that does make it right. Obama tried to filibuster GW Bush's nomination at the end of his presidency for the same reason. Biden approved of the same idea too as did Schumer under similar circumstances. Really, since the 60s, the supreme court has become too much of a political tool by both sides.
Biden mentioned the possibility of doing this but it never came to pass. We will never know if his suggestion would have been followed but that's what the Republicans have held up.
I do agree that congress has abdicated it responsibilities and this adding to the problem of the executive office over reach. Maybe this would be a great reason for term limits, since that would dampen this a bit. Never going to happen though; no one would vote to reduce the length of their employment.
However, that does not mean a president should force feed his agenda down the throats of the other half if he can not compromise and get it through congress. Nor should those on the left, or the right, be upset with the undoing of temporary orders when their president failed at governing.
Also, I do agree our current leadership will not reach the lows of the pre-civil war era, but that was not my point. As wrong as the reasons where (slavery), the dissidents in the South was created by an over reach of the growing political power of the North. This is sort of happening again, just with conservatives vs liberals. (My primary concern is with fiscal issues and the size of government, so someone else, lets not turn this statement to social issues.)
I go back a lot longer than you do and can remember when there was actually bi-partisanship in Congress and when Congress worked well with the President. Things took a turn for the worse following the 1994 mid-terms when the Gingrich team took over the house. There was no willingness of the House to work with President Clinton and of course there was the impeachment attempt. I remember when Orrin Hatch used to boast of working with Ted Kennedy on issues. I doubt we will see this return any time soon. the well is poisoned and Congressional districts are way to partisan these days (only a small number of seats are really Gerrymandered; most of it is a result of self selection in terms of where people want to live.).
National standards are needed in some areas, but not others. Of course, if we want to encourage interstate commerce, like in banking, having a national standard would be good, but it should not become a Frankenstein of regulations. On other things though, like education, it makes no sense since we do not trade education over state lines.
there is a lot of regulation at the state and local level that is just stupid. My late father was a civil engineer and he had to be licensed in all that states that his architectural & engineering firm worked. fortunately it was a small number but he used to always say what a nuisance it was.
Liars figure and figures lies, and unfortunately its become cool to say, "well, I'm really bad at math" without being embarrassed by saying it. If you're bad at math, you should be just as embarrassed by it as if you couldn't read. Maybe if we reverse this, less people would be fooled by the liars that figure.
Quite true!!!
-
You can believe what you want. But the fact is quotas for banks to give money to people who could not afford mortgages caused banks to lower their underwriting standards. I personally witnessed it in 2003/2004 when my wife an I were looking for a home. When I asked our mortgage broker if we should supply pay stubs and other asset papers, he said that the bank doesn't need them. I was stunned that the standards had so decreased from the way it use to be. So naturally, the banks, being stuck with bad mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, unloaded them in the form of securitization conspiring with rating agencies to lie about their lousy value. But the whole mess wouldn't have happened if Congress didn't set up these quotas to loan money to poor people.
Alan, look at the areas where the mortgage meltdowns took place (Arizona, Nevada, south Florida, parts of California). these were not areas where the Community Reinvestment Act was generally applicable. As you found out mortgage brokers were just as complicit as the banks and other lending organizations were. Underwriting standards were non-existent and there was blame enough to go around to everyone. Your final statement is just wrong. Here is a rejoinder to Senator Rubio when he was essentially saying something similar to what you have written following an Obama state of the union speech: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/13/no-marco-rubio-government-did-not-cause-the-housing-crisis/?utm_term=.4b9c0ced2694
You may continue to believe what you wrote but my point is that this has been debunked numerous times including by the Federal Reserve itself.
-
there is a lot of regulation at the state and local level that is just stupid. My late father was a civil engineer and he had to be licensed in all that states that his architectural & engineering firm worked. fortunately it was a small number but he used to always say what a nuisance it was.
Once again, you see federal responsibility and I see state responsibility here.
I work with architects a lot and they need to be licensed in each state they work in. To get licensure, you need to pass 9 exams, and gain credits every 5 years to continue your education, plus a degree in Architecture, which takes 5 years, and so many hours as an apprentice (intern architect, which is not a very accurate title). 8 of those of exams for all states are the same, and each state has a specific score you need to obtain. The 9th exam though is usually state regulated and covers items pertinent to that state; many neighboring states do share the same 9th exam.
For instance, NY is going to be more interested in making sure architects understand the building of skyscrapers. FL will want people to know about flood plains. CA will want architects to understand designing for earthquakes. I see no reason why all architects should need to know all of these geographically specific needs. Doing so would only make becoming an architect even more difficult, which is already too cumbersome in my opinion.
A friend of mine is an architect, but use to be a lawyer. She said the exams for architecture where much more difficult then taking the Bar.
-
For instance, NY is going to be more interested in making sure architects understand the building of skyscrapers. FL will want people to know about flood plains. CA will want architects to understand designing for earthquakes. I see no reason why all architects should need to know all of these geographically specific needs. Doing so would only make becoming an architect even more difficult, which is already too cumbersome in my opinion.
Actually it is the civil engineers that are responsible for what you write. Architectural course work doesn't go into that kind of stuff. My dad was co-equal partner with the architect in his firm (them met during WW-II working at Consolidated Aircraft in San Diego where B-24s and PBY-Catalinas were manufactured). My dad was expert in earthquake stuff. they didn't do much in terms of tall buildings as there was not much demand in San Diego for those.
-
Actually it is the civil engineers that are responsible for what you write. Architectural course work doesn't go into that kind of stuff. My dad was co-equal partner with the architect in his firm (them met during WW-II working at Consolidated Aircraft in San Diego where B-24s and PBY-Catalinas were manufactured). My dad was expert in earthquake stuff. they didn't do much in terms of tall buildings as there was not much demand in San Diego for those.
If that was the case, there would be no need for differing 9th exams from state to state.
The engineers are responsible for the engineering; the architects are responsible for the architecture. The design, not just the engineering, of a building and its use changes based on conditions. Architects do more then just draw creative designs all day. Not to mention, the architectural drawings, what the architect, not the engineer, is responsible for producing, are the legal document of how the building is built. On top of that, it is usually the architectural firm that over sees the project during construction.
Both professionals are responsible for changing conditions.
Not that you would ever need to, but if you ever happen into the main office of SOM in NYC (the leading skyscraper architectural firm in the world), page through their yearly reports. You would be amazed at the innovations they had to come up with to help make their building more efficient. Design changes significantly when buildings get taller.
Not to mention, it is the architectural firm that becomes certified to produce LEED designs. The methods to get a skyscraper LEED certified comes down to more design, not engineering.
-
He promised in 2008 he was going to remove the troops. So that's what he did.
So, he pulled troops out because he promised to do so in his platform and that's a lie?
Not keeping troops in /Iraq...
Obama said in 2014:
“So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were--a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq,” said Obama.
Obama went on to say that he does not believe it would not have made any difference if he had decided to keep troops in Iraq.
“The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable,” said Obama. “And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.
“So that entire analysis is bogus and is wrong,” said Obama. “But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.”
And that's a lie? I suppose Obama could have gone against Iraqi wishes and kept troops in-country by force, but that's what he was trying to avoid in the 1st place by pulling troops out.
So, you claim he lied about Benghazi (even though in his first comments he mentioned "terror"), but even if his admin misstated the truth after the fact (point in fact the hearings proved nobody knew the truth for about 36 hrs), how is a lie after the fact the cause of any deaths?
Yes, the situation in Syria sucked...it sucked before Obama was elected, it sucked after he was elected and it sucks now "bigly". Yes, he said "red line" and had every intention to adhering to that. The realities of the struggles precluded doing much of anything without committing ground troops which the country had no stomach for...Assad is still in power and now the Russians are killing even more people–maybe because they feel emboldened because of Trump?
In the meantime, Trump lies at about a 70% clip when he opens his mouth (via Politifact). I see Trump's lies being far worse for the country than the previous admin was. We'll have to see how many lives Trump's lies will end up costing...
-
If that was the case, there would be no need for differing 9th exams from state to state.
The engineers are responsible for the engineering; the architects are responsible for the architecture. The design, not just the engineering, of a building and its use changes based on conditions. Architects do more then just draw creative designs all day. Not to mention, the architectural drawings, what the architect, not the engineer, is responsible for producing, are the legal document of how the building is built. On top of that, it is usually the architectural firm that over sees the project during construction.
Both professionals are responsible for changing conditions.
Well, I can't ask my dad about this any more. I do know his partner did not have expertise with reinforced concrete, my father did. I don't how much time is spent on structural issues in an architecture curriculum but that's almost the whole thing that civil engineers study.
-
Yes, the situation in Syria sucked...it sucked before Obama was elected, it sucked after he was elected and it sucks now "bigly". Yes, he said "red line" and had every intention to adhering to that. The realities of the struggles precluded doing much of anything without committing ground troops which the country had no stomach for...Assad is still in power and now the Russians are killing even more people–maybe because they feel emboldened because of Trump?
We have had another poison gas attack by the Syrian air force along with some stories over the weekend about torture in Syrian jails yet there is no outcry from the Trump administration about this. We have soldiers risking their lives to wipe out ISIS bases in Syria, yet no plan for dealing with Syria in the long run. At least Obama said he didn't want to see Assad in power; do we know what the position of the Trump administration is?
-
Well, I can't ask my dad about this any more. I do know his partner did not have expertise with reinforced concrete, my father did. I don't how much time is spent on structural issues in an architecture curriculum but that's almost the whole thing that civil engineers study.
Design needs and engineering needs are not necessarily the same; both play into building a building.
With your dad's example, the architect would have most likely known that an area needed to be designed to withstand a certain amount of constant weight, would have determined that weight based on interviews with the client, and would have designed the floor with structure concrete in mind. The exact make-up of the concrete and how much rebar would be needed based on the foreseen weight would have been your father's responsibility to determine.
For skyscrapers, the way in which an interior in designed, whether or not atriums are used, what type of glass is in place, how the HVAC/plumbing/transport systems are routed, whether or not a green roof is used, all play into how efficient a design is. All engineering problems, sort of, but of all different engineering practices, and the architect is in charge of bringing this all together.
A skyscraper could be employing 5 or 6 different engineering firms, civil, foundation, structural, material, HVAC, etc. This is why the architectural drawings, not the engineering drawings, are the legal document since no one engineering firm would have the entire design documented.
Architects are not necessarily doing all the math, but they are incorporating it all into the design. Plus, one of the architectural exams covers just engineering, to an extent.
-
Part Three from the LA Times OpEd...
Part Three: Trump’s Authoritarian Vision (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-trumps-authoritarian-vision/)
Standing before the cheering throngs at the Republican National Convention last summer, Donald Trump bemoaned how special interests had rigged the country’s politics and its economy, leaving Americans victimized by unfair trade deals, incompetent bureaucrats and spineless leaders.
He swooped into politics, he declared, to subvert the powerful and rescue those who cannot defend themselves. “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”
To Trump’s faithful, those words were a rallying cry. But his critics heard something far more menacing in them: a dangerously authoritarian vision of the presidency — one that would crop up time and again as he talked about overruling generals, disregarding international law, ordering soldiers to commit war crimes, jailing his opponent.
Trump has no experience in politics; he’s never previously run for office or held a government position. So perhaps he was unaware that one of the hallmarks of the American system of government is that the president’s power to “fix” things unilaterally is constrained by an array of strong institutions — including the courts, the media, the permanent federal bureaucracy and Congress. Combined, they provide an essential defense against an imperial presidency.
Yet in his first weeks at the White House, President Trump has already sought to undermine many of those institutions. Those that have displayed the temerity to throw some hurdle in the way of a Trump objective have quickly felt the heat.
So far he's attacked the electoral process, the intelligence community, the media, the court system, the federal agencies, our foreign allies and most recently, the conservative members in his own party. He has no clue about building a consensus or the process of governing...
Trump betrays no sense for the president’s place among the myriad of institutions in the continuum of governance. He seems willing to violate long-established political norms without a second thought, and he cavalierly rejects the civility and deference that allow the system to run smoothly. He sees himself as not merely a force for change, but as a wrecking ball.
This is not good for our country....
-
We have had another poison gas attack by the Syrian air force along with some stories over the weekend about torture in Syrian jails yet there is no outcry from the Trump administration about this. We have soldiers risking their lives to wipe out ISIS bases in Syria, yet no plan for dealing with Syria in the long run. At least Obama said he didn't want to see Assad in power; do we know what the position of the Trump administration is?
We should just kill ISIS and go home. We have to stop playing policeman and making the world safe for democracy. Let Assad deal with his country. Didn't we learn a lesson by overthrowing Saddam and releasing the bats out of hell? Let other Muslim countries deal with Assad, Russia and Iran if they think it's so important. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. We can sell them tanks and planes and let them do the fighting. It's their neighborhood.
-
If that was the case, there would be no need for differing 9th exams from state to state.
The engineers are responsible for the engineering; the architects are responsible for the architecture. The design, not just the engineering, of a building and its use changes based on conditions. Architects do more then just draw creative designs all day. Not to mention, the architectural drawings, what the architect, not the engineer, is responsible for producing, are the legal document of how the building is built. On top of that, it is usually the architectural firm that over sees the project during construction.
Both professionals are responsible for changing conditions.
Not that you would ever need to, but if you ever happen into the main office of SOM in NYC (the leading skyscraper architectural firm in the world), page through their yearly reports. You would be amazed at the innovations they had to come up with to help make their building more efficient. Design changes significantly when buildings get taller.
Not to mention, it is the architectural firm that becomes certified to produce LEED designs. The methods to get a skyscraper LEED certified comes down to more design, not engineering.
Electrical, mechanical and other engineers are also LEEDS certified. Not just the Architect. Producing energy and environmentally sound bldgs. come down to their electrical and mechanical systems as well as the structure. LEEDs certification I think are national unlike architectural licenses which are by state. You don't need LEED to be an engineer, but it makes you more valuable to a firm if you are.
Note: LEED is an acronym for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ certification. Buildings can be certified as are engineers and architects and others who provide design input.
-
We have had another poison gas attack by the Syrian air force along with some stories over the weekend about torture in Syrian jails yet there is no outcry from the Trump administration about this. We have soldiers risking their lives to wipe out ISIS bases in Syria, yet no plan for dealing with Syria in the long run. At least Obama said he didn't want to see Assad in power; do we know what the position of the Trump administration is?
Well, McCain isn't happy...
McCain rips Trump administration over Syria policy (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/politics/john-mccain-syria-trump-cnntv/)
(CNN)Sen. John McCain said Tuesday the Trump administration's decision to no longer prioritize ending the Syrian civil war is "another disgraceful chapter in American history."
"(Syrian President) Bashar Assad and his friends, the Russians, take note of what Americans say," the Arizona Republican told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on "New Day." "I'm sure they took note of what our Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) said just the other day that the Syrian people would be determining their own future themselves -- one of the more incredible statements I've ever heard."
"I'm sure they are encouraged to know the United States is withdrawing and seeking a new arrangement with the Russians," he added. "It is another disgraceful chapter in American history and it was predictable."
The Trump administration doubled down last week on prioritizing the fight against ISIS over ending the Syrian civil war and getting rid of Assad, the policy under the Obama administration.
Trump said today: ‘I Don’t Want to Be the President of the World’ (http://www.mrctv.org/blog/trump-i-don-t-want-be-president-world)
President Trump speaking at an conference for the National Association of Business Trade Unions (NTABU) in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday said that his priority is “America first.”
"I'm not, and I don't want to be, the president of the world,” said Trump. “I'm the president of the United States."
So, between Trump and Tillerson, what happens in Syria should just stay in Syria I guess. But sooner or later, Rex has start doing his job...
The Silence of Rex Tillerson (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/rex-tillerson-state-department/521793/)
Sooner or later, someone needs to explain what Trump’s foreign policy is. But the secretary of state does not seem to understand his job.
During his short tenure the following has happened: His top pick for deputy secretary of state was shot down at the last minute in a bit of palace intrigue; his boss has proposed slashing his department’s budget by 29 percent; his press operation at the State Department went dark for several weeks, after which the interim spokesman made a (good) statement in support of Russian demonstrators and was promptly moved; he decided to get rid of the usual press entourage on his inaugural overseas trip to Asia; he nearly skipped a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, pulling back in the nick of time to spend only a few hours on the ground in Brussels; he has been preceded on a visit to Iraq by the princeling of the Trump administration, Jared Kushner, whose remit includes China and Middle East peace, among other things. And on the great issues of American foreign policy—nothing.
It is the conceit of professors that the world could easily be run by academics; of soldiers that generals can sort most things out; of business people that what one most needs is someone who has had to meet a payroll. In the case of the Trump administration the bias seems to be towards military people who the president thinks look like killers or are supposed to have monikers like “mad dog,” and for really wealthy folks from the private sector, with an apparent fondness for New York money people.
This is nonsense. The higher offices of state require all kinds of qualities rarely assembled in one individual, among them, yes, basic management skills, but also sensitivity to domestic politics, intellectual depth, a certain degree of vision, substantive knowledge of often recondite issues, interpersonal skills at wheedling, coaxing, intimidating and persuading, and a public persona. Running Exxon Mobil is good preparation for only some of the things a secretary of state must do. And so far, Secretary Tillerson is doing poorly.
#MAGA
Any day now...
-
Electrical, mechanical and other engineers are also LEEDS certified. Not just the Architect. Producing energy and environmentally sound bldgs. come down to their electrical and mechanical systems as well as the structure. LEEDs certification I think are national unlike architectural licenses which are by state. You don't need LEED to be an engineer, but it makes you more valuable to a firm if you are.
Yes, right. My point was that the architect really pulls everything together. They don't do the number crunching, like determining the density of reinforced concrete and the spacing of rebar based on the weight of traffic, but they draw the designs with it incorporated.
It's not just the engineer that needs to know how to design around certain obstacles.
I think overall, the general public has no idea what architects really do, and it annoys architects to no end when people think all they do is draw cool designs all day.
-
Part Three from the LA Times OpEd...
Part Three: Trump’s Authoritarian Vision (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-trumps-authoritarian-vision/)
So far he's attacked the electoral process, the intelligence community, the media, the court system, the federal agencies, our foreign allies and most recently, the conservative members in his own party. He has no clue about building a consensus or the process of governing...
This is not good for our country....
It's true that he is new to politics. But he's a fast learner. Although the Republicans failed with Obamacare, he spent a lot of time working with many members in Congress trying to get them on board and finding a path to passing legislation. He knows it requires a lot of personal work with them to get things done. He just took Senator Rand Paul golfing to soften him up and help get legislation passed with other conservatives. (Go ahead and make a joke about Trump's golf. We all get that. But it's how Trump gets business done)
Obama's attitude was more hands off. I think you're going to see a good relationship come out of Trump and congress. Maybe even with Democrats if they could change their obstruction policy, like Republicans did with Obama, of not giving an inch. But you're expecting too much in two months. Give him a chance.
-
Count yourself lucky you get yours from your employer. Those people who have to buy their own insurance will see an average rise of 25% this year.
I've run my own business for over 30 years and I had health insurance increases of over 20% before ACA. I haven't seen any that big since but there have definitely been increases. The recent GOP proposal would have given me at least a 22% premium increase so 25% under ACA seems no worse. I have better coverage now than before ACA and never had any issue with keeping my doctor or my plan. I was never a huge fan of ACA but I think it's considerably better than what we had previously. I also think it could be improved but it will not be, since the current administration is obsessed with throwing out the baby with the bath water.
-
Well, McCain isn't happy...
McCain rips Trump administration over Syria policy (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/04/politics/john-mccain-syria-trump-cnntv/)
Trump said today: ‘I Don’t Want to Be the President of the World’ (http://www.mrctv.org/blog/trump-i-don-t-want-be-president-world)
So, between Trump and Tillerson, what happens in Syria should just stay in Syria I guess. But sooner or later, Rex has start doing his job...
The Silence of Rex Tillerson (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/rex-tillerson-state-department/521793/)
#MAGA
Any day now...
I like McCain. But he's become a warmonger. Maybe he should reenlist as a marine aviator and we can send him to drop bombs in Syria. You'd think he'd remember what happened to him in North Vietnam and keep his head down instead of foisting death and dismemberment on today's young Americans. And for what? All those people over there hate our guts already. After we drop some more bombs, they'll hate us even more. A plague on all their houses.
-
I've run my own business for over 30 years and I had health insurance increases of over 20% before ACA. I haven't seen any that big since but there have definitely been increases. The recent GOP proposal would have given me at least a 22% premium increase so 25% under ACA seems no worse. I have better coverage now than before ACA and never had any issue with keeping my doctor or my plan. I was never a huge fan of ACA but I think it's considerably better than what we had previously. I also think it could be improved but it will not be, since the current administration is obsessed with throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The problem with both Democrats and Republicans is that both want health coverage for everyone that covers pre-existing conditions. That's like your wife buying life insurance on you after your dead. It's all just too expensive and we can't afford it. Regardless of the plan, costs will continue to go up as long as government is involved.
-
It's true that he is new to politics. But he's a fast learner.
How about learning to read first?
-
It seems more and more that the Obama Administration was in fact playing fast and loose with surveillance info they had on Trump and his campaign people. No, Obama wasn't listening in exactly, but Susan Rice and others were. It may have been coincidental to NSA taps, but still, the dems unmasked people illegally. And still no proof of Trump collusion with the Russians to tilt the election.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel
Update to my post: So did Rice order spy agencies to provide detailed spreadsheets on Trump?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/
-
It's true that he is new to politics. But he's a fast learner.
Not sure about that, but definitely a fast liar.
-
The problem with both Democrats and Republicans is that both want health coverage for everyone that covers pre-existing conditions. That's like your wife buying life insurance on you after your dead. It's all just too expensive and we can't afford it. Regardless of the plan, costs will continue to go up as long as government is involved.
Every human being needs healthcare. Lots of people have pre-existing conditions. If they are uninsured they go to emergency rooms when things get out of hand and "we" pay for their treatment anyway. In fact we pay even more for ER care, with worse outcomes, but only after the patients run out of money. A 2009 study in The American Journal of Medicine showed that 62.1% of all bankruptcies had a medical cause. Was that better?
Insured people still go bankrupt due to medical bills, but that is apparently decreasing to some extent. It always seemed to me that for profit insurance has a built in conflict of interest since profit is a huge incentive to deny coverage. Some insurance companies have been found to pay bonuses to reviewers based on number of claims they find reason to deny. That's great if it's not your life on the line.
Somehow most of the developed world has managed to have universal healthcare for decades while America, the richest country on earth, just "can't afford it". That's patently ridiculous.
-
Every human being needs healthcare. Lots of people have pre-existing conditions. If they are uninsured they go to emergency rooms when things get out of hand and "we" pay for their treatment anyway. In fact we pay even more for ER care, with worse outcomes, but only after the patients run out of money. A 2009 study in The American Journal of Medicine showed that 62.1% of all bankruptcies had a medical cause. Was that better?
Insured people still go bankrupt due to medical bills, but that is apparently decreasing to some extent. It always seemed to me that for profit insurance has a built in conflict of interest since profit is a huge incentive to deny coverage. Some insurance companies have been found to pay bonuses to reviewers based on number of claims they find reason to deny. That's great if it's not your life on the line.
Somehow most of the developed world has managed to have universal healthcare for decades while America, the richest country on earth, just "can't afford it". That's patently ridiculous.
Well, Democrats gave us universal health care. It's called Obamacare and many people are going broke with insurance costs. Others are complaining that the deductibles are so high, they can't take advantage of their insurance unless they get deathly sick. So the Republicans tried to change it, repeal and replace, but they could not get enough votes from Republicans only. Democrats refused to be involved all together. So I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens. Fortunately I'm on Medicare so it doesn't affect me at this point.
We're not a rich country. Not anymore. We are $20 trillion in debt. The federal budget is spending $600 billion more this year than they take in taxes requiring massive borrowing and possibly more printing of money that will decrease the value of your salary and savings and value of your home due to inflation. We're running a negative trade deficit. In fact the largest in the world. We use to be the biggest creditor in the world. Now we're the biggest debtor. We can raise taxes but that inhibits business. It will reduce the number of jobs and GDP. So we'll become poorer. The Ponzi scheme we've run for years is quickly ending.
My guess the government will just keep printing. That will destroy the value of the dollar. Your dollar and my dollar. Then we won't be able to afford health care for all or anything else.
-
Well, Democrats gave us universal health care. It's called Obamacare and many people are going broke with insurance costs. Others are complaining that the deductibles are so high, they can't take advantage of their insurance unless they get deathly sick. So the Republicans tried to change it, repeal and replace, but they could not get enough votes from Republicans only. Democrats refused to be involved all together. So I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens. Fortunately I'm on Medicare so it doesn't affect me at this point.
We're not a rich country. Not anymore. We are $20 trillion in debt. The federal budget is spending $600 billion more this year than they take in taxes requiring massive borrowing and possibly more printing of money that will decrease the value of your salary and savings and value of your home due to inflation. We're running a negative trade deficit. In fact the largest in the world. We use to be the biggest creditor in the world. Now we're the biggest debtor. We can raise taxes but that inhibits business. It will reduce the number of jobs and GDP. So we'll become poorer. The Ponzi scheme we've run for years is quickly ending.
My guess the government will just keep printing. That will destroy the value of the dollar. Your dollar and my dollar. Then we won't be able to afford health care for all or anything else.
The problem is, the replacement was worse than what they were repealing! I'm glad it failed. Fewer people were covered and those who were covered got higher premiums and less coverage. That's not what I call a fix. If we weren't completely wasting billions on a wall that won't work and pouring more billions money into a military that already has more funding than the next 7 biggest military spenders combined, we might be able to address some real problems.
-
It's all just too expensive and we can't afford it.
What an incredible statement.
The only nation in the developed west to not take care of the health of its citizens.
-
Then we won't be able to afford health care for all or anything else.
There could be a connection between the kind of consumed food, obesity and the cost of the health care in the United States compared to the rest of the world.
One solution would be to impose tax on all junk food and channel the proceeds to the health care.
(http://images.agoramedia.com/everydayhealth/gcms/Obesity-America-vs-world.jpg)
The percentage of overweight or obese citizens in the United States compared to the rest of the world, according to a new Lancet study.
However, the latest reports indicate leveling the obesity numbers in US, and of many other countries catching up.
-
There could be a connection between the kind of consumed food, obesity and the cost of the health care in the United States compared to the rest of the world.
One solution would be to impose tax on all junk food and channel the proceeds to the health care.
(http://images.agoramedia.com/everydayhealth/gcms/Obesity-America-vs-world.jpg)
The percentage of overweight or obese citizens in the United States compared to the rest of the world, according to a new Lancet study.
However, the latest reports indicate leveling the obesity numbers in US, and of many other countries catching up.
Although I agree the kind of food we eat is probably the number one reason we have high health care cost in this country, taxing never works like that, or the tax is always used in some other manner than what is promised.
We tried to do this in Philadelphia with soft drinks with the promise that the tax revenue would go towards healthcare and daycare. In the 11th hour, after overall approval was gained, it was changed to go toward the generic fund, a bait and switch.
I swear, it never ends. You give a politician just a whiff of money, and they start spending before it is even in their hands. I should note this tax in on top of the increase in sales tax in Philly, which is only temporary; it's just going to last until the end of time.
Now it has gotten even worse though. So many people are shopping outside the city that stores are starting to feel the pain and laying people off. Pepsi is closing all operation in the city.
So many liberals blame Pepsi, saying they have no right to do this with the profits they make, or insist people are not shopping outside the city. Both are crazy; companies can make a profit. I don't drink soda, so I don't leave the city for that, but I do shop outside the city in NJ or DE and see mostly PA license plates.
I think we should allow insurance companies to charge people based on how healthy, or unhealthy, they are. If you're overweight, you need to pay more for insurance, period. If you don't work out, you pay more for insurance, period. If you're malnourished because you don't eat vegetables and fruit, you pay more for insurance, period.
-
I believe I said elsewhere, quoting Yuval Harari: "Today, more people die from eating too much than from eating too little"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Noah_Harari
-
As Michael Pollan says: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
http://strongertogether.coop/food-lifestyle/michael-pollan-three-simple-rules-for-eating
-
What an incredible statement.
The only nation in the developed west to not take care of the health of its citizens.
Europe takes medical care of its people while spending a fraction of their wealth on their military while we defend them spending all our money. That's nuts! They aren't the Europe any longer that was after WWII threatened by a Communist Soviet Union that occupied Eastern Europe. They are now all free, the Soviets have collapsed, and Russia is economically the size of Spain. True they have nukes. But so does France and England. Germany is the 4th largest economy in the world and spends 1/3 percentage wise in what we spend on the military. What are we doing in NATO any longer? Let's give Europe 2 years to get their militaries up to speed to defend themselves and let's pull our troops out. Then we can spend those billions we spend on them on ourselves. We can't be the policeman of the world any longer.
-
Darn, just when Trump thought the bad stuff might be behind him, this happens...
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Trump-rejected-701x438.jpg)
President Trump's Approval Ratings Just Hit Another Low (http://time.com/4725494/president-donald-trump-approval-rating/)
President Donald Trump’s approval ratings fell to 35% Tuesday — another new low for the president during his first months in office.
The approval ratings produced by Quinnipiac University (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2448)Quinnipiac University are a drop from the last national poll, released March 22, which showed Trump's approval at 37%. Trump’s ratings fall under former President Barack Obama’s lowest — 38% in 2013.
According to the poll, the majority of Americans also believe the following about the president:
“He is not honest”
“He does not have good leadership skills”
“He does not care about average Americans”
“He is not level-headed”
“He does not share their values”
Additionally, 52% of voters say they are embarrassed to have Trump has president, according to the poll.
It just keeps getting worse...
#MAGA–not so much :~(
-
Well, at least this one is funny!!!
Someone is Photoshopping Images of Donald Trump Wearing Really Long Ties (http://www.booooooom.com/2017/04/04/someone-is-photoshoppping-images-of-donald-trump-wearing-really-long-ties/)
(http://www.booooooom.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumps-ties-twitter20.jpg)
I remember late last year people were pointing out how long Donald Trump’s ties looked in photos and now a Twitter account @TrumpsTies (https://twitter.com/trumpsties) is having some fun with that idea. The Photoshopping is on point too! Maybe this is a conspiracy to have search results for “Trump” and “Ties” bring up these images instead of anything related to Russia. You be the judge, lots more images below!
(http://www.booooooom.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/trumps-ties-twitter15.jpg)
-
Back to the OMG news...
Please, can someone brief the president on the unemployment rate? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/04/please-can-someone-brief-the-president-on-the-unemployment-rate/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_factchecker-545pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c2e3bb64c6fe)
“When you look for a job, you can’t find it and you give up, you are now considered statistically employed. But I don’t consider those people employed.”
— President Trump, remarks to CEO town hall, April 4, 2017
The president made these comments as he described the method of calculating the unemployment rate as “ridiculous.” Since no one at the White House, apparently, has explained to the president how the unemployment rate is calculated, here’s a quick and easy briefing.
Spoiler alert: It’s exactly the opposite of what Trump said.
The Facts
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is part of the Labor Department, details the process at length on its website. How the Government Measures Unemployment (https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#employed)
The data that makes up the unemployment rate comes from a monthly sample of 60,000 households, or about 110,000 people, from 800 geographic areas across the country. Each household is interviewed for four months, so each month about one-quarter of the households are changed. Census Bureau employees interview the households to determine whether people ages 16 and over have jobs, are seeking jobs or are out of the labor force.
Here are the basic concepts used by the BLS:
• People with jobs are employed.
• People who are jobless, looking for a job and available for work are unemployed.
• The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
• People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
In other words, a person working some period during the week is considered employed. A person who was laid off and is seeking a new job is unemployed. And a person who is a stay-at-home parent or retired is not in the labor force.
Yeah, so on the job training by the President of the United States is ongoing (and not going too well).
#MAGA
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17795697_1853972211544483_6453160931790693828_n.jpg?oh=f7d20181f821e33e7c93b760628831be&oe=5999F306)
He's drowning...throw the poor guy an anchor!
-
Europe takes medical care of its people while spending a fraction of their wealth on their military while we defend them spending all our money.
I've provided the real figures on this SO many times yet you still sprout this nonsense. You do not expend all your military budget in Europe. The percentage that you do spend is not enough to change your healthcare system.
-
I've provided the real figures on this SO many times yet you still sprout this nonsense. You do not expend all your military budget in Europe. The percentage that you do spend is not enough to change your healthcare system.
Of course we don't spend all of our military budget in Europe. We have troops and ships all around the world. My point was we're spending all of our money not leaving enough to take care of our people medically. But they're spending their money on their health while we're spending our money protect them. Why do we need 65-70,000 troops in Europe? The point is Europe is rich and should defend itself.
-
Of course we don't spend all of our military budget in Europe. We have troops and ships all around the world. My point was we're spending all of our money not leaving enough to take care of our people medically. But they're spending their money on their health while we're spending our money protect them. Why do we need 65-70,000 troops in Europe? The point is Europe is rich and should defend itself.
+1
-
(http://russellrutherford.com/clo_vo_900_px.jpg)
It probably does no good to write on this thread because like most of the world, people’s minds are made up, and I don’t see anything changing.
That’s the problem, too much hate, not enough compassion, surely not enough open mindedness.
Though I believe who I vote for is personal but for the record I didn’t vote for DT or HRC, as honestly didn’t see much difference and even if I did, living in the places I do, my vote wouldn’t have counted anyway, so I voted my heart.
But living on the west side of LA you can’t be neutral. You have to hate the opposing party. Really hate, not look at life objectively and with compromise.
I’m of the belief that government on all levels has failed us, or better put we’ve allowed them to, especially the anger people.
The 4 major issues of my time, the housing crisis, Iraq, healthcare reform and climate debate is a screw up by both parties.
Housing Crisis:
The Repubs gutted Glass–Steagall in 1999 with the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and Bill C. signed off on it declaring Glass Stegall not in line with modern times.
Had it been left in place, derivatives never would have happened and Bill signed off cause he was in deep shit with the intern.
Iraq:
Bush got us into Iraq, but it was a democrat controlled congress that voted for it, especially the 5 highest placed democrats, some who ended up in the Obama White House in high positions.
4,500 Americans killed, along with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and trillions of dollars thrown away. We can blow up Iraq, then rebuild it, then leave it to be torn up again.
How can we spend two trillion on Iraq, lose thousands of brave people, but not rebuild Detroit? Who signs off on this stuff? I’m defending no single party because all of their hands are dirty.
Healthcare:
Healthcare was a mess before Obamacare and we needed reform, but not when we’re told that we’ll only know what’s in it once it’s passed. How disgusting for a democracy/republic’s leader to make such a statement.
The Repubs had 8 years to write a fair and comprehensive alternative but never seemed to get around to it until the last moment. Officials from both parties need to spend more time working with each other and for their constituents and less time screaming, tweeting, posing for the camera and speed dialing lobbyists for free trips to Pebble Beach.
Climate change. I can read on this until my eyes bleed and don’t know who to believe.
It seems these threads have an anti U.S. bent and we’re not without our issues, but facts are facts.
I’m tired of anti U.S. I work the world, pay the world, bring biz to the world and every single time no one ever lives to their agreements cause they all tell me, well you americans are all rich and racists.
Who taught them that? I have a legal UK pink working card, have property there, pay my taxes to both countries and accept it, cause that’s the rules.. Why would I give a rats ass for anyone coming to the U.S. illegally taking resource, in social costs, healthcare and living above the law.
Why would I give shit about silly little euro countries the size and gdp of Arkansas that want to tell us what to do?
My health, home and car insurance has been raised 25 to 40% every year (over the average 15%) with a few small claims in 8 years (and I mean really small) and the insurance companies say it’s Obamacare. I don’t 100% believe them, but I don’t see any elected official trying to protect the populace.
China produces twice the pollutants as the U.S. and the EU is not totally squeaky clean and green when it comes to producing a perfect environment.
Ask Merkel how many coal fired plants they’re building.
I’m far from a climatologist, but to me the biggest risk is to the oceans, not beach front property in the Hamptons. Let the oceans rise that’s been part of history, but don’t ask me to bleed for rich folks, that throw parties for 4 months a year.
5 countries, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam uses the ocean as a floating garbage can and are responsible for 60% of the plastic waste in the oceans, soon to be 80% which means 1 ton of plastic for every 3 tons of fish.
If we’re going to live in a global economy we all need to play by the same rules. You can’t turn America into one big solar plate with 60,000 pages of regulations, a big tax invoice and let everyone else off the hook.
There are few problems in this world that cannot be fixed, but not the way we’re going. We need to open our minds, try our best to listen to an alternative opinion and work together with the same rules.
You want all your neighbors to have opportunity and success, whether you like them or not. That’s the real goal.
Not stupid cartoons, from angry people that read what that want to read, want a new election cause they’re like kids that didn’t get the toy they wanted and disregard any forms of logic.
IMO
BC
-
Nice post Russell.
-
Of course we don't spend all of our military budget in Europe. We have troops and ships all around the world. My point was we're spending all of our money not leaving enough to take care of our people medically. But they're spending their money on their health while we're spending our money protect them. Why do we need 65-70,000 troops in Europe? The point is Europe is rich and should defend itself.
Oh, we have closer to 100,000 troops in Europe and we're spending $66 billion there. If we cut our forces even in half, that's $33 billion more we can spend on our sick. $66 billion if we pull out entirely. Let the rich Europeans provide and pay for more of their own soldiers to make up the difference. We've bled enough for Europeans last century.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nato-border-forces-map-where-are-they-positioned-a7562391.html
-
Oh, we have closer to 100,000 troops in Europe and we're spending $66 billion there. If we cut our forces even in half, that's $33 billion more we can spend on our sick. $66 billion if we pull out entirely. Let the rich Europeans provide and pay for more of their own soldiers to make up the difference. We've bled enough for Europeans last century.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nato-border-forces-map-where-are-they-positioned-a7562391.html
I spend one half my life in the UK and more 1/4 more in europe. They're rich and they laugh at americans. Let the U.S. pay is what they say. I've heard it 100 times.
So let the euros (not the UK) defend themselves the U.S. and UK will be fine. Tough stuff but true.
Ice up baby.
IMO
BC
-
Of course we don't spend all of our military budget in Europe. We have troops and ships all around the world. My point was we're spending all of our money not leaving enough to take care of our people medically. But they're spending their money on their health while we're spending our money protect them. Why do we need 65-70,000 troops in Europe? The point is Europe is rich and should defend itself.
Your story doesn't make a lot of sense Alan. The US spends about double the money on healthcare vs. OECD average (see graph) and is way above the European countries. Also the US spends more on the military than the next 5 or 6 nations together, because POTUS thinks you're losing too many battles. But maybe the problem isn't the amount you're spending on healthcare and the military, it's how and on what you're spending it. So before making all kinds of demands from others the first job would be to look at yourself and increase the efficiency of the money you're spending.
And if the US wants to reduce troops in Europe that's fine by me, but don't think it will solve the medical cost problem in the US.
-
Your story doesn't make a lot of sense Alan. The US spends about double the money on healthcare vs. OECD average
Peg baby, you make no sense. You're a smart guy, just pulling the facts you want to pull. I'm all for the U.S. leaving the world alone. Let you guys protect yourself, not take any cash from or help from America and go your own socialist way.
We all know what will happen. Ice Up Baby.
IMO
BC
-
Peg baby, you make no sense. You're a smart guy, just pulling the facts you want to pull. I'm all for the U.S. leaving the world alone. Let you guys protect yourself, not take any cash from or help from America and go your own socialist way.
We all know what will happen. Ice Up Baby.
IMO
BC
Hollow rhetoric makes no sence bcooter (imo).
Pulling back on island USA has never done you any good in the past and I don't think it will in the future.
But hey, everybody is entitled to their opinion, so I'm cool if you think differently.
-
Hollow rhetoric makes no sence bcooter (imo).
Pulling back on island USA has never done you any good in the past and I don't think it will in the future.
But hey, everybody is entitled to their opinion, so I'm cool if you think differently.
I'm glad your cool so ice up baby. The times have changed. We're paying and we're broke and everyone is laughing. Those days are over.
And BTW: trillions in dept is not hollow when nobody else pays anything. You're a smart guy and you know that money matters.
I live two places, the U.S. and the U.k. One and Island and one that wants to be.
I also do both legally and pay double tax.
Join he club man.
IMO
BC
-
We're paying and we're broke and everyone is laughing.
I'm not laughing, I just have pity.
I don't think it's right to blame others on going broke for military spending, but it might help a bit.
But your healthcare spending is entirely your own doing and you can only blame yourself.
If you only increase efficiency by 10% on each of these two items a lot of your problems will be solved.
I know you don't agree, but I won't ice-up (wouldn't know how and where to do that in this warming world ;) )
-
I'm not laughing, I just have pity.
I don't think it's right to blame others on going broke for military spending, but it might help a bit.
But your healthcare spending is entirely your own doing and you can only blame yourself.
If you only increase efficiency by 10% on each of these two items a lot of your problems will be solved.
I know you don't agree, but I won't ice-up (wouldn't know how and where to do that in this warming world ;) )
It's funny, you guys love to judge us. You don't get it, when we didn't care we did good. Now that we protect the world, drop trillions now everybody want's to talk down to us and make us like you. We don't want to be you. It's our worst nightmare.
We don't want your pity, we just don't want to know you.
And if I want to bring biz to your country you'll take the cash, usually under the grid.
Yea I get it.
New world.
IMO
BC
-
We don't want your pity, we just don't want to know you.
OK, chin up, straight back, stop complaining and it will all change for the better 8)
-
OK, chin up, straight back, stop complaining and it will all change for the better 8)
Now I get it. You work for a U.S agency. How does that U.S. cash work for you?
Makes sense.
No complaining from me, just not agreeing. Don't you get the point that we can learn from each other?
IMO
BC
-
Now I get it. You work for a U.S agency. How does that U.S. cash work for you?
Makes sense.
No complaining from me, just not agreeing. Don't you get the point that we can learn from each other?
IMO
BC
Nope, I used to work for a US private enterprise (a pretty big and successful one) and I'm retired now. One of the keys to success of that company was a big effort to participate in competitive benchmarking and learning from how others work.
So I fully agree we can learn tremendously from each other, but then you have to be able to live with critique and look for the gems in there.
If you just dismiss the call for more efficiency in healthcare as "typical European anti-US talk" you'll get nowhere.
If you want to learn you take it on the chin, look at the data, benchmark how other countries do it and improve efficiency by taking over stuff that would work in your own country (and not take over stuff that wouldn't work for you).
I don't think you and I are that far apart how we look at the world, so just chill out and don't see me as a stereotype Europen socialist anti-American, because I'm not ;)
-
Nope, I used to work for a US private enterprise (a pretty big and successful one) and I'm retired now. One of the keys to success of that company was a big effort to participate in competitive benchmarking and learning from how others work.
So I fully agree we can learn tremendously from each other, but then you have to be able to live with critique and look for the gems in there.
If you just dismiss the call for more efficiency in healthcare as "typical European anti-US talk" you'll get nowhere.
If you want to learn you take it on the chin, look at the data, benchmark how other countries do it and improve efficiency by taking over stuff that would work in your own country (and not take over stuff that wouldn't work for you).
I don't think you and I are that far apart how we look at the world, so just chill out and don't see me as a stereotype European socialist anti-American, because I'm not ;)
Effenciny. I dig it. dropped a bunch a long time ago for leds when nobody did led's; turned all computers off even though I work 18 hour days and cut our bill in 1/2.
No battery or wind farm will do that.
I dig part of what you say, the tone is what I have issues with. IMO you live here good . . . we're a nation of immigrants but stop the bashing cause I'm bored.
My wife is from the UK, never had a sponsor, paid 1/3 of of salary to be legal and is the most patriotic person I know. So stop the bashing. Your not as smart as your think.
Your not better, your just judgmental.
Peace out, Ice out man and the last conversation we have.
BC
-
Your not better, your just judgmental.
Peace out, Ice out man and the last conversation we have.
Stopping the conversation is how you stop learning, your choice.
And I'm judgemental? You judge by "tone" and that's not judgemental. I get it :P
-
I like McCain. But he's become a warmonger. Maybe he should reenlist as a marine aviator and we can send him to drop bombs in Syria. You'd think he'd remember what happened to him in North Vietnam and keep his head down instead of foisting death and dismemberment on today's young Americans. And for what? All those people over there hate our guts already. After we drop some more bombs, they'll hate us even more. A plague on all their houses.
Beware of old men [and women] eager to send young men and women off to fight wars.
-
Your story doesn't make a lot of sense Alan. The US spends about double the money on healthcare vs. OECD average (see graph) and is way above the European countries. Also the US spends more on the military than the next 5 or 6 nations together, because POTUS thinks you're losing too many battles. But maybe the problem isn't the amount you're spending on healthcare and the military, it's how and on what you're spending it. So before making all kinds of demands from others the first job would be to look at yourself and increase the efficiency of the money you're spending.
Couldn't agree more. The US health system seems to be seriously flawed if you look at the statistics (see attached chart, I've shown it before in Reply #1825 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116264.msg968803#msg968803) of this thread).
Just fixing that imbalance, taking out the inefficiency and the needless cost would already do a lot of good to the population.
One could also question the amount spent of Defence, maybe there are similar inefficiencies involved. US Politicians should start doing their job for the people of the USA, not just to get lobbyist funding for reelection. Since it's unlikely that they will self-correct, the population should take initiatives, naming and shaming does work if that's the only way.
The solution often is not throwing more money at it, but spending more wisely. Then one can use the savings for improvements and allocation to other and changing priorities.
Take out the perverse stimuli that only drive up cost but achieve nothing for the benefit of the people, financing and improving quality of health care is a major and growing problem where lots of progress can be made.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Of course we don't spend all of our military budget in Europe. We have troops and ships all around the world. My point was we're spending all of our money not leaving enough to take care of our people medically. But they're spending their money on their health while we're spending our money protect them. Why do we need 65-70,000 troops in Europe? The point is Europe is rich and should defend itself.
It's not a question of spending here or there but how much military spending is enough. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined yet they are now considering building one or two more. Trump wants to increase funding for defense yet the types of wars that we end up fighting are unconventional ones (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.). these require different strategies and commitments. the US quickly tires of these kinds of wars and we don't put the right kind of forces in place or else we make major strategic mistakes in terms of how to handle things after the fighting is done. this is the primary reason that Afghanistan and Iraq are in the situations they are. ISIS was a direct outgrowth of the defeat of Sadam Hussein and was formed by Army officers that were loyal to him but ones the Americans didn't want to have anything to do with. The entire region is a quagmire that both the English and Russians discovered over the years. This area is of absolutely ZERO strategic importance to the long term interests of the US.
In the meantime, we have a State Department that is hamstrung by totally ignoring the career people who have seen it all over the years and a President who doesn't seem to know what he wants. the whole thing is a total mess and there will be some major geopolitical missteps before long. Of course there is always Jared Kushner to rely one!!!
-
Nice post Russell.
+1
-
Oh, we have closer to 100,000 troops in Europe and we're spending $66 billion there.
No you're not - you're spending that IN TOTAL. If you quit invading places for no reason you'll have all sorts of money left over. Then take into account that there is a big chunk of money spent developing kit that you then sell to others.
-
There is simply too much money to be made with the MIC to reduce it.
And with the advent of DHS we have a new market "domestic" MIC that brings in money.
We have morphed from "war is good for business" to "war is good business".
War or OOTW should be a last resort, not a primary investment opportunity.
-
Couldn't agree more. The US health system seems to be seriously flawed if you look at the statistics (see attached chart, I've shown it before in Reply #1825 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116264.msg968803#msg968803) of this thread).
Just fixing that imbalance, taking out the inefficiency and the needless cost would already do a lot of good to the population.
One could also question the amount spent of Defence, maybe there are similar inefficiencies involved. US Politicians should start doing their job for the people of the USA, not just to get lobbyist funding for reelection. Since it's unlikely that they will self-correct, the population should take initiatives, naming and shaming does work if that's the only way.
The solution often is not throwing more money at it, but spending more wisely. Then one can use the savings for improvements and allocation to other and changing priorities.
Take out the perverse stimuli that only drive up cost but achieve nothing for the benefit of the people, financing and improving quality of health care is a major and growing problem where lots of progress can be made.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, the diet in the USA sucks.
The overall American eats some of the unhealthiest foods you could imagine. Of all the people I know, only a handful actually know how to cook for themselves (which I find so weird since I started cooking at age 8 & almost went to culinary school), so they eat out, eat fast food, or eat processed food, none of which are good.
Also, not 100% sure on the stats currently, but I remember a few years ago, over 80% of the USA does not exercise at all.
On top of this, we now teach people that they should be comfortable with their bodies, regardless of how they look. Now I'm not for ostracizing someone for being overweight, but if the number one, and most costly, health issue in America is obesity, teaching people to be okay with being overweight kind of works against the solution. No one should be comfortable with being overweight, especially since it leads to so many health issues, and, if your overweight, you should pay more for health insurance.
Money talks and BS walks. Digging into someone's wallet certainly helps make the point.
Until this gets fixed, I doubt any savings in efficiency is going to help much.
-
Bart, the diet in the USA sucks.
Until this gets fixed, I doubt any savings in efficiency is going to help much.
Joe, I agree that obesity doesn't help, but why not do both? One could address food habits as prevention, and reform the reimbursement system to not honor quantities of referrals and prescribed medicine, but rather the quality of the cure.
I know it won't be easy, but the current path only leads to more disaster.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The overall American eats some of the unhealthiest foods you could imagine. Of all the people I know, only a handful actually know how to cook for themselves (which I find so weird since I started cooking at age 8 & almost went to culinary school), so they eat out, eat fast food, or eat processed food, none of which are good.
Without those willing participants the big business would greatly suffer.
Food industry, soft drinks, chain restaurants, pharma industry, diet book and exercise publishing, stomach reduction surgeries, and other healthcare departments taking care of cancers, heart bypasses and stents, diabetes, etc.
-
Without those willing participants the big business would greatly suffer.
Food industry, soft drinks, chain restaurants, pharma industry, diet book and exercise publishing, stomach reduction surgeries, and other healthcare departments taking care of cancers, heart bypasses and stents, diabetes, etc.
My, my, my, you're defending big business. There's hope after all. ;)
I have no problem with businesses failing so long as it was due to personal choice of the people, not government intervention. Not to mention, less money spent on bad food, would open up more money for other markets, maybe healthier foods, giving others opportunities.
This is how markets works. It is natural for businesses to come and go, look at a Kodak.
On top of that, decreasing all of those healthcare procedures you listed would certainly do a lot for reducing healthcare costs overall, a net positive. Skinner people are easier to treat as well, leading to less complications.
I had a hernia removed a few years ago and the doctor told me I was one of the most active people he ever worked on. He said it would be a breeze for him, probably a 0.1% chance of complications because of it.
-
Joe, I agree that obesity doesn't help, but why not do both? One could address food habits as prevention, and reform the reimbursement system to not honor quantities of referrals and prescribed medicine, but rather the quality of the cure.
I know it won't be easy, but the current path only leads to more disaster.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, both could help, but I doubt efficiencies will have a big effect, compared to getting people to eat right.
Of course the problem is how do you get people to eat right without making it feel like big brother. This is part of the problem with the soda tax in Philly. Those who are healthy probably don't drink soda anyway, so for them, it doesn't matter. Those city soda drinkers though, are just developing resentment for it, which does not fix anything since they can easily drive out of the city to get their soda ... and do the rest of their shopping there too hurting city business.
PS
Insofar as the quality vs. quantity, this is a complicated subject over here and comes down to tort reform, which no one really wants to touch. People are sue happy and sue over any thing, so doctors perform every test and prescribe every drug possible to keep from getting sued.
Diagnosing can be more difficult then what people think. I had Mono when I was 28, but since it's rare for non-teenagers to get Mono, they initially thought it was just a bad cold. So it's easy to misdiagnose, but people don't want to except this and sue when things go array.
-
Then there is the issue of "food deserts" in some of our cities.
I don't know what the solution is.
-
My, my, my, you're defending big business. There's hope after all. ;)
I have no problem with businesses failing so long as it was due to personal choice of the people, not government intervention. Not to mention, less money spent on bad food, would open up more money for other markets, maybe healthier foods, giving others opportunities.
Joe, I'm the last one to defend the big business (especially the kind listed in my post).
I had a hernia removed a few years ago and the doctor told me I was one of the most active people he ever worked on. He said it would be a breeze for him, probably a 0.1% chance of complications because of it.
Speaking about hernia (and the costs of those surgeries). The Shouldice Clinic in Toronto does nothing else, only the hernia repairs, and half the patients come from US because it's cheaper to fly to Toronto and get it done there than in USA. They are also very good.
-
Then there is the issue of "food deserts" in some of our cities.
I don't know what the solution is.
This is true, and this topic is being raised due to the soda tax.
Since so many more people are now shopping out of the city, not the majority mind you but enough to make an impact, local small grocers are starting to shut down operations and a few will probably go out of business, adding to the problem.
Of course this is more of an issue in lower economic neighborhoods since the wealthier neighborhoods can afford the tax. It certainly seems that taxing is not the solution, especially when the ease of visiting another jurisdiction is high.
-
Trump to speak with Germany's Merkel, Japan's Abe: White House
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-japan-idUSKBN1771SH
Well, if Trump doesn't like existing trade deals, others will forge new ones ...
Tough luck.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...The entire region is a quagmire that both the English and Russians discovered over the years. This area is of absolutely ZERO strategic importance to the long term interests of the US.
In the meantime, we have a State Department that is hamstrung by totally ignoring the career people who have seen it all over the years and a President who doesn't seem to know what he wants. the whole thing is a total mess and there will be some major geopolitical missteps before long. Of course there is always Jared Kushner to rely one!!!
I agree that the middle east is a quagmire which is why I say we shouldn't get involved in Syria. It is a shame to see all that destruction and death, especially children, it breaks your heart, but we can't allow that to get us pulled in like we usually do. They'll have to figure it out themselves.
Regarding "geopolitical mistakes" possible by Trump, well, we can't say that the presidents before him and the State dept. have done too good of a job. With all their so-called brilliance, I recall it was Prof McNamara, part of the whiz kids, who got us into Vietnam. Then there was Iraq. Libya is a disaster; Iran is an adversary (remember the Shah and our captives), North Korea got nukes despite the agreement former presidents made, Syria's a mess, we got ISIS, terrorism throughout the world, Russian expansionism, China moving into the South China Sea with militarized islands threatening their neighbors, etc etc. Then there's all the trade and monetary issues we have with China and others. The idea that Trump is going to screw things up is silly. He's inherited a mess.
In order to change things for the better, we may need someone, like Trump, who will ty something different. Defend American interests first. Frankly, we can't afford to keep doing what we've been doing. My concern is that Trump will just become part of the bureaucracy acting in the same way as his predecessors. If that happens, we would have lost a good opportunity to correct a lot of things.
-
Trump revamps National Security Council, drops adviser Bannon: official
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-security-idUSKBN17724S
"U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday overhauled his National Security Council, dropping his chief strategist, Steven Bannon, according to a White House official."
Interesting development, with very little background info. Maybe something to do with upcoming revelations?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. some more info is trickling in:
"The official said Bannon had been placed on the NSC originally as a check on Flynn and had only ever attended one of the NSC's regular meetings."
Hmm. Sounds strange, exclude security briefings, but include Bannon, only to keep an eye on Flynn ...
-
We have not heard a lot from Bannon in the past few weeks. I wonder if he is on the way totally out.
Trump may prefer his family as advisers.
-
I agree that the middle east is a quagmire which is why I say we shouldn't get involved in Syria. It is a shame to see all that destruction and death, especially children, it breaks your heart, but we can't allow that to get us pulled in like we usually do. They'll have to figure it out themselves.
Regarding "geopolitical mistakes" possible by Trump, well, we can't say that the presidents before him and the State dept. have done too good of a job. With all their so-called brilliance, I recall it was Prof McNamara, part of the whiz kids, who got us into Vietnam. Then there was Iraq. Libya is a disaster; Iran is an adversary (remember the Shah and our captives), North Korea got nukes despite the agreement former presidents made, Syria's a mess, we got ISIS, terrorism throughout the world, Russian expansionism, China moving into the South China Sea with militarized islands threatening their neighbors, etc etc. Then there's all the trade and monetary issues we have with China and others. The idea that Trump is going to screw things up is silly. He's inherited a mess.
In order to change things for the better, we may need someone, like Trump, who will ty something different. Defend American interests first. Frankly, we can't afford to keep doing what we've been doing. My concern is that Trump will just become part of the bureaucracy acting in the same way as his predecessors. If that happens, we would have lost a good opportunity to correct a lot of things.
And now it seems Nikki Haley wants to pull us into that mess as well. When will this stop!
I remember watching a news conference given by Putin before the election, and I am not a Putin fan, so don't get me wrong. He asked if the US ever got it, if they ever learned from their mistakes of intervention.
I seem to think we will not until we're bankrupt.
-
And now it seems Nikki Haley wants to pull us into that mess as well. When will this stop!
I remember watching a news conference given by Putin before the election, and I am not a Putin fan, so don't get me wrong. He asked if the US ever got it, if they ever learned from their mistakes of intervention.
I seem to think we will not until we're bankrupt.
Listening to a bellicose Trump today, I'm afraid he's going to get sucked in to Syria. He's not listening to his own best thinking. Like I said on my last post, ha going to become part of the beuracracy he railed against.
-
Wait...did somebody just fart and leave the room?
I could have sworn somebody came in and posted for the first time on page 106. Well, ok...welcome to the discussion. I was with ya on a lot of what you said, but then you seemed to get personal.
While you edited the page and the Wayback Machine doesn't have a snapshot, I'm pretty sure you were taking a shot at somebody, personally. Pretty sure other people saw it too...now it says this...
Not stupid cartoons, from angry people that read what that want to read, want a new election cause they’re like kids that didn’t get the toy they wanted and disregard any forms of logic.
And to think, we've gotten to page 106 and nearly 40K views without any nasty personal stuff being tossed out and then you go and fart in the room then leave.
Used to think pretty highly of you bud...took a notch down though by tossing your hat in the ring the way you did particularly since you weren't even taking your own medicine.
That’s the problem, too much hate, not enough compassion, surely not enough open mindedness.
Easy to preach, hard to practice...
Ice Up Baby.
Good advice...I'm actually pretty chill which is why I can keep writing without being nasty (something I'm very familiar with doing) for the express purpose of exchanging views.
Peace out, Ice out man and the last conversation we have.
BC
And Elvis has left the building...
-
And now it seems Nikki Haley wants to pull us into that mess as well. When will this stop!
I remember watching a news conference given by Putin before the election, and I am not a Putin fan, so don't get me wrong. He asked if the US ever got it, if they ever learned from their mistakes of intervention.
I seem to think we will not until we're bankrupt.
First off, I don't believe the chemical bomb was Assad's. It doesn't make sense. To explode one of these knowing the effect it would do on America. I think it was one of Assad's enemies. And they got that Syrian girl who was in the news before to tweet a picture showing all those children dead from the chemical. It smelled like a setup. And they got the exact response they wanted drawing America into action against Assad.
In any case, it could also be an excuse for Trump to go off unilaterally to impress China's Xi who he's going to meet and ask them to rein in N.Korea. He wants to show them he's serious about America doing it on their own, something China does not want to see. So maybe he'll get more cooperation from Xi.
-
The more I think about it, the more I believe it was a setup. They have the Russian Air Force dropping regular bombs wherever they want. They practically beat the terrorists. So they decide to use a chemical bomb against civilians? No, that was a setup.
-
Jeff,
On my post your 100% correct, I overreacted and made it personal and was wrong.
I apologize for doing what I blamed others for.
No excuses, but I hear so much hatred everyday and not about DT but everything, it makes me ill.
We have to pull together use common sense and find solutions.
There is only about 20% of what DT has proposed that I agree with, though he kills it with his messaging.
He needs to be more moderate in tone and then tougher behind closed doors.
But these are minor issues and we need major changes, though me writing on a photo forum isn’t going to help.
Once again . . . my bad.
BC
-
Get Them While They Sleep
President Trump rolled back regulations that ban "predator control" hunting on Alaska's refuges, including protections for hibernating bears in Alaska.
The ban protected hibernating bears from being hunted, along with wolf cubs in dens. It also protected these animals from being targeted from helicopters.
http://thehill.com/regulation/327113-trump-repeals-alaskan-bear-hunting-regs
-
Get Them While They Sleep
President Trump rolled back regulations that ban "predator control" hunting on Alaska's refuges, including protections for hibernating bears in Alaska.
The ban protected hibernating bears from being hunted, along with wolf cubs in dens. It also protected these animals from being targeted from helicopters.
http://thehill.com/regulation/327113-trump-repeals-alaskan-bear-hunting-regs
You're only telling half the story. He's handing back control and regulation to the sovereign state of Alaska to regulate their wildlife. The state and the people of Alaska should make their own decisions about these local things. I'm sure the people of Alaska care about their wildlife just as in other states and will make good decisions. Washington DC is 6000 miles away. The Federal government has stuck its nose into too many things that are state issues. It's time we give power back to the states.
-
I apologize for doing what I blamed others for.
Apology accepted...and I appreciate it.
Truth be told, I was taken aback because it didn't really sound like you...but I tend to agree that stuff gets pretty tense-particularly when it gets personal–which this thread has stayed away from. Something that didn't happen with the 1st Trump thread.
Regarding the comments about the housing crisis, Iraq, & healthcare, I really agree with them.
As it relates to climate change, yes, there's a lot of anti-USA sentiment but richly deserved from my point of view. The US has been a major polluter and exploiter of natural resources so when we went out and gathered the world to do something about it for the Paris Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement), then upon electing Trump we get a president who is a denier and the head of the EPA who wants to gut the agency, I think the rest of the world has a right to be kinda pissed off.
But there is room for reasonable discussion amongst adults. So I thank you for cleaning that up and the rest of the participants for resisting the temptation to get mean and nasty.
-
Apology accepted...and I appreciate it.
Truth be told, I was taken aback because it didn't really sound like you...but I tend to agree that stuff gets pretty tense-particularly when it gets personal–which this thread has stayed away from. Something that didn't happen with the 1st Trump thread.
Sorry, but I live in a place that if I Don't cry and honestly scream about the election, I get chased into my house with words. People on the west side of LA are just goofy. Honestly.
I don't like everything DT has stood for, like less the way he has gone about it, but let's all be clear, washington, both parties suck. Remember these guys take an oath to do well for the country though mainly line their pockets.
Personally, I think Joe Biden is kind of silly though fun, but I would have voted for him in a heartbeat because after all those years he only has 500k in the bank. 2 year house members clear 2 million.
I hope someone drains the swamp, but I don't think it will ever happen.
But once again sorry for being personal. I can disagree with you and still learn something.
Maybe we can pull together and kick some ass, cause they all deserve it.
BC
-
File this under delicious irony...
U.S. Coal Companies to President Trump: Stick with the Paris Climate Deal (http://fortune.com/2017/04/05/coal-companies-donald-trump-paris-climate-deal/)
Some big American coal companies have advised President Donald Trump's administration to break his promise to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement—arguing that the accord could provide their best forum for protecting their global interests.
Remaining in the global deal to combat climate change will give U.S. negotiators a chance to advocate for coal in the future of the global energy mix, coal companies like Cloud Peak Energy (CLD, +1.30%) and Peabody Energy (BTUUQ, -43.68%) told White House officials over the past few weeks, according to executives and a U.S. official familiar with the discussions.
"The future is foreign markets, so the last thing you want to do if you are a coal company is to give up a U.S. seat in the international climate discussions and let the Europeans control the agenda," said the official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
"They can’t afford for the most powerful advocate for fossil fuels to be away from the table," the official said.
Well, ok...if that help keeps the Paris Agreement in play, I can live with that...and on top of the coal industries, there's also this:
Exxon to Trump: Don't ditch Paris climate change deal (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/29/investing/exxon-trump-paris-climate-change/)
ExxonMobil doesn't want President Trump to abandon the global climate agreement reached in Paris.
America's biggest oil company told the White House it believes the Paris agreement is an "effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change" and the U.S. should remain a party to it.
Exxon (XOM) said the country is "well positioned to compete" under the terms of the Paris deal, which was reached in late 2015 with the goal of slowing global warming. President Obama hailed the agreement as "the moment that we finally decided to save our planet."
The Exxon letter was sent to the White House on March 22, just days before Trump took a massive swipe at environmental regulations implemented under Obama. The administration had asked Exxon for its views on the Paris accord.
Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to undo the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to slash carbon emissions by coal plans and other power utilities.
Before taking office, Trump called climate change a "hoax" and blasted the Paris COP21 agreement as a "bad deal" for the U.S.
However, after winning the election Trump told The New York Times he has an "open mind" about the Paris agreement and said he believes clean air and "crystal clear water" are important.
It's important to realize just how critical the Paris Agreement could be for the future and it would be seriously foolish to not have a chair at the table.
-
...and then there's this...
Trump Model Management Employees Found New Agency Called "Anti" (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/fashion/a9229529/trump-model-management-anti/)
Supposedly the name of the new agency isn't necessarily a dig at the president.
In case you weren't aware, President Donald Trump owns a modeling agency called Trump Model Management. Founded in 1999, the company came under fire during Trump's presidential campaign and back in February, talk of an industry boycott began to circulate on social media. "I'm committing from this day forward, I refuse to be a part of any job or project that includes casting from Trump Models," celebrity hairstylist Tim Aylward wrote on Facebook. "Fellow [hair and makeup], photo, and production friends, has there been any conversation about an organized boycott within the industry?"
Since then, models and employees alike have been leaving in droves, a handful of them forming a new modeling agency called Anti Management. The new company currently represents 20 models (many formerly of Trump's agency) and claims to be putting special focus on improving models' sometimes sometimes frightening working conditions. (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/style-beauty/fashion/a9213734/model-sexual-harassment-mistreatment-survey/)
It seems that the Trump Brand is losing it's luster. Mother Jones (a hard left leaner) had this story: Donald Trump's Modeling Agency Is on the Verge of Collapse, Say Industry Insiders (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/trump-models-agency-potential-collapse-closure-sources)
The president's politics are hurting one of his favorite businesses.
Donald Trump's presidency hasn't been good for one of his favorite businesses. The president's modeling agency has been losing models and senior staff in recent months amid a growing backlash over his toxic politics. And the problems at Trump Model Management appear to be escalating. In interviews with Mother Jones, three industry insiders said they believe the agency could be forced to close.
The sources—two model bookers who have worked with Trump Models and another person with deep ties to the agency—attributed the firm's sudden tailspin to the controversial president himself. The once glamorous Trump brand, they said, now appears to be tainted.
"Yeah, it's closing," said Virginie Deren, a model booker at the top Paris firm Premium, which co-represents a handful of models with Trump Model Management. Deren said she was given this information by a Trump booker. "It's surprising that it's come to that point," she added. "It's rough."
Trump executives didn't respond to multiple requests for comment for this story, but employees of the agency said this week that business is continuing as normal.
Haven't dealt with model agencies for over a decade but I looked at Trump Models (http://www.trumpmodels.com/?pf=0) and didn't think too much of it. But I did notice one pretty icky thing on the Contact page. At the bottom they say: Please be aware that there are certain individuals falsely representing themselves as “scouts” of Trump Models on the internet. If you are contacted by any person claiming to be a representative of Trump Models, do not respond before verifying their identity by calling the agency at XXX-XXX-XXXX.
-
Following up with more environmental news...
New EPA documents reveal even deeper proposed cuts to staff and programs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/31/new-epa-documents-reveal-even-deeper-proposed-cuts-to-staff-and-programs/?utm_term=.da826ea7d67f)
The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a new, more detailed plan for laying off 25 percent of its employees and scrapping 56 programs including pesticide safety, water runoff control, and environmental cooperation with Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
At a time when the agency is considering a controversial rollback in fuel efficiency standards adopted under President Obama, the plan would cut by more than half the number of people in EPA’s division for testing the accuracy of fuel efficiency claims by automakers.
It would transfer funding for the program to fees paid by the automakers themselves.
The spending plan, obtained by The Washington Post, offers the most detailed vision to date of how the 31 percent budget cut to the EPA ordered up by President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget would diminish the agency.
The March 21 plan calls for even deeper reductions in staffing than earlier drafts. It maintains funding given to states to administer waste treatment and drinking water. But as a result, the budget for the rest of EPA is slashed 43 percent.
As a resident of Chicago, the slashed funding for the Great Lakes Restoration project is worrisome. Here's a graph of some of the major cuts.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2017/03/2300-EPACUTS0401-2.jpg)
Eeeeek!
-
To drive it home, maybe the Big Cheeto would take this more seriously if somebody tells him his precious Mar-a-Lago resort is at direct risk.
As Seas Around Mar-a-Lago Rise, Trump’s Cuts Could Damage Local Climate Work (https://www.propublica.org/article/as-seas-around-mar-a-lago-rise-trumps-cuts-could-damage-local-climate-work)
The president’s budget calls for ending an environmental program that had supported climate efforts in his and several Cabinet members’ backyards.
Climate change isn’t a nebulous threat for Palm Beach County, Florida, where sea creatures swim through driveways during seasonal king tides that flood low-lying streets. For years, the county has worked to address the problem by mapping flood risk, upgrading coastal storm protections and creating a regional climate action plan with three other counties. Later this year, local officials hope to host a sea level workshop by Thomas Ruppert, an attorney with the National Sea Grant College Program.
But if the most prominent resident of Palm Beach County has his way, Sea Grant (http://seagrant.noaa.gov) would cease to exist. President Trump’s proposed 2018 budget seeks to eliminate the $73 million program, along with more than $177 million worth of other initiatives within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, many aimed at protecting communities from climate impacts.
Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, where he has spent about half of his weekends since taking office, is among the most vulnerable properties in the county. Most of the resort could be underwater by 2100, and the lowest areas already flood during certain tides.
This map shows you what would happen with the sea level changes in the state of Florida...
Coastal Florida and Everglades - Sea Level Rise Map (http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml)
Select the sea level rise amount at the left.
I guess this gives new meaning to my f#%k you Donald Trump photo :~)
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17022161_1284344451650480_1569488364793626896_n.jpg?oh=35ce8394357fe4f0c3f12eb61df26798&oe=594F428D)
Mar-a-Lago is f#%ked!
-
Indeed...
-
Indeed...
It's a funny one Slobodan, just copied it on my hard drive for later use (I assume you're not the author?)
Btw, this thread would not have been so long, much fun, educational, interesting and exiting if everybody who didn't agree with Jeff's original post would not have reacted ;)
-
It's a funny one Slobodan, just copied it on my hard drive for later use (I assume you're not the author?)
Of course not. I wouldn't be caught dead with a Lipton tea bags. My tea of choice is Darjeeling, First Flush, loose leaves ;)
-
Following up with more environmental news...
New EPA documents reveal even deeper proposed cuts to staff and programs (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/31/new-epa-documents-reveal-even-deeper-proposed-cuts-to-staff-and-programs/?utm_term=.da826ea7d67f)
As a resident of Chicago, the slashed funding for the Great Lakes Restoration project is worrisome. Here's a graph of some of the major cuts.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2017/03/2300-EPACUTS0401-2.jpg)
Eeeeek!
Most of the programs are just being return to the states to handle. Funding is also transferred to the states. Local communities mostly have better knowledge of the local conditions. Let the people who live there make decisions that effect them the most rather than some bureaucrats in Washington who could care less.
-
Most of the programs are just being return to the states to handle. Funding is also transferred to the states.
Oh...really? What's your source for that statement?
-
Oh...really? What's your source for that statement?
You're right. I misunderstood the chart. I thought they returned the funding too. So now the states will have to determine if it's important enough to spend the money. Your program will cost $289 million for the Great Lakes Restoration project. I realize Illinois has budget problems especially with government pensions, but so does the federal government. We all want stuff we can't afford any longer. In any case, it's not law yet. Congress will provide funding in many areas Trump wants to cut.
-
Most of the programs are just being return to the states to handle. Funding is also transferred to the states. Local communities mostly have better knowledge of the local conditions. Let the people who live there make decisions that effect them the most rather than some bureaucrats in Washington who could care less.
The problem is that a lot of the programs being proposed cover multiple states who might not cooperate. Pennsylvanian framers were very lax with fertilizer runoff into the Susquehanna River which empties into the Chesapeake Bay. Great Lakes are shared by multiple states as well.
-
So now the states will have to determine if it's important enough to spend the money. Your program will cost $289 million for the Great Lakes Restoration project.
The problem is in the case of the Great Lakes there are 8 US states and 2 Canadian provences with a stake in the program. If the Feds don't do it it won't be done. As the largest inland lake complex the lakes are an inportant environmental issue.
So, screw the Wall and fund the EPA. Recent polls indicate the majority of Americans don't want a new wall...
-
To drive it home, maybe the Big Cheeto would take this more seriously if somebody tells him his precious Mar-a-Lago resort is at direct risk.
As Seas Around Mar-a-Lago Rise, Trump’s Cuts Could Damage Local Climate Work (https://www.propublica.org/article/as-seas-around-mar-a-lago-rise-trumps-cuts-could-damage-local-climate-work)
Florida has more to worry about besides sea levels. There's the stinking, toxic algae blooms that need environmental attention.
Slimy Green Beaches May Be Florida's New Normal (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/toxic-algae-florida-beaches-climate-swamp-environment/)
Solving the problem is stymied by legislative bickering and warring factions that drive modern Florida’s economy and politics. Few expect environmental restorationists, Big Agriculture, and the residential housing industry to get together and agree to a fix.
Florida Tourism Not Seeing Green As Toxic Algae Chokes Business (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/florida-tourism-not-seeing-green-toxic-algae-chokes-business-n607106)
Donald Trump learned about algae blooms from Brian Mast (http://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/local/indian-river-lagoon/politics/2017/01/17/brian-mast-donald-trump-algae-blooms/96674066/)
U.S. Rep. Brian Mast said he talked to Trump during a visit to Mar-a-Lago about three weeks ago about the algae blooms that plagued the St. Lucie River last summer. Mast said he tried to bring the issue home for Trump by mentioning the blooms expanded into the Lake Worth lagoon near Trump's estate in Palm Beach.
Environmental inaction has economic consequences, too. It will be interesting to see if this particular issue does get federal funds under the Trump administration. Obama refused a request for federal funding, saying that the state had enough resources to handle the issue itself.
-
The problem is in the case of the Great Lakes there are 8 US states and 2 Canadian provences with a stake in the program. If the Feds don't do it it won't be done. As the largest inland lake complex the lakes are an inportant environmental issue.
So, screw the Wall and fund the EPA. Recent polls indicate the majority of Americans don't want a new wall...
The five Great Lakes make up the largest body of fresh water on Earth, accounting for one-fifth of all the fresh surface water on the planet.
There are already walls on some large sections of the US/Mexico border and they are commonly tunneled under, climbed over, and gone through. They don't work. Even China's Great Wall failed. A wall is just a political statement and means little or nothing otherwise. But it is extremely expensive to make up for that. So yes, "screw the wall and fund the EPA". Great Lakes pollution by industry was a major reason EPA was created in the first place... by a republican!
edit: I should mention that countless cars, trains, and trucks cross the border every day and there are lots of illegals that get through concealed inside them. The wall does nothing for that. It's just a crazy idea proposed by a crazy guy. That says nothing about the many miles of coastal border where illegal crossings take place. If you want to tackle illegal border crossing the solution has to be comprehensive immigration reform, which nobody wants to touch.
-
The problem is in the case of the Great Lakes there are 8 US states and 2 Canadian provences with a stake in the program. If the Feds don't do it it won't be done. As the largest inland lake complex the lakes are an inportant environmental issue.
So, screw the Wall and fund the EPA. Recent polls indicate the majority of Americans don't want a new wall...
I agree we don't need a wall. All we have to do is enforce laws that make it illegal for employers to hire illegals. The feds should arrest and prosecute a couple of them. The hiring will dry up and no one will come over the border because there won't be any more jobs. WE wouldn't need all those extra border patrol cops.
-
I agree we don't need a wall.
Cool...something that we all agree with. Now if we can get the GOP led Congress to clue Trump into forgetting that idea, maybe we can still keep the EPA funded to the extent it has been–at the least. Heck, maybe we can even save his precious Mar-a-Lago?
As far as the algae blooms it's a major problem for the sea shores as well as inland lakes. Between the fertilizers and agro chemicals, marine life is being decimated and choked off because of the destruction of the eco systems. Some of the biggest offenders are friggin' golf courses...including Trump's own courses (of course he would be a contributor, right? It figures).
This article in the CS Monitor (least-bias, Factual Reporting: HIGH) says this: Toxic algae blooms in Fl. linked to too much fertilizer and to climate change (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2016/1011/Toxic-algae-blooms-in-Fl.-linked-to-too-much-fertilizer-and-to-climate-change)
Recent blooms of toxic algae in southern Florida, which have provoked Governor Rick Scott to announce a state of emergency, may be tied to fertilizer chemicals from agricultural and residential origins.
Waterways and beaches along Florida’s Treasure Coast, Lake Okeechobee, and the Everglades have been experiencing massive blooms of toxic algae since May. The cyanobacteria algae—described as thick, pea-green, and foul-smelling—is intensely toxic and poses health risks to people and wildlife in the area. At its peak, the bloom in Lake Okeechobee covered 33 square miles—or about one-third of the lake's surface. One source estimates the total area of the algae to be roughly the size of Miami.
The impact of these algae blooms has already proven disastrous. Tourism, a main source of income for residents around Lake Okeechobee and along the coast, is down. Contact with toxic algae blooms “can affect the gastrointestinal system, liver, nervous system, and skin.” Fish are dying, and many have raised concerns about manatees and other large wildlife in the area.
So what caused this massive outbreak? The blooms spread, in part, due to flood-control measures taken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; to prevent Lake Okeechobee from overflowing earlier this year, the Corps released large amounts of water from the lake into nearby estuaries. According to a statement, these actions “upset the freshwater-saltwater mix in the estuaries” and contributed to the spread of the toxic blooms.
But the key factor seems to be high levels of nutrients (like nitrogen and phosphorous) in the water. According to a spokeswoman for Earthjustice, speaking to CNN: "The algae outbreaks are triggered by fertilizer sewage and manure pollution that the state has failed to properly regulate. It's like adding miracle grow to the water and it triggers massive algae outbreaks."
Unfortunately, Florida Governor Rick Scott is an ecological disaster...this is the same guy that told administrators in his Department of Environmental Protection were banned from using the terms "global warming" or "climate change."
But is seems some people may have a sense of humor about him...
Rick Scott honored on environment. Um ... what? (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-environment-award-rick-scott-maxwell-20150728-column.html)
By Scott MaxwellContact Reporter
Taking Names
I love practical jokes.
That's why I have newfound respect for the Fish and Wildlife Foundation of Florida.
Because those guys appear to be in the midst of pulling off one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.
You see, each year, the foundation chooses one standout servant within the "conservation community" to honor — someone who goes above and beyond to protect Florida's natural resources.
And this year, the foundation said it chose Gov. Rick Scott as its honoree.
Nicely played, guys.
Rick Scott as an environmentalist? That is a hoot.
What's next? An award for coastal preservation to the captain of the Exxon Valdez?
Hey, maybe we can award a puppy-protection medal to Cruella de Vil!
One person I know described the announcement as an "embarrassment" and a "sick joke" ... and that person belongs to a group that helped sponsor the foundation's awards ceremony in the past. (More on that in a moment.)
But I just laughed, figuring this can't be real.
After all, it's well-known that Scott has been an environmental disaster. Those are actually the words used in the headline of a Tampa Bay Times editorial: "The Rick Scott record: an environmental disaster."
But forget the liberal media and tree-huggers. Scott has torn apart the environmental legacies of hard-core conservatives such as Jeb Bush.
--snip--
Obviously, the idea of honoring Scott as some kind of environmental crusader is ridiculous.
So when the Times reported it, I thought it was a masterfully played prank ... until the folks at the Wildlife Foundation said it was true.
Eeeeek!
-
50+ Tomahawk Missiles hitting Syria
that will change the world and this discussion considerably
-
50+ Tomahawk Missiles hitting Syria
that will change the world and this discussion considerably
Dear Lord! Exactly the opposite of what he was saying during the campaign!
-
Good timing those missiles were while Xi was there with Trump in Mar-a-lago toasting each other.. Now Xi'll have to work harder at getting to stop the N.Koreans nukes afraid that Trump will handle it on his own like he threatened. Trump also sent a message to Xi that his militarized islands are vulnerable if he tries to use them against our Pacific friends.
-
Trump also sent a message to all others that there's a new sheriff in town who means business.
-
Meanwhile, more evidence that if Trump's budget ends up being what he proposed, the "fly over" country will be losing planes and trains too. Trump supporters wanted this?
220 Cities Losing All Passenger Train Service per Trump Elimination of all Federal Funding for Amtrak’s National Network Trains (http://www.masstransitmag.com/press_release/12322126/220-cities-losing-all-passenger-train-service-per-trump-elimination-of-all-federal-funding-for-amtraks-national-network-trains)
The National Association of Rail Passengers denounced the budget outline released by the Trump Administration, which slashes investment in transportation infrastructure. These cuts to Amtrak, transit, and commuter rail programs, and even air service to rural towns, would not only cost construction and manufacturing jobs, but place a disproportionate amount of pain on rural and working class communities.
“It’s ironic that President Trump’s first budget proposal undermines the very communities whose economic hardship and sense of isolation from the rest of the country helped propel him into office,” said NARP President Jim Mathews. “These working class communities — many of them located in the Midwest and the South — were tired of being treated like ‘flyover country.’ But by proposing the elimination of Amtrak’s long distance trains, the Trump Administration does them one worse, cutting a vital service that connects these small town economies to the rest of the U.S. These hard working, small town Americans don’t have airports or Uber to turn to; they depend on these trains.”
So, how's that Trump vote working' for ya now?
#MAGA
-
(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/06/06-donald-trump-air-force-one.w710.h473.jpg)
Donald Trump on Air Force One. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
On the plane to Palm Beach Trump had a gaggle with reporters...
A Brief Fact Check of Trump’s Claim to Have Enjoyed 13 Weeks of Historic Success (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/trump-boasts-historically-successful-13-weeks-of-presidency.html)
Donald Trump today told reporters, “I think we’ve had one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency.” This may be a literally true statement, in the sense that Trump may actually think it. However, it is a strange opinion for a person to hold. Trump has had two executive orders blocked by federal courts; seen his first, major legislative initiative collapse in the House of Representatives after falling to 17 percent in the polls; accepted the resignation of his National Security Adviser; is facing a major investigation by the FBI; has probably violated the Constitution; has assembled a staff riven by utter mutual loathing; and has lowest approval ratings ever recorded for a president as this stage in his term.
He has also only held office for 11 weeks, even though it may feel like 13 or even more.
Well, you know what he meant...it was a lot of weeks, alright? Wonderful weeks!
Give him a break...don't take him literally, take him seriously!
#MAGA
-
Yet another example of delicious irony...
Kentucky Coal Mining Museum in Harlan County switches to solar power (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/06/the-coal-mining-museum-in-harlan-county-ky-switches-to-solar-power/?utm_term=.99e2647a2291)
(http://www.benhamky.org/museum/museum.jpg)
Housed in a former commissary building and tucked into the hollers of Harlan County — the heart of Kentucky mining country — is a museum dedicated to all aspects of extracting coal from the state’s mountains.
Mining equipment decorates its walls, while a two-ton block of coal at the front door greets visitors. Children can climb on the museum’s 1940s model electric locomotive that once carried Kentucky men into the mines. An exhibit dedicated to Loretta Lynn (who wrote and who is the “Coal Miner’s Daughter”) sits on the third floor. Guests can even wander through an actual underground coal mine.
Not much about the Kentucky Coal Mining Museum screams modern. Its museum website (http://www.benhamky.org/museum/) — nay, websites — boasts early 1990s Web design, and its advertisement on YouTube appears to have been shot on a handheld camcorder. It sits next to City Hall on Main Street, the only thoroughfare of Benham, Ky. That’s to be expected from a museum dedicated to an old form of energy, which is what makes its own power methods so interesting.
The museum is switching to solar power in hopes of saving money on energy costs, as reported by WYMT and EKB-TV. The installation of solar panels began this week.
“We believe that this project will help save at least $8,000 to $10,000 off the energy costs on this building alone, so it’s a very worthy effort and it’s going to save the college money in the long run,” Brandon Robinson, communications director of Southeast Kentucky Community and Technical College, which owns the museum, told WYMT.
Robinson wasn’t blind to the incongruity of a coal museum being powered by solar energy, asserting that there’s a symbiosis between the two.
“It is a little ironic,” said Robinson, “But you know, coal and solar and all the different energy sources work hand-in-hand. And, of course, coal is still king around here.”
Actually, it's rather fitting that the old coal energy industry is in a museum and that solar will save the museum money.
Questions?
-
50+ Tomahawk Missiles hitting Syria
that will change the world and this discussion considerably
Dropping bombs brings peace - surely we know that by now?
-
It's the most insane war - US bombing Assad's forces, Russia bombing rebels, Turkey killing Kurds and Russian pilots, Harward students saying Trump is a greater danger than ISIS - no wonder ISIS is laughing and growing stronger. Same as the weapon manufacturers.
-
It's the most insane war - US bombing Assad's forces, Russia bombing rebels, Turkey killing Kurds and Russian pilots, Harward students saying Trump is a greater danger than ISIS - no wonder ISIS is laughing and growing stronger. Same as the weapon manufacturers.
It is an insane war, as far as wars could possibly be sane. Although we do not have enough information to be able and judge the operation, it does seem that some positive things were achieved by this symbolic action.
Clear signals were sent to the Assad regime and Russia/Iran as supporters of that regime, there are limits to what will be tolerated. Turkey also will notice. The signal at the same time will be heard by China, with its operations in the south Chinese waters, and its apparent inaction with respect to North Korea. Also, the Philippines (with their activities on islands in their region) might notice. Russia also got the message that its inaction in Syria, and expansionist moves and actions at the borders with the Nato-backed countries, might face reactions beyond words in the UN counsel.
However, I have no illusions that this would shorten the civil war in Syria.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump also sent a message to all others that there's a new sheriff in town who means business.
Well, yes, unless he just for once listened to Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton calls for U.S. to bomb Syrian air fields:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-hillary-clinton-idUSKBN179058
You see, he's not the only person favoring such a move. Germany, the UK, France, and others also called for action, once the Syrian government's link to the latest use of Sarin gas was established.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, the boil's been pricked.
Rob
-
Well, the boil's been pricked.
Rob
Maybe. Maybe not.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vvJslaDJms
-
Maybe. Maybe not.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vvJslaDJms
I agree, it remains to be seen if it was a boil or an abscess, and we do not know on the basis of what intelligence data the orders were given. Was there evidence that the Syrian government used Sarin gas with the fourth bomb that got dropped, or not? Did a 'regular bomb' hit a storage facility containing such gas, or not?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Spiegel Commentary - 070417 12:15
For almost six years, the US under the leadership of Barack Obama helplessly watched as Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad with the blessing of Moscow and Teheran slapped his own population. For six years an attempt was made to solve the Assad problem diplomatically. It did not matter, because Vladimir Putin did not want to drop his most important ally in the Middle East.
Now, US President Donald Trump returns to conventional American politics: instead of words, he drops bombs, in this case cruise missiles - and punishes Assad for a supposedly responsible poison gas attack. Greetings from Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
The new harshness of the Americans follows the fact that Assad, the Russians and the Iranians can only be moved to concessions when the West shows them that they are not "weak", but as brutal as they are - and to a Escalation of the Syrian conflict. According to the situation one could say: Since the "nice tour" so far nothing has brought, this procedure can be worth a try. Angela Merkel and François Hollande seem to think that they accept the air strike.
-
It's the most insane war - US bombing Assad's forces, Russia bombing rebels, Turkey killing Kurds and Russian pilots, Harward students saying Trump is a greater danger than ISIS - no wonder ISIS is laughing and growing stronger. Same as the weapon manufacturers.
+1
Doing exactly the opposite of his campaign stance. Also amazing to see how easily people fall, in this thread too, for Reichstag fires. Everybody, in this thread too, are now applauding him for "showing them who's the boss." Instead of fighting ISIS, he is now fighting the legitimate government that actually fights ISIS. America once again actively engaged in regime change. Exactly of what he was against during the campaign.
-
Trump also sent a message to all others that there's a new sheriff in town who means business.
If you're suggesting that now that the US sheriff is firing off his six-guns then things will improve, all I can say is that history is not on your side. The other 7 billion people on earth don't necessarily regard direct american involvement as benign or beneficial.
After decades of heinous things happening, all of a sudden they find a proximate cause (Sarin gas) that is so beyond the pale, that the hero lone gunman has to take action and settle things. It's pure Hollywood, we've seen this before in real life (WMD?) and in a thousand westerns.
My personal gut feel, which is suspect of course as I have no special knowledge of these issues, is that this is a show for the evening news. I hate to be so cynical, but so far as I can tell, it's not possible to be cynical enough.
There was a good scene in the movie Charlie Wilson's war: scene. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2cjVhUrmII)
-
...A Brief Fact Check of Trump’s Claim to Have Enjoyed 13 Weeks of Historic Success.
Well, you know what he meant...it was a lot of weeks, alright? Wonderful weeks!
Give him a break...don't take him literally, take him seriously!
Did he really say that!? " “I think we’ve had one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency.”!?
I am all for not taking him literally. And I do not mind hyperboles. After all, their purpose is to underscore the point. But there should be a point in the first place. But this, seriously!?
You know what they say: "If you talk to God, you are religious...if you think God is talking to you, you are delusional."
-
My personal gut feel, which is suspect of course as I have no special knowledge of these issues, is that this is a show for the evening news. I hate to be so cynical, but so far as I can tell, it's not possible to be cynical enough.
A lot of shows going around apparently.
https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com
-
There is a recent book by Janine di Giovanni - The morning They Came For Us: Dispatches From Syria
Very good reportage, quite graphic account of atrocities committed by all parties in the current war, and examples how the Syrian nation was broken down into smaller tribes and factions.
https://www.amazon.com/Morning-They-Came-Us/dp/1408851105/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1491567668&sr=8-2&keywords=janine+di+giovanni
-
WTH!?
-
Trump also sent a message to all others that there's a new sheriff in town who means business.
My goodness, Alan! You've certainly changed your tune. I thought you were dead against the concept of America the Global Policeman.
-
WTH!?
Well, a day before he said that he changed his mind about Syria, and could be that some of those rockets were meant as a warning for North Korea.
-
My goodness, Alan! You've certainly changed your tune. I thought you were dead against the concept of America the Global Policeman.
You may be right. I seem to be ambivalent about it. On the one hand, I don't want to be the world's policeman. We spend too much money and bleed too much. Meanwhile, other countries who should help ignore it and go their own way worried about themselves or help just enough to say they've done something. Often, it doesn't seem to get us anywhere except more problems. But then I see that if we don't do something, no one else will and that encourages bad actors around the world. Obama's leading from behind and backing off just encouraged Russia in the Crimea and Ukraine and China on those islands in the South China Sea. Iran gained by his lack of decisiveness and fecklessness.
I really think that Trump sent a message with his unilateral attack on the Syrian airfield. I don't think his attempt was to depose Assad but did accomplish a lot of other things in one fell swoop.
1. Satisfies anti-Putin Republicans like McCain and Democrats and limits concern about collusion.
2. Will help his poll numbers. Dropping bombs are always more impressive than dropping tweets. He made his bones.
3. Encourages allies we’ll support them if needed.
4. Scares bullies into no longer thinking they can do whatever they want.
5. Shows Chairman Xi that if he doesn’t help with N. Korean nukes, America will solve the issue on its own as he said he would. That's going to push Xi.
6. No. Korea has to think that America might act on its own.
7. Tells Chairman Xi that if China uses the militarized South China Sea islands against our friends, we just might sink the islands.
8. Encourages our Pacific allies that America will be there for them. That will stop their current drift to China.
9. Encourages our Middle East friends like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc that they can depend on us. Some started to look to Russia. Now they'll re-think that.
10. Tells everyone America will operate on its own if its interests are threatened. We don’t necessarily need a coalition and won’t wait for one to act. That includes the U.N. and their annoying vetoes.
11. Willing to change his mind if the situation demands it. He won’t lock himself into past statements. Willing to grow and evolve and learn. The liberal media keeps playing his old policy beliefs when he was a real estate magnate to attack him. No one else cares? The rest of the world doesn't, for sure. They only care and will act on what he'll do now.
That’s a lot of stuff for just a few missiles.
-
the chance of the US getting involved in a serious war has now increased markedly. I don't think any of us know who is calling the shots right now.
-
Did he really say that!? " “I think we’ve had one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency.”!?
Yes at a gaggle on the plane down to Palm Beach...
Of course, the funny part is he has been president for for only 11 weeks, not 13 weeks. But yes, he actually thinks his presidency has been one of the most successful 13 weeks in the history of the presidency...
Just to prove it's not #FAKENEWS, here's a transcript the Whitehouse posted: Remarks by President Trump to the Press -- Aboard Air Force One En Route West Palm Beach, Florida April 6th, 2017 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/06/remarks-president-trump-press-aboard-air-force-one-en-route-west-palm)
Edited to add WH link
-
So, something happened in Sweden after all. My condolences to our Swedish friends. The question, though, is: why are they attacking a country that is apparently the most welcoming for refugees and not engaged in any military operations against Muslim countries?
-
Good question. I don't think ISIS has any grand plan as to the time and place of the next attack. It can (and unfortunately will) happen anywhere.
-
So, something happened in Sweden after all. My condolences to our Swedish friends. The question, though, is: why are they attacking a country that is apparently the most welcoming for refugees and not engaged in any military operations against Muslim countries?
Who knows what goes on in the warped mind of such a brainwashed coward (assuming the perpetrator was an ISIS and Jihad inspired loser)? Maybe the losses that IS are suffering triggered something earlier, the USA bombed a Syrian airfield, and Trump mentioned Sweden in an earlier tweet/speech after seeing a fake expert report on Foxnewspropaganda. Something idiotic like that?
It can happen anywhere, and I refuse to let that thought change my life.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So, something happened in Sweden after all. My condolences to our Swedish friends. The question, though, is: why are they attacking a country that is apparently the most welcoming for refugees and not engaged in any military operations against Muslim countries?
Who knows. There's no accounting for idiot Jihadists that just want to destroy/kill anything that seems like it is part of the Western world.
-
So, something happened in Sweden after all. My condolences to our Swedish friends. The question, though, is: why are they attacking a country that is apparently the most welcoming for refugees and not engaged in any military operations against Muslim countries?
Trump is a better prognosticator than historian.
-
Good timing those missiles were while Xi was there with Trump in Mar-a-lago toasting each other.. Now Xi'll have to work harder at getting to stop the N.Koreans nukes afraid that Trump will handle it on his own like he threatened. Trump also sent a message to Xi that his militarized islands are vulnerable if he tries to use them against our Pacific friends.
Lol. NK and China are rather more dangerous than Syria. Neither will care about a few dozen TLAMs striking a Syrian airfield. There's also the underlying logistics - the destroyers used for this mission were already close by and can be quickly and easily re-armed without affecting their normal mission (ballistic missile defence of Europe...something you don't want the US to be doing).
-
Good question. I don't think ISIS has any grand plan as to the time and place of the next attack. It can (and unfortunately will) happen anywhere.
One only need look at the grand sweep of history to see "terrorist" events taking place in virtually any country at almost any time. The difference today is that the weapons of destruction are much greater. In the US alone, there have been four Presidential assassinations and numerous attempts. Lots of mass shootings, bombings and of course 9/11. Whether what is going on now is "the new normal" is uncertain. What is certain is that vigilance is job #1 for all governments.
-
Lol. NK and China are rather more dangerous than Syria. Neither will care about a few dozen TLAMs striking a Syrian airfield. There's also the underlying logistics - the destroyers used for this mission were already close by and can be quickly and easily re-armed without affecting their normal mission (ballistic missile defence of Europe...something you don't want the US to be doing).
First off, we don't just have two destroyers. We have ships posted around the world. Second, we would reposition forces including land and air as well as sea, as required. Thirdly, we'll be able to count on Australia to fight with us. Won't we?
-
Who knows what goes on in the warped mind of such a brainwashed coward (assuming the perpetrator was an ISIS and Jihad inspired loser)? Maybe the losses that IS are suffering triggered something earlier, the USA bombed a Syrian airfield, and Trump mentioned Sweden in an earlier tweet/speech after seeing a fake expert report on Foxnewspropaganda. Something idiotic like that?
It can happen anywhere, and I refuse to let that thought change my life.
Cheers,
Bart
Yup, Trump's fault. Damn tweets!
-
You may be right. I seem to be ambivalent about it. On the one hand, I don't want to be the world's policeman. We spend too much money and bleed too much. Meanwhile, other countries who should help ignore it and go their own way worried about themselves or help just enough to say they've done something. Often, it doesn't seem to get us anywhere except more problems. But then I see that if we don't do something, no one else will and that encourages bad actors around the world. Obama's leading from behind and backing off just encouraged Russia in the Crimea and Ukraine and China on those islands in the South China Sea. Iran gained by his lack of decisiveness and fecklessness.
I really think that Trump sent a message with his unilateral attack on the Syrian airfield. I don't think his attempt was to depose Assad but did accomplish a lot of other things in one fell swoop.
1. Satisfies anti-Putin Republicans like McCain and Democrats and limits concern about collusion.
2. Will help his poll numbers. Dropping bombs are always more impressive than dropping tweets. He made his bones.
3. Encourages allies we’ll support them if needed.
4. Scares bullies into no longer thinking they can do whatever they want.
5. Shows Chairman Xi that if he doesn’t help with N. Korean nukes, America will solve the issue on its own as he said he would. That's going to push Xi.
6. No. Korea has to think that America might act on its own.
7. Tells Chairman Xi that if China uses the militarized South China Sea islands against our friends, we just might sink the islands.
8. Encourages our Pacific allies that America will be there for them. That will stop their current drift to China.
9. Encourages our Middle East friends like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc that they can depend on us. Some started to look to Russia. Now they'll re-think that.
10. Tells everyone America will operate on its own if its interests are threatened. We don’t necessarily need a coalition and won’t wait for one to act. That includes the U.N. and their annoying vetoes.
11. Willing to change his mind if the situation demands it. He won’t lock himself into past statements. Willing to grow and evolve and learn. The liberal media keeps playing his old policy beliefs when he was a real estate magnate to attack him. No one else cares? The rest of the world doesn't, for sure. They only care and will act on what he'll do now.
That’s a lot of stuff for just a few missiles.
Just think about all the stuff he could do with more!
You raise some interesting points above, and there is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons is appalling. But Trump has no strategy and these things tend to escalate...and does nothing for the ongoing misery of the Syrian people. If Trump was so appalled by the dead babies, why doesn't he let them emigrate to the US? Aren't all Syrians radical muslim terrorists?
I'd love for a Trump supporter to enumerate how America or American interests were threatened by Assad's use of chemical weapons. That's quite a different question vs. enumerating the benefits of a retaliation.
The irony is that some on the far right (and Slobodan?) are turning against him for betraying a(nother) key campaign promise, to stay out of the quagmire of the Middle East. Wanting to stay out of the Middle East is at least a principled strategy, even if American isolationism isn't what the world needs right now.
The sad reality is that this retaliation gives the Trump administration a break from the myriad other self-inflicted shit-storms buffeting them from all other directions...so for a die-hard Trump supporter this was a great week! But that's the problem with lemmings, they'll march right behind Trump as he leads them over a cliff.
-
One only need look at the grand sweep of history to see "terrorist" events taking place in virtually any country at almost any time...
For example? Give me an example of a terrorist act that was not connected by at least some logic with what the country was doing at that time?
-
... after seeing a fake expert report on Foxnewspropaganda...
Yes, like the video that started Benghazi ;)
-
... The irony is that some on the far right (and Slobodan?) are turning against him for betraying a(nother) key campaign promise, to stay out of the quagmire of the Middle East. Wanting to stay out of the Middle East is at least a principled strategy, even if American isolationism isn't what the world needs right now...
I've been, in principle, against aggressive regime change policies long before Trump. Especially by Americans who usually have no clue how the world works, yet try to model it in our own image. However, there is some distance between regime change and isolationism.
-
It is scary to think that it took years and numerous teams, resources, and sources, trying to determine if Iraq had WMD, and yet America got it wrong (deliberately or not). And here we have action taken within days?
U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, eloquent criticism of the Trump's attack on Syria:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35093130/prior-to-air-us-attack-hawaii-dems-hoped-to-avoid-military-action-in-syria
Or Bolivia's ambassador to the U.N.:
https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/
“I believe that we must absolutely remember these pictures and that we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and this was the motivation for an invasion,” he said. “After this invasion, there was 1 million deaths, and it launched a series of atrocities in that region. Could we talk about ISIS if that invasion had not taken place? Could we be talking about the series of horrendous attacks in various parts in the world had that invasion, this illegal invasion not taken place?”
-
Just think about all the stuff he could do with more!
You raise some interesting points above, and there is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons is appalling. But Trump has no strategy and these things tend to escalate...and does nothing for the ongoing misery of the Syrian people. If Trump was so appalled by the dead babies, why doesn't he let them emigrate to the US? Aren't all Syrians radical muslim terrorists?
I'd love for a Trump supporter to enumerate how America or American interests were threatened by Assad's use of chemical weapons. That's quite a different question vs. enumerating the benefits of a retaliation.
The irony is that some on the far right (and Slobodan?) are turning against him for betraying a(nother) key campaign promise, to stay out of the quagmire of the Middle East. Wanting to stay out of the Middle East is at least a principled strategy, even if American isolationism isn't what the world needs right now.
The sad reality is that this retaliation gives the Trump administration a break from the myriad other self-inflicted shit-storms buffeting them from all other directions...so for a die-hard Trump supporter this was a great week! But that's the problem with lemmings, they'll march right behind Trump as he leads them over a cliff.
Hopefully, Trump will stop with the missile attack. He'll take advantage of all the other benefits I mentioned in my earlier post that are unrelated to Syria. The missiles sent a great message to our allies and adversaries in the rest of the world He shouldn't try to do more such as overthrowing Assad. We learned our lesson when we overthrew Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
I agree there are some other terrible things that are happening. There are I believe 7 million Syrian refugees. How many should we take in? What about refugees from other areas in the world? America has always taken in refugees. The question is how many? Also, how many really want to come to America? I would think most Syrians wish to stay in Syria or go back. It's their country. Also, while barrel bombs are almost as bad overall as chemical, any further interference from the US will mean we're getting involved with regime change with no objective in mind. That will be a disaster just like in Iraq.
Your point how America is not threatened by Assad's chemical bombs seems to put you on the America First side. After all, are we really threatened by those militarized islands in the South China Sea or Russian adventures in the Ukraine and Crimea? Can't rich Europe deal with Russia on their own? Can't Vietnam, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, etc deal with China and North Korea. Does anyone really expect Iran to come marching into Philadelphia anytime soon?
-
Believe everything, CNN BBC News and others tell you about Syria? Careful, you could be playing tricks on me. The Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett unmasks the massive disinformation with certain media to cover the events
https://www.facebook.com/esRTmedia/videos/1838370076445955/
More on the same here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-media-exposed-for-reporting-syria-misinformation-canadian-journalist-eva-bartlett/5580001
As I said, it is scary how easily people fall for Reichstag fires over and over again.
-
Has anyone noticed that the V fingers after Paul's name, viewed from the side, are pretty much the Playboy Rabbit sign?
Perhaps old Heff's behind all of this, somehow. That would be neat! Playmates to battle! It would be one good excuse for being a war photographer - bringing Catch 22 straight back to mind.
Rob
-
For example? Give me an example of a terrorist act that was not connected by at least some logic with what the country was doing at that time?
I don't think I said that and it wasn't the point of the post. Terrorist attacks arise out of dis-affectation on a number of levels. The Columbine high school murders were not linked to what the US was doing at the time, nor were the Sandy Hook elementary school killings. One might not consider these "terrorist" events, but they did evoke a great amount of terror. The Oklahoma City federal building bombing was only tangential linked to what the US was doing at the time.
-
As I said, it is scary how easily people fall for Reichstag fires over and over again.
I'm totally with you Slobodan. I find it amazing (and quite sad really) that virtually none of the western media is asking questions about the absence of evidence that it was actually the Assad regime that executed the chemical attack. Don't get me wrong, chemical weapons should not be used and whoever used them should be brought to justice. However in a hectic/chaotic scenario as Syria it's absolutely impossible to collect such evidence in a few days. So I think the US attack was premature and unjustified and am appalled by all the European leaders backing the attack.
-
+1
If Assad used indeed chemical weapons to kill 80 civilians, he deserves a heavy punishment.
But we don't know if that can determined with any certainty. What we do know is that the Tomahawks added to the carnage - so far the toll stands at 15 more dead civilians and 17 with heavy injuries.
-
First off, we don't just have two destroyers. We have ships posted around the world. Second, we would reposition forces including land and air as well as sea, as required. Thirdly, we'll be able to count on Australia to fight with us. Won't we?
So you agree with me - it will be more dangerous and more difficult because you will need a more substantial repositioning of forces which extends lines of supply and removes them from their current strategic positions. Furthermore, your commentary appears to recognise that it would require more military assets because of the greater threat posed, and that would be a correct analysis. As such, the strike on Syria does little to send a message to NK let alone China (and it wasn't designed to do that, so no negative connotations toward the administration from me in that regard).
Yes, I would expect that you would continue to receive support from Australia as an ally (as you did, diplomatically, with the Syrian strike).
So, you agree with me - that's good.
-
https://www.facebook.com/esRTmedia/videos/1838370076445955/
More on the same here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-media-exposed-for-reporting-syria-misinformation-canadian-journalist-eva-bartlett/5580001
And be very careful to research your sources...you know the video is from RT Play en Español which is the Spanish Facebook version of RT Media (https://www.rt.com/tags/media/) which is Russian Television?
As for the Centre for Research on Globalization (http://www.globalresearch.ca/about) well, that might rank right up there either on the Truthfulness Factor. Journalistic Ethics and Norms: How legitimate is The Centre for Global Research? (https://www.quora.com/Journalistic-Ethics-and-Norms-How-legitimate-is-The-Centre-for-Global-Research) on Quora...
It is by no means an objectively reliable media source. The articles, videos, and other media it puts forth are highly skewed and often factually inaccurate.
Some people have been quoting it as a legitimate source, but it has very strong ties to an organization known for churning out blatant propaganda.
The Centre for Research on Globalization, also known as the Centre for Global Research and Mondialisation.ca is a fascist/Kremlin-funded propaganda outlet that defames and slanders their targeted groups such as Jews, Ukrainians, the United States, and other western countries.
So, what were you trying to point out with your post Slobodan?
Were you linking to RT Play en Español and an article on the web site of the Centre for Research on Globalization as being reliable information or fake news?
-
I find it amazing (and quite sad really) that virtually none of the western media is asking questions about the absence of evidence that it was actually the Assad regime that executed the chemical attack.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that main-stream media has asked and been told "it's classified".
I'm pretty sure the US Air Force has Boeing E-3A 'Sentry' Airborne Warning & Control System (AWACS) aircraft in the air and can track take offs, bombing runs and landings with a great deal of accuracy. So it doesn't surprise me that the offending Syrian airport could be known and targeted with a high degree of confidence.
That's not to say I have a strong opinion about the missile attacks on the airport and the resulting casualties which are, of course, regrettable unless those killed were directly responsible for the Sarin attack.
I'm still in the wait and see frame of mind regarding any more involvement because American-led intervention in Syria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria) in the past have been pretty ineffective and may has caused more harm than good.
Anyway you look at it, the situation in Syria sucks and unless the USA could stomach another ground war, I doubt there's anything we can do militarily to solve the problem. I think the only solution is a diplomatic one that gets rid of the Assad administration but that has to be done in a manner that won't give ISIL a wedge into any subsequent government. And the politics in the country are so polarized and violent that peaceful governing seems years and years away.
But I don't see the rookie Trump diplomatic effort up to any such diplomacy. Trump has eviscerated the US State Department. Tillers still doesn't have a deputy and the brain drain of long time diplomats means that foreign policy is being decided by the likes of Trump, Tillerson, Kushner, Bannon, Miller and Mnuchin and Ross? Really? Mnuchin and Ross and Cohn are there to offer financial advice? I meant Trump did spend $59 million bucks in cruise missiles but did they need to be in the room?
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10184642.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Team-ed.jpg)
All of this while China's Xi Jinping is cooling his heels but maybe that was a deft move by Trump and His Minions to teach China a lesson about what Trump might do to North Korea...
U.S. Strikes on Syria Put Xi in Tough Position for Trump Meeting (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/world/asia/trump-china-xi.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/08/us/08CHINA-01/trump-syria-vid-master768.jpg)
President Trump met with President Xi Jinping of China at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., on Friday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
BEIJING — The missiles were being prepared even before the two men finished dinner, disrupting the carefully choreographed proceedings.
The American attack on Syria on Thursday unraveled China’s well laid plans for a summit meeting that would present President Xi Jinping as a global leader on par with President Trump, at once stealing the spotlight from Mr. Xi and putting him in a difficult position: choosing between condoning the kind of unilateral military action that China has long opposed, or rebuking his host.
Mr. Xi’s dilemma was also acute because China has generally sided with Russia in defending Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and because it worries that Mr. Trump might be prepared to order a similar strike on North Korea, Chinese and Western analysts said.
So, who here thinks Trump is that smart?
-
So you agree with me - it will be more dangerous and more difficult because you will need a more substantial repositioning of forces which extends lines of supply and removes them from their current strategic positions. Furthermore, your commentary appears to recognise that it would require more military assets because of the greater threat posed, and that would be a correct analysis. As such, the strike on Syria does little to send a message to NK let alone China (and it wasn't designed to do that, so no negative connotations toward the administration from me in that regard).
Yes, I would expect that you would continue to receive support from Australia as an ally (as you did, diplomatically, with the Syrian strike).
So, you agree with me - that's good.
No, I didn't agree with you. I said the strike on Syria let's Chairman Xi know Trump is serious about taking things into his own hands if China doesn't control North Korea.
I also said in my post that the US would reposition its forces as required. A US defense official just announced an hour ago that a US aircraft carrier-led strike group is headed toward the Western Pacific Ocean near the Korean Peninsula. Adm. Harry Harris, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, directed the USS Carl Vinson strike group to sail north to the Western Pacific after departing Singapore on Saturday, Pacific Command announced.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/politics/navy-korean-peninsula/
I assume by "support from Australia", you mean to include military support. Is that correct?
-
I'm totally with you Slobodan. I find it amazing (and quite sad really) that virtually none of the western media is asking questions about the absence of evidence that it was actually the Assad regime that executed the chemical attack. Don't get me wrong, chemical weapons should not be used and whoever used them should be brought to justice. However in a hectic/chaotic scenario as Syria it's absolutely impossible to collect such evidence in a few days. So I think the US attack was premature and unjustified and am appalled by all the European leaders backing the attack.
The US showed jet tracked on radar to the bomb site "proving" Syria's complicity. Of course they've said they only bombed the place and chemicals stored by their enemy blew up. It really doesn't matter what the truth is.
The bombing had nothing to do with Syria. It was to send a message to Zi, North Korea, the Russians, Iran, NATO, our Middle East allies, and all our enemies and friends in the world that the days of a weak American president are over. The world will have to contend with a strong America willing to act to defend its interests.
-
So, who here thinks Trump is that smart?
Yes, he's that smart.
-
I imagine Australia would continue to provide military support for the US, yes.
Your original point (slightly modified just now) is that this somehow sends a signal to NK and/or China. It doesn't. There is no increased threat of action regarding either NK or China's expanding maritime presence because both NK and China know that military action against them is a hugely different proposition. Indeed, NK has used the strike as justification for their nuclear weapons program (of course, they're unhinged depots running that country, but still, that's how they spin it).
The current movements that you have mentioned is posturing. Unless Trump intends to entirely wipe NK from the face of the planet, any attack would result in massive SK casualties resulting from artillery fire. Even if only 10% of NKs artillery works and fires, it will be devastating. They also possess the ability to strike Seoul and have a massive standing army and, again, even if only a fraction are effective and even if for only a relatively short period of time (they definitely lack supplies) they would cause huge SK casualties. On top of that, they undoubtedly possess nuclear weapons and they are insane enough to use them.
China, of course, is a major nuclear and conventional military power and whilst they lack the force projection of the US, the US is in no position to start a protracted engagement with them in their backyard, quite apart from the nuclear risk. Mattis is orders of magnitude smarter than Trump and most of his other advisors, and for that we can all be thankful. He's never going to let Trump do anything stupid regarding NK or China, so we are all safe on that front. Of course, if Trump ever dumps him, then there could be issues, but I expect you would then see Congress block any insanity.
The Syrian strike was measured and, as such things go, reasonable. It does nothing in terms of setting expectations for other matters, no matter how much you want it to show that Trump is "strong" or "tough". That strike has Mattis' hand all over it. He is a student of history and military philosophy combined with extensive practical experience. He's thoughtful and understand the true nature of strategy.
-
Yes, he's that smart.
The attack has apparently not paralyzed the Syrian army: the bombarded air defense base Schairat is again in operation according to the Governor of Homs. The airplanes are taking off from there. According to Trump: "The runways were not bombed because they can be repaired quickly and inexpensively" - but we hit an Internet cafe in the nearby village.
-
I imagine Australia would continue to provide military support for the US, yes.
Your original point (slightly modified just now) is that this somehow sends a signal to NK and/or China. It doesn't. There is no increased threat of action regarding either NK or China's expanding maritime presence because both NK and China know that military action against them is a hugely different proposition. Indeed, NK has used the strike as justification for their nuclear weapons program (of course, they're unhinged depots running that country, but still, that's how they spin it).
The current movements that you have mentioned is posturing. Unless Trump intends to entirely wipe NK from the face of the planet, any attack would result in massive SK casualties resulting from artillery fire. Even if only 10% of NKs artillery works and fires, it will be devastating. They also possess the ability to strike Seoul and have a massive standing army and, again, even if only a fraction are effective and even if for only a relatively short period of time (they definitely lack supplies) they would cause huge SK casualties. On top of that, they undoubtedly possess nuclear weapons and they are insane enough to use them.
China, of course, is a major nuclear and conventional military power and whilst they lack the force projection of the US, the US is in no position to start a protracted engagement with them in their backyard, quite apart from the nuclear risk. Mattis is orders of magnitude smarter than Trump and most of his other advisors, and for that we can all be thankful. He's never going to let Trump do anything stupid regarding NK or China, so we are all safe on that front. Of course, if Trump ever dumps him, then there could be issues, but I expect you would then see Congress block any insanity.
The Syrian strike was measured and, as such things go, reasonable. It does nothing in terms of setting expectations for other matters, no matter how much you want it to show that Trump is "strong" or "tough". That strike has Mattis' hand all over it. He is a student of history and military philosophy combined with extensive practical experience. He's thoughtful and understand the true nature of strategy.
I didn't "slightly modify" my point. I said a couple of days ago regarding the Syrian bombing:
"5. Shows Chairman Xi that if he doesn’t help with N. Korean nukes, America will solve the issue on its own as he said he would. That's going to push Xi.
6. No. Korea has to think that America might act on its own.
7. Tells Chairman Xi that if China uses the militarized South China Sea islands against our friends, we just might sink the islands.
8. Encourages our Pacific allies that America will be there for them. That will stop their current drift to China."
=================================
Of course the current movement of naval forces is posturing. But that can change into real action. The Chinese have to take this into consideration. Trump is a "loose cannon". Isn't that what all the liberals say? Well, what if they're right and you're Xi. You don't want a war. You'll get dragged in. Your major trading partner might become your enemy. I doubt if the Chinese people want to go to war for those Korean morons up there. What will happen to your 5 year economic plan? Hmmm. Maybe those damn North Koreans really are a pain in the ass. Who needs to risk a war with America because of that looney tune up there anyway? Well, now that I'm home from Mar-a-lago, I think it's time I had a talk with that nut job up there and pulled the plug on him if he doesn't cooperate and stop the nuke bullshit. Heck, we don't want them to have them either.
At least, that's what Trump is hoping he'll do.
-
The attack has apparently not paralyzed the Syrian army: the bombarded air defense base Schairat is again in operation according to the Governor of Homs. The airplanes are taking off from there. According to Trump: "The runways were not bombed because they can be repaired quickly and inexpensively" - but we hit an Internet cafe in the nearby village.
Les, you really should read my other posts. The missile attack on the airfield has nothing to do with Syria.
-
Les, you really should read my other posts. The missile attack on the airfield has nothing to do with Syria.
Exactly! And that's why it is so offensive. (I read your posts and agree with some).
-
Exactly! And that's why it is so offensive. (I read your posts and agree with some).
Well, it could have also had the effect of hopefully stopping Assad from using chemical weapons. But also, to warm others as well. The bombing message has a different meaning depending who's looking at it. It seems that the anti-Trump echo chamber of the liberal press is stuck on Syria. They're playing checkers while Trump is operating three chess moves ahead of them.
-
I think you actually believe that the US could some how "fix" NK militarily with anything short of turning it into a carpark. The optimism is exceeded only by the naivety.
Here's a useful quote on strategy that I just used in a paper I'm writing:
“In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distance view of close things.”
- Miyamoto Musashi, translated from Go Rin No Sho, from the Book of Water.
Your eyes may be open, but you need to open your perception.
-
Yes, he's that smart.
Yeah...I'm not so sure...I'm not sure he can even read...
Can Donald Trump Read? There’s Evidence From Saturday Night Live That He Struggles (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/can-donald-trump-read_uk_58e90b9fe4b00de14103dd36)
And...
No dissenting opinions. Very few words. (http://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-daily-intel-briefings-are-dumb)
And this from Tony Schwartz his ghost writer on The Art of the Deal.
DONALD TRUMP’S GHOSTWRITER TELLS ALL (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all)
But Schwartz believes that Trump’s short attention span has left him with “a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance.” He said, “That’s why he so prefers TV as his first news source—information comes in easily digestible sound bites.” He added, “I seriously doubt that Trump has ever read a book straight through in his adult life.” During the eighteen months that he observed Trump, Schwartz said, he never saw a book on Trump’s desk, or elsewhere in his office, or in his apartment.
Other journalists have noticed Trump’s apparent lack of interest in reading. In May, Megyn Kelly, of Fox News, asked him to name his favorite book, other than the Bible or “The Art of the Deal.” Trump picked the 1929 novel “All Quiet on the Western Front.” Evidently suspecting that many years had elapsed since he’d read it, Kelly asked Trump to talk about the most recent book he’d read. “I read passages, I read areas, I’ll read chapters—I don’t have the time,” Trump said.
Not saying ya gotta be able to read to be smart, but most of the smart people I know read...
-
Actually, I'm pretty sure that main-stream media has asked and been told "it's classified".
I haven't even seen that message. I think your trust in the "system" to find convincing proof that the chemical weapons were in the planes and bombs leaving the particular Syrian airfield within a few days is overly optimistic. They tried to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for a much longer time (years) and got it wrong.
-
The US showed jet tracked on radar to the bomb site "proving" Syria's complicity. Of course they've said they only bombed the place and chemicals stored by their enemy blew up. It really doesn't matter what the truth is.
The bombing had nothing to do with Syria. It was to send a message to Zi, North Korea, the Russians, Iran, NATO, our Middle East allies, and all our enemies and friends in the world that the days of a weak American president are over. The world will have to contend with a strong America willing to act to defend its interests.
Amazing, so you think it's justified to bomb somebody irrespective if he committed any war crimes for sending a message to another nation who's involved with you in a different conflict.
I'm sorry Alan, that doesn't make any sense to me and is a very unjustified (and dangerous) position that can only escalate the trouble in the Middle East.
-
And be very careful to research your sources....
This is becoming supremely annoying. Every time when faced with something you don't like, you play the "source" card. I am very careful in using sources. I go to great lengths to provide a different point of view, alternative opinions and, yes, alternative facts. You can't get a different angle if your only source is MSNBC. How on Earth you are going to get a different view from the mainstream media if you do not use sources outside mainstream media!?
You have a problem with anything and everything Russian? I worked and lived eight years there, and speak fluently Russian. I know what Russia is and isn't. I know what Russian media is and isn't. Do you? Or your party line is that everything and anything Russian must be devil's spawn?
I do not need some "independent" media watchers to tell me what is reliable or not. I use my brain, education and experience to figure it out myself. I do not need someone else to count Pinocchios for me.
I spent seven years working in an American embassy. I had private dinners with American ambassadors. I know first-hand who writes (and how) State Department reports and I know their intellectual level. I set next to a lunch desk with a bunch of young American journalists, overhearing how skewed and twisted were their opinions on what they just saw and heard while visiting my country, a testament of the pitiful state of the American education on average, especially about foreign countries and history. They came with preconceived notions, and they left with it.
But all that is beyond the point. What I quoted was a freaking CANADIAN, not Russian, journalist, speaking freaking ENGLISH, not Russian, in a freaking VIDEO. See and hear it for yourself. What Russian TV has to do with it?
Oh, wait... I hear it coming: the weaseling argument - a video can be maliciously edited. Please provide evidence that a video where a journalist speaks for several minutes coherently and eloquently is edited to the point of completely changing the original meaning. Use a lip-reader, if you must, to see if the words that you hear do not match.
But why? Why do you feel the need to question the veracity of the video and her words? You do not believe that certain historical "events" can be staged to suit a political purpose? You heard of the Reichstag fire? Google it if not. The Gulf of Tonkin? You do remember that Dick Cheney used a PR firm to plant the original fake news, long before this election, including even a "first-hand witness" testimony before Congress, how Iraqi soldiers used bayonets to kill newborn babies in a Kuwait's hospital? There are gazillion other examples throughout history, and Jeremy provided another link showing how staged some of the recent stories from Iraq and Syria are (page 110, post #2195). But of course, you'd rather believe that AWACS can "see" what kind of nerve gas Syrian fighter planes carry inside.
-
I think your trust in the "system" to find convincing proof that the chemical weapons were in the planes and bombs leaving the particular Syrian airfield within a few days is overly optimistic.
Actually, I suspect they knew the exact time the planes took off, the pilot's call signs, the exact route the planes took, the exact number of bombs dropped and the exact route back to the airfield. Those are the sort of things that the AWACS airplanes can track really well. They are like air traffic control towers in a plane. They track the friendly and enemy planes in the air and can direct traffic as well as record radar and voice communications. I suspect as soon as reports came in that what was dropped was sarin gas, the air force could, with a high degree of accuracy, tell what happened and who did it.
What AWACS can do should not be underestimated but also don't confuse technical excellence of the air force with the ineptitude of the Iraq intelligence reporting WMD...two totally different arguments.
Heck, even Russia probably knows almost as much as we do although they are limited to ground based radar...they don't have anything to rival the AWACS...
But this is a side discussion not related to whether or not the US should have launched the missiles...and the larger discussion of how screwed up Syria is (and how screwed up the USA is as well).
-
I find it amazing (and quite sad really) that virtually none of the western media is asking questions about the absence of evidence that it was actually the Assad regime that executed the chemical attack.
Hi Pieter,
remember 2013 chemical attacks? The entire world, media + politicos jumped from their seats, claiming Assas was the one. Obama was short before ordering a strike, and then things changed.
It was the turkish MIT secret service that supplied the Sarin gas to Al Nusra who orchestrated the attack, not Assad. This was a stereotype false flag ops.
Media is quick to paint the picture of the enemy in accordance with politicos, and no one asks the real questions. So we're back at shoot first, then ask questions.
Stupid!
-
"Trump should listen to his instincts and stay out of the Middle East" - Neil McDonald, columnist for CBC News
Exactly how is killing children with chlorine or phosgene or sarin materially different from torturing them to death, or shattering their bodies with crude barrel bombs, or laying siege to and starving them, or bombing a hospital to ensure they can find no treatment for their wounds, while Donald Trump's press secretary shrugs and declares that the U.S. "understands the political reality" of Assad's leadership?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trump-middle-east-policy-1.4061371
Philip Gordon, Sr. Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations: "Trump's action on Syria doesn't get up."
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/04/08/trump-attack-on-syria-in-question-intv-mann.cnn
-
Came across this FB post. (https://www.facebook.com/amy.siskind/posts/10212319457406693)
Not unbiased, of course, but then it's not the 6 o'clock news either. The critics see a dark program in place, but I prefer simpler explanations, i.e., incompetence, which is much more widespread, especially bombastic salesmen. Still, where there's smoke...
-
Hi Pieter,
remember 2013 chemical attacks? The entire world, media + politicos jumped from their seats, claiming Assas was the one. Obama was short before ordering a strike, and then things changed.
It was the turkish MIT secret service that supplied the Sarin gas to Al Nusra who orchestrated the attack, not Assad. This was a stereotype false flag ops.
Media is quick to paint the picture of the enemy in accordance with politicos, and no one asks the real questions. So we're back at shoot first, then ask questions.
Stupid!
If this was a false flag, it definitely will happen again just to get America to drop more bombs and help Assad's enemies. Hopefully we won't take the bait.
-
... So I think the US attack was premature and unjustified and am appalled by all the European leaders backing the attack.
Europe's leaders supported the attack because Trump's bombing went against Russia. They were worried Trump was too cozy with Putin and would diminish America's roll in NATO. With the bombing, they now have confidence that America will continue to defend Europe.
-
Hi Pieter,
remember 2013 chemical attacks? The entire world, media + politicos jumped from their seats, claiming Assas was the one. Obama was short before ordering a strike, and then things changed.
It was the turkish MIT secret service that supplied the Sarin gas to Al Nusra who orchestrated the attack, not Assad. This was a stereotype false flag ops.
Media is quick to paint the picture of the enemy in accordance with politicos, and no one asks the real questions. So we're back at shoot first, then ask questions.
Stupid!
this is a very complicated story and one that the US mainstream press has refused to publish as none of the sources can be documented. As far as I know, only investigative reporter Seymour Hersh 'uncovered' this. There were some statements from opposition Turkish MPs who oppose the Erdogan regime and were trying to use this 'information' for political gains. Sarin and some of the precursor chemicals are all controlled substances under the Chemical Weapons Convention (I served on an US Office of Technology Assessment panel back in the early 1990s that looked into proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and for those interested the full report is here: https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/topic_f.html --- Syria was identified as having a chemical weapons program back then). Turkey would have to declare manufacturing of methylphophonyl difluoride under the CWC. I would expect that the US would know this and were Turkey to have violated the CWC, action would be taken.
I suspect that Sarin and/or Sarin precursors were kept by the Syrian army following the 'agreement' several years ago for the country to turn over its stocks of CW agents. It would not be difficult to do so as there was never a full inventory of which agents and the quantities that they possessed.
Regardless of whether CW agents were used last week, it is evident that the Assad regime(s) have waged war against the citizens of Syria and brought death and massive dislocations of people. For this alone they should be condemned. Whether the US should be involved in this ongoing civil conflict is a political decision not to be taken lightly. The past track record of US military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are not encouraging in this regard.
-
Came across this FB post. (https://www.facebook.com/amy.siskind/posts/10212319457406693)
Not unbiased, of course, but then it's not the 6 o'clock news either. The critics see a dark program in place, but I prefer simpler explanations, i.e., incompetence, which is much more widespread, especially bombastic salesmen. Still, where there's smoke...
Indeed, not a resume to be proud of.
Besides all the public displays of incompetence and manipulation, I found no. 55 of her list revealing:
"55. All the while, power continues to consolidate into the hands of Trump, Ivanka and Kushner. In the executive branch, only 4% of key roles are filled and 92% still have no nominee."
Cheers,
Bart
-
This analyst calls the Tomahawk strikes a sham that potentiates more Russian involvement and escalates the danger to American troops.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9089/americas-tomahawk-missile-attack-on-syrias-shayrat-air-base-was-a-sham
-
This analyst calls the Tomahawk strikes a sham that potentiates more Russian involvement and escalates the danger to American troops.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9089/americas-tomahawk-missile-attack-on-syrias-shayrat-air-base-was-a-sham
The writer of your article, Tyler Rogoway, is a military analyst. He focused mainly on the military effectiveness of the bombing or lack there of. No one cares about that except him although even there it was pretty substantial. 20+ Syrian fighter jets were destroyed. He basically missed the powerful political effect it had on enemies and friends around the world in putting America back in the driver's seat as the pre-eminent political and military superpower. Countries again fear and respect us, something they lost during the Obama administration. I was even amazed to see on TV 3 or 4 former Obama officials coming out in favor of Trump's bombing. They even expressed their dissatisfaction that Obama didn't do the same after his red line promise.
-
Indeed, not a resume to be proud of.
Besides all the public displays of incompetence and manipulation, I found no. 55 of her list revealing:
"55. All the while, power continues to consolidate into the hands of Trump, Ivanka and Kushner. In the executive branch, only 4% of key roles are filled and 92% still have no nominee."
Cheers,
Bart
No one's going to read that list, including #55, except Trump haters. Only they care.
For the rest of the people, Trump added the ninth justice to the Supreme Court. His bombing in Iraq changed the world's opinion of him and America's political and military standing. He assured our NATO and Pacific friends and reminded them to pay up. He made our enemies more nervous. He's tightened up the border and begun more control on illegals. He's begun to reverse overbearing regulations strangling our economy. He's cut back on climate control spending. He's produced a partial budget that begins to reduce wasteful spending. He OKed the two pipelines. He also played 14 rounds of golf and got to sleep with Melania in Mar-a-lago although I don't have the count on that. Not bad for 2 1/2 months.
Sure, he's had failures like Obamacare and the travel ban. But he's got 4 years and has plenty of time to correct those issues between golf games.
-
There is a very real chance that the toxic gases came out from a depot on ground rather than from the air. Apparently it is not too difficult to manufacture Sarin and Mustard gas, and possibly a relatively small container with Sarin was all, it took to kill the innocent people during the recent Syrian air attack.
“A competent chemist could make it, and possibly very quickly, in a matter of days,” says John Gilbert, a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, who spent much of his Air Force career assessing countries’ WMD capabilities. Producing sarin doesn’t require any kind of massive facility; a roughly 200 square foot room would do.
Attackers also don’t require much of it to do serious damage. Gilbert estimates that the Khan Sheikun devastation came from roughly 20 liters of sarin. (Remember: At one point Syria had stockpiled nearly 1,300 tons.)
“It would be possible to obtain, retain, or make relatively small amounts of sarin that would be hard to detect, if somebody really didn’t want them detected by an international organization,” says Gilbert.
-
There is a very real chance that the toxic gases came out from a depot on ground rather than from the air. Apparently it is not too difficult to manufacture Sarin and Mustard gas, and possibly a relatively small container with Sarin was all, it took to kill the innocent people during the recent Syrian air attack.
“A competent chemist could make it, and possibly very quickly, in a matter of days,” says John Gilbert, a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, who spent much of his Air Force career assessing countries’ WMD capabilities. Producing sarin doesn’t require any kind of massive facility; a roughly 200 square foot room would do.
Attackers also don’t require much of it to do serious damage. Gilbert estimates that the Khan Sheikun devastation came from roughly 20 liters of sarin. (Remember: At one point Syria had stockpiled nearly 1,300 tons.)
“It would be possible to obtain, retain, or make relatively small amounts of sarin that would be hard to detect, if somebody really didn’t want them detected by an international organization,” says Gilbert.
Gilbert's comments are a little misleading. Yes, the chemistry is straight forward and one of the precursors, isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) is inexpensive and readily available. the key compound is the methylphosphonyl diflouride which is a controlled substance under the CWC and does require expertise to manufacture (the compounds used to make it are all toxic and one would need specialized equipment to manufacture at volumes high enough to produce Sarin for weapons purposes). You might be able to produce gram quantities in a laboratory if you had the right compounds but that's not enough to weaponize.
Sarin is a prohibited substance under the CWC so nobody is shipping it to the Syrians. They have to make it themselves. The precursor chemicals are controlled substances and countries are supposed to keep records of their manufacture and transfer if there is any. It is likely that Syria set up a dedicated chemical facility to make Sarin and that was in violation of the CWC treaty. Syria is a party to the convention and was supposed to have destroyed all their stockpiles.
-
I heard phosgene rather than sarin may have been used. They said first responders most who were unprotected would have been exposed to sarin left on the clothes of victims and many would have died also. Phosgene chokes which is what it seems the children were doing. It would be easier to produce. Not sure it matters.
-
This is becoming supremely annoying. Every time when faced with something you don't like, you play the "source" card. I am very careful in using sources. I go to great lengths to provide a different point of view, alternative opinions and, yes, alternative facts. You can't get a different angle if your only source is MSNBC. How on Earth you are going to get a different view from the mainstream media if you do not use sources outside mainstream media!?
So, Eva Bartlett definitely is a source outside "mainstream media!" but I'm pretty sure she has an anti-Canada and anti-Semitic agenda and is NOT unbiased. A quick read of her blog ingaza (https://ingaza.wordpress.com) shows she has an anti-western and anti-mainstream media bias and questionable anti-Zionist perspectives. She claims that it is not Assad who commits the heinous acts against his people but the western backed rebel terrorists that are to blame.
From her interview on her web site:
With regard to Canada’s role in the war on Syria, it includes imposing criminal and crippling sanctions on Syria; supporting and funding (millions of dollars) the so-called armed ‘opposition’ in Syria and their propagandists; closing Syrian embassies in Canada; demonizing the legitimate Syrian government and Syrian army; and legitimizing the illegitimate, Saudi-backed, so-called ‘Syrian National Council’.
So, she's all for the "legitimate Syrian government" of Bashar al-Assad. Hum, that same Assad that has been accused of war crimes? THE ASSAD FILES – Capturing the top-secret documents that tie the Syrian regime to mass torture and killings. (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/04/18/bashar-al-assads-war-crimes-exposed)
The commission’s work recently culminated in a four-hundred-page legal brief that links the systematic torture and murder of tens of thousands of Syrians to a written policy approved by President Bashar al-Assad, coördinated among his security-intelligence agencies, and implemented by regime operatives, who reported the successes of their campaign to their superiors in Damascus. The brief narrates daily events in Syria through the eyes of Assad and his associates and their victims, and offers a record of state-sponsored torture that is almost unimaginable in its scope and its cruelty. Such acts had been reported by survivors in Syria before, but they had never been traced back to signed orders. Stephen Rapp, who led prosecution teams at the international criminal tribunals in Rwanda and Sierra Leone before serving for six years as the United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, told me that the cija’s documentation “is much richer than anything I’ve seen, and anything I’ve prosecuted in this area.”
The commission mentioned above is the regime-crimes unit of the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assad-war-crimes-cija_us_571ed6e6e4b0f309baee63e0), an independent investigative body founded in 2012, in response to the Syrian war.
Now, let's move to RT (formerly Russian Television), here's an interview with Putin that might shed some light Putin talks NSA, Syria, Iran, drones in RT interview (https://www.rt.com/news/putin-rt-interview-full-577/) (note the video is missing)
(https://www.rt.com/files/news/1f/64/10/00/p-2.jpg)
Margarita Simonyan: My first question is a bit immodest – about our channel. What are your impressions of it?
Vladimir Putin: I have good impressions.
When we designed this project back in 2005 we intended introducing another strong player on the world’s scene, a player that wouldn’t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also try, let me stress, I mean – try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams. And it seems to me that you’re succeeding in this job.
I’d like to emphasize something of the key importance. We never expected this to be a news agency or a channel which would defend the position of the Russian political line. We wanted to bring an absolutely independent news channel to the news arena.
Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign.
Hum..."Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another." kinda tells it all right? You lived in Russia Slobodan, do you think RT would last long if it somehow stepped out of Putin's favor?
Julia Ioffe, then a Moscow-based journalist, wrote in 2008 for the Columbia Journalism Review (http://archives.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php?page=all) that RT "was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russia’s image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the Western media." Ioffe explained, "Russia is still desperately trying to fend off stereotypes of itself—the endemic corruption, the whimsical autocracy of the state—that have kept much foreign capital, and many Russian émigrés, from returning."
Seems to me the term "soft-power tool" kinda goes hand in hand with the term Active measures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures). You know:
Active measures (Russian: активные мероприятия) is a Soviet term for the actions of political warfare conducted by the Soviet and Russian security services (Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, KGB, FSB) to influence the course of world events, in addition to collecting intelligence and producing "politically correct" assessment of it. Active measures ranged "from media manipulations to special actions involving various degrees of violence". They were used both abroad and domestically. They included disinformation, propaganda, counterfeiting official documents, assassinations, and political repression, such as penetration into churches, and persecution of political dissidents.
Active measures included the establishment and support of international front organizations (e.g. the World Peace Council); foreign communist, socialist and opposition parties; wars of national liberation in the Third World; and underground, revolutionary, insurgency, criminal, and terrorist groups. The intelligence agencies of Eastern Bloc states also contributed to the program, providing operatives and intelligence for assassinations and other types of covert operations.
Retired KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin described active measures as "the heart and soul of Soviet intelligence": "Not intelligence collection, but subversion: active measures to weaken the West, to drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO, to sow discord among allies, to weaken the United States in the eyes of the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and thus to prepare ground in case the war really occurs."
Sorry, I know how much you hate Wikipedia Slobodan, but it offered a concise description of active measures.
I'm sorry if you find my posts "supremely annoying", that is not my intent...not really. The reason I questioned your sources is, well, they were very questionable you know?
Truth be told, I STILL don't know what you were going on about...do you agree that Assad is killing his people and guilty of war crimes or is it the western governments that are guilty of funding terrorists and helping ISIL and Al-Qaeda in Syria? Do you honestly think RT and Global Research are viable news sources or are they propaganda arms of Putin's world view?
-
Not that the US is overly concerned with such technicalities, but it would be interesting to find out the legalities (both US and International law) of this missile attack.
Generally speaking launching weapons against the sovereign government's military facilities is considered most rude..
-
Not that the US is overly concerned with such technicalities, but it would be interesting to find out the legalities (both US and International law) of this missile attack.
Generally speaking launching weapons against the sovereign government's military facilities is considered most rude..
800 pound gorillas make the rules and winners decide who was wrong.
-
800 pound gorillas make the rules and winners decide who was wrong.
Ah, "might makes right". How medieval.
-
800 pound gorillas make the rules and winners decide who was wrong.
"Why do they hate us so much?"
-
Ah, "might makes right". How medieval.
Who else would have or could have attacked Syrian airfield? Was it wrong?
-
Who else would have or could have attacked Syrian airfield? Was it wrong?
Well, blowing $59 millions just to test the Tomahawks on a questionable mission is not exactly smart.
They could have kept the Tomahawks for some real emergency, and for the saved money build a few hospitals in Syria (or in USA).
-
Well, blowing $59 millions just to test the Tomahawks on a questionable mission is not exactly smart.
They could have kept the Tomahawks for some real emergency, and for the saved money build a few hospitals in Syria (or in USA).
No one agrees with you except the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and the North Koreans.
-
I hope you are wrong, 'cause I wouldn't want to be in such a company.
But how it does it help in fighting ISIS?
-
Well, blowing $59 millions just to test the Tomahawks on a questionable mission is not exactly smart.
They could have kept the Tomahawks for some real emergency, and for the saved money build a few hospitals in Syria (or in USA).
No, no, no, Les, you really don't seem to get how these things work. You see it as $59 million "blown," spent or waisted, some see it as a $59 million new purchase order ;)
-
I see. Well, in that spirit, we'll have to include also purchase orders for the busted airplanes.
In one fell swoop, Trump just made the Rusian aerospace industry great again, they can now replace all destroyed MIGs and Sukhois with a new contingent of fighter jets.
Although Trump said he approved the attack because of the beautiful babies, it could be that in reality this whole event was actually Putin's idea. :o
Trump claimed a right to administer global punishment by stating that America had a “vital national security interest” to oppose chemical weapons and suppress terrorism. The first is nonsense and the other futile and hypocritical.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/07/syria-bombs-emotion-babies
Back to the Syrian children. The reports of children killed by the gas in Khan Sheikhun vary from 10 to 30. The question where the gas came from still remains unanswered (or more precisely, answered in different ways). Assad's thugs have been killing and torturing many more children for many years before this attack, and the rebels and ISIS are not better. The attack won't do anything to prevent death of more children, due to shooting, bombing, hunger, cold, destroyed hospitals, lack of medications, etc.
Janine di Giovanni, a war reporter living now in Paris, traveled extensively to Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria to do field work and research. She was embedded at times with Assad’s army, as well as with the Free Army, and she also entered Syria several times illegally from Lebanon. She knows Syria well and revealed real and horrible human stories behind the news in her book "The Morning They Came For Us: Dispatches From Syria".
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/may/26/the-morning-they-came-for-us-janine-di-giovanni-syria
The atrocities are committed there every day by all parties in this conflict. Removal of Assad doesn't guarantee peaceful Syria. Fixing the situation by removal of the bad hombre didn't improve the living conditions in Iraq, Tunisia and Libya. But it helped to sell more arms.
-
No, no, no, Les, you really don't seem to get how these things work. You see it as $59 million "blown," spent or waisted, some see it as a $59 million new purchase order ;)
Yeh. Raytheon stock got a nice bump.
-
This is at least a little bit funny except for the implications of Russian gays...(wasting time waiting for the Cubs game to end)
(http://cdn.pinknews.co.uk/images/2017/04/trump-putin-late-show-with-colbert_640x345_acf_cropped.jpg)
Putin thinks it should be illegal to depict him as gay – so Colbert did exactly that (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/08/putin-thinks-it-should-be-illegal-to-depict-him-as-gay-so-colbert-did-exactly-that/?utm_source=ET&utm_medium=ETFB&utm_campaign=portal&utm_content=inf_10_60_2&tse_id=INF_37356cd01ca111e7a54ec308f37c7cce)
Putin is angry about being put in makeup – so Stephen Colbert did just that. (see screenshot above)
The Kremlin leader is so annoyed with the concept that earlier this week, his government added an image of him in drag (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/04/05/russia-bans-extremist-picture-of-putin-wearing-makeup/) to the country’s registry of prohibited “extremist” content.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ozjt8W0AQPI2x.jpg)
prohibited “extremist” content
The much-distributed picture has circulated widely on the internet and at LGBT rights protests, seeking to resist the country’s ‘gay propaganda’ law by lampooning Putin’s macho image.
So how will he feel about images of him in cut off jean shorts, makeup and little else, while sitting on a purple unicorn and being fondled by a happy Donald Trump?
“I like boys,” Putin tells the camera, leaving nothing to interpretation before instructing viewers to “wet your lips and make love to camera.”
The video ends on an ominous note, though, with Putin facing the camera down and telling the audience, straight-faced: “Seriously, you must work, or I will have you killed.”
Homophobia has surged in Russia since the passage of 2013’s so-called ‘gay propaganda’ law, which has been exploited by anti-LGBT forces in law enforcement and government in order to clamp down on the LGBT community.
The video is HERE (https://www.facebook.com/colbertlateshow/videos/1101445843333499/)
CUBS WIN!!!
Edited to add Cubs win :~)
-
No one agrees with you except the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and the North Koreans.
It's fine to talk for yourself, you're free to spout any nonsence you like (it's called freedom of speech)
However talking for others, especially when you misrepresent them, is rude.
-
Who else would have or could have attacked Syrian airfield? Was it wrong?
Which has nothing to do with your assertion that might makes right.
-
I get worried when my country adopts a consequentialist attitude to foreign policy.
"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy." -- Christopher Dawson
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
-
"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy." -- Christopher Dawson
It worked in defeating The Nazi Germany and reconstructing it to peaceful nation. And I'm eternally thankful to USA for entering and winning WW2II. Also to USSR for their help and sacrifices in winning the war.
The same method worked also in Japan, but not in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recent regime changes in Libya and Tunisia, although initially low in casualties created much worse situation than before, and so far the US strategy under both administrations in Syria has been misguided and totally ineffective.
-
Putin has claimed he has information the United States is planning a missile attack on Syria - and will also blame Bashar al-Assad for more chemical attacks on his own people. "We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance and accuse the Syrian authorities of using chemical weapons."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/790569/Vladimir-Putin-Russia-support-Syria-Bashar-al-Assad-G7-summit
-
It worked in defeating The Nazi Germany and reconstructing it to peaceful nation. And I'm eternally thankful to USA for entering and winning WW2II. Also to USSR for their help and sacrifices in winning the war.
The same method worked also in Japan, but not in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recent regime changes in Libya and Tunisia, although initially low in casualties created much worse situation than before, and so far the US strategy under both administrations in Syria has been misguided and totally ineffective.
WW2 represented an existential threat to the Allied countries. I don't think that most people would regard anything since (Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the various escapades in the Middle East and the political interference in South America) as being in the same category as WW2. It's difficult for me to see a persistent rationale for these other involvements. The places themselves are not better off, mostly, although South America seems to be better off than it used to be. It's not clear that's mainly because of US influence, but I could be wrong about that.
What was trying to be accomplished in all those places? Peace? Democracy? Economic domination? Whether viewed idealistically or cynically, it's not clear to me that things are working out very well in the long run. (I used "long run" somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I personally don't really think that 2-3 generations is a very long time.) Is the world safer? Is the USA safer? Some argue that it is, based on worldwide deaths due to war and crime, but you'd never know it reading some of the above. I find that many americans feel themselves threatened to an extent that I find difficult to justify based on actual events.
Some previous writers are not happy about the USA spending money to be the world's "policeman", and others accuse the rest of the world of free-loading on the USA. But did the rest of the world REALLY ask the USA to install 700+ military bases in over 120 countries? It's hard to believe that the USA would do that just because some cheapskate allies asked for it, without wanting to do it for their own purposes, whatever those are/were.
I find it hard to make general statements on whether use of force is bad or good, it never happens without context. But I do find that the notion that someone can come in, fire a few rounds and suddenly everything is ok again, a little simple-minded.
-
Dumb and Dumber
CBC News, Apr 11
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Adolf Hitler didn't use chemical weapons — a comment at odds with Hitler's extermination of Jews during the Holocaust using gas chambers.
He later tried to weasel out by saying:
"He was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing. He brought them into the Holocaust centers, I understand that. But (not) in the way that Bashar al-Assad used them where he went into towns, dropped them down, into the middle of towns."
-
Dumb and Dumber
CBC News, Apr 11
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Adolf Hitler didn't use chemical weapons — a comment at odds with Hitler's extermination of Jews during the Holocaust using gas chambers.
He later tried to weasel out by saying:
"He was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing. He brought them into the Holocaust centers, I understand that. But (not) in the way that Bashar al-Assad used them where he went into towns, dropped them down, into the middle of towns."
Spicer is great ... for a little humor.
I think he needs to get the hell out of the white house, just like we need to get the hell of out the Middle East. I say let the whole region self destruct if it wants to, and after the dust settles, make new alliances.
I find it quite disturbing that all of a sudden other avid Trump voters are justifying this bombing. I don't care if Assad was responsible; it's 1000s of miles away from anything USA.
-
Spicer is great ... for a little humor.
I think he needs to get the hell out of the white house, just like we need to get the hell of out the Middle East. I say let the whole region self destruct if it wants to, and after the dust settles, make new alliances.
I find it quite disturbing that all of a sudden other avid Trump voters are justifying this bombing. I don't care if Assad was responsible; it's 1000s of miles away from anything USA.
He definitely needs to get out from the White House. Or at least, he should get his statements proofread by Jared Kushner.
-
WW2 represented an existential threat to the Allied countries. I don't think that most people would regard anything since (Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the various escapades in the Middle East and the political interference in South America) as being in the same category as WW2. It's difficult for me to see a persistent rationale for these other involvements. The places themselves are not better off, mostly, although South America seems to be better off than it used to be. It's not clear that's mainly because of US influence, but I could be wrong about that.
What was trying to be accomplished in all those places? Peace? Democracy? Economic domination? Whether viewed idealistically or cynically, it's not clear to me that things are working out very well in the long run. (I used "long run" somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I personally don't really think that 2-3 generations is a very long time.) Is the world safer? Is the USA safer? Some argue that it is, based on worldwide deaths due to war and crime, but you'd never know it reading some of the above. I find that many americans feel themselves threatened to an extent that I find difficult to justify based on actual events.
Some previous writers are not happy about the USA spending money to be the world's "policeman", and others accuse the rest of the world of free-loading on the USA. But did the rest of the world REALLY ask the USA to install 700+ military bases in over 120 countries? It's hard to believe that the USA would do that just because some cheapskate allies asked for it, without wanting to do it for their own purposes, whatever those are/were.
I find it hard to make general statements on whether use of force is bad or good, it never happens without context. But I do find that the notion that someone can come in, fire a few rounds and suddenly everything is ok again, a little simple-minded.
You make thoughtful comments. Certainly as an American, I'm not happy with the waste of lives and the social fragmentation that occurred due to the war in Vietnam. But that was part of opposition to Communism. Did our strong action in Vietnam stop a greater war somewhere else? Would you argue that because the Soviets never attacked Western Europe, that NATO really wasn't necessary? Is it necessary now to face off Russia? Do Europeans want us to leave? Do the Japanese, South Koreans, Philippines, Australian, etc want us to shut down our bases in the Pacific? Should we reduce our carrier task forces from 12 to let's say 3? Should we become Fortress America? These are already becoming things Americans are talking about. As our wealth shrinks and our domestic requirements increase, overseas adventures will become more unpopular. Most Americans really don't want to be involved in all that stuff anyway. They're more concerned about their own families as are most people around the world. It seems almost that because of our success in WWII we have been condemned to the mantle of world policeman, although many people today would rather it be different.
-
Dumb and Dumber
CBC News, Apr 11
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Adolf Hitler didn't use chemical weapons — a comment at odds with Hitler's extermination of Jews during the Holocaust using gas chambers.
He later tried to weasel out by saying:
"He was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing. He brought them into the Holocaust centers, I understand that. But (not) in the way that Bashar al-Assad used them where he went into towns, dropped them down, into the middle of towns."
Obviously, Spicer was talking about using chemical weapons on the battlefield, not poison gas used in gas chambers. To make it seem that Spicer never heard of the Holocaust and gas chambers under Hitler is just another "gotcha" complaint taking apart a sentence of one of Trump's people. This bit of fake news was the first thing on WABC evening news tonight. One day, Trump's going to really do something bad and no one is going to pay any attention at all. Just more fake news.
-
Obviously, Spicer was talking about using chemical weapons on the battlefield, not poison gas used in gas chambers. To make it seem that Spicer never heard of the Holocaust and gas chambers under Hitler is just another "gotcha" complaint taking apart a sentence of one of Trump's people. This bit of fake news was the first thing on WABC evening news tonight. One day, Trump's going to really do something bad and no one is going to pay any attention at all. Just more fake news.
Yeah, if you are going to be gassed, it's a big difference whether the stuff comes from a showerhead, falling bomb, or a container in some storage depot.
I didn't think that there was anybody who hasn't heard about Hitler's concentration camps and gas chamber killings, but now I'm not so sure. Or maybe they've heard it, but they are already experiencing a decline in memory, thinking and reasoning skills.
-
Yeah, if you are going to be gassed, it's a big difference whether the stuff comes from a showerhead, falling bomb, or a container in some storage depot.
I didn't think that there was anybody who hasn't heard about Hitler's concentration camps and gas chamber killings, but now I'm not so sure. Or maybe they've heard it, but they are already experiencing a decline in memory, thinking and reasoning skills.
Spicer was making a comparison. Assad has been using chemical weapons as bombs on the battlefield. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as bombs although he could have. Your attack on Spicer is just another attempt to delegitimize the Trump administration by calling them names. Why don't you be honest in your beliefs and just be done with it and say the Spicer and Trump are is worse than Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane all combined.
There. Don't you feel better now?
-
Spicer was making a comparison. Assad has been using chemical weapons as bombs on the battlefield. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as bombs although he could have. Your attack on Spicer is just another attempt to delegitimize the Trump administration by calling them names. Why don't you be honest in your beliefs and just be done with it and say the Spicer and Trump are is worse than Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane all combined.
There. Don't you feel better now?
No, I don't feel better. I feel about the same as when Spicer claimed:
“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”
—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017
Furthermore, there was never any doubt what Hitler did. On the other hand, we have yet to see any evidence that the gas attacks were indeed ordered and committed by Assad. Maybe yes, maybe not, but there is no evidence. Very similar to the made up WMD evidence in Iraq..
-
No, I don't feel better. I feel about the same as when Spicer claimed:
“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”
—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017
Furthermore, there was never any doubt what Hitler did. On the other hand, we have yet to see any evidence that the gas attacks were indeed ordered and committed by Assad. Maybe yes, maybe not, but there is no evidence. Very similar to the made up WMD evidence in Iraq..
Gen./Secretary of Defense Mattis stated a couple of hours ago in a live news conference I watched (on TV) that he personally reviewed the evidence collected. He said that the Syrians used chemical bomb, and planned and executed the bombing attack. He also said that there is no current evidence that the Russians participated or knew. Certainly, the whole world knows that Assad has used illegal chemical bombs for years. Do you deny that?
So what are we all to believe? Well, Assad claims that their regular bombs hit an illegal chemical storage area of his enemy. His enemy's chemical bomb blew up killing their own people. So we are to believe that the Syrian one-in-a-million bomb just happen to hit the only spot in all of Syria where his enemies had stored illegal Sarin gas. Very lucky shot of Assad's pilot.
-
Gen./Secretary of Defense Mattis stated a couple of hours ago in a live news conference I watched (on TV) that he personally reviewed the evidence collected. He said that the Syrians used chemical bomb, and planned and executed the bombing attack. He also said that there is no current evidence that the Russians participated or knew. Certainly, the whole world knows that Assad has used illegal chemical bombs for years. Do you deny that?
So what are we all to believe? Well, Assad claims that their regular bombs hit an illegal chemical storage area of his enemy. His enemy's chemical bomb blew up killing their own people. So we are to believe that the Syrian one-in-a-million bomb just happen to hit the only spot in all of Syria where his enemies had stored illegal Sarin gas. Very lucky shot of Assad's pilot.
I don't know whom to believe - all involved parties in that war, including USA are lying. And we've seen a very similar movie before.
In 2003, Colin Powell also stated that there was an irrefutable evidence of WMD in Iraq.
there’s no question that Powell was consciously lying: he fabricated “evidence” and ignored repeated warnings that what he was saying was false.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html
But I can't imagine that Assad would be so stupid or ruthless to use chemical bombs. If he is indeed so stupid or ruthless, then he deserves the harshest punishment. As stated in one of the previous posts, a 20 liter Sarin canister would be sufficient to kill 80 people. If there is any chemical gas in Syria, there is a high probability that there is more of it than just 20l and it could be stored in multiple locations, so it wouldn't be just in one spot.
-
...As stated in one of the previous posts, a 20 liter Sarin canister would be sufficient to kill 80 people. If there is any chemical gas in Syria, there is a high probability that there is more of it than just 20l and it could be stored in multiple locations, so it wouldn't be just in one spot.
So Assad stored secret stashes of Sarin in his enemy's warehouses. Sort of like Poe's, "The Purloined Letter". Very clever of him.
-
So Assad stored secret stashes of Sarin in his enemy's warehouses. Sort of like Poe's, "The Purloined Letter". Very clever of him.
That's not very logical, Alan. Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or could be a sign of something more serious.
-
But I can't imagine that Assad would be so stupid or ruthless to use chemical bombs. If he is indeed so stupid or ruthless, then he deserves the harshest punishment.
I think for most normal sane people it is hard to imagine what Assad is thinking.
Here's a 5 year old article about him on the neutral Reuters website:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-assad-idUSBRE86H0NA20120718
And a recent commentary on the assumed gas attack, Commentary: Why Assad used chemical weapons:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-chemical-weapons-commentary-idUSKBN17D1PN
As stated in one of the previous posts, a 20 liter Sarin canister would be sufficient to kill 80 people. If there is any chemical gas in Syria, there is a high probability that there is more of it than just 20l and it could be stored in multiple locations, so it wouldn't be just in one spot.
We don't know what's happening on the ground, but it doesn't seem logical that such an amount of Sarin was produced locally by rebel forces, and that a bomb miraculously hit the exact storage location and triggered the right kind of reaction (I don't know if mere exposure to air is enough). It is also a bit of a coincidence that the bomb hit on a day with near windless conditions, ideal for the deployment such a chemical weapon. In early morning witness reports it was mentioned by locals that the fourth bomb sounded different, less of an explosion, but with a white cloud.
But even unlikely scenarios are possible, we simply do not know for sure what happened.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Spicer was making a comparison. Assad has been using chemical weapons as bombs on the battlefield. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as bombs although he could have. Your attack on Spicer is just another attempt to delegitimize the Trump administration by calling them names...
Damn, Alan, Spicer should have you as his own press secretary. You are defending him much better than he can do himself :D
“I made a mistake,” Spicer said in an interview with MSNBC host Great Van Susteren. “There’s no other way to say it. I got into a topic that I shouldn’t have and I screwed up.
-
Damn, Alan, Spicer should have you as his own press secretary. You are defending him much better than he can do himself :D
Trump haters trying to link Spicer and by extension Trump to a Hitler lover or a person who's ignorant of the Holocaust for political gain diminishes the real horror of those 6 million deaths. The media who took that cheap shot are disgraceful to their memory.
-
Trump haters trying to link Spicer and by extension Trump to a Hitler lover or a person who's ignorant of the Holocaust for political gain diminishes the real horror of those 6 million deaths. The media who took that cheap shot are disgraceful to their memory.
I think you're making it worse then it really is, they just painted Spicer bad for a stupid remark, and rightfully so, because otherwise he would not have apologised.
-
I think you're making it worse then it really is, they just painted Spicer bad for a stupid remark, and rightfully so, because otherwise he would not have apologised.
I think you're making it worse then it really is, they just painted Spicer bad for a stupid remark, and rightfully so, because otherwise he would not have apologised.
No, this was another "gotcha" criticism by the Trump hating media going out of their way to embarrass and demean. No one with an IQ greater than two digits believes that Spicer thought Hitler was a nice man. He was trying to show that Assad was worse at least in the area of using chemical bombs. And that justifies America's attack on his air base. I understood what he meant even if the press twisted his words. I got it. More fake news.
-
No, this was another "gotcha" criticism by the Trump hating media going out of their way to embarrass and demean. No one with an IQ greater than two digits believes that Spicer thought Hitler was a nice man. He was trying to show that Assad was worse at least in the area of using chemical bombs. And that justifies America's attack on his air base. I understood what he meant even if the press twisted his words. I got it. More fake news.
He apologised, what further proof does one need that he made a stupid remark? We all get it, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
-
No, this was another "gotcha" criticism by the Trump hating media going out of their way to embarrass and demean.
No need of that. He has his own autodemean and autoembarrass functions built in.
Also, "the Trump hating media" is a deliberate distraction and a misnomer. The don't hate him, they're just appalled by him.
If I recall correctly, the "gotcha journalism" accusation was first used by another wingnut. The one from Alaska who spoke the same gibberish word salad as The Orange One.
-
Fact?
"The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said." -- Washington Post
What right-wing conservatives hear:
Trump was correct -- the Obama administration did wiretap his campaign. Obama used the FBI for political purposes, under the pretext of a Russia investigation.
What left-wing liberals hear:
The FBI has evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election. The administration did not order the investigation; Trump lied about being targeted by Obama.
Irony:
Right-wing conservatives must think the secret FISA court acted irresponsibly.
Left-wing liberals must think the secret FISA court acted responsibly.
-
Old news again on NATO paying its fair share. Only 5 European countries out of 28 do that. Trump met with NATO head today in White House.
“In facing our common challenges we must also ensure that NATO members meet their financial obligations and pay what they owe,” Trump said at a White House news conference after meeting with Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “If other countries pay their fair share instead of relying on the United States to make up the difference, we will all be much more secure and our partnership will be made that much stronger.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-12/trump-says-nato-allies-must-meet-defense-spending-obligations
-
Fact?
"The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said." -- Washington Post
What right-wing conservatives hear:
Trump was correct -- the Obama administration did wiretap his campaign. Obama used the FBI for political purposes, under the pretext of a Russia investigation.
What left-wing liberals hear:
The FBI has evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election. The administration did not order the investigation; Trump lied about being targeted by Obama.
Irony:
Right-wing conservatives must think the secret FISA court acted irresponsibly.
Left-wing liberals must think the secret FISA court acted responsibly.
90% of the press is biased against Trump. That's just the way it is. So we're going to have to listen to the Trump bashing ad nauseam. Of course, he has four more years to get his policies enacted.
-
90% of the press is biased against Trump. That's just the way it is. So we're going to have to listen to the Trump bashing ad nauseam. Of course, he has four more years to get his policies enacted.
And I wonder how much of general population. Not as of election time, but right now.
-
And I wonder how much of general population. Not as of election time, but right now.
I was referring to the biased press towards his administration. But since you asked, The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.
-
The other 53% probably couldn't find Syria on a map. :)
-
90% of the press is biased against Trump.
So, what does that tell you? Why are they biased? And please don't say that they just hate him.
-
Seriously - the guy is dumb as a box of rocks. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-says-he-offered-china-better-trade-terms-in-exchange-for-help-on-north-korea-1492027556) From the fake news, liberal, Hillary-loving Wall Street Journal, regarding his meeting with Xi:
He said they hit it off during their first discussion. Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.
“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power” over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”
No kidding? Really? Our president is acting like this is some kind of revelation, and proudly "educating" his subjects. I seriously can't believe anyone thinks this clown is qualified to run, well, anything. And that's not bias, or liberalism, it's just the fact that, conservative or liberal, the man is an ignorant fool.
Edit: And you know what? This is the fundamental problem with Trump and many of his supporters. They think there are simple, basic, solutions to immeasurably complex problems, and that's just not the way the world works.
-
“nobody knew that health care could be so complicated”
-
“nobody knew that health care could be so complicated”
Well, I mean, I did. ;)
-
So, what does that tell you? Why are they biased? And please don't say that they just hate him.
95% are Democrats and support big government. But it's not that they're not allowed to have their own beliefs. It's that their reporting is biased. Bias should be left on the Editorial Op-Ed pages.
-
Spring cleaning (of the hard drive)... came across this:
-
...This is the fundamental problem with Trump and many of his supporters. They think there are simple, basic, solutions to immeasurably complex problems, and that's just not the way the world works.
The problem with many people is that they over-complicate many issues to the point they are paralyzed from acting. Or they act with a lack of decisiveness. That's what happened to Obama, and he lost creditability in the world and created a huge power vacuum that's lots of bad actors filled. Drawing the red line in Syria is one example that created that power vacuum.
One can give numerous and valid reasons why Trump should not have used those missiles. But he acted and that one act changed the entire feeling about the US throughout the world. Allies trust us again; enemies fear us again. The dynamic has flipped 180 degrees.
I admit he does shoot from the hip. And that can be dangerous. But weakness can also be dangerous because it encourages bad actors to do bad things because they see hesitation and confusion in us. Certainly Trump has a lot to learn about the world. But he has good advisers in Tiilerson, Mattis and others. And you don't want to dither and think things to death. After getting advice on Syria, Trump acted within two days.
-
95% are Democrats and support big government. But it's not that they're not allowed to have their own beliefs. It's that their reporting is biased. Bias should be left on the Editorial Op-Ed pages.
So 90% of the media are letting their personal political leanings interfere with their professional work? Preposterous.
Some, sure. But 90%? That's just silly.
-
So 90% of the media are letting their personal political leanings interfere with their professional work? Preposterous.
Some, sure. But 90%? That's just silly.
All of the mainstream media including ABC, CBS, NBC, and the national news organs Washington Post and N Y Times, are all biased Liberal and Democrat. I've been reading and watching all of them for 50 years. It's actually gotten worse as each tries to satisfy the base customers who are liberal. Their bias has now become one of corporate strategy. If they were to change, they would lose their customers.
I didn't include biased cable because they're not really news but rather talk shows. But even there, only Fox has conservative leanings. All the rest like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, lean liberal and support Democrats.
-
Spicer was making a comparison. Assad has been using chemical weapons as bombs on the battlefield. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as bombs although he could have. Your attack on Spicer is just another attempt to delegitimize the Trump administration by calling them names. Why don't you be honest in your beliefs and just be done with it and say the Spicer and Trump are is worse than Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane all combined.
There. Don't you feel better now?
Except, that's not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Nazi_Germany
"The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[39] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[39] Victor Israelyan, a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[40] After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimuskai quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."[41] Thousands of those killed around Adzhimushk were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation from gas.[40]
In February 1943, German troops stationed in Kuban received a telegram: "Russians should be eventually cleared out of the mountain range with gas."[42] The troops also received two wagons of toxin antidotes.[42]"
So they could have used more, but they did use them.
-
But since you asked, The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.
Yeah, but that's not the whole story is it?
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll-Wednesday, April 12, 2017 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_apr12)
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.
The latest figures include 29% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 43% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. Trends (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history)
So, the "support" was a combination of "Somewhat Approve" and "Strongly Approve". As the numbers show, only 29% of the responders said they Strongly Approve the job the president is doing...On the downside, a much larger number 43% "Strongly Disapprove" of his job approval.
29% Strongly Approve, 43% Strongly Disapprove–I wouldn't consider that much of a win.
BTW, Trump's Approval Index of -14 is down a bit from his high of -19 which was on 4-10-17 and 4-4-17 and 4-3-17 and 3-31-17. So, yes, going from a -19 to a -14 is a win I suppose...but on 1-20-17 when sworn in his index was +2 and a 38% Strongly Approve. So, there's a downward trend overall.
Let's compare that with Obama's final job approval...
Date Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove
17-Jan-17 +12 41% 29% 62% 38%
So, ya might want to look a bit closer at numbers when you throw them out. Trump's ratings suck, BIGLY!!!
Say, you know, that "Strongly Approve" number of 29% sure sounds like the 27% of potential voters that voted for Trump. But here's the thing about those Trump voters that are still strongly supporting Trump, the shit ain't hit the fan yet over just how screwed over those Trump supporters are going to be (the hand writing is already on the wall but it hasn't totally sunk in yet).
-
After getting advice on Syria, Trump acted within two days.
And what was the role of congress? Aren't they supposed to be involved/informed/consulted in acts of war?
Cheers,
Bart
-
And what was the role of congress? Aren't they supposed to be involved/informed/consulted in acts of war?
Cheers,
Bart
Our Constitution is none of your business. You should be asking why your Dutch leader in the Netherlands is not allowing Dutch citizens to listen to foreign visitors they wish to hear.
-
Except, that's not true....
I didn't know that. I assume Spicer didn't either. But that doesn't change the fact that the press and other liberal anti Trump commentators were trying to make it seem like Spicer was some sort of Hitler lover. It was still fake news used to discredited the administration.
-
Yeah, but that's not the whole story is it?
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll-Wednesday, April 12, 2017 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_apr12)
So, the "support" was a combination of "Somewhat Approve" and "Strongly Approve". As the numbers show, only 29% of the responders said they Strongly Approve the job the president is doing...On the downside, a much larger number 43% "Strongly Disapprove" of his job approval.
29% Strongly Approve, 43% Strongly Disapprove–I wouldn't consider that much of a win.
BTW, Trump's Approval Index of -14 is down a bit from his high of -19 which was on 4-10-17 and 4-4-17 and 4-3-17 and 3-31-17. So, yes, going from a -19 to a -14 is a win I suppose...but on 1-20-17 when sworn in his index was +2 and a 38% Strongly Approve. So, there's a downward trend overall.
Let's compare that with Obama's final job approval...
Date Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove
17-Jan-17 +12 41% 29% 62% 38%
So, ya might want to look a bit closer at numbers when you throw them out. Trump's ratings suck, BIGLY!!!
Say, you know, that "Strongly Approve" number of 29% sure sounds like the 27% of potential voters that voted for Trump. But here's the thing about those Trump voters that are still strongly supporting Trump, the shit ain't hit the fan yet over just how screwed over those Trump supporters are going to be (the hand writing is already on the wall but it hasn't totally sunk in yet).
I hope the poll numbers give you comfort. I believe he had only an 11% chance of winning the night of the election. Whatever. You're still stuck with him for 4 more years. Maybe 8.
-
... Trump's Approval Index of -14 is down a bit from his high of -19 which was on 4-10-17 and 4-4-17 and 4-3-17 and 3-31-17. So, yes, going from a -19 to a -14 is a win I suppose...but on 1-20-17 when sworn in his index was +2 and a 38% Strongly Approve...
Gee, Jeff, on this forum, the above would be called...pixel-peeping and measurbating ;)
-
Finally, a decisive presidential action:
-
I didn't know that. I assume Spicer didn't either. But that doesn't change the fact that the press and other liberal anti Trump commentators were trying to make it seem like Spicer was some sort of Hitler lover. It was still fake news used to discredited the administration.
Come on, Alan. You are a smart man, maybe smarter than the president.
But unfortunately, that can't be said about Spicer. That Hitler statement doesn't only show how clueless is he, but also he has a poor sense of judgment.
I wonder how long he will last as spokesman. If Trump won't fire him, then the constant stress working for him will kill him.
-
I didn't know that. I assume Spicer didn't either. But that doesn't change the fact that the press and other liberal anti Trump commentators were trying to make it seem like Spicer was some sort of Hitler lover. It was still fake news used to discredited the administration.
The only thing they showed in Europe was the direct footage of Spicer making these bonehead remarks. No liberal media were needed to discredit him, it was all self-inflicted by a lack of knowledge, judgement and understanding how the world works.
-
Come on, Alan. You are a smart man, maybe smarter than the president.
But unfortunately, that can't be said about Spicer. That Hitler statement doesn't only show how clueless is he, but also he has a poor sense of judgment.
I wonder how long he will last as spokesman. If Trump won't fire him, then the constant stress working for him will kill him.
Trump should fire him for apologizing for something he didn't have to apologize for. He should have fought back and called it all fake news, which it was. In any case, people say things that can be interpreted different ways. When every word you say is recorded, every malapropism, dangling modifier, etc can be used against you. The press never gives the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt. It was the same thing with the Sweden comment Trump made. The anti-Trump press deliberately takes it out of context. Wait, actually that one was true. Or Obama's tapping Trump's phone. Well, that turned out to be mainly true that his administration was surveilled.
-
The only thing they showed in Europe was the direct footage of Spicer making these bonehead remarks. No liberal media were needed to discredit him, it was all self-inflicted by a lack of knowledge, judgement and understanding how the world works.
Who cares what Europe thinks? As long they pay for NATO.
-
Who cares what Europe thinks? As long they pay for NATO.
I know that's your pet-peeve because it doesn't mean better defense but more purchase orders for the Lockheed et. al. and that will make the USA "better". Thanks, but no thanks.
However with changing the subject you brushed over the point that Spicer wasn't discredited by liberal media, but only by his own words, he rightfully apologised and the only fake news was coming from his mouth. It's way too easy to blame others for this.
-
Who cares what Europe thinks? As long they pay for NATO.
I'm a Texan, a Son of the American Revolution, and have a degree in History (early American concentration).
I care very deeply what Europe's leaders and citizens think about my country, and Pieter is 100% correct that reporting the goofy things that Spicer says, and the stupid, uninformed things Trump does, are not by any measure "fake news." New you don't like? Yep. News that makes Trump look bad? Yep. But fake? Not at all, and it's sad that Trumps supporters seem to believe that any criticism of him can be dismissed by screaming "FAKE NEWS!!!"
As for paying for NATO, it was obsolete in January, so who cares. But I guess it not obsolete any more, right?
Anyway, as others have said, you seem like an intelligent person, Alan, and it's impressive that you've remained mainly polite and willing to engage even though your points of view are under heavy attack here - thanks for that! But honestly, Trump is scarily ignorant of the world at large, while having to deal with some very serious problems. You get why people are freaked out, right?
-
I hope the poll numbers give you comfort.
So the polls are fine as long as they agree with what you believe but the polls are faulty when they don't?
Hum...remind you of anybody?
-
Gee, Jeff, on this forum, the above would be called...pixel-peeping and measurbating ;)
Well when somebody spouts some numbers, I like to understand what they mean :-)
So an approval rating of 47% was tossed out as a "good thing" but upone closer inspection, not so much huh?
-
I'm a Texan, a Son of the American Revolution, and have a degree in History (early American concentration).
I care very deeply what Europe's leaders and citizens think about my country, and Pieter is 100% correct that reporting the goofy things that Spicer says, and the stupid, uninformed things Trump does, are not by any measure "fake news." New you don't like? Yep. News that makes Trump look bad? Yep. But fake? Not at all, and it's sad that Trumps supporters seem to believe that any criticism of him can be dismissed by screaming "FAKE NEWS!!!"
As for paying for NATO, it was obsolete in January, so who cares. But I guess it not obsolete any more, right?
Anyway, as others have said, you seem like an intelligent person, Alan, and it's impressive that you've remained mainly polite and willing to engage even though your points of view are under heavy attack here - thanks for that! But honestly, Trump is scarily ignorant of the world at large, while having to deal with some very serious problems. You get why people are freaked out, right?
Hi Jim, Always liked Texans. Real Americans. I spent three times in San Antonio at Lackland AFB in the 1960's in the USAF. That was the first time I was away from where I grew up in The Bronx (NYC). I was a real greenhorn. Anyway, a bunch of us once stayed in another airman's parent's home for the weekend where he came from right next to the base. After a night of all of us drinking and getting sloshed, I remember getting woke up by their rooster crowing to the sunrise. Oh, what a headache!
First, thanks for the nice comments. It is lonely on these threads. I feel like Davie Crockett trying to save the Alamo by myself. Slobodan helps out. Yeah, Trump is a hard guy to get use too. When he was running during the campaign, I had to shut the TV off his antics so got to me. But he's calmed down. The problem is he's not a politician, talks frankly, off the cuff, and let's the chips fall where they may. That gets him into trouble. But that's also admirable after all the BS you usually get from politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth, want authority without responsibility and blame others when things go south. Trump says he was left a mess but will straighten it out. All we got from Obama was 7 years of him blaming Bush. Trump is a leader and willing to take risks to get things done. Most politicians just talk a good game but do nothing really. For all his smarts, Obama's lack of leadership and averseness to risk just weakened us in the world and made the whole world unsafe as bad actors filled the power vacuum. Trump's action in Syria turned most of that all around in one fell swoop. Hopefully, and I realize it's a long shot, China may actually help about N.Korea's nukes. I can't imagine what Xi thought when Trump mentioned during their luncheon that he just sent missiles into Syria to destroy their airbase. Xi must have gagged on his soup. I imagine he was thinking of the "armada" stopping by his newly fortified islands and doing the same thing. Xi must of thought, that boy, this guy's a loose cannon. We better work with him. You can be sure that when Trump visits China, he won't have to get of Air Force 1 from the baggage platform and be disgraced like Obama was. With all his antics, the world has begin to respect the US again. Including Europe. That's worth a lot.
It's not about being smart about the world. It's about being smart how the world works. Having spent his whole life being beat up and beating up others, facing existential crises in business many times, he brings that CEO experience of life to the presidency which is also about leadership. Yes, he should clean up his act and is. He is also a quick learner and has good people like Mattis and others to advise him. It might be helpful if the press stopped the game of looking at every one of his tics and started to treat him as President. There is a constant barrage from most of the press who don't like him. If he was Obama, they would let most of it slide.
Regarding NATO, he may have reassessed his honest original feeling that it's no longer necessary because the Soviet Union is gone but now realizes Russia is a problem. Or he may have always felt that way and originally said that NATO wasn't necessary as a way of pressuring Europe to pay their fair share instead of taking advantage of America's largesse. Europe's done that for years taking advantage of our good nature and spending defense money on their social projects and letting us make up the difference. Trump hates to get ripped off. That's his real estate experience with contractors. (I use to be one myself and used to get ripped off my general contractors all the time. You always had to watch yourself). It's good to have a politician who's concerned with what things cost. Most government officials don't care a hoot.
Anyway, it's nice to hear from someone else. Thanks for posting.
-
"Trump is a leader and willing to take risks to get things done. "
The difference is that before, Trump was taking risks in a business. He could always, and did, simply "take a Mulligan" by declaring bankruptcy and try again. It did not matter how many of his business enterprises failed, as long as more of them succeeded.
But there is only one United States.
He does not have the luxury of doing that as president. He can't declare bankruptcy and try again. His decisions affect international relations and he can't just tweet that "I was just joking".
Being PotUS is serious. Much more serious then running a family business, no matter how large. Much harsher consequences and no "Mulligans". He appears to be a tactical thinker, in a position where strategic thought is necessary.
It is a good fantasy to have a President from the outside, but the reality is that PotUS is not an entry level job. We should have learned that from Bush Jr and Obama.
Personally, I don't want an outsider as President. I want someone with the education and experience in running a government and working with congress. I don't think that Trump has much experience working with people. I think all his experiences are with people working for him. I think Trump is learning how un-fun being president really is.
Unfortunately, with this election, there was not exactly an acceptable alternative but that's another gripe. :D Either choice would have been bad. We can thank the major political parties for that gift.
With his switching back and forth concerning past and present comments, I feel that he is eroding trust in our allies. What he says this month may not be what he says next month. That unpredictability is not a good way to foster a relationship of trust.
In the long term, I do not have confidence that Trump will be good for our nation. He and his family will make a lot of money. The MIC will make a lot of money. But the collateral costs may be unacceptable.
George W. Bush once said, infamously, that in the context of foreign police that he does not "do nuance". As soon as I heard that, I knew we were in trouble. Professionally, I work foreign policy and it is nothing but nuance. I fear the Trump is another person that does not "do nuance", in an environment where everything is nuance.
In his family business and TV show, Trump could expect everyone else to change to his way of thinking. But in domestic and foreign policy, he does not have that luxury.
I honestly don't think he is well prepared for this job. We, in this country seem to be working on a pattern. Bush jr, Obama, Trump -- entry level employees in an executive position.
The US is strong. I feel it is stronger then any one individual. I have hope that we will survive Trump. After all, what else do I have to hope for. But while we can survive one intern, can we survive three consecutive interns? Or a fourth if we continue to elect entry level people into the office of president? I hope so. Unfortunately, all I have is hope.
But who knows? Perhaps Trump will grow into the position. We have had inexperienced people as president all throughout our history. We can only hope that while Trump is engaged in OJT, that he does not do something irreversible.
He can't take a Mulligan
-
I disagree Trump is an entry level employee in an executive position. While no one has been President before he becomes president, Trump does have a lifetime of executive experience. Not taking risk is risky as well. Obama proved that. He worried too much what Iran, China, Russia and others would say. I think he cared more what they would say about him personally. So he didn't act. He talked a good game but adversaries saw through the façade and took advantage of his weakness. Friends took advantage too.
Of course, Trump could make mistakes, serious ones. Look what happened to Johnson with Vietnam and Bush2 with Iraq. Both had experience in government. Johnson was leader of the Senate and VP before he became President. Bush was a fighter pilot and governor of Texas. So experience in government and the military doesn't assure us of much. Kennedy a WWII torpedo boat hero nearly got us into WWIII with the Soviets over the Cuban missile crisis due to his stupid move in the Bay of Pigs Cuba adventure against the Castro brothers that failed.
But any president can't freeze and be so afraid to act that he does nothing or little. Leading from behind, Obama's doctrine, is no doctrine at all.
-
I didn't know that. I assume Spicer didn't either. But that doesn't change the fact that the press and other liberal anti Trump commentators were trying to make it seem like Spicer was some sort of Hitler lover. It was still fake news used to discredited the administration.
It wasn't fake news. It was 100% accurate. As the WH PS, before he spoke about something, he should have known about it. That's his job. The press gave him an opportunity to correct his mistake, and he failed to do so, again displaying ignorance. He's not accused of being a Hitler lover, he's accused of being a moron. He's pretty much delivered a slam-dunk case for the prosecution on that accusation, too.
-
Our Constitution is none of your business. You should be asking why your Dutch leader in the Netherlands is not allowing Dutch citizens to listen to foreign visitors they wish to hear.
Rubbish. If you interact with the rest of the world, then your Constitution is our business. So stop deflecting and answer the question.
-
It wasn't fake news. It was 100% accurate. As the WH PS, before he spoke about something, he should have known about it. That's his job. The press gave him an opportunity to correct his mistake, and he failed to do so, again displaying ignorance. He's not accused of being a Hitler lover, he's accused of being a moron. He's pretty much delivered a slam-dunk case for the prosecution on that accusation, too.
Well said. To ensure it doesn’t happen again, the Anti-Defamation League is now offering Spicer and his colleagues a training on Holocaust awareness.
-
Our Constitution is none of your business.
Bullshit! Farmer is right, deal with it.
You should be asking why your Dutch leader in the Netherlands is not allowing Dutch citizens to listen to foreign visitors they wish to hear.
That's the topic of this thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116947.0) You didn't gain any traction or bring any logical arguments there, so don't try to switch the subject here. It won't help. This thread is about Trump and the Trump administration.
-
From the LA Op/Ed series...
Part IV Trump’s War on Journalism (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-trumps-war-on-journalism/)
In Donald Trump’s America, the mere act of reporting news unflattering to the president is held up as evidence of bias. Journalists are slandered as “enemies of the people.”
Facts that contradict Trump’s version of reality are dismissed as “fake news.” Reporters and their news organizations are “pathetic,” “very dishonest,” “failing,” and even, in one memorable turn of phrase, "a pile of garbage.”
Trump is, of course, not the first American president to whine about the news media or try to influence coverage. President George W. Bush saw the press as elitist and “slick.” President Obama’s press operation tried to exclude Fox News reporters from interviews, blocked many officials from talking to journalists and, most troubling, prosecuted more national security whistle-blowers and leakers than all previous presidents combined.
But Trump being Trump, he has escalated the traditionally adversarial relationship in demagogic and potentially dangerous ways.
Most presidents, irritated as they may have been, have continued to acknowledge — at least publicly — that an independent press plays an essential role in American democracy. They’ve recognized that while no news organization is perfect, honest reporting holds leaders and institutions accountable; that’s why a free press was singled out for protection in the 1st Amendment and why outspoken, unfettered journalism is considered a hallmark of a free country.
Trump doesn’t seem to buy it. On his very first day in office, he called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth.”
-
Part V Conspiracy Theorist in Chief (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-conspiracy-theorist-in-chief/)
It was bad enough back in 2011 when Donald Trump began peddling the crackpot conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not a native-born American. But at least Trump was just a private citizen then.
By the time he tweeted last month that Obama had sunk so low as to “tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process,” Trump was a sitting president accusing a predecessor of what would have been an impeachable offense.
Trump went public with this absurd accusation without consulting the law enforcement and intelligence officials who would have disabused him of a conspiracy theory he apparently imbibed from right-wing media. After the FBI director debunked it, Trump held fast, claiming he hadn’t meant that he had been literally wiretapped.
Most people know by now that the new president of the United States trafficks in untruths and half-truths, and that his word cannot be taken at face value.
Even more troubling, though, is that much of his misinformation is of the creepiest kind. Implausible conspiracy theories from fly-by-night websites; unsubstantiated speculations from supermarket tabloids. Bigoted stories he may have simply made up; stuff he heard on TV talk shows.
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016
This is pathetic, but it’s also alarming. If Trump feels free to take to Twitter to make wild, paranoid, unsubstantiated accusations against his predecessor, why should the nation believe what he says about a North Korean missile test, Russian troop movements in Europe or a natural disaster in the United States?
-
Part VI California Fights Back (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-california-fights-back/)
When Donald Trump threatened on the campaign trail to deport every single immigrant living in the country illegally, bring back offshore drilling and reverse the anti-pollution policies that help clear smoggy skies, Californians immediately understood that our state would be disproportionately affected — and disproportionately harmed — by the reckless policies he was hoping to enact.
After he was sworn in, he went further, singling out the state for attack. “California,” Trump declared in February, “in many ways is out of control.” In one overwrought tweet, he suggested that the federal government should cut all funding for UC Berkeley because a protest against a conservative guest speaker had turned violent. A few days later, he declared — even more irresponsibly — that he would “defund” the entire state if he felt it wasn’t cooperating sufficiently in his efforts to root out undocumented immigrants.
Trump had already alienated many state voters with his plans to build a costly and unnecessary border wall, revoke the health insurance of millions of low-income people and gut climate-change policies. Now, he was taking on California itself, a state in which more than one out of 10 Americans live, and which sends more than $350 billion to Washington each year in federal taxes (and gets substantially less than that back). A state with strong progressive values that it will not happily see undermined.
To express their dissatisfaction, hundreds of thousands of people gathered at rallies in the state’s major cities. One man’s quixotic California secession campaign became a cause célèbre. And California’s political leaders vowed to fight back.
Gov. Jerry Brown grumbled that if Trump cut climate data-gathering efforts, California would launch its “own damn satellite.” Legislators put former U.S. Atty. Gen Eric Holder on a hefty retainer to help challenge Trump’s initiatives in court even before he’d announced any. They filed a mountain of bills reacting to an array of reprehensible policies that the new president was thought to be considering. “We’re going to do what we need to do to protect the people of California,” said state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra.
-
Defund the commies and "sanctuary" cities.
-
117 pages are enough, it's been fun. Bye.
-
117 pages are enough, it's been fun. Bye.
There's some good news.
-
There's some good news.
I don't agree, if you can't deal with other viewpoints there's really no point being here. While I disagree with Alan on several points I fully agree with him it's been fun. There's no need to convince others of your own viewpoints and the discussion as such is worthwhile. 117 pages with strong disagreements and hardly any ad-hominem attacks. That's really good news I think.
-
Defund the commies and "sanctuary" cities.
Who are the "commies?" Are you getting a little too paranoid? If so, read Pynchon's proverbs for paranoids and relax.
-
117 pages are enough, it's been fun. Bye.
Oh one last thing and we can take it off line. My daughter's going to Amsterdam for 5 days with a girlfriend who's attending a medical conference for one of those days. She asked if I new of any good restaurants and recommend things to do. Thanks.
-
Who are the "commies?" Are you getting a little too paranoid? If so, read Pynchon's proverbs for paranoids and relax.
California. Never heard of that guy, but I heard of Andrew Grove (Only The Paranoid Survive).
-
It is not just terrorism with bombs, trucks, etc....
http://www.dailywire.com/news/15387/trump-justice-department-prosecutes-disgusting-hank-berrien#
On Wednesday, the Department of Justice took the first step in stopping the monstrous practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United States, announcing that the federal government has charged female doctor Jumana Nagarwala, M.D., of Northville, Michigan, with mutilating girls between the ages of six and eight.
-
Oh one last thing and we can take it off line. My daughter's going to Amsterdam for 5 days with a girlfriend who's attending a medical conference for one of those days. She asked if I new of any good restaurants and recommend things to do. Thanks.
Restaurants (various foodstyles/types):
https://www.thefork.com/city/amsterdam/19088
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurants-g188590-Amsterdam_North_Holland_Province.html
Events (depends on the date of visit and what one is looking for):
http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/visiting/whats-on
April, 27th: http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/visiting/whats-on/kings-day
Cheers,
Bart
-
Oh one last thing and we can take it off line. My daughter's going to Amsterdam for 5 days with a girlfriend who's attending a medical conference for one of those days. She asked if I new of any good restaurants and recommend things to do. Thanks.
I hope they have a wonderful time.
This is a pretty good website to start things off. (http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/visiting/what-to-do/top-20-things-to-do-in-amsterdam)
From those I would certainly recommend the following (time permitting):
3: Museumplein
4: Ferry to Amsterdam North
5: Canal cruise
9: Anne Frank House
14: Day trip (Keukenhof if they like to see blooming tulips)
16: Many good markets just to walk around
17: Nice foodcourt
19: Begijnhof (small but nice)
20: Eye across the water
I'm not very familiar with restaurants there, maybe another Dutchy can help out on that.
EDIT: I see Bart already did!
-
And back on topic.
As Trump seeks defense-spending boost, watchdogs cite faulty Pentagon accounting:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pentagon-idUSKBN17F1PQ
"President Donald J. Trump is planning to increase U.S. defense spending by $54 billion next year. But a series of recent reports by the Defense Department Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office say that Pentagon accounting systems will struggle to track how the money is spent.
The reports found that the Pentagon remains unable to accurately track its $591 billion annual budget and experiences billions of dollars in accounting gaps and errors each year despite two decades of reform efforts. Taken together, the reports show that many of the endemic accounting problems exposed in a 2013 Reuters investigative series remain in place.
“These deficiencies not only affect (the Department of Defense's) ability to have auditable financial statements,” a Feb. 9 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found, “they also affect its ability to make sound decisions on missions and operations.”"
So while not caused by Trump, it is also not remedied before piling on, and the spending boosts will possibly be based on wrong assumptions as to the required budgets.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And back on topic.
As Trump seeks defense-spending boost, watchdogs cite faulty Pentagon accounting:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pentagon-idUSKBN17F1PQ
"President Donald J. Trump is planning to increase U.S. defense spending by $54 billion next year. But a series of recent reports by the Defense Department Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office say that Pentagon accounting systems will struggle to track how the money is spent.
...
So while not caused by Trump, it is also not remedied before piling on, and the spending boosts will possibly be based on wrong assumptions as to the required budgets.
Cheers,
Bart
On the other hand, if Trump uses his bullying negotiating skills in the same way as he did recently with the Airforce One aircraft, the USA defense could get significatly more bang for their dollars.
-
On the other hand, if Trump uses his bullying negotiating skills in the same way as he did recently with the Airforce One aircraft, the USA defense could get significatly more bang for their dollars.
Yes, I'd agree with seeking for reduced cost, but the question is; reduced from what?
"The report said that because rules require that the Army’s numbers exactly match in monthly reports to the Treasury, the Army and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service must find a way to make them match. Their solution was to enter made-up numbers to make it appear falsely that the Army’s numbers do match.
The report said that for March 2016, there were $1.9 billion in such “forced balance entries.” Hall said the Army must make the numbers match under federal rules."
Cheers,
Bart
-
California. Never heard of that guy, but I heard of Andrew Grove (Only The Paranoid Survive).
Thomas Pynchon is one of the great novelists of our time!! I guess you skipped the literature course in college! ;) Anyway, the proverbs for paranoids appeared in his National Book Award winner, "Gravity's Rainbow." Pynchon, a recluse, sent the comedian, Professor Irwin Corey to give the acceptance speech and pick up the award. He did do a voice for a character in a Simpsons episode. Enough of the back story, here are the proverbs for paranoids:
1. You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures.
2. The innocence of the creature is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master.
3. If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
4.You hide, They seek.
5. Paranoids are not paranoids because they're paranoid, but because they keep putting themselves, f**king idiots, deliberately into paranoid situations.
-
...the reports show that many of the endemic accounting problems exposed in a 2013 Reuters investigative series remain in place...
Ahmmm... about accounting (and statistics):
Stamp's Statistical Probability The government [is] extremely fond of amassing great quantities of statistics. These are raised to the nth degree, the cube roots are extracted, and the results are arranged into elaborate and impressive displays. What must be kept ever in mind, however, is that in every case, the figures are first put down by a village watchman, and he puts down anything he damn well pleases.
(Attributed to Sir Josiah Stamp, 1840-1941, H.M. collector of inland revenue.
This quote was something my first boss, an Economic Counselor in the State Department, with a Masters in Economics, had framed on his wall.
-
Ahmmm... about accounting (and statistics):
This quote was something my first boss, an Economic Counselor in the State Department, with a Masters in Economics, had framed on his wall.
Yes, it's similar to what I was told by the manager of the Marketing Information Services department some 39 years ago, "We take an estimate for the whole numbers, but use a calculator for the decimal fractions." (BTW, the man used an abacus, and was faster than those early desktop calculators with paper roll output).
Cheers,
Bart
-
117 pages are enough, it's been fun.
Ironic, it seems because Trump’s base turns on him (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-base-supporters-turn-on-him-237200)
Steve Bannon’s downgrade is just one of many complaints. ‘We expect him to keep his word, and right now he’s not keeping his word,’ says one campaign supporter.
Donald Trump’s true believers are losing the faith.
As Trump struggles to keep his campaign promises and flirts with political moderation, his most steadfast supporters — from veteran advisers to anti-immigration activists to the volunteers who dropped their jobs to help elect him — are increasingly dismayed by the direction of his presidency.
Their complaints range from Trump’s embrace of an interventionist foreign policy to his less hawkish tone on China to, most recently, his marginalization of his nationalist chief strategist, Steve Bannon. But the crux of their disillusionment, interviews with nearly two dozen Trump loyalists reveal, is a belief that Trump the candidate bears little resemblance to Trump the president. He’s failing, in their view, to deliver on his promise of a transformative “America First” agenda driven by hard-edged populism.
"Donald Trump dropped an emotional anchor. He captured how Americans feel," said Tania Vojvodic, a fervent Trump supporter who founded one of his first campaign volunteer networks. "We expect him to keep his word, and right now he's not keeping his word."
With Trump failing to live up to his word and his tendency to marginalize the very people who supported and voted for him, Trump Nation is starting to worry about the horse they hitched their wagon to. It's really tough to keep up the support of somebody who so consistently disappoints and fails to live up to expectations. I suspect there will continue to be an erosion to Trump's support and it's starting to look like the mid term elections by be yet another sea change. Something that will be giving the GOP heartburn till the elections :~)
And while Trump & Crew are hoping the whole Russia thing goes away (you remember, the Russians screwed up the election to help Trump) it seems foreign intelligence agencies had been getting Trump campaign people talking with Russians as far back as the end of 2015.
I'm thinking that the "Dodgy Dossier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier)" as Carter Page refers to it, may end up being less dodgy...lest we forget: Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified' (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786). Oh, and that FISA warrant on Carter Page? Uh ho...FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor Trump adviser Carter Page (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html?utm_term=.6f77dfee274f)
The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.
The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page’s communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials.
This is the clearest evidence so far that the FBI had reason to believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that a Trump campaign adviser was in touch with Russian agents. Such contacts are now at the center of an investigation into whether the campaign coordinated with the Russian government to swing the election in Trump’s favor.
That "bombshell" comes on the tail of additional information that Page had met with Russian agents as early as 2013.
Three years before Page became an adviser to the Trump campaign, he came to the attention of FBI counterintelligence agents, who learned that Russian spy suspects had sought to use Page as a source for information.
In that case, one of the Russian suspects, Victor Podobnyy — who was posing as a diplomat and was later charged by federal prosecutors with acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government — was captured on tape in 2013 discussing an effort to get information and documents from Page. That discussion was detailed in a federal complaint filed against Podobnyy and two others. The court documents in that spy case only identify Page as “Male 1.’’ Officials familiar with the case said that “Male 1’’ is Page.
Hum...makes sense why Trump left Thurs for a long Mar-a-lago weekend huh?
So...Flynn has dinner with Putin in 2015 and is paid by RT for "speaking" and registers belatedly as an agent of a foreign government after getting fired. Manafort is being investigated by Ukrainian Prosecutors (http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/14/523786754/paul-manaforts-activities-arouse-interest-of-ukrainian-prosecutors), and After Campaign Exit, Manafort Borrowed From Businesses With Trump Ties (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trump.html?_r=0) and is now also belatedly registering as an agent of a foreign government and Carter Page is being investigated by the FBI.
Interesting people Trump surrounds himself with, huh?
#MAGA/MOAB
-
On top of news that Trump supporters are, uh, "restless" is this...
Then and now: Donald Trump's biggest reversals (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/politics/donald-trump-change-positions/index.html)
(CNN)Donald Trump's helter-skelter presidency took another odd turn on Wednesday, when he abruptly reversed himself on a range of issues central to his 2016 campaign.
Whether his recent U-turns are a precursor to more fundamental changes is an open question. Trump has, for the most part, sought to honor the pledges he made on the stump. But he has also made a series of adjustments to accommodate his lifestyle and the political realities of his new position.
From NATO to the golf course, here are 9 presidential about-faces:
Pretty striking how Trump has flip-flopped...
-
Pretty striking how Trump has flip-flopped...
Like a fish out of water, on the bottom of the boat.
-
Quote from: Alan Klein on Today at 11:35:26 AM
117 pages are enough, it's been fun.
Ironic, it seems because Trump’s base turns on him (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-base-supporters-turn-on-him-237200)
And I thought, Alan got an offer from Trump's administration to replace Spicer.
-
Thanks to Bart and Pieter for the info. You guys really are pretty nice even if I said some in-nice things about you. I apologize for that. It's one of the reasons I decided to leave the thread. It was getting too political and creating too many hard feelings. Thanks again.
Alan
-
End Of Romance - Interesting interview with Masha Gessen about Trump and Putin on CBC Sunday, Apr 16
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/masha-gessen-wendy-mesley-interview-the-national-1.4071222
-
ANKARA (Reuters)
U.S. President Donald Trump called Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan to congratulate him on winning a referendum expanding his authority, sources in Erdogan's palace said on Monday.
-
Oh, the irony:
http://www.businessinsider.com/calexit-leader-louis-marinelli-russia-2017-4
The guy behind California's secession plans, presumably because "Russia stole the election," is moving permanently to... Russia :D
-
Trump advisers to meet Tuesday to discuss Paris climate agreement:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climatechange-idUSKBN17J1DN
"Advisers to President Donald Trump will meet on Tuesday to discuss whether to recommend that he withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, a White House official said on Monday.
The accord, agreed on by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015, aims to limit planetary warming in part by slashing carbon dioxide and other emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Under the pact, the United States committed to reducing its emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Trump has said the United States should "cancel" the deal, but he has been mostly quiet on the issue since he was elected last November."
Withdrawal would not only make the USA a pariah that would probably face additional carbon emission based import duties in the rest of the world, it would also lose its voice in the decision-making circles, and lose opportunities for growth, Jobs, and innovation, in addition to the adverse climate effects.
Really leading policies (like a 'Fee and dividend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend)' based economic model) are not to be expected from such a 'conservative' government, but the choices made now will have far-reaching consequences anyway.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. UPDATE: White House meeting on Paris climate deal postponed: official:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climatechange-idUSKBN17K22L
-
Our constitution is unclear on who has the authority to withdraw from a treaty. There have been two cases brought up before the SCotUS concerning presidents (Carter and Bush I) withdrawing from treaties without seeking advise and consent from the Senate. In both cases, the SCotUS refused to rule on the constitutionality of this decision.
One opinion is that since the constitution requires Senate consent to make a treaty, it should require Senate consent to withdraw from a treaty, especially after the Senate ratified the treaty. Others have a different opinion that the president has the authority to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty.
One other concern is that often once treaties have been ratified by the Senate, there are often related legislative actions taken. In many cases, these include making federal law detailing the hows and whys about how the US will abide by those treaties. Depending on how the specific legislation is written, the laws may not automatically become void if the president withdraws from the treaty. In that case, we would be in the awkward position of withdrawing from the treaty (presuming that the SCotUS does not object) but still having federal laws on the books.
Now we would get into a peeing contest between congress that makes the laws and the Executive branch that implements the laws. That could get real ugly real fast.
-
Lawsuit against Trump over foreign payments expands:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lawsuit-idUSKBN17K1WE
"A nonprofit watchdog expanded a lawsuit accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by letting his hotels and restaurants accept payments from foreign governments."
"The amended complaint said Trump violates the Constitution's "emoluments" clause, which bars him from accepting various gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval, by maintaining ownership over his business empire despite ceding day-to-day control to his sons, Eric and Donald Jr.
It said members of Restaurant Opportunities Centers (ROC) United Inc, which represents more than 200 restaurants and nearly 25,000 workers, have improperly lost business, wages and tips to Trump's competing businesses."
Cheers,
Bart
-
I understand that lawyers for Trump are trying to make the claim that the President has temporary immunity even for actions taken before assuming office.
Unfortunately, The SCotUS disagrees with him.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) resulted in the decision that the president enjoys immunity (specifically immunity from damages) in civil cases if the case involves any official action on the part of the President.
Clinton v Jones (1997) resulted in the decision that the president enjoys temporary immunity during the period of his term in civil cases involving non-official acts committed during the presidential term. However, the president does not enjoy immunity in civil cases involving actions committed prior to assuming the office.
-
Well, this can't be good...it seems Trump and his administration have lost an entire carrier strike group...
Oooooops!
Carrier strike group wasn't headed to Korean peninsula, despite Trump's saber-rattling (http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-carrier-strike-group-wasn-t-headed-to-1492544753-htmlstory.html)
An aircraft carrier strike group that the Trump administration had said was headed toward North Korea in a powerful show of force has instead spent the last week thousands of miles away – and heading in the opposite direction.
Adm. Harry Harris, who heads U.S. Pacific Command, initially announced in a news release on April 8 that he had directed the Carl Vinson carrier strike group to "sail north" from Singapore, adding that the ships were being diverted from planned port visits to Australia.
The Trump administration cited the deployment of the naval strike force, which includes the carrier and four warships, as a clear warning to North Korea, which was said to be planning a nuclear test last weekend in conjunction with a national holiday.
“We are sending an armada, very powerful,” to the waters off Korea, President Trump told Fox Business News on April 12.
A day earlier, Defense Secretary James N. Mattis told Pentagon reporters that the aircraft carrier was “on her way up there.”
Some news organizations cited the armada's apparent race northward as a sign of a possible preemptive attack on North Korea, spurring global concerns of a possible war.
While the Pentagon sought to downplay those reports late last week, at no point did it or the White House suggest the Carl Vinson was not, in fact, nearing Korea to give Trump a more robust military option should he decide he needs one.
So, Trump says he's sending a whole darn aircraft carrier strike group to scare North Korea–and remember he said his submarines were even more powerful (but there's no word on where the subs are) but uh, they went south instead of north...
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-58f678ff/turbine/la-na-aircraft-carrier-sunda-strait/600)
#MAGA (once he can figure out where the hell his carrier is)
-
Well, at least Trump is making SOMETHING great again...
Donald Trump Is Making Dictionaries Great Again (http://time.com/4743660/donald-trump-dictionary-words-poll-merriam-webster/)
A new poll out on Tuesday puts numbers behind a trend you've probably seen evidence of in your feeds:dictionaries (http://time.com/4726025/dictionary-ivanka-trump-complicity-merriam-webster/) are hot right now. And that is thanks, in good part, to Donald Trump.
Dictionary.com commissioned a survey, conducted by Harris Poll, to ask more than 2,200 Americans about how they are dealing with current affairs. Half of them said they are reading more political news since the 2016 election and nearly 60% said they feel a greater need to analyze the meaning of words used by politicians. Per the poll, a third of Americans have looked up words because of the election and expanded their vocabularies, action that dictionary editors have seen in website traffic and on social media.
"People have been curious about Donald Trump and the words he has used — and the words used around him — since he announced his candidacy,” says Jane Solomon, a lexicographer at Dictionary.com. She can casually reel off a list of words Trump used or had thrust upon him that sent lookups spiking: shrill, schlonged, bigly, xenophobia, trumpery, alt-right, rigged, braggadocio, temperament, hombre. When something like Trump happens to an election cycle, the standard vocabulary simply doesn't cover it. But that's just part of the story.
In a time when many distrust politicians as well as the media meant to act as a check on those politicians — and when the very nature of reality seems beholden to appearances — people are starving for an arbiter everybody trusts, something concrete to point to and say "those, sir, are the facts." And the dictionary is about as close as you can get to a universally accepted neutral party. It is a weapon and a security blanket, used by Democrats and Republicans alike.
"People crave a source of truth," says Solomon, "and reference materials like dictionaries have historically been a source of truth, so people are turning to them." People are "re-identifying" with the dictionary, as one of her colleagues says.
So, it seems words do matter...maybe Trump's words are finally catching up to him?
-
And now from Vice President Mike Pence's home tome news paper comes this...
Tully: The failed presidency of Donald J. Trump (http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/matthew-tully/2017/04/18/tully-failed-presidency-donald-trump/100596552/)
From petty Tweets to huge policy mistakes, Donald Trump has led with mean-spirited policies and rhetoric, and a lack of seriousness. We shouldn’t be surprised.
Three months in, the Trump presidency is worse than even many of its biggest critics predicted it would be. Three months in, I still find myself occasionally stunned at the thought that America is being led by this mess of an administration. Three months in, Donald Trump has already done great damage to the country, its level of discourse, and the office of the presidency.
On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence spent time on the North Korean border, highlighting an increasingly dangerous situation that demands the most serious of minds. Meanwhile, back at home, Trump was tweeting away. The fan of the National Enquirer criticized what he calls the “fake media,” while also lobbing petty partisan jabs at Democrats and, of course, quoting a cable TV news personality who had offered flattering praise of him.
Much will be said about the Trump presidency in the coming days, as his 100th day in office approaches. But the verdict is in: In his early days in office, Trump has been a uniquely bad president. He’s been a mean-spirited president. He’s been a president unworthy of the office. The only up-side is that he has also been ineffective, so some of his worst intentions have thankfully stalled.
Ouch...that's gotta burn a bit :~)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/bfca1d777546f25c983616adcc8863fc42adaacf/c=7-0-633-471&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2017/02/06/INGroup/Indianapolis/636219760330502591-011117-copy.jpg)
-
File this under woebegone and melancholy...
Fairytale Prisoner by Choice: The Photographic Eye of Melania Trump (https://medium.com/@kate8/fairytale-prisoner-by-choice-the-photographic-eye-of-melania-trump-f1f7b97fff29)
Written by Kate Imbach on Medium.com (https://medium.com)
Why won’t the first lady show up for her job? Why? I became obsessed with this question and eventually looked to Melania’s Twitter (https://twitter.com/melaniatrump) history for answers. I noticed that in the three-year period between June 3, 2012 and June 11, 2015 she tweeted 470 photos which she appeared to have taken herself. I examined these photographs as though they were a body of work.
Everyone has an eye, whether or not we see ourselves as photographers. What we choose to photograph and how we frame subjects always reveals a little about how we perceive the world. For someone like Melania, media-trained, controlled and cloistered, her collection of Twitter photography provides an otherwise unavailable view into the reality of her existence. Nowhere else — certainly not in interviews or public appearances — is her guard so far down.
What is that reality? She is Rapunzel with no prince and no hair, locked in a tower of her own volition, and delighted with the predictability and repetition of her own captivity.
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*akKBducv_Ii6_eDmvL4YVA.jpeg)
July 1, 2014
In three years, Melania only posted one picture of herself and Trump. He dominates the frame; her face is in shadow and cropped out. It is both a selfie and an erasure, a depiction of her placement within their world.
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*i2U297MOxB8iwaqyM4XzAg.jpeg)
Melania posted her last photo to Twitter on Thursday, June 11, 2015, five days before her husband announced his candidacy for president. It is an old photograph, of a then six-year-old Barron, taken on the beach. He is looking down at the ground ahead and waving goodbye to a professionally built sandcastle in the background.
That day Melania knew, of course, that the campaign was coming. In retrospect her choice of a Throwback Thursday post reads as prophecy: a goodbye to her golden towers, to the home destined to crumble. To this day she’s still up there, in the golden Tower, holding onto it for as long as she can.
I have ZERO sympathy for any of the Trump spawn except Barron who has no control over his life and Melania whose major flaw was actually marrying the big orange putz...she just thought she was marrying a rich asshole, not the leader of the free world (I still shutter when I type that).
But look at her photos...some are stunning and most are really sad :~(
-
From the #Failing New York Times....
Mr. Trump Plays by His Own Rules (or No Rules) (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/opinion/mr-trump-plays-by-his-own-rules-or-no-rules.html)
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDAPRIL 18, 2017
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/04/19/opinion/19wed1/19wed1-master768.jpg)
Graphic by Jennifer Heuer
Anyone who has been paying the slightest attention knows by now that this president and this White House intend to play by their own set of rules — rules that in some cases come close to breaking the law and, at the very least, defy traditions of conduct and transparency Americans have come to expect from their public servants. We know that Donald Trump has refused, unlike other presidents, to release his tax returns; that his trust agreement allows him undisclosed access to profits from his businesses; and even that he clings to a profitable lease on a hotel only a stone’s throw from the White House when divesting himself of that lease is not only the obvious but the right thing to do.
But just when you think you’ve seen enough there’s more. On Friday, the administration announced it would no longer release White House visitors’ logs that have been available for years. (It cynically said posting these records would cost taxpayers $70,000 by 2020. Compare that with the multimillion-dollar tab estimated for every weekend trip Mr. Trump takes to Mar-a-Lago.) Meanwhile, news trickled out that on the very day that two of Ivanka Trump’s and Jared Kushner’s children were serenading the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, at Mar-a-Lago, the People’s Republic of China approved new trademarks allowing Ivanka to peddle jewelry, bags and spa services to a nation of 1.4 billion where she is a role model (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/asia/ivanka-trump-china.html?_r=0) model for aspirational oligarchs.
In the great scheme of things, neither the visitor blackout nor Ms. Trump’s commercial coup seems a big deal. Yet both symbolize larger problems. One is an almost total absence of openness in an administration that is already teeming with real and potential conflicts and that has decided it can grant secret waivers to ethics requirements. The other is a culture of self-enrichment and self-dealing in which corporate C.E.O.s, lobbyists and foreign officials seeking the first family’s favor hold parties at Mar-a-Lago and at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, a couple of blocks from the White House.
Yeah, ya know, this simply is not right...this should not be our "new normal". But just like what happened with the Tea Party, I think Trump is the best thing to have happened to the Democrats in a long time (well, Trump and Bernie :~)
-
How's that "swamp draining" coming along?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/19/ivanka-trump-brand-china-trademarks-day-us-president-met-xi-jinping
-
How's that "swamp draining" coming along?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/19/ivanka-trump-brand-china-trademarks-day-us-president-met-xi-jinping
Going well... for Trump that is.
-
Trump's EPA to reconsider oil and gas emissions rule:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-idUSKBN17L215
"The move signaled another retreat from climate change action after the Trump administration in March halted an effort to gather methane data from existing oil and gas operations to rein in leaks of the powerful greenhouse gas."
Cheers,
Bart
-
And another henchman of Conservative Trumpworld bites the dust. O'Reilly is toast. Good riddance.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fox-oreilly-idUSKBN17L25V
-
Not a smoking gun, nor a proof of collusion, but still ...
Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - documents
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-election-exclusive-idUSKBN17L2N3
"A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters.
They described two confidential documents from the think tank as providing the framework and rationale for what U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded was an intensive effort by Russia to interfere with the Nov. 8 election. U.S. intelligence officials acquired the documents, which were prepared by the Moscow-based Russian Institute for Strategic Studies [en.riss.ru/], after the election."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not a smoking gun, nor a proof of collusion, but still ...
Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - documents
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-election-exclusive-idUSKBN17L2N3
"A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters.
They described two confidential documents from the think tank as providing the framework and rationale for what U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded was an intensive effort by Russia to interfere with the Nov. 8 election. U.S. intelligence officials acquired the documents, which were prepared by the Moscow-based Russian Institute for Strategic Studies [en.riss.ru/], after the election."
Cheers,
Bart
Sometimes I feel we might have been better off if we could have voted directly for Putin instead of for his pet puppet.
-
Sometimes I feel we might have been better off if we could have voted directly for Putin instead of for his pet puppet.
Can someone, anyone, find a single Trump voter who voted so because of "Russian interference"?
-
Can someone, anyone, find a single Trump voter who voted so because of "Russian interference"?
Stand up and be incriminated?
More likely non-Hillary voters can be found who's voting behavior was affected by raised doubts. The Russians probably didn't try to get Trump elected, but rather tried to weaken the support for Hillary Clinton, as per the Think Tank's strategy. Why were only Democratic mail servers hacked and the data given to Wikileaks? Even if she had been elected, it would be with less support, which would benefit Russia.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Can someone, anyone, find a single Trump voter who voted so because of "Russian interference"?
Would that be you, Slobodan? ;D
(Just kidding, so please don't send the KGB after me. ;) )
-
Can someone, anyone, find a single Trump voter who voted so because of "Russian interference"?
Oh, please.
-
Why were only Democratic mail servers hacked and the data given to Wikileaks?
The alleged penetration was not only a result of the preference of the Russian ideological think tank, but primarily due to the weak and ineffective protection of Democrat web sites. If those hackers could find a way into the Republican web sites, they would do it, too. Who knows, maybe they did.
-
Oh, please.
Something more convincing and intelligent, please?
-
Would that be you, Slobodan? ;D
(Just kidding, so please don't send the KGB after me. ;) )
My landlord, while I was in Moscow, was a KGB general, commander of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. The whole building was built for KGB seniors, in fact. So, careful, buddy!
-
... Why were only Democratic mail servers hacked...
Apart from, as Les said, practically asking for it? What exactly there was to hack from Republicans? Everything and a kitchen sink was already out in the open about Trump, 15-year old private tapes, etc. As I said before, perhaps only a sex tape (with a goat or a pre-teen boy) could have hurt him.
Did an average undecided voter even know who Podesta is? And if they did, did they actually know what he wrote in those emails? And if they did, did they actually understand what it meant?
Long before servers were hacked, people made up their mind. I knew a year before that Trump is going to win. Only (ideologically) blind didn't. To the last minute. The election was a repudiation of Democrats, not a vote for Trump. So strong a repudiation, that people even voted for Trump... Trump! Nobody loves Trump. The vote was against political correctness, against lawlessness, against creeping socialist totalitarianism, against identity politics, etc. People were so sick of that "fine china," that they were willing to let an elephant loose into the shop.
-
Something more convincing and intelligent, please?
Your task to find someone who voted Trump because of Russian influence is about as red as herrings get. An impossible task, getting someone to admit that and you know it.
-
Long before servers were hacked, people made up their mind. I knew a year before that Trump is going to win. Only (ideologically) blind didn't. To the last minute. The election was a repudiation of Democrats, not a vote for Trump. So strong a repudiation, that people even voted for Trump... Trump! Nobody loves Trump. The vote was against political correctness, against lawlessness, against creeping socialist totalitarianism, against identity politics, etc. People were so sick of that "fine china," that they were willing to let an elephant loose into the shop.
Exactly! Anybody but Hillary. Most outsiders (from countries others than US) don't realize how fed up were the US voters with the establishment and politics as usual.
Same as in Canada in the last election. Trudeau and Liberals won not so much because of their platform, but more because of a strong anti-Harper sentiment.
-
Your task to find someone who voted Trump because of Russian influence is about as red as herrings get. An impossible task, getting someone to admit that and you know it.
Impossible indeed. To find someone to say "I voted for Trump because Russians told me so." Impossible not because they don't want to admit it, but because the very idea is preposterous.
Feel free to use your imagination and create a scenario in which someone is influenced by the alleged Russian interference.
-
If those hackers could find a way into the Republican web sites, they would do it, too. Who knows, maybe they did.
Well, they got into Colin Powell's private Gmails...and while Trump got dinged it was really the Clintons who got the short end.
Colin Powell, the Last Reasonable Man (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/powell-emails/499946/)
Hacked emails show the former secretary of state is frustrated with Hillary Clinton, thinks Benghazi was a non-story, is still angry about Iraq, and hates Donald Trump
Course everybody seemed to hate Trump but enough people hated Clinton more to either vote for Trump or standing on the sidelines and letting Trump win.
Image for a moment what would have happened if the DNC had not been hacked or Podesta's emails leaked...would the mainstream media have covered her policy positions rather than the juicy drip drip drip of the leaks. Yeah, Putin won this one...the key will be to eliminate that from happening in the future.
And actually during the Senate Intelligence hearing Rubio stated that hacking attempts were still ongoing.
But, ask yourself this as well...if the Russians had hacked the RNC (and some GOP people did get hacked like Colin Powell) why didn't they release anything that hurt Trump?
-
More "Patriots" showed up for Obama than Trump...Well, heck, his is gonna piss him off don't ya think?
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18011167_10154297925645163_1158644386680160057_n.jpg?oh=f56abc2db5da637c5ec594d008891da6&oe=59898C7B)
Wonder how this will be explained by Spicy :~)
#MAGA
-
Well, they got into Colin Powell's private Gmails...and while Trump got dinged it was really the Clintons who got the short end.
Colin Powell, the Last Reasonable Man (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/powell-emails/499946/)
Interesting article. Thanks for the link, Jeff
-
Your task to find someone who voted Trump because of Russian influence is about as red as herrings get. An impossible task, getting someone to admit that and you know it.
Or, indeed, to be aware that it had been the case. If someone voted for Trump because they heard a story that originated due to Russian influence, they wouldn't necessarily realise that they had done so.
-
Or, indeed, to be aware that it had been the case. If someone voted for Trump because they heard a story that originated due to Russian influence, they wouldn't necessarily realise that they had done so.
Ah, the tired cliche that Trump voters are morons who don't even know why they are voting for him. Again, provide an example of a story that changed someone's mind just before elections.
-
Ah, the tired cliche that Trump voters are morons who don't even know why they are voting for him. Again, provide an example of a story that changed someone's mind just before elections.
This election has elicited a great deal of bitterness on the part of we Democrats for a variety of reasons. The first books on the Clinton campaign are beginning to come out and they don't paint a pretty picture. the level of ineptitude on the part of people who really should have done better is just appalling. While I was not as confident as Slobodan of Trump's eventual victory, I thought Clinton to be a flawed candidate from the get go. Her performance against Senator Sanders strengthened my belief that she would need to run a pitch perfect campaign against Trump and of course she failed. The continuing blame game by Clinton and her aides against Comey, Russia, etc. is just sour grapes that masks their ineptitude in managing a campaign they should have won.
Of course the Trump voters in the swing states voted against their own self interest but this happens all the time. Maybe the Democrats will get their act together focus on every single election in every district and getting their voters registered and to the polls on every single election day. It takes hard work to do this and may Tom Perez can make some changes in the DNC to do this. Absent such an effort they will continue to wander in the wilderness. These recent House elections may provide a path forward.
-
Ah, the tired cliche that Trump voters are morons who don't even know why they are voting for him. Again, provide an example of a story that changed someone's mind just before elections.
Comey's last-minute Clinton emails revaluations.
-
Comey's last-minute Clinton emails revaluations.
I sincerely doubt this changed anyone's mind, especially with it being so late in the game.
More likely, if anything, it discouraged HRC supporters from going out and voting, or gutting the enthusiasm to convince friends to go to the polls with them. However, as Alan pointed out, all of this is a moot point. HRC's campaign was piss poor at best.
This is nothing more then sour grapes on the Dems part.
Early on in the campaign, David Axelrod even tweeted about how poor of a job she was doing.
-
Michael Moore also forecasted Trump's win. And Bill Maher was worried about it, too.
Both of them are smart, experienced, big time democrats and anti-Trumps.
In 2008, Bill Maher contributed one million dollars to Obama's campaign. In 2016, he said that “I can’t give a million dollars anytime somebody runs for president”. Especially not, if it looks like a losing horse.
-
Comey's last-minute Clinton emails revaluations.
Perhaps, but the context of my comment was... Russian influence. Are you suggesting Comey is a commie?
-
... Image for a moment what would have happened if the DNC had not been hacked or Podesta's emails leaked...
I can imagine... you wouldn't have to cry yourself to sleep every night, sobbing: "Russians, Putin, Russians, Putin..." Then again, repeating it 100 times might put you to sleep eventually, dreaming about the land of rainbows and unicorns, with a free ice cream day, under... the angry birdy Sanders :)
-
I sincerely doubt this changed anyone's mind, especially with it being so late in the game.
Hope you're right, but then:
Opinion of whether Hillary Clinton is connected to a child sex ring run from a Pizzeria in DC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Responses
"A poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on December 6–7, 2016, asked 1,224 U.S. registered voters if they thought Hillary Clinton was "connected to a child sex ring being run out of a pizzeria in Washington DC?" The poll showed that 9% said that they did believe she was connected, 72% said they did not, and 19% were not sure."
"A poll of voters conducted on December 17–20 by The Economist/YouGov asked voters if they believed that, "Leaked e-mails from the Clinton campaign talked about pedophilia and human trafficking - 'Pizzagate'." The results showed that 17% of Clinton voters responded "true" "
Lots of people/voters are quite gullible (and only get informed through Social Media) and will be influenced in their (not) voting behavior.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Lots of people/voters are quite gullible (and only get informed through Social Media) and will be influenced in their (not) voting behavior.
A small percentage that believed it true does not necessarily mean they'd change their mind about voting for her. After all, many people believed all those stories about Trump to be true, and still voted for him.
-
A small percentage that believed it true does not necessarily mean they'd change their mind about voting for her. After all, many people believed all those stories about Trump to be true, and still voted for him.
Because they believed he'd get them their jobs back?
As I said, gullible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
More "Patriots" showed up for Obama than Trump...Well, heck, his is gonna piss him off don't ya think?
Wonder how this will be explained by Spicy :~)
Fake news?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/04/19/these-photos-show-patriots-white-house-turnout-for-trump-obama/bSrXdd9bP2sgczgb1J10RL/story.html
-
Comey's last-minute Clinton emails revaluations.
Yes, a lot of people point to this but the central question is often missed. What the heck were they even doing on Anthony Wiener's laptop to begin with. Was Clinton's top assistant, Huma Abedin that naive that she used her husband's laptop to manager her email account? This has to go down as one of the most foolish things anyone has done who held such a high position. If there is someone central to blame it is Ms. Abedin. Comey was in a difficult position on this one because of the New York bureau who absolutely loathed Clinton and were constantly leaking things to the Trump campaign through Giuliani.
-
At the end of the day, after all of this settles, the story will be that HRC was a bad candidate that ran a bad campaign. Trump will be a bad candidate that ran a "better" campaign.
Hillary's legacy is being probably the only person who could lose to a buffoon like Trump. That's some accomplishment.
-
Lots of people/voters are quite gullible (and only get informed through Social Media) and will be influenced in their (not) voting behavior.
Cheers,
Bart
It's far worse than that. I recently finished reading a great book called "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Don't Produce Responsive Governments" by Achen and Bartels, two well known American political scientists. The book is a bit depressing when you see some of the data they present and their pessimistic conclusions. Good book review is HERE (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2017/01/30/book-review-democracy-for-realists-why-elections-do-not-produce-responsive-government-by-christopher-h-achen-and-larry-m-bartels/). Bartels's take on the 2016 election is HERE (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/10/2016-was-an-ordinary-election-not-a-realignment/?utm_term=.9b777d198635).
Most voters align themselves with groups and seldom change.
-
Hillary's legacy is being probably the only person who could lose to a buffoon like Trump. That's some accomplishment.
Ironically, there were also more than a dozen Republican candidates who lost to Trump.
-
Cost of Trump's trips to Florida: Up to $3 million per trip, 7 trips in 13 weeks.
Obama spent 97 millions in 8 years. If Trump continues his travels at the same pace, his travel costs will go into hundreds of million dollars. And that doesn't include any international flights.
In addition, the protection for Melania and their son Barron in New York costs betwen half a million to one million dollars per day.
Compare this with the $102 million cut to NASA’s Earth science programs, eliminating completely four NASA Earth science missions.
-
No surprise here yet it still sucks...
Debate over pesticides enters Donald Trump’s ‘swamp’ (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/debate-over-pesticides-enters-donald-trumps-swamp)
By Steve Benen
At first blush, it may seem like an obscure, technical debate. The Associated Press reports that a four-year review conducted by government scientists of three pesticides – chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion – found that they “pose a risk to nearly every endangered species they studied.” Federal agencies are poised to issue findings on how to limit use of these pesticides.
The story takes on a broader political significance, however, when we consider what one of the pesticide manufacturers is up to. The AP explained:
Dow Chemical is pushing the Trump administration to scrap the findings of federal scientists who point to a family of widely used pesticides as harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species.
Lawyers representing Dow, whose CEO also heads a White House manufacturing working group, and two other makers of organophosphates sent letters last week to the heads of three Cabinet agencies. The companies asked them “to set aside” the results of government studies the companies contend are fundamentally flawed.
As one might imagine, Dow is pointing to its own research, which is in conflict with the information compiled by government scientists.
If this sounds familiar, there’s a good reason. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s controversial far-right choice to lead the agency, decided two weeks ago to side with Dow Chemical – against the advice of the EPA’s researchers – on the use of chlorpyrifos, one of the insecticides in question.
Now, apparently, Dow Chemical wants Team Trump to side with the company once more.
And talking about Scott Pruitt and what he's gonna do to the EPA, he was here in Chicago (East Chicago actually) visiting his first Superfund site (http://). He's got a new marketing slogan for his new EPA, #Back2Basics (https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-back-basics-agenda-pennsylvania-coal-mine). Hum sound like Make America Great Again? Take the EPA and move it back to a time that allowed this Superfund site in the first place?
Scott Pruitt's New Plan for the EPA Will Destroy Towns Like This One (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/04/scott-pruitt-new-epa-agenda-east-chicago)
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/top-of-content-image/east_chicago.jpg)
The Times via AP/John J. Watkins
The Environmental Protection Agency's administrator has found a slogan for his embattled agency's new direction. Last week, Scott Pruitt announced a #Back2Basics campaign that proposes returning the EPA to its supposed roots: protecting the environment, spurring job growth, and not burdening industry with rules and regulations. Pruitt might see firsthand the problems with this vision on Wednesday when he visits East Chicago, Indiana, a mostly black and Latino city of 29,000 that is home to a Superfund site and a host of other environmental problems.
Local officials, including Indiana's Republican governor, Eric Holcomb, urged Pruitt to visit the site and address the issues surrounding the cleanup process, which has been lagging for several years. The site is known as USS Lead, referring to the smelting facility that operated there between 1906 and 1985, turning refined copper and lead into batteries and other products and, in the process, contaminating the soil in the area with lead and arsenic. The site was added to the National Priorities list in 2009, which means it's one of the most polluted sites in the country.
The EPA began conducting soil tests at the site in late 2009 and finally reached a consent decree with the liable companies in 2014. The White House has proposed a cut to funding for the Superfund program, but Pruitt told the U.S. Conference of Mayors in March that he believes it's vital. But his #Back2Basics plans for the EPA, which includes rolling back regulations for companies, would lead to additional problems in East Chicago. Abigail Dillen of Earthjustice.org said the plan is simply getting rid of "the health and environmental protections we all rely on—protections only the government can provide."
It would have been nice if Pruit's trip included meeting with some of the displaced residents but no, Pruit pulled a quick escape...
Update, April 20, 2017: Scott Pruitt's trip to East Chicago drew ire from residents after he kept the visit short and spent no time talking to residents or taking questions, opting only to talk to local politicians. A Periscope video (https://twitter.com/MikePuenteNews/status/854784180022005761) recorded by local reporter Michael Puente of WBEZ-Chicago also showed Pruitt speaking for less than two minutes at the press conference.
The NAACP’s Indiana Environmental Climate Justice group invited Pruitt to their meeting. They tweeted that he did not show up.
So, he shows up, talks two minutes and leaves without talking to anybody other than selected politicians and this is supposed to help how?
#MAGA #Back2Basics #DON'TPLAYINTHEDIRT
-
Well, this was an adult gathering at the Whitehouse...
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-20-at-9.26.25-AM-640x500.png)
Sarah Palin, Kid Rock, Ted Nugent Visit Trump; Troll Hillary (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/20/sarah-palin-kid-rock-ted-nugent-visit-trump-troll-hillary/)
President Donald Trump welcomed Sarah Palin for dinner at the White House on Wednesday, and she brought rockers Ted Nugent and Kid Rock with her.
The trio were photographed in the Oval Office with President Trump, and they even took a photo in front of the Hillary Clinton portrait.
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-20-at-9.29.01-AM.png)
“A great night at the White House,” Palin wrote on Facebook. “Thank you to President Trump for the invite!”
Palin wrote about the dinner, explaining her choice of guests to bring:
President Trump’s invitation for dinner included bringing a couple of friends; it was the highest honor to have great Americans who are independent, hardworking, patriotic, and unafraid share commonsense solutions at the White House. (Asked why I invited Kid Rock and Ted Nugent I joked, “Because Jesus was booked.“)
This is nightmarish....#WingNutsLoose in the Whitehouse...pretty sure Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave :~(
-
It is my sincere hope that this is the closest that Palin ever gets to the oval office.
-
Lawsuit against Trump over foreign payments expands:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lawsuit-idUSKBN17K1WE
"A nonprofit watchdog expanded a lawsuit accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by letting his hotels and restaurants accept payments from foreign governments."
"The amended complaint said Trump violates the Constitution's "emoluments" clause, which bars him from accepting various gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval, by maintaining ownership over his business empire despite ceding day-to-day control to his sons, Eric and Donald Jr.
It said members of Restaurant Opportunities Centers (ROC) United Inc, which represents more than 200 restaurants and nearly 25,000 workers, have improperly lost business, wages and tips to Trump's competing businesses."
Cheers,
Bart
When you pay for a hotel room, it's not a gift. They're paying for a service just like anyone else who rents the room for a night. If someone buys a Trump steak. that wouldn't be a gift either. It would be no different if he sold his business totally. That wouldn't be a gift either. Unless you can show that he got paid more than was the fair amount for the product, business or service. Then that could be shown as a bribe if he returned something beyond the real world value.
-
Welcome to the islamization of the West:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/detroit-doctor-and-wife-arrested-and-charged-conspiring-perform-female-genital-mutilation
Doctor Fakhruddin Attar and wife Farida were arrested near Detroit for conspiring to commit and aiding in female genital mutilation of girls as young as six-years-old. The Attars allegedly allowed the procedure to be carried in their Livonia medical clinic. Mrs. Attar even held the hands of the girls screaming in pain.
-
When you pay for a hotel room, it's not a gift. They're paying for a service just like anyone else who rents the room for a night. If someone buys a Trump steak. that wouldn't be a gift either. It would be no different if he sold his business totally. That wouldn't be a gift either. Unless you can show that he got paid more than was the fair amount for the product, business or service. Then that could be shown as a bribe if he returned something beyond the real world value.
Except that it's not about just gifts. An emolument also covers salaries, fees, or general profits resulting from your employment or office. Trump made a profit, through his business (since he still owns it) when selling those services. In and of itself that is normal for a business operator. However, he demonstrably only obtained that business because of his office (the Prime Minister of Japan and all the entourage would not have dined at his restaurant on those occasions except as a result of his being the President). Even if he "sold" the service at cost, it's still a benefit for his business because of exposure and that sale at cost still pays salaries which benefits his business. Only if there was no charge would it possibly be acceptable, but even then there's a likelihood of benefit through exposure, but I suspect most everyone would be prepared to ignore that if there was no actual payment to his business (personally, I'd be OK with that as his business gets exposure just through his being President - although he really shouldn't continue to have any influence over his businesses whilst in office, and on that level he is still very wrong).
-
The best news item in a while:
http://www.theonion.com/article/berkeley-campus-lockdown-after-loose-pages-wall-st-55815
BERKELEY, CA—Advising students to remain in their dormitories and classrooms until the situation was resolved, the University of California, Berkeley declared a campuswide lockdown Thursday after several loose pages from The Wall Street Journal were found on a park bench outside a school building. “At 11:15 this morning, several pages from two separate sections of today’s Wall Street Journal were discovered spread across a bench outside of Eshleman Hall in Lower Sproul Plaza,” read the urgent alert sent to all students and faculty, emphasizing that while campus security and local police had safely disposed of the pages, there was no way of knowing if others were strewn elsewhere on university grounds. “As of now, the perpetrator remains at large, so it is vital that you stay where you are until the all-clear is given. In the meantime, notify police immediately if you have any additional information at all regarding this incident.” At press time, a black-clad group of 50 students were throwing bottles at the bench while chanting, “No Nazis, No KKK, No Fascist U.S.A!”
-
Except that it's not about just gifts. An emolument also covers salaries, fees, or general profits resulting from your employment or office. Trump made a profit, through his business (since he still owns it) when selling those services. In and of itself that is normal for a business operator. However, he demonstrably only obtained that business because of his office (the Prime Minister of Japan and all the entourage would not have dined at his restaurant on those occasions except as a result of his being the President). Even if he "sold" the service at cost, it's still a benefit for his business because of exposure and that sale at cost still pays salaries which benefits his business. Only if there was no charge would it possibly be acceptable, but even then there's a likelihood of benefit through exposure, but I suspect most everyone would be prepared to ignore that if there was no actual payment to his business (personally, I'd be OK with that as his business gets exposure just through his being President - although he really shouldn't continue to have any influence over his businesses whilst in office, and on that level he is still very wrong).
"I'm sorry Mr. Trump. You're too successful to be President. We need people to run our country who just don't know what it is to be really successful. Certainly not someone who is smart enough to own hundreds of businesses and running them in many states and countries. Being a great CEO and entrepreneur is just not a qualification we desire in our chief executive. Well, maybe if you owned a butcher shop, that might be ok. You don't have to be poor, but you shouldn't be much higher than middle class, well, maybe upper middle class. I know a democracy means anyone can be President. But don't believe everything your read. That's just preached in kindergarten."
-
"I'm sorry Mr. Trump. You're too successful to be President. We need people to run our country who just don't know what it is to be really successful. Certainly not someone who is smart enough to own hundreds of businesses and running them in many states and countries. Being a great CEO and entrepreneur is just not a qualification we desire in our chief executive. Well, maybe if you owned a butcher shop, that might be ok. You don't have to be poor, but you shouldn't be much higher than middle class, well, maybe upper middle class. I know a democracy means anyone can be President. But don't believe everything your read. That's just preached in kindergarten."
Your reply is pretty much the equivalent of "no, you are" as far as witty responses go.
Firstly, it's highly debateable as to whether Trump is particularly successful. He started with a huge sum and really has not added to it greatly. We've had this discussion before.
But the thing is, you've completely ignored the point (presumably because you have no response to it). He's likely in breach of the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "anyone can be President". It strictly limits who can hold such office and how they must behave once they are elected to it. If you're relying on the kindergarten explanation then that's probably a sign of what's wrong. The grown ups understand that you need to read past the popular headlines.
There's no problem with him being wealthy - the problem is when he uses the office for his own personal benefit - that's what the constitution prohibits. I'm sorry if the term emolument didn't mean what you thought it meant and actually has a defined meaning and encompasses exactly the sort of thing that Trump is doing, but that's the way it is.
-
Your reply is pretty much the equivalent of "no, you are" as far as witty responses go.
Firstly, it's highly debateable as to whether Trump is particularly successful. He started with a huge sum and really has not added to it greatly. We've had this discussion before.
But the thing is, you've completely ignored the point (presumably because you have no response to it). He's likely in breach of the constitution. The constitution doesn't say "anyone can be President". It strictly limits who can hold such office and how they must behave once they are elected to it. If you're relying on the kindergarten explanation then that's probably a sign of what's wrong. The grown ups understand that you need to read past the popular headlines.
There's no problem with him being wealthy - the problem is when he uses the office for his own personal benefit - that's what the constitution prohibits. I'm sorry if the term emolument didn't mean what you thought it meant and actually has a defined meaning and encompasses exactly the sort of thing that Trump is doing, but that's the way it is.
No, I didn't miss what the constitution said. "Delegates to that convention agreed that executive officers of the new national government they were creating could not accept “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without congressional consent, and could be thrown out of office by Congress for taking bribes from anyone. But they didn’t make any rules constricting officials’ investments and business interests."
The framers to the constitution did not want to limit the presidency much beyond having to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen. George Washington, our first President, was a filthy rich landowner, who owned over 100 slaves and had his fingers in all sorts of business enterprises. He became rich like Trump did through his family and other connections. Washington married one of the wealthiest women in Virginia. He grew tobacco which was greatly desired and purchased by Europeans at the time, so one could argue that he could have made deals with monarchs over there that enriched him even further. Many of his contemporaries and writers of the constitution were likewise in business and wealthy. They did not want to give up their wealth either and therefore had no intention of limiting a president's business interests. Of course, they didn't want the president to take a bribe either from anyone and that is another reason for impeachment.
The emolument clause has never been tested. It relates to taking a gift from a foreign king or country. The writers of the constitution were concerned that a monarch, particularly the French one at the time, would try to influence America's foreign policy by giving gifts to the president. Certainly if Trump's conflicts became too great, he can be impeached by Congress and/or not re-elected. In the end, it was Hillary who actually sold her office for political influence. Her whole Clinton Initiative was about selling speeches for access to the Clinton's power. Of course, now that she lost, the Initiative has closed down, which shows just how much it was a way of getting rich from being a politician. At least, Trump didn't make his money from being a politician.
-
Apparently, there are more important issues at work here than who's giving him gifts.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-dangerous-mental-illness-yale-psychiatrist-conference-us-president-unfit-james-gartner-a7694316.html
-
No, I didn't miss what the constitution said. "Delegates to that convention agreed that executive officers of the new national government they were creating could not accept “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without congressional consent, and could be thrown out of office by Congress for taking bribes from anyone. But they didn’t make any rules constricting officials’ investments and business interests."
If Trump owns a business and that business makes a profit from a foreign State (i.e. from a government official or office holder on official business from that foreign state) then it's a breach.
-
If Trump owns a business and that business makes a profit from a foreign State (i.e. from a government official or office holder on official business from that foreign state) then it's a breach.
“Too many people are asserting more than they could possible know,” said Seth Barrett Tillman, a lecturer on American law at Maynooth University in Ireland who has studied the Emoluments Clause. “Until the courts speak — particularly the Supreme Court — we don’t know.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.5e6048d5d6bd
-
Best takeaway from Slobodan's link:
Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor and former chief White House ethics lawyer for President Bush. He is one of the attorneys on the case and vice chairman of the watchdog group’s board. “Basically the administration has opened up a whole new avenue of corruption.”
Oh good.
-
Yes, we can't know in the sense that no one knows until a court has ruled. Police don't fail to arrest someone because they don't know because the court hasn't yet ruled.
-
If Trump owns a business and that business makes a profit from a foreign State (i.e. from a government official or office holder on official business from that foreign state) then it's a breach.
The Constitution does not say anything about profits. You just made that up. It also says nothing about selling a product. It says the president can't take a gift or present. If the hotel for example charges a foreign power who rents one of his hotel rooms the same amount as they would charge anyone else, that's not a present or gift. It is a sale of a product or service and certainly there would be some profit. But it's not a gift or a present. That would be something like you give your child a present on his birthday. He gives nothing of monetary value to you in return. It is not a sale and there's no profit involved. In any case, the amounts regarding a hotel room are nominal. For a guy worth $3 billion, you have to prove that a substantial amount was involved and there was a link to some policy he enacted.
I believe to eliminate any cause for action, Trump said all profits from any foreign business would be given to charity eliminating even that consideration. And he turned over most control. In the end, I think the purpose of the clause in the constitution was not to impoverish a person who becomes president by forcing him to give up all business ownership by having to sell at fire sale prices that would bankrupt his entire wealth.
-
Best takeaway from Slobodan's link:
Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor and former chief White House ethics lawyer for President Bush. He is one of the attorneys on the case and vice chairman of the watchdog group’s board. “Basically the administration has opened up a whole new avenue of corruption.”
Oh good.
Peter, as you stated, Richard Painter is one of the lawyers representing people who are suing Trump over this issue. So naturally he says Trump is wrong. Well, duh!
-
The Constitution does not say anything about profits. You just made that up. It also says nothing about selling a product. It says the president can't take a gift or present. If the hotel for example charges a foreign power who rents one of his hotel rooms the same amount as they would charge anyone else, that's not a present or gift. It is a sale of a product or service and certainly there would be some profit. But it's not a gift or a present. That would be something like you give your child a present on his birthday. He gives nothing of monetary value to you in return. It is not a sale and there's no profit involved. In any case, the amounts regarding a hotel room are nominal. For a guy worth $3 billion, you have to prove that a substantial amount was involved and there was a link to some policy he enacted.
I believe to eliminate any cause for action, Trump said all profits from any foreign business would be given to charity eliminating even that consideration. And he turned over most control. In the end, I think the purpose of the clause in the constitution was not to impoverish a person who becomes president by forcing him to give up all business ownership by having to sell at fire sale prices that would bankrupt his entire wealth.
Look up the word emolument. It literally includes "profit" in the definition. It says no gift, present, or emolument. You even quoted it before!
If a foreign power (whoever) randomly stayed at a Trump hotel, so be it - all good. When they do it as part of their official duties which include meeting with the President (and the President has directed them to be there - and that's the kicker) then that's a problem because he is using influence to obtain an emolument (he might not be trying to do it deliberately, but the constitution doesn't say "no worries if you didn't know you weren't supposed to do this".
He must be both clean, and appear to be clean. He shouldn't be hosting these official events at his own hotels.
-
Phil: First off, Trump said any profits his hotels may gain from foreign dignitaries renting one of his hotel rooms would be given to the US Treasury.
But, that's really beside the point. The key issue as I see it facing the Supreme Court, assuming it eventually goes before it, would be how does this clause effect very successful people who have international businesses from becoming President? Was the Consitution's intent to exclude from being President a whole class of people who would be otherwise acceptable? Why would the country exclude the very type of people with executive experience from becoming our chief executive? We'd be cutting our nose off to spite our face.
I don't think the Constitution's intent was that. Even "poorer" candidates could be excluded. Let's say a President owns a Cadillac car dealership in NYC. Would he be in violation of the clause if the French ambassador to the U.N. leases a car from his dealership? What if he own a bunch of McDonald's franchises. Would he be in violation if the King of Morocco bought a hamburger from his store?
It seems that in this case, it would have to rise to a value that could be interpreted it really effected the President's unbiased decision making. This reminds me of Obamacare. Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the so called "penalty" for not buying health insurance was really a "tax" thusly eliminating the constitutional rule preventing government from forcing people to buy a product in this case a health insurance plan. Roberts ruled that the amount was too small to force people to buy so it was really a "tax" which is allowed. The point being that the court could rule something similarly with emoluments and gifts. There has to be enough money involved before it reaches a level of violation. A president worth billions is not going to be influenced because a foreign leader rented one of his hotel rooms.
Also, the constitution allows Congress to modify the requirement. I believe that should there be a ruling against the president, Congress might pass a law detailing what might be considered acceptable or not. Of course this whole thing is about politics rather then what's really good for the country. Just another thing to beat up Trump and delegitimize his presidency.
-
Complete straw man.
There is literally no need to have any official business or official guests hosted at Trump hotels. Problem solved. End of discussion.
Non-official business interactions of an ad hoc nature, where the President has properly (unlike Trump) removed themselves from any position of control, wouldn't be an issue.
There is no need to adversely affect anyone and this would be a non-issue except Trump hasn't properly removed himself from control and insists on conducting official business at his private businesses instead using the available public and official options (which would also cost the tax payer less than flying Trump and his entourage down to Florida all the time).
-
The story continues to accellerate. The State Department is officially promoting Mar-a-Lago
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/state-department-us-embassy-mar-a-lago-237537
-
And then there is this...
7 Baffling Moments From Donald Trump’s AP Interview (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-ap-interview_us_58fdb6fae4b06b9cb917f7ca?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016§ion=politics)
So many words, so little sense.
By Alana Horowitz Satlin
President Donald Trump lied about his policy accomplishments, interrupted himself, and went off on a series of incoherent rants during a recent interview with The Associated Press’ Julie Pace.
The AP released part of the interview last week, but made a fuller transcript available late Sunday. You can read it in fullHERE (https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83), but beware: It’s a doozy. The phrase “Donald Trump is unintelligible” was even a top trending topic on Twitter early Monday ― referring to the 16 instances where the AP marked parts of the transcript “unintelligible.” (Pace later told the Toronto Star that one of Trump’s aides was talking over him at those moments, and that the aide did not want their comments included in the transcript. The Star notes that “this is itself highly unusual.”)
Here are some of the interview’s most bizarre moments:
Shunning reality, Trump said he’s “mostly there” on fulfilling the promises of his first 100 days.
Trump claimed he’s never supported WikiLeaks, despite having repeatedly said otherwise.
Trump said the Electoral College is “very difficult for a Republican to win” because it’s “so skewed” toward Democrats. (It’s not.)
He admitted that when he bashed NATO during his presidential campaign, he didn’t actually know what the alliance did. He also erroneously said that “back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism.”
Describing a meeting with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Trump offered the following word salad:
“Well he said, you’ll be the greatest president in the history of, but you know what, I’ll take that also, but that you could be. But he said, will be the greatest president but I would also accept the other. In other words, if you do your job, but I accept that. Then I watched him interviewed and it was like he never even was here. It’s incredible. I watched him interviewed a week later and it’s like he was never in my office. And you can even say that.”
He claimed the U.S.-Mexico border wall is “not going to be that expensive.”
-
Sounds like Trump needed an education in the 'fundamentals' of EU trade BEFORE he met with her...prolly would have involved more than just bullet points (which is probably why it didn't happen).
Angela Merkel reportedly had to explain the 'fundamentals' of EU trade to Trump 11 times (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4?utm_content=buffer64909&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-politics)
President Trump did not understand that the US cannot negotiate a trade deal with Germany alone and must deal with the European Union as a bloc, a senior German official told The Times of London. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-puts-eu-ahead-of-britain-in-trade-queue-l7t8zwn7k).
"Ten times Trump asked [German chancellor Angela Merkel] if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany. Every time she replied, 'You can’t do a trade deal with Germany, only the EU,'" the official said.
They continued: "On the eleventh refusal, Trump finally got the message, 'Oh, we’ll do a deal with Europe then.'"
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/cpsprodpb/1BC2/production/_88160170_trump-promo.jpg)
Wow, who knew that foreign trade with the EU could be so complicated? Not Trump...
-
Also, the constitution allows Congress to modify the requirement. I believe that should there be a ruling against the president, Congress might pass a law detailing what might be considered acceptable or not. Of course this whole thing is about politics rather then what's really good for the country. Just another thing to beat up Trump and delegitimize his presidency.
Yeah, actually it's all about the friggin' United States Constitution...if you want to change it, that takes a constitutional amendment...
And we don't need to "delegitimize his presidency", he's doing great at that all by himself...
-
Complete straw man.
There is literally no need to have any official business or official guests hosted at Trump hotels. Problem solved. End of discussion.
Non-official business interactions of an ad hoc nature, where the President has properly (unlike Trump) removed themselves from any position of control, wouldn't be an issue.
There is no need to adversely affect anyone and this would be a non-issue except Trump hasn't properly removed himself from control and insists on conducting official business at his private businesses instead using the available public and official options (which would also cost the tax payer less than flying Trump and his entourage down to Florida all the time).
Just thought of an amusing anecdote when Bill Clinton was president. When they were looking for contributions to their election campaign for re-election, they "sold" the Lincoln bedroom at the White House to contributors to stay overnight if their contribution was substantial enough. Of course, the press pretty much like Clinton so they didn't make such a stink about it.
Regarding trumps hotels, they're around the world as are his condominiums. However, many of them are not owned by him. He just sells the Trump name and takes a fee. Would that count if someone bought a condo at one of these places? How does a hotel monitor who's taking a room? What government official risen to the level that it might be considered a "monarch". Would government trade representatives from a foreign country be considered a "emolument"? Would a business official from a company owned by a government let's say from China be excluded. Or would it have to be someone from elected office? Who decides these things?
I agree we don't want a president to accepts bribes or be influenced by foreigners who spend money in any of his enterprises. But we also don't want to exclude a whole class of citizens who could be great Presidents. We should try to establish a balance. It may take congress to write a law that clarifies the situation if this continues as an issue.
-
Yeah, actually it's all about the friggin' United States Constitution...if you want to change it, that takes a constitutional amendment...
You're incorrect. It doesn't take a constitutional amendment. An act of Congress could change it.
The constitution states: "“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
"....without the Consent of the Congress..." means that congress can approve a president taking any of these things. They could write terms in advance of what could be acceptable. Just like they write the variable terms regarding Patents and Intellectual Property law that's required per the constitution.
As an aside, when Obama was awarded the Nobel prize for peace which was worth over a million dollars, Congress approved his acceptance of it, even though he gave the money to charity. In any case, I think the "bribe" worked anyway as he acted as a very weak president, trying to show he "deserved" a peace prize. So in that sense, the emolument worked even though he passed on the award money.
-
Sounds like Trump needed an education in the 'fundamentals' of EU trade BEFORE he met with her...prolly would have involved more than just bullet points (which is probably why it didn't happen).
Wow, who knew that foreign trade with the EU could be so complicated? Not Trump...
Don't be so naïve. Do you really think Trump didn't know this, just because the Germans stated it? It sounds more like the Germans overplaying their hand in trying to arrange a better deal with America for the EU and themselves over any deal he might separately make with the Brits. Also, it's a way for the Germans to stick their finger in the Brit's eye for pulling out of the EU and causing Germany to lose a lot a wealth, especially if it leads to the final breakup of the EU. It also will make it more difficult for the Brits to negotiate a better deal with the EU when they pull out. If they could make a good deal with America first, they would be in a stronger position in the negotiations.
-
Do you really think Trump didn't know this, just because the Germans stated it?
Yes...because compared to Trump, the Germans have a much more reliable "truthiness" of late than Trump does. Based on the fact he's so ignorant about, well, the whole world, I'm very sure that Trump and his admin had no clue that the US couldn't just unilaterally negotiate with the individual countries in the EU...this article point that out Trump puts EU ahead of Britain in trade queue (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-puts-eu-ahead-of-britain-in-trade-queue-l7t8zwn7k)
Britain has been pushed behind the European Union in the queue to strike a free-trade deal with the United States, officials in Washington have said.
President Trump has softened his opposition to negotiating with the bloc as a whole after attempts by his officials to open talks with individual European nations were rebuffed.
Trump's good friend Theresa May probably isn't happy :~(
Jeeesh, this is the same dumbass that didn't know Korea didn't used to be part of China:
Trump’s claim that Korea ‘actually used to be a part of China’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/04/19/trumps-claim-that-korea-actually-used-to-be-a-part-of-china/?utm_term=.5754001b510a).
-
Yes...because compared to Trump, the Germans have a much more reliable "truthiness" of late than Trump does. Based on the fact he's so ignorant about, well, the whole world, I'm very sure that Trump and his admin had no clue that the US couldn't just unilaterally negotiate with the individual countries in the EU...this article point that out Trump puts EU ahead of Britain in trade queue (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-puts-eu-ahead-of-britain-in-trade-queue-l7t8zwn7k)
You keep believing Trump is some dumb rube who knows nothing. Trust me that Trump is a tough and knowledgeable negotiator. He shows no mercy. Doesn't give a nickel. I worked for an American company in NYC that he negotiated with and saw him first hand take our price down to the lowest point possible for us. Then he dumped us anyway when we wouldn't drop it 5% further and went with another company. This should interest you. The company was Siemens, a German manufacturer. Maybe he did such good deals with Siemens he though he could get Merkle to continue with all German companies. But don't believe what the Germans said about their meeting with him. If he can play companies against one another to squeeze out the best deal, he'll do the same with countries.
-
You keep believing Trump is some dumb rube who knows nothing.
I don't think he's a rube...he's a pathological liar, a malignant narcissist, a misogynist, a xenophobe and he's rather uneducated and ignorant of some truly fundamental aspects of the US government.
And yes, all you need to do is listen to him speak and he sounds, uh, really dumb...
From the AP interview:
AP: Do you feel that one of the things with cable is there's such real-time reaction with everything you say?
TRUMP: Yeah.
AP: Can you separate that sometimes from that actual decision?
TRUMP: The one thing —
AP: That you have to do —
TRUMP: OK. The one thing I've learned to do that I never thought I had the ability to do. I don't watch CNN anymore.
AP: You just said you did.
TRUMP: No. No, I, if I'm passing it, what did I just say (inaudible)?
AP: You just said —
TRUMP: Where? Where?
AP: Two minutes ago.
TRUMP: No, they treat me so badly. No, I just said that. No, I, what'd I say, I stopped watching them. But I don't watch CNN anymore. I don't watch MSNBC. I don't watch it. Now I heard yesterday that MSNBC, you know, they tell me what's going on.
AP: Right.
TRUMP: In fact, they also did. I never thought I had the ability to not watch. Like, people think I watch (MSNBC's) "Morning Joe." I don't watch "Morning Joe." I never thought I had the ability to, and who used to treat me great by the way, when I played the game. I never thought I had the ability to not watch what is unpleasant, if it's about me. Or pleasant. But when I see it's such false reporting and such bad reporting and false reporting that I've developed an ability that I never thought I had. I don't watch things that are unpleasant. I just don't watch them.
AP: And do you feel like that's, that's because of the office that you now occupy —
TRUMP: No.
AP: That you've made that change?
TRUMP: I don't know why it is, but I've developed that ability, and it's happened over the last, over the last year.
AP: That's interesting.
TRUMP: And I don't watch things that I know are going to be unpleasant. CNN has covered me unfairly and incorrectly and I don't watch them anymore. A lot of people don't watch them anymore, they're now in third place. But I've created something where people are watching ... but I don't watch CNN anymore. I don't watch MSNBC anymore. I don't watch things, and I never thought I had that ability. I always thought I'd watch.
AP: Sure.
TRUMP: I just don't. And that's taken place over the last year. And you know what that is, that's a great, it's a great thing because you leave, you leave for work in the morning you know, you're, you don't watch this total negativity. I never thought I'd be able to do that and for me, it's so easy to do now. Just don't watch.
AP: That's interesting.
TRUMP: Maybe it's because I'm here. I don't know.
What? So does he watch CNN? We all know he watches Fox & Friends and uses it as a source of his daily briefing :~(
He speaks like he's having verbal diarrhea...unless he's on a teleprompter. Really, you should try to read the AP Interview (https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83) and see if YOU can make sense of it.
-
I think this may be just the beginning...
Commentary: I voted for Donald Trump. Now I feel betrayed. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-voter-regrets-20170424-story.html)
Justin Raimondo
For the Los Angeles Times
I voted for Donald Trump because he promised to pursue a new foreign policy. As he said in December, “We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments. Our goal is stability, not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country.” He vowed to appoint those with “new approaches, and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect résumés but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies.”
After decades of disastrous interventions, Trump inspired me. But less than 100 days into his administration, I’m feeling the sting of betrayal. In recent weeks, Trump and his surrogates have abandoned virtually every foreign policy stance he took during the campaign.
--snip--
Ann Coulter, author of “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome,” wrote recently that “Trump’s Syrian misadventure is immoral, violates every promise he ran on, and could sink his presidency.” At Breitbart News, the online headquarters of the Trump insurgency, a piece about the Syria attacks attracted more than 50,000 ferociously negative comments. Pat Buchanan, the ideological godfather of Trumpism, despaired that “the promise of a Trump presidency … appears, not 100 days in, to have been a mirage. Will more wars make America great again?” A baffled Laura Ingraham tweeted, "Missiles flying. Rubio's happy. McCain ecstatic. Hillary's on board. A complete policy change in 48 hrs." Talk radio host Michael Savage complains that “People in Trump’s own sphere are turning him toward the beating war drums.” Nigel Farage, the leader of the Brexit forces in Britain who campaigned for Trump in the U.S., opined that the president’s supporters “will be scratching their heads” at these foreign policy reversals.
Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com and author of “Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement."
Hum...did he mean Make America Fight Again? Does he really want a shooting war with Korea?
-
And the conservatives keep piling on...
The "Oh, Never Mind" President (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446971/donald-trump-foreign-policy-campaign-reversals-repudiate-supporters)
Trump has cavalierly repudiated his most vocal supporters.
In his first annual message to Congress, John Quincy Adams, among the most experienced and intellectually formidable presidents, warned leaders against giving the impression that “we are palsied by the will of our constituents.” In this regard, if in no other, the 45th president resembles the sixth.
Donald Trump’s “Oh, never mind” presidency was produced by voters stung by the contempt they detected directed toward them by the upper crust. Their insurrection has been rewarded by Trump’s swift shedding of campaign commitments, a repudiation so comprehensive and cavalier that he disdains disguising his disdain for his gulled supporters.
--snip--
Messages are important, whether delivered by words or missiles or words about missiles. Trump’s retreat from positions that enchanted his supporters is a matter mostly between him and them. How he addresses the world, however, will reveal whether he has gone from candidate to commander in chief without becoming presidential.
— George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © 2017 Washington Post Writers Group
This is George Will mind you...
-
Ah, that 100 day milestone that Trump loved/now hates...
Donald Trump Is About to Sign a Record Number of Executive Orders in his First 100 Days (http://fortune.com/2017/04/25/donald-trump-first-100-days-executive-orders/)
President Donald Trump will mark the end of his first 100 days in office with a flurry of executive orders, looking to fulfill campaign promises and rack up victories ahead of that milestone by turning to a presidential tool he once derided. But Trump's frequent use of the executive order points to his struggles getting legislation though a Congress controlled by his own party and few of the orders themselves appear to deliver the sweeping changes the president has promised.
White House aides said that Trump will have signed 32 executive orders by Friday, the most of any president in their first 100 days since World War II. That's a far cry from Trump's heated campaign rhetoric, in which he railed against his predecessor's use of executive action late in his tenure as President Barack Obama sought to maneuver around a Republican Congress. Trump argued that he, the consummate deal maker, wouldn't need to rely on the tool.
"The country wasn't based on executive orders," said Trump at a town hall in South Carolina in February 2016. "Right now, Obama goes around signing executive orders. He can't even get along with the Democrats, and he goes around signing all these executive orders. It's a basic disaster. You can't do it."
So, ex-CEO Trump is finding life as a governing president much harder than he thought it would be. The "Art of the Deal"? It's the "art of screw the deal" and invoke a royal edict as though he's king...he's great at that, but dealing with congress? Not so much :~(
#MAGA by Royal Decree
-
Image if the 100 day mark of Trump's Presidency coincided with a shut down of the government?
With Shutdown Looming, Trump Is Tweeting Out Demands. Will He Stick By Them? (http://www.npr.org/2017/04/25/525429352/with-shutdown-looming-trump-is-tweeting-out-demands-will-he-stick-by-them)
"I also protect myself by being flexible. I never get too attached to one deal or one approach."
Those words from Donald Trump's The Art of The Deal may be giving congressional Republicans some hope this week.
That's because Congress is facing a midnight Friday deadline to pass legislation to keep the federal government fully open — or face a partial government shutdown precisely on President Trump's 100th day in office.
Government shutdowns are not unheard of, but those in recent memory came when power was divided, not when one party controled both chambers of Congress and the White House. Republicans are aware that their party generally gets blamed for government shutdowns, even if it doesn't necessarily pay the price at the ballot box.
Republicans held the House and won control of the Senate in 2014 — a year after the public put much of the blame on their party for the shutdown in late 2013.
But on the heels of the failed GOP health care effort, Republicans are hoping to avoid an embarrassing episode as they try to prove they are a party that can govern effectively.
So, can the GOP go from the "Party of NO!" to a party that can govern? Can Trump actually make a "deal" and keep the government open? Tune in Saturday for an update on Trump's reality TV show, "Makin' America Great Again! (whether you want to or not)"
-
Wow...I gotta get me one!!!
Someone Made A NSFW Trump Troll Doll, And Now They’re Running A Kickstarter Campaign To Mass Produce It (http://www.boredpanda.com/trump-nude-troll-doll-chuck-williams/)
Trump has been trolled on the Internet before, but this time it was literal. A guy from Wisconsin has turned him into a tiny Troll doll. We’re not making this up.
Former sculptor Chuck Williams revealed his immaculately designed vinyl Trump doll on Kickstarter last week, and the project has already far exceeded its original goal of $38,000 thanks to over a thousand backers. The figure is about 5 inches tall, completely nude, and clutches a miniature smartphone between his itty-bitty fingers. Donald himself has yet to comment on the anatomical accuracy of the doll.
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/trump-nude-troll-doll-chuck-williams-2.jpg)
The Kickstarter page is still active and 9,417 backers pledged $438,737 to help bring this project to life.
The Official World's Greatest Troll Sculpt By Chuck Williams (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/560181280/trump-troll-doll-sculpture-by-chuck-williams)
I wonder if it's anatomically correct?
:~)
-
From Columbia Journalism Review come this commentary about the photography of the Trump administration. (spoiler alert, it sucks compared to Obama's)
11 images that show how the Trump administration is failing at photography (https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump-photography.php)
HOW MUCH DOES VISUAL IMAGERY, especially photography, determine the success or failure of a presidency? In the first 100 days, the Trump White House has distinguished itself with largely forgettable imagery, in contrast to the Obama administration’s brilliant orchestration, creation, and curation. The approach to photography under Trump has ranged from haphazard to negligent.
In the early going (https://nppa.org/news/photo-editor-works-2-weeks-trump-white-house), team Trump operated with a paucity of photographers and editing staff. Staff members, such as the press secretary, have doubled as photographers. There does not appear to be much strategy in terms of which photographs are posted to staff social media accounts and which land on the president’s personal accounts or official feeds. White House Photographer Shealah Craighead has been poorly utilized. This administration hasabandoned (https://petapixel.com/2017/03/24/wont-find-trump-white-house-flickr/) the popular White House Flickr feed. And the administration doesn’t even have a photo section on the White House website.
By comparison, Pete Souza seems pretty good at comparing and contrasting and giving Trump some sass. Former White House photographer grabs headlines with Instagram sass (https://www.cjr.org/analysis/pete-souza-obama-trump.php?link)
AS WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHER under President Obama, Pete Souza carefully avoided discussion of politics or the idea his photos conveyed any particular agenda. In his new life, Souza’s Instagram feed has become quite political. He’s served as a virtual photo deejay—mixing images from Obama’s tenure based on the news cycle. Those photos repurpose history as a visual counterpoint and non-verbal critique of the Trump administration’s actions and miscues.
This commentary has not gone unnoticed. The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/07/is-the-former-white-house-photographer-trolling-trump-with-old-obama-photos/?utm_term=.3a9a02511b4b), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/pete-souza-obama-photographer-donald-trump/index.html), The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/09/pete-souza-barack-obama-official-white-house-photographer-trolling-donald-trump-instagram?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other), and New York (http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/02/white-house-photographer-pete-souza-instagram-shades-trump.html) magazine have done stories on it. CNN’s headline describes Souza as “throwing shade” at Trump. The Washington Post piece asks whether Souza is “trolling” The Donald.
Some of Souza’s images, including those journalists have called out to date, aren’t subtle about critiquing Trump. Others convey a deeper feeling of something lost—a low-drama White House, one with a sense of humor, one that put value on diplomacy and nuance. Souza seems to be saying that the human touch is gone. Let’s begin with a few photos that are most explicit in their criticism, then dig more deeply into a few that are somewhat ambiguous.
8)
I follow Pete on Instagram at:
(https://instagram.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t51.2885-19/s150x150/16110362_324714237922625_3925193873357275136_n.jpg)
petesouza (https://www.instagram.com/petesouza/)
(1.2m followers)
-
It looks like the promise of true tax reform is dead before it's even proposed. Instead we will get massive tax cuts based on a premise that's been solidly debunked ("the Laffer Curve" which probably should be known as the "Laugher Curve") that will enrich the rich even further. We don't know what the impact will be on the President's many pass through corporations that constitute his real estate empire but it's likely to be quite significant if the rate on corporate taxes goes down to 15%. Of course all the current tax preferences will stay around which means the true rate might even be lower than that!!!
-
It looks like the promise of true tax reform is dead before it's even proposed. Instead we will get massive tax cuts based on a premise that's been solidly debunked ("the Laffer Curve" which probably should be known as the "Laugher Curve") that will enrich the rich even further. We don't know what the impact will be on the President's many pass through corporations that constitute his real estate empire but it's likely to be quite significant if the rate on corporate taxes goes down to 15%. Of course all the current tax preferences will stay around which means the true rate might even be lower than that!!!
Lower business and personal taxes are always good for boosting the economy. More money available for investments (capital) and purchasing things boosts businesses, jobs and wealth. The problem is if government spending continues as is, you have to borrow and print more. More debt just puts added burdens in the future. Of course, if business expands by lowering taxes, then the government will make up some of the loss to lower tax rates by expanding business and sales. The question is how much will be made up?
-
if the rate on corporate taxes goes down to 15%. Of course all the current tax preferences will stay around which means the true rate might even be lower than that!!!
That is one of my concerns. Having a corporate tax rate of around 35% is really meaningless. What is important is the actual rate that corporations pay in taxes. How many corporations actually pay 35%? I would opine few to none. You would have to have a pretty cruddy tax attorney to pay that much. So the arguments that our tax rates are too high and that they need to be lowered is independent of the actual tax rates that corporations truly pay. For some large corporations we can drop the tax rate from 35% to 15% and it won't affect them as they already pay less than 15%.
That, I believe is one of the problems with our tax system. We have a tax rate and then a whole bunch of confusing ways of reducing that. It becomes a race of who has the bestest tax attorney.
We need to lower the tax rates of everyone/thing to the appropriate level (TBD) and then remove all the deductions/loopholes so that each entity actually pays the right amount of taxes. Everyone should pay their respective tax rate; not paying their respective tax rate minus what ever they can get away with.
If this new tax rate is too high and is hurting business, then congress can lower it.
If the new tax rate is too low and is hurting governing, then congress can raise it. This would require a separate discipline concerning government spending, but that's a different rant.
But you really should not need a team of tax lawyers to handle something that should be pretty straightforward - if you earn X, you pay Y meaning that everyone who earns X pays Y. Not just the people that can't afford the bestest lawyer. That, to me, is fair. I would not mind (too much) paying higher taxes if I knew that everyone was paying higher taxes and that everyone that earns the same as I do is paying the same as I do.
It would adversely affect the tax law profession though. Someone always has to lose, it seems.
Our tax laws are getting out of control. I doubt that anyone really understands all of them. The government does not understand the laws and lacks the ability to consistently enforce those laws. Paying taxes becomes a game of chance. What are the chances of you being caught? If you are smart, i.e., hire the bestest tax attorney, pretty low chances of getting caught. I doubt even the tax attorneys understand all of the tax laws.
What good are laws when the citizens and the government don't understand all of them? That should be our first hint that we have too many tax laws and they are too complex to understand.
But the US having too many laws is yet another rant for another thread.
-
Trump-fighting Democrats just repeating Hillary's mistakes: Column - USA TODAY
https://apple.news/A1zVFdhaUSLmr6unqhRtTcg
Clinton conducted one of the most negative campaigns in recent history that focused almost entirely on discrediting and demonizing Donald Trump. He helped with that process, of course, but at least ordinary Americans got some idea of what he meant to do as president. Building walls, banning Muslims, scrapping trade deals, blowing up alliances and building up the military may be simplistic promises, but at least they’re comprehensible notions. Can anyone recall, six months later, what Clinton promised to do? Even one memorable pledge? Could anyone predict with confidence what she would have done if she had won the November election?
-
Trump U.S. tax plan will not manage to pay for itself with growth: experts
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-voodoo-idUSKBN17S326?il=0
"U.S. President Donald Trump's tax-cut plan will generate growth, but not nearly enough to replace trillions of dollars in lost revenues, while rising deficits could even take back some of the economic gains, fiscal experts said on Wednesday.
Core principles of the plan, unveiled on Wednesday, rely heavily on so-called "dynamic scoring," a budget analysis method that assumes tax cuts will boost economic activity, thus generating more revenues.
Such assumptions have been at the heart of Republican tax orthodoxy since Ronald Reagan used them to justify massive tax cuts in 1981 that were derided at the time by critics as "voodoo economics." "
Ah well, blowing bubbles can be fun while they last ... pop.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Killing the Clean Power Plan leaves Trump’s EPA in an awkward place:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/trump-vs-the-climate-the-fights-only-just-starting/
EPA has to reject widely accepted science and/or come up with its own climate plan.
"The Trump administration's decision to terminate its predecessor's Clean Power Plan, accomplished via an executive order, would seem to be a carefully crafted decision with an air of finality about it. It neatly avoided rejecting mainstream climate science, opting instead to eliminate the only federal plan for doing anything about it.
The reality is far more complex. Unlike other actions by the Obama administration, which occurred late in his second term, the Clean Power Plan had gone through the entire federal rulemaking process. To get rid of it, the process has to be repeated in its entirety. And the scientific document that formed the foundation for the Clean Power Plan won't be touched by the reversal. Its existence is likely to leave the Trump EPA in a legally awkward position, one where they'll have to come up with some regulation to tackle climate change."
" According to its analysis, the Clean Power Plan would cost money—up to $8 billion in its most expensive year. But overall, it would save billions of dollars, in part by avoiding the consequences of climate change and in part through co-benefits like lowered health care costs from reduced pollution."
So, ethics of a responsible stewardship of our planet aside, if the CCP saves more money more that it costs, where's the rationale ...
Follow the money, who's going to benefit short term? And who is going to pay the final bill !!!
Cheers,
Bart
-
Core principles of the plan, unveiled on Wednesday, rely heavily on so-called "dynamic scoring," a budget analysis method that assumes tax cuts will boost economic activity, thus generating more revenues.
The problem with "trickle-down" economics is that after a while the middle class resents being trickled on. ;)
-
Follow the money, who's going to benefit short term? And who is going to pay the final bill !!!
Cheers,
Bart
(raises hand)
Q1 Big Corporations
Q2 The Citizens
-
If you haven't figured Trump out yet, you should know by now that he started asking for everything during the campaign. Now he is negotiating down from those positions for what he hopes will be the best deal for America.
Suddenly his demands like more money for border guards and electronic surveillance seems so reasonable over building a wall, the Democrats are ready to make a deal on extending the debt. He's not going to pull out of NATO, the Europeans might actually pay more of their fair share. He's not going to bomb N, Korea, the Chinese might happily help control them rather than risk war on their doorstep. The same will happen with trade, NAFTA, etc. He just told Canada and Mexico, he's holding off pulling out of NAFTA and will try to improve the existing arrangement. Regarding taxes, his one-page plan will get whittled down to something everyone can agree on.
That's not changing positions or flip-flopping. That's the art of the deal.
-
That's the art of the deal.
What's the art of throttling the science?
-
Trump science
The earth is flat ;
The borders are the USA and has a huge fence;
and it is circling around him;
-
... the Clean Power Plan would cost money—up to $8 billion in its most expensive year. But overall, it would save billions of dollars, in part by avoiding the consequences of climate change and in part through co-benefits like lowered health care costs from reduced pollution."[/i]
Then again, you said earlier, about the other side's similar logic:
Such assumptions... were derided at the time by critics as "voodoo economics."
;)
-
The poor guy...he thought being President would be easier...
Exclusive: Trump says he thought being president would be easier than his old life (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social)
(http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170428&t=2&i=1182422600&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=780&pl=468&sq=&r=LYNXMPED3R091)
U.S. President Donald Trump looks out a window of the Oval Office following an interview with Reuters at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 27, 2017.
By Stephen J. Adler, Jeff Mason and Steve Holland | WASHINGTON
He misses driving, feels as if he is in a cocoon, and is surprised how hard his new job is.
President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.
"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."
A wealthy businessman from New York, Trump assumed public office for the first time when he entered the White House on Jan. 20 after he defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an upset.
More than five months after his victory and two days shy of the 100-day mark of his presidency, the election is still on Trump's mind. Midway through a discussion about Chinese President Xi Jinping, the president paused to hand out copies of what he said were the latest figures from the 2016 electoral map.
"Here, you can take that, that's the final map of the numbers," the Republican president said from his desk in the Oval Office, handing out maps of the United States with areas he won marked in red. "It’s pretty good, right? The red is obviously us."
He had copies for each of the three Reuters reporters in the room.
Wait...he's STILL talking about the friggin' election?
Is he gonna last 4 years (let alone 8 years)?
It sure doesn't sound like he's having any fun :~(
-
The election, and possibly his Coke button, are the only wins he's had in the last 100 days. He only likes winning.
-
I think Trump is learning about how unfun being PotUS really is. I don't know why anyone would want that job these days, to be honest.
I don't think he will run in 2020. I think he wants to leave but leave on his own terms.
Who knows, he may be the second president to resign, citing the unfair press, unfair congress, unfair judiciary, unfair citizens, unfair ....
-
Who knows, he may be the second president to resign, citing the unfair press, unfair congress, unfair judiciary, unfair citizens, unfair ....
...add to this the treatment of his family. I suspect the treatment of Ivanka and Jared must be eating away at him as well.
-
The poor guy...he thought being President would be easier...
Wait...he's STILL talking about the friggin' election?
Is he gonna last 4 years (let alone 8 years)?
It sure doesn't sound like he's having any fun :~(
The Democrats seem to be talking about the election all the time too, how the Russians, Comey, and everyone else but the Dems and Hillary lost it for them. They're still running around all pissed off. Seems like no one can get over it.
-
...add to this the treatment of his family. I suspect the treatment of Ivanka and Jared must be eating away at him as well.
Well if the temperature in the food preparation area is increasing to an uncomfortable level....... ;D
-
The Democrats seem to be talking about the election all the time too, how the Russians, Comey, and everyone else but the Dems and Hillary lost it for them. They're still running around all pissed off. Seems like no one can get over it.
The democrats are investigating potential illegal activity involving the Trump campaign and the Russians
Trump is talking about how yuge his numbers really really were as a way to assuage his ego.
Bit of a difference... perhaps a bigly difference?
-
The Democrats seem to be talking about the election all the time too, how the Russians, Comey, and everyone else but the Dems and Hillary lost it for them. They're still running around all pissed off. Seems like no one can get over it.
Hey Alan, you couldn't resist getting back? :o
Too much fun here I think ;D
I think the Dems have lots of reasons to talk about the lost election (and the investigations surrounding it), Trump has none other then to boost his hurt ego talking about his win.
-
...Trump has none other then to boost his hurt ego talking about his win.
Indeed. There is absolutely no reason for distributing copies of the latest election results map during an interview about his first 100 days. Sic transit gloria mundi or in other, paraphrased words: "Thus passes the glory of the world election win." ;)
-
Indeed. There is absolutely no reason for distributing copies of the latest election results map during an interview about his first 100 days. Sic transit gloria mundi or in other, paraphrased words: "Thus passes the glory of the world election win." ;)
Has there been a week in the current administration where he has NOT mentioned his election victory?? He, as well as all the disaffected Democrats, should get over this!!! Be a President, Mr. Trump!!!
-
That's the interesting thing. He's meant to be the leader. If he stopped talking about the election, the media would stop talking about the election, and so his opponents would probably stop talking about the election. Good or bad, he sets the agenda and the tone for discussion by virtue of his office.
He keeps throwing tantrums about people complaining he's throwing tantrums and then wondering why people keep complaining about him throwing tantrums.
A leader's word should be final, but a leader also knows that sometimes you have to not have the last word.
-
Spotted yesterday a strange duck with an orange toupe just two hours north of US-Canadian border.
Can anybody id this specimen?
-
It's clearly the Donald Duck, but I think your color balance is a little off. The hairpiece should be more (or should I say bigly) Orange.
-
On the day that Turkey blocks access to all the different language Wikipedia websites, I read this.
EPA says website undergoing makeover to match Trump, Pruitt views:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-idUSKBN17V011
"The website of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.gov, is getting a makeover to reflect the views of President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the agency said on Friday.
“As EPA renews its commitment to human health and clean air, land and water, our website needs to reflect the views of the leadership of the agency,” it said in a statement."
Is that a typo, 'renews' should be 'reduces'?
Wonder what that will look like, and if the people of the USA will let that happen while standing by?
Cheers,
Bart
-
On the day that Turkey blocks access to all the different language Wikipedia websites, I read this.
EPA says website undergoing makeover to match Trump, Pruitt views:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-idUSKBN17V011
"The website of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.gov, is getting a makeover to reflect the views of President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the agency said on Friday.
“As EPA renews its commitment to human health and clean air, land and water, our website needs to reflect the views of the leadership of the agency,” it said in a statement."
Is that a typo, 'renews' should be 'reduces'?
Wonder what that will look like, and if the people of the USA will let that happen while standing by?
Cheers,
Bart
America isn't Turkey and Trump isn't Erdogan. We have a constitution that has power and stands for something. Turkey has no real legal protections anymore. The justices are his allies. Turkey will soon be a dictatorship if it isn't already.
By the way, my daughter got back from Amsterdam, had a wonderful time, saw the tulips (outside of town somewhere). She went to the Anne Frank museum and another famous museum, not sure which one. Food was wonderful. She said everyone speaks English there except the Chinese tourists who move around in huge groups totally lost. :) Unfortunately her KLM flight home was cancelled so she had to switch to Delta. (Are they affiliated?). Thanks to you and Pieter for the tips.
-
America isn't Turkey and Trump isn't Erdogan. We have a constitution that has power and stands for something. Turkey has no real legal protections anymore. The justices are his allies. Turkey will soon be a dictatorship if it isn't already.
It often starts with censorship, and restrictions for the free press and internet. When a government denies the effects of human behavior on the environment, "it's a hoax", and starts defunding Scientific research and adjusts website information about Environment Protection in line with that mindset, doesn't that look like the beginning of censorship? Maybe changing the name of the EPA, replacing the 'Protection' part with something more fitting would be more honest?
By the way, my daughter got back from Amsterdam, had a wonderful time, saw the tulips (outside of town somewhere). She went to the Anne Frank museum and another famous museum, not sure which one. Food was wonderful. She said everyone speaks English there except the Chinese tourists who move around in huge groups totally lost. :) Unfortunately her KLM flight home was cancelled so she had to switch to Delta. (Are they affiliated?). Thanks to you and Pieter for the tips.
You're welcome. The tulips were probably those in the Keukenhof (https://keukenhof.nl/en/). Yes, KLM, Air France, and Delta are affiliated.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It often starts with censorship, and restrictions for the free press and internet. When a government denies the effects of human behavior on the environment, "it's a hoax", and starts defunding Scientific research and adjusts website information about Environment Protection in line with that mindset, doesn't that look like the beginning of censorship? Maybe changing the name of the EPA, replacing the 'Protection' part with something more fitting would be more honest?
You're welcome. The tulips were probably those in the Keukenhof (https://keukenhof.nl/en/). Yes, KLM, Air France, and Delta are affiliated.
Cheers,
Bart
The President can do very little without Congress which provides funding for all sorts of things including the EPA. If the Congress cuts or increases funding for the EPA, the military, healthcare, etc., then that's the will of the people and part of democracy. The President can't do that on his own. There's nothing in the constitution that says we have to even have an EPA.
The EPA's website has nothing to do with free press or the internet. Regarding specific web pages for the EPA, the Army, Treasury, etc, these fall under the executive, the president, to run. He appoints the secretaries to these agencies who follow his policies. Every president biases the presentations in their web pages as well as how the agencies operate to reflect his policy positions. That's part of winning the election. These were the positions he took during the campaign, and he won. Obama did that before Trump and someone else will do it differently after Trump. But his term is limited to 4 years, 8 if the people re-elect him. But these things are minor in any case. 90% of the media is against Trump and bias their news accordingly. Certainly nothing like what Erdogan did and is doing like changing who are Turkey's chief justices, taking over newspapers and jailing people who disagree with him. Erdogan is getting set to extend his already long tenure to another 12 maybe 16 years. With unilateral rule. Now that's a dictator. That's real censorship.
-
As a advocate of our national park system and forest service, Trump's thinly veiled threat to potentially reduce or eliminate is something I find particularly frustrating and scary...
From the Christian Science Monitor (rated Least-Biased by Media Bias Fact Check (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/christian-science-monitor/)
Clash over Bears Ears tests years of progress on Native spirituality (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2017/0428/Clash-over-Bears-Ears-tests-years-of-progress-on-Native-spirituality)
To Native Americans, Bears Ears National Monument is more than a national park, it is holy ground connecting them to their ancestors and the spiritual realm.
Henry Gass
Staff writer
APRIL 28, 2017 —Davis Filfred wishes President Trump would take a page from General “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf's playbook, in thinking about Bears Ears National Monument.
When Mr. Filfred served as Marine Corps combat engineer in Operation Desert Storm, General Schwarzkopf ordered troops not to target religious, archaeological, and other sensitive sites for bombing.
Filfred, a member of the Navajo Nation council representing districts in Utah, now says the Trump administration should take the same approach to Bears Ears, a 1.3 million acre swath of southern Utah that has become the latest battleground between the federal government and a burgeoning Native American movement of religion-infused environmental activism. At the heart of that battle is a conflict in worldview. To Native people, land is more than a place to build, dig, and live, it is saturated with religious meaning, and a connection to their ancestors and the spiritual realm.
“This is the place where we worship, this is our holy ground, and what Trump wants to do, and the Utah delegation, is they want to bomb our sacred place,” he says.
Earlier this week, Mr. Trump signed an executive order calling for a review of almost two-dozen sites designated as national monuments since Jan. 1, 1996. The order requires Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to submit reviews of monuments larger than 100,000 acres within 120 days, with the exception of Bears Ears, where he will submit a final review within 45 days. The investigation will center on whether the monuments could be reduced in size or perhaps eliminated.
Bears Ears is an interesting coalition of federal, state and indian tribal involvement. The tribes involved are; Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Ute Indian Tribe. More info on the coalition here bearsearscoalition.org (https://bearsearscoalition.org) and the monument: Bears Ears National Monument (https://www.fs.fed.us/visit/bears-ears-national-monument)...
Fortunately, there's some major doubt that Trump could walk back Obama's order:
Can the president shrink – or even eliminate – national monuments? (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0426/Can-the-president-shrink-or-even-eliminate-national-monuments)
President Trump's latest executive order opens the door to reducing or revoking two dozen national monuments, including Bears Ears in Utah. It's far from clear, however, that the president has the legal authority to do so.
Amanda Paulson
Staff writer
APRIL 26, 2017 BOULDER, COLO.—If Western Republicans have had one focus in their anger over federal land management in recent years, it’s been national monument designations.
The ability to withdraw large tracts of land from development with the stroke of a pen, under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act, is one of the broadest executive powers that a president has. And it’s been a power many presidents have wielded expansively as they consider their legacy.
Now the permanence of that legacy is being called into question.
In an unprecedented move, President Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order directing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review all presidential monument designations greater than 100,000 acres within the past 21 years – at least 24 monuments established under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama – and recommend changes or modifications.
---snip---
Legal precedent – or lack thereof
While there is no judicial decision on the issue, several opinions by attorneys general and solicitors “strongly suggest the president doesn’t have this authority to rescind” a national monument designation, says Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah and director of the Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources, and the Environment. “Most legal scholars that have looked at it have concluded the same.”
Some presidents have reduced the size of monuments: President Wilson cut the Mount Olympus National Monument (now a national park) by nearly half; President Eisenhower reduced the Great Sand Dunes (also now a national park) by 25 percent; and President Taft reduced the Navajo National Monument, which he himself had established just three years earlier, by nearly 90 percent.
But, legal scholars note, none of those reductions were ever challenged in court, so there is no legal opinion on whether presidents actually had the power to make them. And all of them occurred prior to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which some experts believe more explicitly limits presidential powers to revoke or change monuments. Moreover, many of those earlier readjustments were based on new information. Taft, for instance, reduced the Navajo monument once better mapping showed exactly where the threats to cliff dwellings and other Native American antiquities existed, says Professor Keiter.
#MAGA and save our national lands from Trump
-
The reality of the situation is, well, staggering. The man is a pathological liar and normal politicians are in the same league...
Here are 100 Lies and False Statements From Trump’s First 100 Days (https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/100-lies-and-false-statements?utm_term=.qoV0NNOrKM#.hvj022B1dN)
A new era in American politics. And a new challenge for citizens and journalists.
By Tasneem Nashrulla & Claudia Koerner
Donald Trump’s frequent claim that a wave of people voting illegally cost him the popular vote is a lie. So is his claim of gigantic crowds at his inauguration. And from that foundation flowed an unprecedented torrent of flat lies, wild exaggerations, and what the experts call “bullshit” — statements not even intended to reflect the truth.
As the president approaches his 100th day in office, an extensive — but not exhaustive — BuzzFeed News review found an average of one false statement per day from Trump and his top aides.
We don’t take calling things “lies” lightly. (See our definitions at the top of thisarticle (http://).) And we don't suggest that Trump is the first president in history to lie: As I.F. Stone once wrote, “All governments lie.”
But Trump’s falsehoods come with an unprecedented frequency, scale, and lack of shame. They are a defining feature of his tenure, and have helped create a crisis of credibility.
-
President Donald Trump this weekend called North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a “smart cookie” in his latest praise of a controversial dictator.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-kim-jong-un_us_5906f2a5e4b05c397680864c?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
One wonders about Kim Jong Un how he calls Donald Trump?
-
As a advocate of our national park system and forest service, Trump's thinly veiled threat to potentially reduce or eliminate is something I find particularly frustrating and scary...
#MAGA and save our national lands from Trump
I'm all in favor of Park lands. But I always wondered why a President on his own can just declare something a Monument and limit access and other heretofore rights of the public. It seems that these should be voted by Congress as well. After all, we're a democratic republic and the president isn't a king.
-
The reality of the situation is, well, staggering. The man is a pathological liar and normal politicians are in the same league...
Trump is a liar.
Is that the Democrat platform for 2020?
-
Trump is a liar.
Is that the Democrat platform for 2020?
No. It's the plain truth. Read the list.
For any other president, any one of those lies would be big news.
-
No. It's the plain truth. Read the list.
For any other president, any one of those lies would be big news.
Yeah, I got it. Great platform.
-
I'm all in favor of Park lands. But I always wondered why a President on his own can just declare something a Monument and limit access and other heretofore rights of the public. It seems that these should be voted by Congress as well. After all, we're a democratic republic and the president isn't a king.
That's the difference between a National Park and a National Monument. The former is a congressional action and the latter a presidential action. The Antiquities Act of 1906 gives the president this authority but only concerning federal land. The president does not have the authority to declare any privately owned or state owned land a National Monument. There are isolated instances where private land is contained within a National Monument, but the land remains privately owned.
While the president can modify the size of a National Monument created by a former president, it is unclear whether the president has the authority to abolish an existing National Monument. No president has attempted this and hence, the SCotUS has not ruled on this.
Congress has placed, through legislation, a few restrictions on the president's authority to designate a National Monument (in Wyoming and Alaska specifically) so there is nothing preventing congress from enacting other legislation further restricting the president's authority.
In any case, the congress can act independently of the president and designate an area, including an existing National Monument, as a National Park. In which case, the president is out of the decision process.
-
Is that the Democrat platform for 2020?
Naw, why wait till then? Democrats will be using his lies against him next year in the midterm elections. By then Trump supporters will see all his promises to them broken...
Heck Obama said it well last week... ACA has a higher approval rating than Trump does (boy that must piss him off) do you honestly think the GOP will learn how to govern? They had 8 years to come up with a repeal/ replace for ACA and what happened? Trump learned being president is hard :-(
-
It would be interesting to find out how many people truly pay 100% (no deductions) of their health care premiums. I wonder what percentage of the population that would be?
-
He's still rewriting history ...
Trump questions why U.S. Civil War had to happen:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-jackson-idUSKBN17X20W
"Donald Trump has shown a fascination with populist 19th-century U.S. president Andrew Jackson since he has occupied the Oval Office, hanging Old Hickory's portrait in the Oval Office, visiting his plantation in Tennessee and placing a wreath at his tomb.
In an interview that aired on Sirius XM satellite radio on Monday, Trump suggested that if Jackson had governed a little later than his 1829-1837 terms, the American Civil War might have been averted. And Trump questioned why the bloody conflict had to happen.
"Had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump told Sirius XM. He said that although Jackson was a "swashbuckler," after his wife died, Jackson visited her grave every day.
Jackson, a slave owner who was instrumental in the forced removal of Native-American tribes from the U.S. Southeast in the so-called Trail of Tears, died nearly 16 years before the start of the Civil War."
Trump says claims that Obama wiretapped him have been 'proven very strongly':
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/president-trump-ends-interview-president-obama-wiretapping-claims
"President Trump feels that his accusations of wiretapping by former President Obama have been "proven very strongly," according to a new CBS interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-oval-office-interview-cbs-this-morning-full-transcript/).
"You can take it the way you want," Trump said. "I think our side's been proven very strongly."
Asked if he stood by his earlier claims on CBS, Trump said his accusations that his predecessor "wiretapped" Trump Tower, despite FBI Director James Comey's assertion that there is no evidence to support this, were his "opinion."
When further pressed by Dickerson, Trump got up and left."
Cheers,
Bart
-
I would love to see a report on how people feel from only those paying full price without any subsidies.
My two daughters have purchased Obamacare policies without subsidies (one still is on hers). Both have had satisfactory experience. Of course this is an n of 2.
-
You know it's bad when a right leaning organization like National Review has distain for the Trumpster...
A Show about Nothing (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447212/donald-trump-first-100-days-shallow-symbolic-gestures)
President Trump’s first 100 days have been mostly a flurry of shallow symbolic gestures.
by KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON April 30, 2017 4:00 AM
There is a reality-television program called American Pickers, and what happens on it is this: A junkman drives around in a van and offers to buy other people’s junk, sometimes haggling over the price. The supporting characters are assistant junkmen and sundry onlookers. It is as though someone decided to remake Sanford and Son without actors, Redd Foxx’s humor, or a plot.
Its popularity is as inexplicable as it is undeniable. Because nothing actually happens on American Pickers, the show relies on the illusion of action, which is created through camerawork and editing. Junkman offers $x for a quantity of junk; Junk-Haver produces a look of concentration. The camera cuts quickly back and forth among the faces of Junkman, Deputy Junkman, Assistant Deputy Junkman, Junk-Haver, and Sundry Junk-Having Onlookers. And then there is a commercial for erection pills.
The application to the first 100 days of the Trump administration is of course obvious.
President Donald J. Trump is a creature of reality television. He may not be very good at running hotels or casinos, but he is a gifted performer, a master of creating the illusion of action. As he marks his first 100 days in office (one day of a Trump presidency would have been incredible enough), what has President Trump actually done?
--snip--
Conservatives had better start facing the fact that the president is a man overmatched by his job. All of President Trump’s reality-television posturing, all of his hooting and hollering and fussing and foolishness and tweeting and preening is sound and fury signifying squat. The Trump administration is a show about nothing.
But hey, I'm sure Trump would toss this as being from the totally unfair lying mainstream media except, it's not. It's from a Right-Bias (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/) media source, the nationalreview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com/).
So, not part of your 90% liberal media huh Alan?
-
Wow, the great negotiator showed everybody huh?
Winners and Losers of the Spending Deal (Spoiler Alert: Trump Lost) (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/winners-and-losers-of-the-spending-deal-spoiler-alert-trump-lost.html)
WASHINGTON — In the early days of the Trump presidency, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have not agreed on much. But they have come together to keep the government open for the next several months.
The more than $1 trillion spending deal that congressional leaders reached on Sunday was an act of compromise, a rarity in a highly polarized Congress.
But that was the easy part. The current fiscal year is already more than halfway over, and the new spending package — which must still be approved by lawmakers — covers only the next five months. A bigger fight awaits as the year goes on and President Trump tries to put his imprint on the budget for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
Here is a look at some winners and losers in the current spending deal.
Loser: President Trump
The Trump administration has little to brag about in this deal. The agreement provides an additional $15 billion in military spending, but that is only half of what Mr. Trump had sought.
The Trump administration called for $18 billion in cuts to domestic programs. Lawmakers were not receptive, and their response provides a preview of how members of Congress from both parties might respond as Mr. Trump presses for bigger cuts in the 2018 budget.
Consider the fate of the National Institutes of Health. The Trump administration sought a $1.2 billion reduction in funding for the agency for the current fiscal year, but congressional negotiators ended up agreeing on a $2 billion increase.
The art of the deal?
Cool...as long as he keeps showing his incompetence, the people will keep wining :~)
#MAGA In spite of Him
BTW, WaPo has a good break down of the various spending areas What’s in the spending agreement? We read it so you don’t have to. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/01/whats-in-the-spending-agreement-we-read-it-so-you-dont-have-to/?utm_term=.ccdb633aafce)
Several take aways are:
ARTS FUNDING:
Democrats are claiming a huge victory for the arts. They successfully blocked Trump’s request to cut funding to the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Instead both agencies would see a funding increase of $2 million under this spending bill, bringing each budget to $150 million for fiscal 2017.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
So much for Trump’s pledge to make deep cuts to the EPA: The spending bill would maintain nearly 99 percent of the agency’s total budget. Still, Republicans are celebrating that the $8.06 billion EPA budget will force the agency to maintain staffing levels at 15,000, the lowest since Ronald Reagan left office.
The spending bill also bans the EPA from cutting agricultural exemptions under the Clean Water Act and requires an update on plans to address the backlog of mining permits that have yet to be approved. The agency also cannot regulate lead in ammunition and fishing tackle that has led to eagle deaths and the poisoning of a wide range of animals.
NATIONAL PARKS:
The National Park Service would be fully funded, including a modest bump of $81 million for park maintenance and projects related to the agency’s centennial celebration. The money is also designed to put a dent in an $11 billion maintenance backlog that includes much needed repairs to everything from the Memorial Bridge in the District to roads at Yellowstone National Park.
NIH:
No cuts here. The bill would provide a $2 billion increase for NIH, bringing the agency’s budget to $34 billion this year. The funding is to be used, in part, for research into Alzheimer’s disease, antibiotic resistance, brain studies and the development of new treatments and cures.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD:
Democrats successfully blocked a GOP request to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funding. The women’s health group will continue to have access to that money through the end of the fiscal year in September. Federal money accounts for about 40 percent of Planned Parenthood’s overall budget, with most of that money reimbursing the organization for the treatment of patients on Medicaid.
PUBLIC BROADCASTING:
Elmo and Peter Sagal, breathe easy: Congress didn’t make any cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency that helps fund
-
I'm all in favor of Park lands. But I always wondered why a President on his own can just declare something a Monument and limit access and other heretofore rights of the public. It seems that these should be voted by Congress as well. After all, we're a democratic republic and the president isn't a king.
Because Congress approved the Antiquities Act to give the President that power? Congress can always vote to remove one that has been declared if they so desire, they have that power.
-
Wow, the great negotiator showed everybody huh?
Let's not get carried away. This was only the interim spending deal to keep the government running until September. It has nothing to do with the budget proposal that the White House submitted a couple of months ago. That's the one that will be debated for the next FY budget. Yes, there were some victories with this agreement but the fight isn't over by a long shot.
-
Yes, there were some victories with this agreement but the fight isn't over by a long shot.
Understood and agreed, but it is heartening to see the resistance working and to see Trump exposed as the fraud that he is! It will be critical for the democrats to get their shit together in time for the midterm elections to look towards de-fanging the orange one even further by winning back the congressional majorities.
#DUMPTRUMP
-
Lying CNN has this to say...
Climate confusion is back, and it's dangerous (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/sutter-epa-nyt-doubt-climate-change/index.html)
By John D. Sutter, CNN
(CNN)Until Friday night, the eve of the People's Climate March on Washington, the US government website EPA.gov/climatechange (http://epa.gov/climatechange) explained how humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and why that is a huge deal for us and for future generations.
Now the page carries an Orwellian message: "This page is being updated."
"Thank you for your interest in this topic," the message continues. "We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President [Donald] Trump and [US Environmental Protection Agency] Administrator [Scott] Pruitt."
It's been clear for months, if not years, what Donald Trump and his appointees think of climate change. At worst, they call it a hoax. At best, they say it's overblown -- no big deal. We need more science (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/scott-pruitt-global-warming-human/), they claim, while also moving to strip government science agencies of funding (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/29/politics/trump-epa-cuts-infighting-climate-change/). They want us to keep debating the climate crisis while they make it worse.
That is troubling, not only because Trump's retrograde fossil-fuel policies are likely to contribute to all the bad things that come along with human-induced global warming, from worsening droughts to faster-rising seas and mass extinction. It is troubling because Trump and his administration are "gaslighting" the American public (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/opinions/donald-trump-is-gaslighting-america-ghitis/) on the science of climate change.
It's pretty clear that nothing Trump or Pruit is likely to do will HELP the environment, right? I mean, nobody thinks they are making all these changes to help improve the science and understanding, right?
-
You know it's bad when a right leaning organization like National Review has distain for the Trumpster...
A Show about Nothing (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447212/donald-trump-first-100-days-shallow-symbolic-gestures)
But hey, I'm sure Trump would toss this as being from the totally unfair lying mainstream media except, it's not. It's from a Right-Bias (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/) media source, the nationalreview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com/).
So, not part of your 90% liberal media huh Alan?
I don't always agree with the writings in the National Review authors as I find some of them a bit more extreme right wing then I am. But I do find NR to be a respectable news source.
-
You know it's bad when a right leaning organization like National Review has distain for the Trumpster...
They were against him from the very beginning. Their January issue from last year (2016):
-
My two daughters have purchased Obamacare policies without subsidies (one still is on hers). Both have had satisfactory experience. Of course this is an n of 2.
If your daughters are single and relatively young, it still should be rather cheap. It's for older people like my cousins who are in their sixties but not under Medicare that the costs have skyrocketed. They were paying around $18000 for insurance. That's nuts!
-
You know it's bad when a right leaning organization like National Review has distain for the Trumpster...
But hey, I'm sure Trump would toss this as being from the totally unfair lying mainstream media except, it's not. It's from a
So, not part of your 90% liberal media huh Alan?
I guess you forgot that Trump ran against the traditional elite Republican establishment as well as the Democrats. Don't you recall how Romney brutalized him during the campaign, others too like McCain. He's a populist, kind of a "plague on both their houses" kind of politician. Many traditional Republican media don't like his policies. They too believe in crony capitalism, open borders for cheap illegal immigrant labor, etc. Probably the only thing they like about him is his tax policies.
-
Let's not get carried away. This was only the interim spending deal to keep the government running until September. It has nothing to do with the budget proposal that the White House submitted a couple of months ago. That's the one that will be debated for the next FY budget. Yes, there were some victories with this agreement but the fight isn't over by a long shot.
I think what's happening is that Trump and the less conservative Republicans are making deals with democrats that's better for Democrats because the more conservative republicans want the whole loaf. They're not willing to support more moderate legislation. Unless the conservatives are willing to accept half-a-loaf, they're going to get boxed out over and over. They'll wind up with legislation that's less to their liking than if they're will to share the pie.
-
He's a populist, kind of a "plague on both their houses" kind of politician.
Yeah, sorta like Hitler, right?
(http://www.readingthepictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/time-person-of-the-year-cover-trump-hitler-600x385.jpg)
Heck, even the Pope is worried about populist leaders...
Pope Francis warns against populist leaders “like Hitler” in interview given during Donald Trump’s inauguration (http://www.salon.com/2017/01/23/pope-francis-warns-against-populist-leaders-like-hitler-in-interview-given-during-donald-trumps-inauguration/)
Pope Francis appears ready and willing to troll Donald Trump in an effort to prevent World War III.
In an interview (http://elpais.com/elpais/2017/01/21/inenglish/1485026427_223988.html) that lasted more than an hour with Spanish newspaper El Pais and conducted just as Donald Trump was being sworn in as the 45th U.S. president on Friday, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church warned against the rise of populist leaders like Adolf Hitler.
“Hitler didn’t steal the power, his people voted for him, and then he destroyed his people,” Pope Francis noted. The pope explained to the paper that he worries about the rise of populism in the United States and Europe.
And sadly, it seems the risk due to populism is being funded by Putin (yes, the same asshole who screwed with our election)
Russia accused of clandestine funding of European parties as US conducts major review of Vladimir Putin's strategy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12103602/America-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html)
American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed.
James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, has been instructed by the US Congress to conduct a major review into Russian clandestine funding of European parties over the last decade.
The review reflects mounting concerns in Washington over Moscow’s determination to exploit European disunity in order to undermine Nato, block US missile defence programmes and revoke the punitive economic sanctions regime imposed after the annexation of Crimea.
The US move came as senior British government officials told The Telegraph of growing fears that “a new cold war” was now unfolding in Europe, with Russian meddling taking on a breadth, range and depth far greater than previously thought.
“It really is a new Cold War out there,” the source said, “Right across the EU we are seeing alarming evidence of Russian efforts to unpick the fabric of European unity on a whole range of vital strategic issues.”
Given the date of that article, 16 Jan 2016, it seems we should have been looking inward at what Putin was doing here in the US instead of what he's been doing in Europe...but now we'll be watching first the French election then Germany next year. I guess the US had to take one on the chin in defense of the rest of the free world :~(
-
#RuhRoh
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/64/93/b6/6493b6c49b435088d1e76d59a9ea50ef.jpg)
Trump demands government shutdown in angry tweets (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-demands-government-shutdown-angry-tweets-article-1.3129165)
WASHINGTON — Seemingly frustrated that he got rolled in negotiations to keep the government funded, President Trump lashed out in a pair of tweets demanding a future government shutdown and calling for the Senate to eliminate the filibuster so it can ram through his legislation.
"The reason for the plan negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats is that we need 60 votes in the Senate which are not there! We.... either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good "shutdown" in September to fix mess!" Trump on Twitter Tuesday morning.
Trump may be the first president in history to demand a government shutdown, a move that has proven deeply unpopular with voters.
Trump’s tweets show how irritated he is that congressional Democrats and Republicans largely ignored his demands in order to strike a bipartisan agreement to keep the government funded — and that the bipartisan deal is being portrayed as a win for Democrats given how little actual leverage they had in the debate. The deal includes more money for some Democratic priorities like funding Planned Parenthood, and while Trump got some money for investments in the military and border security he was blocked from any cash to start building a wall along the Mexican border.
-
If your daughters are single and relatively young, it still should be rather cheap. It's for older people like my cousins who are in their sixties but not under Medicare that the costs have skyrocketed. They were paying around $18000 for insurance. That's nuts!
Was the $18K for two people? If so, that's about right for Obamacare as they only could charge 3X that of a young person. The first Republican plan would have moved that to 5X so they would be paying much more. later Republican plans removed that cap altogether. You right, it's nuts but until we have universal healthcare for everyone that is not tied to the tax code that's how things will be.
-
Yeah, sorta like Hitler, right?
Hey Jeff: It's really tiring of you accusing Trump being Hitler. By extension you're accusing me and others who voted him as people who would vote for Hitler. It seems that political correctness only applies to what the left thinks is OK. Also, people will only think that Hitler just can't be that bad of a fellow; you cheapen all the lives of all the people he killed. What's wrong with you? Your comparison is disgraceful and insulting. Don't you have any shame? Frankly, I hope the moderators shut down this thread because you've gone to far. in fact, I'm asking them to shut it down. You've gotten too personal.
-
Hey Jeff: It's really tiring of you accusing Trump being Hitler.
Actually that was the Pope who was warning about populist leaders being like Hitler. And you were the the one that called Trump a populist leader who was like a plauge (which I agree with) on both of their houses...
So was Hitler a populist leader in Germany? Did Trump run as a popular leader? So, is the Pope right to warn the US and Europe of the dangers of populist leaders? Hey it was Time magazine the put Trump and Hitler on the cover- which trump likes to brag about (being on the cover-not beong compared to Hitler) although it seems Hitler's book Mein Kampf used sit on his nite stand according to one if his exwives...
-
It's hard to make a comparison between Trump and Hitler. However, there are some similarities between people who voted for Hitler, Trump and Erdogan.
-
Jeff, really, it is kind of ridiculous when someone is compared to Hitler, whether it be the many times Trump has been, or when HRC was, or even when Obama was compared to him, and those whom not only agree with this but also propagate it are being ridiculous as well.
Take it up with the pope...(did you even read the interview I link to? Pope Francis: “The danger is that in times of crisis we look for a savior” (http://elpais.com/elpais/2017/01/21/inenglish/1485026427_223988.html))
On Donald Trump, the Pontiff says: “I don’t like to get ahead of myself. It would be like prophets predicting calamities or windfalls that will not come to pass”
On Friday, just as Donald Trump was being sworn into office in Washington DC, Pope Francis was granting EL PAÍS a long interview at the Vatican, during which he called for prudence in the face of widespread alarm over the new US president.
For an hour and 15 minutes, inside a modest room in Casa de Santa Marta, where he lives, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who was born in Buenos Aires 80 years ago and is on his way to completing his fourth year as Pontiff, explained that “in the Church there are saints and sinners, decent men and corrupt men,” but that what worries him the most is “a Church that has been anesthetized by mundanity,” one that is far removed from the problems of the people.
--snip--
As for what worries me about the world, it is war. We already have a World War III in little bits and pieces. Lately there is talk of a possible nuclear war, as though it were a card game: they are playing cards. That is my biggest concern. I am worried about the economic inequalities in the world: the fact that a small group of humans has over 80% of the world's wealth, with all its implications for the liquid economy, which at its center has money as a god, instead of men and women. Hence the throwaway culture.
Q. Your Holiness, going back to the global problems you just mentioned, Donald Trump is just now being sworn in as president of the United States, and the whole world is tense because of it. What do you make of it?
A. I think that we must wait and see. I don’t like to get ahead of myself, nor to judge people prematurely. We will see how he acts, what he does, and then I will form an opinion. But being afraid or rejoicing beforehand because of something that might happen is, in my view, quite unwise. It would be like prophets predicting calamities or windfalls that will not come to pass. We will see what he does and will judge accordingly. Always work with the specific. Christianity is either specific or it is not Christianity.
--snip--
Q. Both in Europe and in America, the repercussions of the crisis that never ends, the growing inequalities, the absence of a strong leadership are giving way to political groups that reflect on the citizens' malaise. Some of them —the so-called anti-system or populists— capitalize on the fears of an uncertain future in order to form a message full of xenophobia and hatred towards foreigners. Trump's case is the most noteworthy, but there are others such as Austria or Switzerland. Are you worried about this trend?
A. That is what they call populism here. It is an equivocal term, because in Latin America populism has another meaning. In Latin America, it means that the people —for instance, people's movements— are the protagonists. They are self-organized. When I started to hear about populism in Europe I didn't know what to make of it, until I realized that it had different meanings. Crises provoke fear, alarm.
In my opinion, the most obvious example of populism in the European sense of the word is Germany in 1933. After [Paul von] Hindenburg, after the crisis of 1930, Germany is broken, it needs to get up, to find its identity, it needs a leader, someone capable of restoring its character, and there is a young man named Adolf Hitler who says: "I can, I can". And Germans vote for Hitler. Hitler didn't steal power, his people voted for him, and then he destroyed his people. That is the risk. In times of crisis we lack judgment, and that is a constant reference for me. Let's look for a savior who gives us back our identity and let us defend ourselves with walls, barbed-wire, whatever, from other people who may rob us of our identity. And that is a very serious thing. That is why I always try to say: talk among yourselves, talk to one another. But the case of Germany in 1933 is typical, a people who were immersed in a crisis, who were searching for their identity until this charismatic leader came and promised to give their identity back, and he gave them a distorted identity, and we all know what happened. Where there is no conversation...
Can borders be controlled? Yes, each country has the right to control its borders, who comes in and who goes out, and those countries at risk —from terrorism or such things— have even more of a right to control them, but no country has the right to deprive its citizens of the possibility to talk with their neighbors.
Q. Do you see, Holy Father, any sign of 1933 Germany in today's Europe?
A. I am no expert, but, with regard to today's Europe, let me refer you to three speeches I have made, two in Strasbourg and the third one on the occasion of the Charlemagne prize, the only award I have accepted because they insisted a lot due to the situation Europe was in, and I accepted it as a service. Those three speeches contain what I think about Europe.
Pope's speech in 2014 Francis Goes to Strasbourg: Full Text of Pope's Speech to European Parliament (http://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/francis-goes-strasbourg-full-text-popes-speech-european-parliament) and receiving the Charlemagne Prize on 2016-05-06: Pope Francis' Full Speech (http://www.romereports.com/2016/05/08/charlemagne-prize-pope-francis-full-speech)
Read the Pope's speeches to understand where he's coming from. This Guardian gives the UK view: Pope Francis castigates Europe in speech on solidarity (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/06/pope-francis-urges-europe-to-return-to-post-war-principles)
Europe is struggling to live up to the vision of its founders, Pope Francis has said in a powerful speech that asked: “What has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy and freedom?”
Speaking as he became the first pope to accept the prestigious Charlemagne prize for his work on behalf of European solidarity, the pontiff called for Europe to reclaim the principles that had been established after the second world war, above all by embracing integration and revamping its economic model to “benefit ordinary people and society as a whole”.
His remarks reflected a concern that Europe is coming apart at the seams: from the unwillingness by some countries to deal with the refugee crisis, to the rise in populist and xenophobic political parties, to economic and immigration concerns fuelling the ‘leave’ campaign ahead of next month’s referendum in the UK.
Then Brexit happened...then Trump happened...
And you are telling me to NOT look at what happened in 1933 Germany and to NOT be worried the same thing could happen here in 2017? That a Trump/Hitler comparison is "kind of ridiculous". Seems the Pope didn't think it ridiculous, huh?
-
Meanwhile, back in DC, the Trump admin keeps bumbling along...
Under Fire: White House Staff Claims See-Through Fence, Levee Flood Protection System Is a ‘Border Wall’ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/02/under-fire-white-house-staff-claims-see-through-fence-levee-flood-protection-system-is-a-border-wall/)
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/05/Border-Wall-Spicer-Tweet-Twitter-640x480.jpg)
President Donald Trump’s White House communications team is claiming inaccurately that there is border wall funding in the spending bill before Congress right now. The move comes as the administration is facing political heat for the failure to obtain federal appropriations in the new omnibus spending bill to pay for the construction of a border wall, as President Trump promised on the campaign trail.
The latest controversy began with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer Tweeting out photos of a levee wall along the border and see-through border fence that illegal aliens and drug and human traffickers regularly cut through. Spicer argued, without calling any of them a “wall” like the one Trump promised on the campaign trail, that the president “just negotiated a spending deal where we can build these.” He explicitly did not call the photos a “border wall” on his Twitter account.
--snip--
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said this week that President Trump himself, and the White House overall, were not very involved in working on this bill—and that congressional Republicans took the lead, hence the Democrat wins and GOP failures. Schumer also advocated that Trump stay out of the next funding bill battle ahead of September, almost goading the president into a budget war. That is Trump’s next big test: Can he, now that he is familiar with the levers of power, successfully negotiate payment for a border wall in the next spending bill? Or can he find another way to get it done? Next time around, with the midterms looming, he may pay a steep price for politically outsourcing these projects to Capitol Hill leadership like Ryan—people who have a proven track record of failing him—or to staff who have repeatedly dropped the ball.
“The presidency has receded,” one senior GOP congressional aide told Breitbart News. “I’ve never seen anything like it. The administration is not involved in major discussions anymore. It’s President Ryan and quasi-Speaker Mark Meadows leading the way on major negotiations.”
Scary as it sounds (cause I like next door toe Wisconsin and can feel their pain), "President Ryan" sounds better than "President Trump".
-
Jeff, I don't like Trump one bit more then you do but a comparison with Hitler is uncalled for and ridiculous.
Even the Pope didn't say that, he said the situation in Germany 1933 is comparable in some ways to what's happening now, but he never accused anybody (incl. Trump) to act like Hitler has done. You only weaken your case by making such ill thought through comparisons. And since I support your case in general I think that's a pity.
-
Actually that was the Pope who was warning about populist leaders being like Hitler. And you were the the one that called Trump a populist leader who was like a plauge (which I agree with) on both of their houses...
So was Hitler a populist leader in Germany? Did Trump run as a popular leader? So, is the Pope right to warn the US and Europe of the dangers of populist leaders? Hey it was Time magazine the put Trump and Hitler on the cover- which trump likes to brag about (being on the cover-not beong compared to Hitler) although it seems Hitler's book Mein Kampf used sit on his nite stand according to one if his exwives...
The Pope never said Trump was Hitler. Neither did I. But, you did. There are many popular leaders. Bernie Sanders, an Independent, ran as one as well. Your excuses accusing Time and the Pope don't fly. You're vile and venom is just over-the-top. Frankly, by taking this extreme position you just add to the belief of many normal Americans that the left is bonkers and totally unreasonable. They are the dangerous ones who shut down open debate like what happened in Berkeley, riot, and are the real miscreants. Keep it up. It just helps Republicans and Trump.
-
...Seems the Pope didn't think it ridiculous, huh?
Funny... one populist leader, in conflict with his own party church's establishment on many traditional issues, criticizes another populist in conflict with his party's establishment and traditional principles.
-
Jeff, I don't like Trump one bit more then you do but a comparison with Hitler is uncalled for and ridiculous.
I agree. There is enough to criticize Trump about without devolving down to "Hitler" comparisons.
But then I was told that Bush jr. was like Hitler. After that I was told that Obama was like Hitler. Now I am being told that Trump is like Hitler. Pretty sure I will be told that the next president will be "like Hitler" too.
We, as a nation seem to like electing people "like Hitler" I guess. ;D
Pretty sad when the US has more leaders like Hitler than Germany ever did. ;)
-
There you go, not only Russia ;)
"Theresa May accuses EU of trying to affect UK election"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39787353
-
"How Hillary Clinton's attacks are helping President Trump"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html?sr=fbpol050317twitter-bots-donald-trump-hillary-clinton0602PMVODtopLink&linkId=37153284
Ninety-six percent of Trump voters said it was the right thing to do while just 2% said they regretted their vote in an April Washington Post-ABC News poll. That same poll showed that 96% of the people who voted for Trump said they would vote for him again; 85% of Clinton voters said they would cast a ballot for her again. (A Fox News poll produced similar results.)
-
"How Hillary Clinton's attacks are helping President Trump"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html?sr=fbpol050317twitter-bots-donald-trump-hillary-clinton0602PMVODtopLink&linkId=37153284
Yeah - people hate Hillary. I don't really get it, especially when comparing to Trump, who embodies literally every criticism one can make of her, and is an unmitigated wanker to boot, but the facts are the facts. Horrid as a candidate, even though she likely would have been an effective president.
-
The Pope never said Trump was Hitler. Neither did I. But, you did.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I didn't either. I asked a rhetorical question if by you saying about Trump, "He's a populist, kind of a "plague on both their houses" kind of politician" was that "sorta like Hitler, right?"
You may have been offended by my asking the question but it was a question, is Trump a populist leader in the mold of Hitler in 1932/33? Yes I would say so and even the Pope said so (he hasn't been the only one to draw the comparison BTW).
As for the covers, well that's an old story relating to the controversy of the Time cover and whether it was intentionally a play off a previous Hitler cover. Pretty sure I mentioned this before Time Magazine accused of giving Donald Trump devil horns and likening him to Hitler with Person of the Year cover (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4011358/Time-Magazine-accused-giving-Donald-Trump-devil-horns-likening-Hitler-Person-Year-cover.html)
Time Magazine has been accused of giving Donald Trump horns and likening him to Hitler with its person of the year cover.
The magazine named the President-elect as its person of the year on Wednesday and published a portrait photo of Trump on the cover.
But the internet was quick to criticize the cover image with many suggesting the magazine subtly portrayed Trump as the devil.
Others drew similarities between Trump's image and a cover shot of Adolf Hitler.
Well, pretty sure if Time did that, it was exhibiting a much more devious behavior that Time normally shows. Now, if you want to maybe give credit where credit might be due, Nadav Kander was the photographer of the cover. There's a story about it in Time: Behind TIME's Donald Trump Person of the Year Cover (http://time.com/4591211/time-person-of-the-year-2016-behind-the-cover/). But you can deep dive a bit on Kander: Meet the Jewish Photographer Behind Donald Trump’s ‘Subversive’ Time Cover (http://forward.com/news/national/356593/meet-the-jewish-photographer-behind-donald-trumps-subversive-time-cover/)
So, was Time guilty of "comparing Trump to Hitler"?
Then I mention the Pope and his discussion about populist leaders and going back to 1930's Germany and the rise of Hitler. But apparently that is verboten because quoting the Pope talking about Hitler somehow "diminishing the infamy of Hitler"?
Yeah, I don't think so...in fact I think the opposite is true...and so does this Yale professor, Timothy Snyder: Yale history professor: Here’s why it's useful to compare Trump's actions to Hitler's (http://www.businessinsider.com/yale-professor-shouldnt-afraid-compare-trump-hitler-on-tyranny-comparison-politics-2017-4)
Timothy Snyder is the author of "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century (https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Twenty-Lessons-Twentieth-Century/dp/0804190119?tag=bisafetynet-20)" and the Levin professor of history at Yale University. Snyder explains how comparing Trump to Hitler can be useful despite the differences. Following is a transcript of the video.
TIMOTHY SNYDER: So the way to start the discussion about comparisons is to point out that Americans are extremely lazy about history. I mean that's one way in which were definitely number one among major nations. And one of the ways we’re lazy about history is that as soon as anyone suggests that the past might be useful, then we say “but wait it's not exactly the same and therefore I'm just going to discard it.” In that way in two or three seconds we give ourselves an excuse not to think about history.
The premise of the book "On Tyranny" is not that Hitler is just like Trump or Trump is just like Hitler. The premise is that democratic republics usually fail and it's useful for us to see how they fail. One of the ways a democratic republic can fail is Germany in 1933. There are plenty of other examples in the book, also from the left wing Czechoslovakia in 1948 becoming communist. The point of the book is that these things really happened over and over again and that intelligent people, no less intelligent than us, experienced them and left a record for us to learn from. So what I'm trying to do in the book is to help us to learn from that record so we don't have events like Germany in 1933 or Czechoslovakia in 1948. Just saying “Hitler's not like Trump" or "Trump is not like Hitler” isn't going to save us. Learning for the past though, could.
So, yes, I reject any rule that comparing Hitler to Trump or visa versa isn't allowed because THAT my friends is an attack on free speech...
Frankly, by taking this extreme position you just add to the belief of many normal Americans that the left is bonkers and totally unreasonable. They are the dangerous ones who shut down open debate like what happened in Berkeley, riot, and are the real miscreants.
Does anybody else see the hypocrisy in the above statement? So, just because a position is extreme it means the position holder is "bonkers and totally unreasonable" and that these "dangerous ones who shut down open debate like what happened in Berkeley, riot, and are the real miscreants.".
Pot calling the kettle black much? Who's trying to shut down open debate?
Hey, I was all for having Milo Yiannopoulos speak at Berkeley and I was all for peaceful protest...I'm a child of the 60's and in the past I've done a lot of peaceful protesting. I even marched peacefully in the Science March. I'm not down on violence and trying to take away somebody else's right to free speech. Ann Colter? Bring the blonde bimbo on! The ladies of The View successfully gutted her...White Supremacist Richard Spencer at Texas A&M? Sure...and be sure to schedule an adequate counter speaker, maybe somebody like Bill Maher could take him down (in a peaceful verbal sort of way).
Actually I enjoyed watching Milo Yiannopoulos squirm on Bill Maher's show and that was BEFORE the pedaphilia drove him out of the public eye...
So, if somebody was offended I posted text and/or images that compared Trump's behavior and rhetoric to Hitler in the early 1930's I'm sorry, it was not my intent to offend...it was my intent to express my utter contempt of Trump, his behavior and his divisive, xenophobic and misogynistic rhetoric. It was my intent to point out the real risk to the United States and our democracy if this big orange clown drags us down like Hitler dragged down Germany when he was appointed as Chancellor on 30 January 1933, in a coalition arrangement between the Nazis and the Nationalist-Conservatives. Yeah, I know it's trite but the quote from George Santayana "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
Trump is president, but he's also very dangerous. It took him a long time to denounce the KKK and David Duke. White Supremacist Richard Spencer was yelling ‘Hail Trump! Hail our people!’ as conference attendants perform Nazi salutes in this video: Hail Trump. Hail our people. Hail victory! (https://youtu.be/1o6-bi3jlxk). He has been very luke warm in his condemnation of anti-Jewish or Muslim violence. Hell, his "America First" catchphrase has a disturbing history: President Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan was popularized by Nazi sympathizers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/20/president-trumps-america-first-slogan-was-popularized-by-nazi-sympathizers/?utm_term=.5c5b99f00320). Add to that the anti immigrant rhetoric and his history of claiming Obama wasn't born in America, all of which act as dog whistles to neo-nazi and white supremacist and you wonder why there are comparisons between Trump and Hitler?
So, I'm sorry anybody was offended but I don't apologize for my positions or my posts...
-
...xenophobic and misogynistic rhetoric...Add to that the anti immigrant rhetoric...
I have not heard anything xenophobic, misogynistic or anti-immigrant. I did hear anti ILLEGAL immigration rhetoric. Big difference.
-
You talking as a candidate or as president?
-
You talking as a candidate or as president?
Both.
-
I have not heard anything xenophobic, misogynistic or anti-immigrant. I did hear anti ILLEGAL immigration rhetoric. Big difference.
Ridiculous. Insulting Fiorina's appearance, the "pussy grabbing" comments, the comments about "just kissing" women and "...moving on [her] like a bitch.." The assertion that Gonzalo Curiel (born in Indiana) couldn't adjudicate a case objectively because of his hispanic heritage, his musings that Ghazala Khan wasn't allowed a voice because she and her husband are Muslim - the list is practically without end.
Look - I'm not going to argue that every Trump voter is a racist, a misogynist or a xenophobe, but if you don't see the messaging there that, at a minimum, attracted racists, xenophobes and, er... "traditional values" voters, you've almost got to be making a deliberate effort to ignore it.
-
http://www.theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
I would encourage everyone to read this all the way to the end.
-
http://www.theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
I would encourage everyone to read this all the way to the end.
Nice. 8)
-
It's hard to make a comparison between Trump and Hitler. However, there are some similarities between people who voted for Hitler, Trump and Erdogan.
Trump isn't Hitler - But he sure has many similarities that should concern clear thinking people! After all not all Germans who supported Hitler were antisemitic.
We hope that the american political system will not allow him to assume dictatorial powers like Hitler, or you will discover how much like him he really is!
-
Ridiculous. Insulting Fiorina's appearance, the "pussy grabbing" comments, the comments about "just kissing" women and "...moving on [her] like a bitch.." The assertion that Gonzalo Curiel (born in Indiana) couldn't adjudicate a case objectively because of his hispanic heritage, his musings that Ghazala Khan wasn't allowed a voice because she and her husband are Muslim - the list is practically without end...
Ridiculous indeed. None of that fits the description. Just fabricated accusations. Try to explain just how are those things misogyny, racism or whatever. If anything, he likes women. Beautiful ones in particular, just like most of humanity, throughout history.
-
We hope that the american political system will not allow him to assume dictatorial powers like Hitler, or you will discover how much like him he really is!
Yeah, actually the more I think about it and remember some of the stuff Trump was pulling and his pathological lying and his divisiveness (I keep harping on that) I'm even more worried because like it or not, Trump is trying to "normalize" Trump being Trump. Like it's normal for the president of the US to flit off to his southern Whitehouse for golf and high level meetings and chocolate cake while telling the president of Chine he just launched 59 cruise missiles. That's it's normal for his globe trotting children to be protected at tax payer expense while doing business for Trump's businesses that he still owns and can take money from. That's it's normal for a 70 year old man to be tweeting, stone cold sober, at 3, 4 or 5 am and threatening North Korea. It's normal for a president of the USA to have so little knowledge of American history that he doesn't realize Andrew Jackson died 16 years before the Civi War and thus Jackson likely couldn't have stopped the war. Is that Normal? Is it normal for Trump to stumble around giving incomprehensible interviews with AP (Trump’s AP Interview Reveals Our Unhinged and Unintelligible Commander-in-Chief (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/04/24/trumps-ap-interview-completely-unfit-president-united-states.html) or saying he didn't think the job of President of the United States would be so hard (Exclusive: Trump says he thought being president would be easier than his old life (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA).
Is that all an acceptable "normal"?
No, here's the problem with that..."normalizing" the non-normal is exactly what Hitler did...I submit the following article in support of that position:
Donald Trump using Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' playbook, says world expert on Nazi leader (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adolf-hitler-donald-trump-mein-kampf-bluffed-way-to-power-nazi-leader-germany-fuhrer-us-president-a7568506.html)
President's 'views come out of a playbook written in German' says author — 'the playbook is Mein Kampf'
A leading expert on the Nazi party has said there are similarities between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. Both men "bluffed" their way into power, confounding an establishment that did not know what to do but normalise them, according to author Ron Rosenbaum. The Adolf Hitler biographer said he had refused to compare Mr Trump to the Nazi leader during the campaign period for fear of trivialising genocide, but after the election things changed.
“Now Trump and his minions are in the driver’s seat, attempting to pose as respectable participants in American politics, when their views come out of a playbook written in German,” said Mr Rosenbaum, who wrote Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil (https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/hitler-continued-afterword-updated-edition-explaining-hitler-search-origins-evil/).
“The playbook is Mein Kampf.”
“Hitler used the tactics of bluff masterfully, at times giving the impression of being a feckless Chaplinesque clown, at other times a sleeping serpent, at others yet a trustworthy statesman," Mr Rosenbaum said. "The Weimar establishment didn’t know what to do, so they pretended this was normal. They 'normalised' him.” As part of this normalisation — a phenomenon Mr Rosenbaum said also happened with Mr Trump — Hitler and the Nazi party were allowed back onto electoral lists — in an act of “democracy destroying itself democratically”.
...in an act of “democracy destroying itself democratically”
(Well, with the help and aid of Russia...)
-
Ridiculous indeed. None of that fits the description. Just fabricated accusations. Try to explain just how are those things misogyny, racism or whatever. If anything, he likes women. Beautiful ones in particular, just like most of humanity, throughout history.
Donald Trump sexism tracker: Every offensive comment in one place (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/)
Donald Trump's xenophobia Divide and conquer (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/donald-trumps-xenophobia)
Heck, he launched his campaign by saying:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said at his campaign announcement. “But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”
Seriously, do you really need to relitigate the litany of Trump's poor behavior and speech? Surely your memory is not that short...
-
http://www.theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
I would encourage everyone to read this all the way to the end.
The oatmeal is one of my favorites.
This one, while rather long, is worth the read.
I envisioned some of the posters here were depicted in some of the drawings. ;D
-
Heck, he launched his campaign by saying...
You keep quoting .... but I am looking for an explanation as to why is that racist... in your own words, not another quote.
-
.... I envisioned some of the posters here were depicted in some of the drawings. ;D
Yes, who wouldn't be jealous of Jeff's cave? Huge double monitors, triple Thunderbolt drives, quadrophonic music... ;)
-
😂
Yep I saw that and laughed...but ya better make sure you don't bring a knife to angun fight when you try to take my cave!
-
Ridiculous indeed. None of that fits the description. Just fabricated accusations. Try to explain just how are those things misogyny, racism or whatever. If anything, he likes women. Beautiful ones in particular, just like most of humanity, throughout history.
I can't even tell if you're actually being serious. Claiming an hispanic federal judge, born in Indiana, can't adjudicate impartially because of his heritage? How is that NOT racist? It's the definition of racist. (And it's certainly not fabricated.) Claiming that illegal immigrants are largely murderers and rapists (not even close to true)... how is that not at a minimum xenophobic, if not racist (since he's not really talking about non-Mexican immigrants in that particular quote).
As for "liking beautiful women," you know, there's a reason why it's not ok to smack your assistant on the ass anymore while you ask her to "get along and please get me a cup of coffee, sweetie.." You get that right? It's not just that his opinion that women want him to "just kiss" without even asking (because he's The Donald) is piggish, crude and disgusting, it also shows an utter disregard and lack of understanding for what those women actually feel/want/think.
I mean, damn. You *can't* be serious, right? Racism isn't just guys in white sheets walking down the street with burning crosses, and promoting a female in your company doesn't automagically absolve one of being sexist when one is on record saying that, "...you have to treat [women] like s**t." (Also not fabricated, by the way.)
-
... Racism isn't just guys in white sheets walking down the street with burning crosses...
Oh, I do not know... you guys consider not looking people in the eye to be racist these days (also not fabricated), so I really don't know anymore.
-
... Claiming an hispanic federal judge, born in Indiana, can't adjudicate impartially because of his heritage?...
If a judge of that heritage can be better than a white judge, isn't the reverse true as well? In other words, that a judge of that heritage can be worse (i.e., less impartial) than a white judge?
-
Oh, I do not know... you guys consider not looking people in the eye to be racist these days (also not fabricated), so I really don't know anymore.
Slobodan, I think you're smart enough to understand, but let me help just to be sure. Not looking somebody in the eye is not racist, the examples James Clark quotes are racist. The difference is quite large.
-
If a judge of that heritage can be better than a white judge, isn't the reverse true as well? In other words, that a judge of that heritage can be worse (i.e., less impartial) than a white judge?
A populist twist, nobody said that a hispanic heritage judge was better then a white judge. You just made that up.
-
A populist twist, nobody said that judge was better then a white judge. You just made that up.
I did? You sure?
-
I did? You sure?
Yep.
-
Yep.
"In 2001, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave her now famous “wise Latina” speech, during which she reminded a group of University of California Berkeley law students that their personal experiences would enrich the legal system."
Not to mention that she was nominated precisely because she was of that heritage.
-
Slobodan, I think you're smart enough to understand, but let me help just to be sure. Not looking somebody in the eye is not racist, the examples James Clark quotes are racist. The difference is quite large.
Again, you sure?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39692673
Avoiding eye contact 'everyday racism'
-
Nice quotes and references Slobodan, but can you explain why should I agree with them ;)
-
Nice quotes and references Slobodan, but can you explain why should I agree with them ;)
You are right, you may not necessarily agree. But a lot of people on the left do. I am just saying that we do not agree on the definition of racism, therefore we do not agree with qualifications of certain words as such either.
Funny, though, I tend to agree with Sotomayor, up to a point, that certain life experiences can provide a basis for a different perspective. But, as I said, it cuts both ways: if it can be used for better decisions, it can be used for worse decisions as well. Therefore, it can not be described as racist in one instance and applauded (not fabricated) in another.
-
I can't even tell if you're actually being serious. Claiming an hispanic federal judge, born in Indiana, can't adjudicate impartially because of his heritage? How is that NOT racist? It's the definition of racist. (And it's certainly not fabricated.) Claiming that illegal immigrants are largely murderers and rapists (not even close to true)... how is that not at a minimum xenophobic, if not racist (since he's not really talking about non-Mexican immigrants in that particular quote).
As for "liking beautiful women," you know, there's a reason why it's not ok to smack your assistant on the ass anymore while you ask her to "get along and please get me a cup of coffee, sweetie.." You get that right? It's not just that his opinion that women want him to "just kiss" without even asking (because he's The Donald) is piggish, crude and disgusting, it also shows an utter disregard and lack of understanding for what those women actually feel/want/think.
I mean, damn. You *can't* be serious, right? Racism isn't just guys in white sheets walking down the street with burning crosses, and promoting a female in your company doesn't automagically absolve one of being sexist when one is on record saying that, "...you have to treat [women] like s**t." (Also not fabricated, by the way.)
Trump wasn't discriminating against the judge. He was concerned that the judge would discriminate against him because he said some nasty things about some Latinos. Discrimination goes both ways. He was afraid the judge couldn't be fair. Black people say the Attorney General cannot be fair. That he'll discriminate. Are black people racist or do they have a legitimate concern?
If you were a white guy suing a black guy, would you want black or white jurors. If you wanted white jurors, would you be a racist?If you're a black guy suing a white guy, would you want black or white jurors? If you wanted black jurors, would you be a racist?
This political correctness is getting very hurtful for individuals and for society as a whole. We've lost the real meaning of racism because it's now being used as a PC weapon to destroy people. Include misogyny, gay, and all kinds of PC policing. Of course night show comedians can talk about Trump getting BJ's. But because it comes from the left, it's OK. Only the right has to obey PC rules.
-
Trump wasn't discriminating against the judge. He was concerned that the judge would discriminate against him because he said some nasty things about some Latinos. Discrimination goes both ways. He was afraid the judge couldn't be fair. Black people say the Attorney General cannot be fair. That he'll discriminate. Are black people racist or do they have a legitimate concern?
Doesn't Lady Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice) have a blindfold on (and carry a sword and balance) in the USA?
Cheers,
Bart
-
You are right, you may not necessarily agree. But a lot of people on the left do. I am just saying that we do not agree on the definition of racism, therefore we do not agree with qualifications of certain words as such either.
Slobodan, let me pop your bubble, not everybody who dislikes Trump is a leftwing liberal. At least I'm not.
I'm also not saying Trump is a racist, he certainly made racist remarks (for instance disqualifying a judge only because of his heritage) but I'm told many times here you can't take everything Trump is saying seriously (or literally) so maybe this is just another case where the gain of the filter between his brains and his mouth was set too low.
-
Doesn't Lady Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice) have a blindfold on (and carry a sword and balance) in the USA?
She is a statue. Judges are human ;)
-
She is a statue. Judges are human ;)
Partial judges in my country would need to find a different occupation very fast because that is not tolerated. Judges are there to apply the Law, irrespective of their personal persuasions, they are impartial. Because interpretations of the law are possible, courts in the Netherlands are presided by multiple (at least 3) judges for complicated or important cases or appeals.
The situation in the USA seems to be highly politicized from my perspective (or as portrayed by you), and thus not very 'just' (except for good judges).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Because judges are human, i.e., subject to biases like the rest of us, and because most laws require some degree of interpretation, we have such fierce political battles when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices.
-
Just a reminder:
-
It's nearly impossible to have a judge removed from office over here. Judges, once appointed or elected, are lifetime appointments.
You need to clarify that this only pertains to Federal judges. State and local judges are not lifetime appointments (at least all the states that I am familiar with). Even so there are Federal judges who have been removed from office for malfeasance.
-
If a judge of that heritage can be better than a white judge, isn't the reverse true as well? In other words, that a judge of that heritage can be worse (i.e., less impartial) than a white judge?
Sure - that's not racism. Any individual of any heritage can be more or less competent than any other individual. Saying a judge is not impartial because of his race in a case that has nothing to do with race or his cultural experience? That's racism.
To quote the estimable Paul Ryan, this statement was, "...sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment."
But if that's not racist, can we get back to the part about how men who just can't help but commit sexual assault are really just appreciating attractive women (like they have for thousands of years)?
-
Trump wasn't discriminating against the judge. He was concerned that the judge would discriminate against him because he said some nasty things about some Latinos. Discrimination goes both ways. He was afraid the judge couldn't be fair. Black people say the Attorney General cannot be fair. That he'll discriminate. Are black people racist or do they have a legitimate concern?
If you were a white guy suing a black guy, would you want black or white jurors. If you wanted white jurors, would you be a racist?If you're a black guy suing a white guy, would you want black or white jurors? If you wanted black jurors, would you be a racist?
This political correctness is getting very hurtful for individuals and for society as a whole. We've lost the real meaning of racism because it's now being used as a PC weapon to destroy people. Include misogyny, gay, and all kinds of PC policing. Of course night show comedians can talk about Trump getting BJ's. But because it comes from the left, it's OK. Only the right has to obey PC rules.
I'm honestly speechless.
-
Yeah, once you equate the speech of comedians performing with judges delivering decisions, it's pretty much all over.
-
I'm honestly speechless.
Maybe you didn't have the same experience I had with a federal justice on the same level as the ones that ruled against Trump on his executive orders. In a case I was being sued, the justice ruled against me regarding my own attorney who requested to be removed from my case. He was worried I would stop paying him. I wanted him to stay because it would cost too much money to get a new lawyer up-to-speed to represent me. The judge of course was a former attorney himself. So I knew I was in trouble. Lawyers tend to stick together even when one becomes a judge. Professional courtesy. In any case, when I complained to the federal justice in his chambers that his ruling wasn't right, he looked me in the eye and said, quote: "Mr. Klein, you know the American jurisprudence system isn't always fair." End quote.
I was honestly speechless, just like you. Actually stunned. Not so much by the ruling. I kinda expected that. But by what he said to me in his answer to my question. Yes, judges are prejudiced.
-
It seems Australia and America are good friends and allies again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/world/australia/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-meeting.html?_r=0
-
Maybe you didn't have the same experience I had with a federal justice on the same level as the ones that ruled against Trump on his executive orders. In a case I was being sued, the justice ruled against me regarding my own attorney who requested to be removed from my case. He was worried I would stop paying him. I wanted him to stay because it would cost too much money to get a new lawyer up-to-speed to represent me. The judge of course was a former attorney himself. So I knew I was in trouble. Lawyers tend to stick together even when one becomes a judge. Professional courtesy. In any case, when I complained to the federal justice in his chambers that his ruling wasn't right, he looked me in the eye and said, quote: "Mr. Klein, you know the American jurisprudence system isn't always fair." End quote.
I was honestly speechless, just like you. Actually stunned. Not so much by the ruling. I kinda expected that. But by what he said to me in his answer to my question. Yes, judges are prejudiced.
In what universe does your quibble with an attorney and the judges decision to let your lawyer walk in any way resemble the decisions by federal judges to Trump's transparent attempt to ban muslims from entering the country? Your attorney apparently made a convincing argument that he wasn't getting paid, or that you were involved in continuing criminal behavior. I think you might need to bone up on what prejudice means; what you describe would be collusion, not prejudice.
There is no small degree of irony in literally every post I read from you. Now you're the special snowflake who wants special rules and you're upset because the cookie didn't crumble your way. You've apparently been convinced that you're a victim in a broad liberal conspiracy to keep the white man down. In reality, you're just feeling entitled to benefits that you have no claim to...and you view the entire world through that lens.
Your president and congress just claimed victory for passing a bill that will probably (my assumption) materially affect you negatively. In addition, it will materially benefit a group of people that really don't need any help. But no worries, at least America and Australia are BFFs again!
-
You need to clarify that this only pertains to Federal judges. State and local judges are not lifetime appointments (at least all the states that I am familiar with). Even so there are Federal judges who have been removed from office for malfeasance.
About 15 of them have been removed. It does take a lot to impeach and convict a Federal Judge and that is how it should be.
Removing a Federal Judge is a serious step and needs to be considered far beyond just "we did not like this one decision he or she made".
-
... lack of understanding for what those women actually feel/want/think....
Luckily, there is a book to help:
-
Understanding Women, ...
That must be the Part 1 copy.
-
In what universe does your quibble with an attorney and the judges decision to let your lawyer walk in any way resemble the decisions by federal judges to Trump's transparent attempt to ban muslims from entering the country? Your attorney apparently made a convincing argument that he wasn't getting paid, or that you were involved in continuing criminal behavior. I think you might need to bone up on what prejudice means; what you describe would be collusion, not prejudice.
There is no small degree of irony in literally every post I read from you. Now you're the special snowflake who wants special rules and you're upset because the cookie didn't crumble your way. You've apparently been convinced that you're a victim in a broad liberal conspiracy to keep the white man down. In reality, you're just feeling entitled to benefits that you have no claim to...and you view the entire world through that lens.
Your president and congress just claimed victory for passing a bill that will probably (my assumption) materially affect you negatively. In addition, it will materially benefit a group of people that really don't need any help. But no worries, at least America and Australia are BFFs again!
Wow. You figured out all that about me, did you, just from my post. Well, you're incorrect on all scores. First, I never said the cases were the same. I said the judges were on the same level. Second, I was not tried as a criminal. It was a civil case. Third, I said that the judge's decision was pretty expected. It was the judge's comment afterwards "...Well, the American jurisprudence system is not always fair..." that was astounding to me. I would think anyone would find that a judge who would say something like that to a litigant in a trial he is handling as pretty amazing and downright depressing. I'll let others decide if his statement or he was biased.
Also, how did you even read in my post that "... You've apparently been convinced that you're a victim in a broad liberal conspiracy to keep the white man down..." Wow. It seems to me that you're the one with the baggage to even say something like that. You really should get a grip on before you make such denigrating accusations about me.
-
It seems Australia and America are good friends and allies again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/world/australia/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-meeting.html?_r=0
We always have been, but as has been demonstrated numerous times, Trump knows nothing of history.
-
We always have been, but as has been demonstrated numerous times, Trump knows nothing of history.
Phil, the disagreement had nothing to do with Trump's knowledge of history. So why make an ad hominin attack against him? Trump was upset a few weeks ago when Australia's President Turnbull told him in that now famous phone call that Obama was going to take the 1250 refugees to America that Australia was holding in offshore detention camps. Australia didn't want them - it went against your strong position on what kind of people you take in. They have to have Australian "values", English speaking, etc. Read the article I gave you the link too. In any case, moving those refugees to America was against Trump's strong position during the election here against taking in refugees who aren't vetted. Similar to Turnbull's. Trump was upset with the Obama/Turnbull deal. In the end, Trump honored the deal Obama made and got Turnbull and Australia off the hook from having to deal with those refugees if he had refused to bring them to America. You should thank Trump instead of insulting him.
-
Phil, the disagreement had nothing to do with Trump's knowledge of history. So why make an ad hominin attack against him? Trump was upset a few weeks ago when Australia's President Turnbull told him in that now famous phone call that Obama was going to take the 1250 refugees to America that Australia was holding in offshore detention camps. Australia didn't want them - it went against your strong position on what kind of people you take in. They have to have Australian "values", English speaking, etc. Read the article I gave you the link too. In any case, moving those refugees to America was against Trump's strong position during the election here against taking in refugees who aren't vetted. Similar to Turnbull's. Trump was upset with the Obama/Turnbull deal. In the end, Trump honored the deal Obama made and got Turnbull and Australia off the hook from having to deal with those refugees if he had refused to bring them to America. You should thank Trump instead of insulting him.
The refugee exchange (it's not just us giving you refugees - we're taking the same number from you) has nothing to do with "values" at all and was long before Trump shot his mouth off without obtaining advice from his advisors. Trump's lack of understanding of history is evident constantly, not just that one instance. Trump could have *easily* walked away from that deal without attacking Turnbull or Australia, but he bumbled his way into a giant gaffe that has several of his key advisors talking back the situation before it became ridiculously embarrassing for Trump.
So once you've actually read and understand the exchange deal and note that the latest changes here relating to applications for citizenship were unrelated to the refugee deal (which is about dis-incentivising people smugglers and economic refugees (in support of domestic political considerations), then perhaps you can be involved in a conversation about it. I have nothing to thank Trump for.
-
Interestingly, Trump congratulated Turnbull and Australia for having a health care system that is far superior to America's!
-
Interestingly, Trump congratulated Turnbull and Australia for having a health care system that is far superior to America's!
But does he even have a clue what he's talking about?
That remains to be the recurring question.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But does he even have a clue what he's talking about?
That remains to be the recurring question.
Cheers,
Bart
It's only a recurring question to people who don't like him, who look for every excuse to "knock" him. The rest of us are hopeful he'll get some good things done for America, and the world.
-
It's only a recurring question to people who don't like him, who look for every excuse to "knock" him. The rest of us are hopeful he'll get some good things done for America, and the world.
Don't you see the contradiction in this Alan? Even if your hopeful it still remains a (recurring) question.
-
Interesting situation developing with the hack in the French election, and a good report about it in the Huff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/france-macron-leak_us_590db806e4b0104c734f522a?2c&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
The main question is whether it is the same Russian hack group, or some home grown French hackers. In contrast to USA, which had all major publications reporting on the Dem and Clinton hacks, in France all publications are ordered not too publish any of these leaks in order not to influence the election.
With the German election looming, the hackers may be already working on infiltrating the German political parties and their networks.
-
Interesting situation developing with the hack in the French election, and a good report about it in the Huff Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/france-macron-leak_us_590db806e4b0104c734f522a?2c&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
The main question is whether it is the same Russian hack group, or some home grown French hackers. In contrast to USA, which had all major publications reporting on the Dem and Clinton hacks, in France all publications are ordered not too publish any of these leaks in order not to influence the election.
With the German election looming, the hackers may be already working on infiltrating the German political parties and their networks.
Interestingly, according to local sources, the origin of the leaks and the fake information that was added to cause confusion (a user by the name EMLEAKS uploaded 9 GB of data to the Pastebin site, a free file sharing site) was first published by '4chan', a popular far-right forum in the USA. Now that may be a deliberate diversion tactic, but an interesting choice nevertheless.
EDIT: New info.
French candidate Macron claims massive hack as emails leaked:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-macron-leaks-idUSKBN1812AZ
Cheers,
Bart
-
Pentagon to lease privately owned Trump Tower apartment for nuclear 'football': letter
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-trumptower-idUSKBN1812B5
"Pentagon to lease privately owned Trump Tower apartment for nuclear 'football': letter
The U.S. Defense Department is finalizing a lease on a privately owned apartment in New York's Trump Tower for the White House Military Office to use for supporting President Donald Trump without providing any benefit to Trump or his organization, according to a Pentagon letter seen by Reuters.
The Military Office carries and safeguards the "football," the device that contains the top secret launch codes the president needs to order a nuclear attack, as well as providing him secure communications wherever he is.
The White House, Secret Service, and Defense Department had no comment on whether similar arrangements have been made at other properties Trump frequents - Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida and the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, where Trump is spending this weekend.
In a letter to Representative Jackie Speier, a Democrat on the House Armed Services and intelligence committees, Defense Department official James MacStravic, said the apartment is "privately owned and ... lease negotiations have been with the owner's representatives only."
MacStravic, who wrote that he was "temporarily performing the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics," said any acquisition of leased space with "an annual rental in excess of $1 million must first be approved by my office."
He "approved this action" after consulting with the White House Military Office and other officials, he said."
Why in the Trump tower????? Inquiring minds want to know ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Interestingly, Trump congratulated Turnbull and Australia for having a health care system that is far superior to America's!
Well, by any reasonable and objective measure it is (it's not perfect, but it delivers better outcomes for less). Although the WH walked back this comment very quickly.
-
It's only a recurring question to people who don't like him, who look for every excuse to "knock" him. The rest of us are hopeful he'll get some good things done for America, and the world.
No one has to "look for an excuse", he "knocks" himself every time he opens his mouth. Every one, well almost, want to see him do something good for the nation and its citizens, but I think it will take more than hope.
Rich
-
Pentagon to lease privately owned Trump Tower apartment for nuclear 'football': letter
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-trumptower-idUSKBN1812B5
"Pentagon to lease privately owned Trump Tower apartment for nuclear 'football': letter
The U.S. Defense Department is finalizing a lease on a privately owned apartment in New York's Trump Tower for the White House Military Office to use for supporting President Donald Trump without providing any benefit to Trump or his organization, according to a Pentagon letter seen by Reuters.
The Military Office carries and safeguards the "football," the device that contains the top secret launch codes the president needs to order a nuclear attack, as well as providing him secure communications wherever he is.
The White House, Secret Service, and Defense Department had no comment on whether similar arrangements have been made at other properties Trump frequents - Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida and the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, where Trump is spending this weekend.
In a letter to Representative Jackie Speier, a Democrat on the House Armed Services and intelligence committees, Defense Department official James MacStravic, said the apartment is "privately owned and ... lease negotiations have been with the owner's representatives only."
MacStravic, who wrote that he was "temporarily performing the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics," said any acquisition of leased space with "an annual rental in excess of $1 million must first be approved by my office."
He "approved this action" after consulting with the White House Military Office and other officials, he said."
Why in the Trump tower????? Inquiring minds want to know ...
Cheers,
Bart
Well, I'd be glad to rent my home to the Secret Service for what they're going to pay for the apartment in Trump Tower. But I'm located in New Jersey and doubt if they'd want to be that far away from Trump. Seriously, where would you want the Secret Service employees to be when Trump is in Trump Tower? Of course the Secret service could also use it for hookers they have been known to solicit. When they're off duty, of course.
-
No one has to "look for an excuse", he "knocks" himself every time he opens his mouth. Every one, well almost, want to see him do something good for the nation and its citizens, but I think it will take more than hope.
Rich
Well Obama promised "Hope and Change" and we never got any good change.
-
Well Obama promised "Hope and Change" and we never got any good change.
[/quote
If I had told you eight years ago that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history…if I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, and take out the mastermind of 9/11…if I had told you that we would win marriage equality, and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens – you might have said our sights were set a little too high.
Our democracy won’t work without a sense that everyone has economic opportunity. Today, the economy is growing again; wages, incomes, home values, and retirement accounts are rising again; poverty is falling again. The wealthy are paying a fairer share of taxes even as the stock market shatters records. The unemployment rate is near a 10-year low. The uninsured rate has never, ever been lower. Healthcare costs are rising at the slowest rate in 50 years. And if anyone can put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we’ve made to our healthcare system – that covers as many people at less cost – I will publicly support it.
These are quotes from Mr. Obama's farewell speech.
NEVER got any good change? What does it take for you? Perhaps pragmatism and realistic aren't in your vocabulary.
Rich
-
Well Obama promised "Hope and Change" and we never got any good change.
Some of us think otherwise. Dodd/Frank was massive in addressing a number of issues related to the financial meltdown. The Consumer Protection Bureau is already saving a lot of money for ordinary citizens. Obamacare offered good insurance to independent workers (my two daughters) for a reasonable price. We also got two good new women Supreme Court justices.
-
Although I didn't vote for Obama because he was too liberal and socialist and inexperienced, I thought it was great that a black man became President. I felt very proud of my country. We could finally put to rest our slavery past, the Civil War, and move on to a more integrated society where race would no longer be an arguing point. Unfortunately, President Obama used race to divide people for political advantage. He aggravated race relations rather than ameliorate them. He did the same with gender, social class, rich against poor, all acting to divide Americans into sub-groups for votes.
His Justice Department's non-action against anyone in Wall Street and bankers who criminally violated laws that helped cause the recession was appreciated with the Fed subsequently giving them billions to buy Treasuries to recover their wealth which they have done and are now richer than they were before. The rest of us regular people got crap. Wall Street and the bankers showed their appreciation when he left office by paying him $400,000 for a speech. Of course this is also a "wink and nod" to all future politicians that they too will be taken care of if they treat banks and Wall Street as well as Obama did.
His fecklessness and weakness on the international stage created adversaries who did not fear us and allies who could no longer trust us. ISIS, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia's taking over the Crimea and parts of the Ukraine, Georgia, China's militarizing the South China Sea islands, North Korean atom bomb, Iraq and Libya falling apart, refugees creating problems in Europe, Australia looking to China fearing America no longer would be there for her, ditto Saudia Arabia looking to Russia, etc. Fortunately Trump is turning that around.
He added $10 trillion to our debt (doubling it) to get a very weak recovery. He selected Fed chairs that printed over $4 trillion dollars inflating the dollar and keeping interests rates at zero which is has created new bubbles in real estate and has inflated the stock market. Trump may try, but I don't think he'll be able to reverse the damage.
-
"Are people who hate Trump just snobs?":
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39849073
Are both liberal and conservative intellectuals simply appalled by the way he talks?
They are so blinded by his misuse of language and mangling of history that they judge him for what he says, and how he says it, and not for what he does.
Trump has shaken the tree of US politics and that in itself is worth doing. He points to the tough talk on immigration and the fact that border crossings from Mexico are down in the past couple of months as evidence that the "president's policies have created a virtual wall, one that may obviate the need for the $20 billion eyesore after all".
-
...
-
Interesting viewpoint, Slobodan
Here is another CBC interview (aired a month ago, on Apr. 7, but still good and valid):
David Frumm, Atlantic's senior editor and former speech writer for George W. Bush believes that Trump's words and actions are like random walks and
Trump is never going to be a proper president (http://http ://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-is-never-going-to-be-a-proper-president-says-david-frum-1.4061836)
-
...Trump's words and actions are like random walks...
About that:
-
Yeah, but our guy can yugly out tweet any of them Frenchies. ;D ;D ;D
Making America great... one twit at at time.
-
Trump fires FBI Director Comey: White House:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-idUSKBN1852MV?il=0
"President Donald Trump on Tuesday fired FBI Director James Comey in a shock development, saying Comey was no longer able to effectively lead the agency.
"It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission," he said in a letter to Comey released by the White House."
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. The initial 2 line Reuters comment was updated with additional info.
Trump fires FBI Director Comey, setting off U.S. political storm:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-idUSKBN1852MV
"U.S. President Donald Trump ignited a political firestorm on Tuesday by firing FBI Director James Comey, who had been leading an investigation into the Trump 2016 presidential campaign's possible collusion with Russia to influence the election outcome.
The Republican president said he fired Comey, the top U.S. law enforcement official, over his handling of an election-year email scandal involving then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
The move stunned Washington and raised suspicions among Democrats and others that the White House was trying to blunt the FBI probe involving Russia."
-
Trump fires FBI Director Comey: White House:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-idUSKBN1852MV?il=0
"President Donald Trump on Tuesday fired FBI Director James Comey in a shock development, saying Comey was no longer able to effectively lead the agency.
"It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission," he said in a letter to Comey released by the White House."
Cheers,
Bart
Why do we want to keep Comey, a loose cannon, running the FBI investigating the Trump administration when he totally mishandled the Clinton investigation? Democrats feel he failed because he hurt Hillary's chances to be elected. Republicans think he failed because he should have had her indicted. Time for new blood, someone who will lead the FBI investigation of any Trump collusion with the Russians and to get to the bottom of illegal leaks and who is totally respected by Democrats and Republicans and all Americans.
-
If only Trump would appoint someone that both sides respect. Firing the person investigating you is not usually a good move.
-
If only Trump would appoint someone that both sides respect. Firing the person investigating you is not usually a good move.
Indeed, the timing is also most awkward. I was a bit surprised to see the termination letter to Comey specifically appreciating that on three occasions he had mentioned that Trump is not under investigation. What has that to do with things? Or is that the thing, the investigations are getting too close?
Mind you, I do not think that Comey's public appearances made a very good impression, but I do not know how he ran the bureau's affairs internally. Maybe it's a good thing to replace him, but the timing is strange, to say the least.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't think Comey conducted himself appropriately as the head of the FBI.
I think the way Trump fired him was disrespectful, but that's not exactly unexpected of Trump.
-
"He doesn't know anything.."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/08/donald-trumps-ignorance-evident-by-the-day?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/08/donald-trumps-ignorance-evident-by-the-day?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
Imagine if Hilary had won and had this many scandals 100+ days into her term. The other side would be apoplectic!
Large swaths of the american middle class have been left to fend for themselves, and it all started with Reagan and the crazy notion that the wealthy weren't being rewarded enough. Well, they fixed that problem alright. Too bad about the 30 year long stagnation in middle incomes. I cannot blame them for being ticked off and expressing themselves at the polls. The question is who do they turn to next, because Trump isn't on their side either. And who will the Republicans turn to next?
-
If only Trump would appoint someone that both sides respect. Firing the person investigating you is not usually a good move.
The problem is not that Comey had anything on Trump. He admitted he didn't. The problem is Trump wants the FBI to reveal who unmasked him and others in his Administration and illegally revealed it to the newspapers. Comey's been sitting on that which is unfairly hurting Trump. I suspect Trump will get someone in there to get to the bottom of these issues. Also, Comey showed he's a loose cannon who only follows his own compass. He doesn't have respect for regular procedures and law. Considering what he did to Clinton, why would anyone want this man investigating them?
-
The problem is not that Comey had anything on Trump. He admitted he didn't.
But he possibly did on some of Trump's campaign team, and on Flynn, Manafort?, Kushner Companies??, and ...?
He even has the Russians laughing: "Was he fired? You're kidding": Lavrov on Comey
http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/05/10/was-he-fired-youre-kidding-lavrov-on-com?videoId=371647667&videoChannel=1003
Again, it may be a good decision in the long term (or not) for the FBI, but the timing??????
Assuming this was not something impulsive, who's the replacement? Or is he only now starting to think about having someone in charge of that important organization?
FBI in turmoil over Comey firing, scramble on for new chief
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-succession-idUSKBN18606G
"The FBI was reeling after President Donald Trump unexpectedly fired its director James Comey, with agency staff scheduling an emergency high-level meeting for Tuesday night amid speculation about who would replace Comey in the top job.
An FBI official, who was not authorized to speak to reporters and so asked not to be identified, said the staff meeting would explore next steps for the law-enforcement agency.
Trump sacked Comey amidst a probe into the Trump 2016 presidential campaign's possible collusion with Russia to influence the election outcome, sparking backlash from some Democrats in Congress who said the decision had the appearance of a cover-up and some Republicans who called the timing troubling.
The official said the FBI had no idea the Trump administration was considering dismissing Comey and the news “took even top officials by surprise.”"
Cheers,
Bart
-
I wonder how soon Comey's book will be coming out?
-
Well, Nixon shot himself in the foot by firing Archibald Cox, we'll see what firing Comey does for the Trump team 8)
-
FBI chief aimed to expand Russia probe before Trump fired him:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-replacement-idUSKBN1861HK
"FBI Director James Comey sought to expand his agency's probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election days before President Donald Trump fired him on Tuesday, a congressional source said on Wednesday.
With the Republican president facing a storm of criticism from many Democrats and some lawmakers in his own party, the Trump administration accused Comey of "atrocities" on the job and denied his firing was related to the FBI investigation into the Trump 2016 presidential campaign's possible collusion with Moscow to sway the election.
The ouster stunned Washington and plunged Trump deeper into a controversy over his campaign's alleged ties with Russia that has dogged the early days of his presidency."
And further down the report:
"A congressional source with knowledge of the matter said Comey told lawmakers within the past few days that he had asked the Justice Department for more funding for the Russia probe. Comey informed lawmakers of that request after the Senate intelligence committee had asked the FBI to speed up its Russia inquiry, the source said.
Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters she understood that Comey was seeking more resources for the FBI investigation.
"We know that there are subpoenas being requested in the Eastern District of Virginia, and that this investigation has been going on," Feinstein told reporters.
She said she met with Comey on March 15 along with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. At the time Comey said it was "a big counter-intelligence and criminal investigation," Feinstein said. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
Comeys' greatest "crime" is that he's independent - as he's supposed to be. You generally know that when both sides of politics are unhappy that someone is doing their job properly.
-
Comeys' greatest "crime" is that he's independent - as he's supposed to be. You generally know that when both sides of politics are unhappy that someone is doing their job properly.
As events are developing, it looks like a completely failed opportunistic attempt at killing several birds with one stone.
Democrats were not happy with the way Comey 'interfered' with the final stages of Hillary's campaign (BTW Trump was happy, praising Comey at the time!). Republicans are not happy with what might be revealed by the ongoing investigations of collusion between Trump associates and Russia. In Trump's simple reality, slaughter the person in charge of both activities, and reap praise from both sides...
Normally, one would have then invited Comey to the White House and give him the dismissal message and letter.
Instead, an email was prepared to let the press do the work of spreading the news. As Comey was traveling to give a speech in Los Angeles, the news that he had been fired reached him through the media. However, the email was never sent, so as Comey flew back to the East, the news preceded the prepared email offensive. That also kind of derailed the staged WH lawn press meeting (press gathered, lights blazing, anticipation rising), and caught Spicer, Conway, and Huckabee Sanders, totally off guard.
What then unfolded was a game of hide-and-seek, Spicer hiding in the bushes trying to figure out what went wrong, lights being turned off inside the WH to conceal the three spokespersons having a short meeting to discuss how to proceed, cameras had to be turned off for an informal press gathering, and then the message was shared with the press. By then, the whole operation had already backfired.
The net effect, people (correctly) second-guessing the motives for the poorly timed activities, and a call for even more investigations, not less (since Comey had recently requested more resources for uncovering recent findings that his bureau considered important).
Comey infuriated Trump with refusal to preview Senate testimony: aides
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-decision-idUSKBN1862WP
"The anger behind Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday had been building for months, but a turning point came when Comey refused to preview for top Trump aides his planned testimony to a Senate panel, White House officials said.
Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had wanted a heads-up from Comey about what he would say at a May 3 hearing about his handling of an investigation into former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.
When Comey refused, Trump and his aides considered that an act of insubordination and it was one of the catalysts to Trump’s decision this week to fire the FBI director, the officials said.
"It gave the impression that he was no longer capable of carrying out his duties," one official said. Previews of congressional testimony to superiors are generally considered courteous.
Comey, who testified for four hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it made him feel "mildly nauseous" that his decision to make public his reopening of a probe into Clinton's handling of classified information might have affected the outcome of the Nov. 8 presidential election. But he said he had no regrets and would make the same decision again.
Trump's sudden firing of Comey shocked Washington and plunged Trump deeper into a controversy over his campaign's alleged ties with Russia that has dogged the early days of his presidency."
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Normally, one would have then invited Comey to the White House and give him the dismissal message and letter.
Instead, an email was prepared to let the press do the work of spreading the news. As Comey was traveling to give a speech in Los Angeles, the news that he had been fired reached him through the media...
Totally not cool.
-
Totally not cool.
Like nearly everything else attached to this character.
-
The Guardian maintains a live news feed into the developing debacle:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/may/10/donald-trump-fires-fbi-director-james-comey-reaction-live
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually, Comey's firing isn't really the big news today...
Ambassador Kislyak and President Trump / Посол С.Кисляк и Президент Д.Трамп
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170510114450-01-trump-kislyak-tweet-0510-exlarge-169.jpg)
The above is from the Official Russian Embassy Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/RusEmbUSA)
So, one of the principle "bad actors" in the whole Russian story met with Trump in the Whitehouse today...and why do we have this picture? Because the Whitehouse banned the US press pool journalists and photographers but let in the Russian press photographers...
The Whitehouse banned the US photographers but allowed the Russians.
Think on that for a while....
Here's the story Trump's meeting with Russians closed to U.S. media, but not to TASS photographer (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/10/trumps-meeting-russians-closed-us-media-but-not-tass-photographer/101520384/)
We did get to see Trump meet with Henry Kissinger today...I suspect the irony was lost on the big orange one...
(https://cdn20.patchcdn.com/ap/22877253/20170510/123026/styles/T600x450/public/article_images/ap_17130556900842-1494430811-8948.jpg)
But it set some tongues wagging'
And then Henry Kissinger walks in...: 24 hours in the Donald Trump circus (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/donald-trump-henry-kissinger/)
(CNN)Donald Trump promised a White House like no other when he pulled the biggest upset in presidential history to become the 44th man to hold the job. Man has he delivered.
From his Twitter feed to his dinner guests (Ted Nugent, Kid Rock and Sarah Palin -- all in one night!), the Trump White House has looked, and run, like nothing we've ever seen before.
But, even by Trump's standards, the last 24 hours has been surreal. In fact, the last day feels more like a reality TV show -- storyline twists and turns, surprise guest appearances -- than it does anything resembling a semi-normal day in political Washington.
Let's start with the present moment and then rewind.
The White House press pool was called into the Oval Office just before noon eastern time for what they expected to be a photo op between Trump and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov since the two men were scheduled to huddle earlier today.
But it wasn't Lavrov they found sitting with the president! It was Henry Kissinger, best known for his role as Secretary of State to President Richard Nixon!
Reporters asked Trump about the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Trump responded, briefly, that Comey was simply "not doing a good job." It was apparently lost on Trump that the last 16 hours had been dominated by comparisons between Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" -- where he jettisoned the independent counsel investigating Watergate -- and Trump's decision to part ways with Comey. Either that or Trump was pulling the greatest troll move ever by having Kissinger there when he took his first questions from reporters about the Comey firing. (I'm not ready to rule that option out.)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170509205403-richard-nixon-archibald-cox-split---restricted-medium-plus-169.jpg)
So, you think Trump did it on purpose?
Yeah, me neither...
-
So, fire Comey for the way he handled Hillary?
Yeah, not so much...seems Comey pissed of the big orange one
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAVQslZVkNJqJ8jqwoylNODhbRx3ojYQzMYJFyAI8cFE7rqfbSrw)
Inside Trump’s anger and impatience — and his sudden decision to fire Comey (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-trumps-anger-and-impatience-prompted-him-to-fire-the-fbi-director/2017/05/10/d9642334-359c-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_comeyreconstruct912pm-1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.447c66c89829)
Every time FBI Director James B. Comey appeared in public, an ever-watchful President Trump grew increasingly agitated that the topic was the one that he was most desperate to avoid: Russia.
Trump had long questioned Comey’s loyalty and judgment, and was infuriated by what he viewed as the director’s lack of action in recent weeks on leaks from within the federal government. By last weekend, he had made up his mind: Comey had to go.
At his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., Trump groused over Comey’s latest congressional testimony, which he thought was “strange,” and grew impatient with what he viewed as his sanctimony, according to White House officials. Comey, Trump figured, was using the Russia probe to become a martyr.
Back at work Monday morning in Washington, Trump told Vice President Pence and several senior aides — Reince Priebus, Stephen K. Bannon and Donald McGahn, among others — that he was ready to move on Comey. First, though, he wanted to talk with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his trusted confidant, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey reported directly. Trump summoned the two of them to the White House for a meeting, according to a person close to the White House.
The president already had decided to fire Comey, according to this person. But in the meeting, several White House officials said Trump gave Sessions and Rosenstein a directive: to explain in writing the case against Comey.
The pair quickly fulfilled the boss’s orders, and the next day Trump fired Comey — a breathtaking move that thrust a White House already accustomed to chaos into a new level of tumult, one that has legal as well as political consequences.
Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerging from the White House on Tuesday evening cast him as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that the president acted only on his recommendation, said the person close to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18341817_1479526858766504_6100967653577203404_n.jpg?oh=2edf6aa2dac5b2285937adf7e5ccfaef&oe=59B5214E)
-
And then this...
President Trump's Approval Rating Has Dropped to a Near-Record Low (http://time.com/4774551/donald-trump-approval-rating-may-quinnipiac-poll/)
President Donald Trump's approval rating (http://time.com/4751730/donald-trump-100-days-approval-ratings/) has fallen to a near record low with significant losses among white voters with no college degree, white men and independent voters, a new poll has found.
The survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2456) among nationwide participants, found that Trump has a 36% approval rating compared to 58% who disapprove of him. The number is down from Quinnipiac's April 19 poll, which found a 40% approval rating, and just 1% higher than his lowest-ever rating since he became president.
Key among those declines were groups that strongly advocated for his election. Approval among white voters with no college degree fell 10 points from 57% to 47% since April 19. White men went from a 53% approval to a 48% approval in that same time.
"There is no way to spin or sugarcoat these sagging numbers," Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a statement.
And that's before the CBO releases the GOP healthcare bill's score (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/congressional-budget-office-report-republican-health-bill-may-22-n757671) in two weeks...it's gonna hit Trump voters really hard.
-
...
-
http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/05/vladimierre-poutin-fbi-director/
-
The big orange dummy just invented Keynesian economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics)...how cool is that? (Not very–it's actually very sad)
Donald Trump Tries to Explain Economics to The Economist. Hilarity Ensues. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trump-explains-economics-to-the-economist-hilarity-ensues.html)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTprEyBi-nqaLTHTuJfUWJtqlOXUGZfNmvXuXinfTjy5slUZ7Vw)
Donald Trump, economic genius.
Photo: Molly Riley - Pool/Getty Images
But beyond that it’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?
It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long. You may have two years where you’ll … you understand the expression “prime the pump”?
Yes.
We have to prime the pump.
It’s very Keynesian.
We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?
Priming the pump?
Yeah, have you heard it?
Yes.
Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just … I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.
It’s …
Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.
Oh boy...and he's the leader of the free world (for the time being anyway).
For your reading/laughing pleasure Transcript: Interview with Donald Trump (http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript)
-
Well, at least he gets ice-cream...
Trump gets 2 scoops of ice cream, everyone else gets 1 -- and other top lines from his Time interview (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/)
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump is living every child's dream: More ice cream.
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170510214952-02-trump-0510-medium-plus-169.jpg)
According to an extensive interview (http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/) with TIME Magazine, Trump's White House staff has settled into Trump's routine and know his desires, sometimes before he does. For example: Trump takes two scoops of ice cream with his chocolate cream pie, TIME reported, while everyone else around the table gets just one.
In the interview published Thursday, Trump also expanded on his view of Russian hacking during the 2016 election, refuted reports that he is unhappy with his current national security adviser and took a level of blame for his combative administration.
But, more than anything, Trump gave TIME a window into some of the oddities that make his White House unlike any in modern history, including the traits that make Trump tick.
The Times interview is a good read but of interest is the cover story: A TIME Exclusive: Donald Trump After Hours (http://time.com/donald-trump-after-hours)
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/trump-cover-final.jpg?w=280&quality=85&h=373)
Photograph by Benjamin Rasmussen for TIME
From where the 45th President works, eats and sleeps, everything is going just great. Now if only everyone else would see it that way.
-
Wow, yet another Time magazine article...
President Trump Attacks 'Lunatic,' 'No-Talent,' 'Dumbest Person' in TV (http://time.com/4775633/donald-trump-stephen-colbert-cnn-msnbc-chris-cuomo/)
President Donald Trump says he thinks CNN's Chris Cuomo looks like a "chained lunatic" on television. CNN's Don Lemon is "perhaps the dumbest person in broadcasting" and CBS Late Show host Stephen Colbert is a "no-talent guy" who talks "filthy."
Those were just some of the comments Trump offered over dinner Monday night when asked about the media he consumes as President of the United States. But he did little to hide his frustration, explaining that he had been surprised that the journalistic criticism had gotten worse after the campaign. He also said he had been working on tuning out news that is critical of him.
"I’ve been able to do something that I never thought I had the ability to do. I’ve been able not to watch or read things that aren’t pleasant," he said, maintaining that he no longer watches CNN or MSNBC. "And it keeps you young."
There was little doubt, however, that he remained acutely aware of what reporters and correspondents were saying about him. He has large flat-screen televisions set up in the Treaty Room in the White House residence and in his private dining room in the West Wing. He continues to have stacks of newspapers and magazines delivered to his office suite in the West Wing.
"Washington Post, New York Times, they’re really, really dishonest," he said, before directly addressing the TIME reporters he had invited for dinner. "You people are quite dishonest in all fairness." He said he used to watch MSNBC's Joe Scarborough but no longer does. He also claimed to have helped CNN president Jeff Zucker, an old friend and business colleague, get his job at the network.
The one network he praised was Fox News, saying he watches their shows and is responsible for its ratings bump.
Hum, is Trump going soft on SNL?
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18342794_1919453448324363_3699384926856179947_n.jpg?oh=b7f0fc4cc4b48ecb5d329c339db01178&oe=597F8896)
-
Turn about fair play...Trump got RickRolled by Putin again!
White House furious after being trolled with Russia Oval Office photos (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/oval-office-photos-donald-trump-russians/)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170510114450-01-trump-kislyak-tweet-0510-exlarge-169.jpg)
Washington (CNN)The White House did not anticipate that the Russian government would allow its state news agency to post photographs of an Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russia's ambassador to the US, a White House official said.
Photos of Wednesday's meeting, taken by a Russian state news media photographer one day after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey amid questions about possible Trump campaign collusion with Moscow, were ultimately posted by Russia's news agency, TASS.
The White House did not post photos of the meeting until Thursday. The State Department did post photos of Lavrov's meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, but that was open to the press.
"They tricked us," an angry White House official said.
"That's the problem with the Russians -- they lie," the official added.
Hum, sorta like Trump and the Whitehouse?
-
(http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/donald-trump-cpac-800x430.jpg)
YOU'RE FIRED!!!
Is Trump's thin skin getting in the way of his presidency? (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39888641)
What if the Comey firing is nothing to do with the Russia probe or the Clinton email server but is actually just a result of the president's thin-skinned character?
And would that be more or less alarming than Comey being fired in order to impede the Russia investigation, which is the case Democrats are making this week?
New reporting from the Washington Post, and other US media outlets, which are the recipients of a huge amount of leaks this week, suggest Mr Trump was upset by the Comey testimony at the Senate last week.
What particularly angered him, the reports say, was Comey saying it made him "mildly nauseous" to think the FBI may have swayed the election.
This hit right at President Trump's psychological weak spot - the legitimacy of his victory in the election.
Mr Trump frequently talks up the size of his win in November and often disparages people, or photos, or agencies that suggest he didn't win big. He still does so, six months after the election.
But is being thin-skinned now getting in the way of his ability to do his job effectively? The sacking of James Comey might be evidence of that.
Now that BBC HAS brought it up, I wonder which would be worse? I think the worst is not knowing...IT COULD BE BOTH!
-
Well, at least he gets ice-cream...
Trump gets 2 scoops of ice cream, everyone else gets 1 -- and other top lines from his Time interview (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/trump-time-magazine-ice-cream/)
The question is, does everyone else have to wait until Trump is finished eating before they can start eating while in his presence?
-
Whenever we talk about Russia, something doesn't add up, right?
"Trolled, tricked, lied to, furios" White House!? Seriously!?
Either the reporting is "dishonest," or the WH leak is. They knew a photographer is with the Russian delegation. They could see him. You know, it is a guy with a big camera. They could see him taking photos. They posed for him, for god's sake. And yet the WH (or the leak) didn't "anticipate" Russians are going to publish it. Seriously!? What did they think the photos are for? Lavrov's family album? What's the Russian fault in all of this?
-
I think Trump was just putting his finger in the eye of the American press by letting the Russian press scoop the pictures. It was his inside joke about how he's colluding with the Russians. He's rubbing it in even colluding with their photographers. Of course the American press won't see it or admit it because they're too full of themselves.
-
I think Trump was just putting his finger in the eye of the American press by letting the Russian press scoop the pictures. It was his inside joke about how he's colluding with the Russians. He's rubbing it in even colluding with their photographers. Of course the American press won't see it or admit it because they're too full of themselves.
Sure, he's a chill calmed guy, known for his sophisticated practical jokes. ::)
-
Sure, he's a chill calmed guy, known for his sophisticated practical jokes. ::)
No it wasn't sophisticated. It was base. But he does have a sense of humor. With all the attacks from the American press about his "collusion with the Russians", what better way to get even than to keep the Americans out and just let the Russians photograph the meeting and show them in their papers. Then, the American press can print them but have to give the Russian papers the byline credit. Nyah. Nyah.
-
Funny thing about politicians and the press. I guess politicians would like the press to be their marketing department, must be an occupational hazard of sorts. Someone with no experience nor appreciation for the actual purpose of government might want that more than others. But that's not what the press is supposed to be, is it?
Another funny thing is that whenever I hear politicians criticize bias in the press, it just makes me think that the press is doing something right.
-
No it wasn't sophisticated. It was base. But he does have a sense of humor. With all the attacks from the American press about his "collusion with the Russians", what better way to get even than to keep the Americans out and just let the Russians photograph the meeting and show them in their papers. Then, the American press can print them but have to give the Russian papers the byline credit. Nyah. Nyah.
And it worked so well.
-
I think I've come to the conclusion that Trump just doesn't care that much what people think about what he does or says. If it pleases him, he'll do it. Just like during the campaign. He's going to be lambasted regardless of what he does. So he might as well speak his mind. He got rid of Comey because "he was a grandstander, incompetent.....etc" When was the last time we heard a President speak like that? Most politicians speak so PC that you're not quite sure what they really believe. At least you know what Trump is thinking. His words are often jolting and unappealing. But he is direct, which is refreshing if nerve shaking.
-
At least you know what Trump is thinking.
Thinking???????
Nerve shaking for sure...
-
I think I've come to the conclusion that Trump just doesn't care that much what people think about what he does or says. If it pleases him, he'll do it. Just like during the campaign. He's going to be lambasted regardless of what he does. So he might as well speak his mind. He got rid of Comey because "he was a grandstander, incompetent.....etc" When was the last time we heard a President speak like that? Most politicians speak so PC that you're not quite sure what they really believe. At least you know what Trump is thinking. His words are often jolting and unappealing. But he is direct, which is refreshing if nerve shaking.
With so many crisis and gaffs on the go, no wonder he doesn't care what people think. Nobody could keep up with all the comments coming every day.
And if you miss the latest news reporting on what Trump is thinking today, you could get wrong impression based on what he was thinking the day before.
His words are not only joltng and unappealing, but often they don't make sense.
-
With so many crisis and gaffs on the go, no wonder he doesn't care what people think. Nobody could keep up with all the comments coming every day.
And if you miss the latest news reporting on what Trump is thinking today, you could get wrong impression based on what he was thinking the day before.
His words are not only joltng and unappealing, but often they don't make sense.
It took Trump to make politics exciting again. More people are losing more sleep than ever. Divorces are on the rise. More fights break out. It's better than baseball. It's better than football. It's better than soccer. Well, anything's better than soccer.
-
It took Trump to make politics exciting again. More people are losing more sleep than ever. Divorces are on the rise. More fights break out. It's better than baseball. It's better than football. It's better than soccer. Well, anything's better than soccer.
Ironically, it made even Lula more interesting (resulting in many more clicks and page views).
-
I think I've come to the conclusion that Trump just doesn't care that much what people think about what he does or says. If it pleases him, he'll do it. Just like during the campaign. He's going to be lambasted regardless of what he does. So he might as well speak his mind. He got rid of Comey because "he was a grandstander, incompetent.....etc" When was the last time we heard a President speak like that? Most politicians speak so PC that you're not quite sure what they really believe. At least you know what Trump is thinking. His words are often jolting and unappealing. But he is direct, which is refreshing if nerve shaking.
Politics aside, I think it's sad that being a total a*hole is now applauded as "telling it like it is," while being polite is belittled by some as being "fake" or "pc." I can disagree with you without coming off like a vulgar child in a playground dispute. Is it really too much to expect the leader of the free world to meet that standard? (And that's not even getting into the incomprehensible hypocrisy of *Donald Trump* having the temerity to belittle someone else for being a "grandstander.")
-
Politics aside, I think it's sad that being a total a*hole is now applauded as "telling it like it is," while being polite is belittled by some as being "fake" or "pc." I can disagree with you without coming off like a vulgar child in a playground dispute. Is it really too much to expect the leader of the free world to meet that standard? (And that's not even getting into the incomprehensible hypocrisy of *Donald Trump* having the temerity to belittle someone else for being a "grandstander.")
But Comey is a "grandstander". He was not the Attorney General but acted like that when he made critical decisions about Hillary's handling of classified emails. He was only a government "gumshoe"; that's it. A glorified cop. He should have completed his investigation and turned it over to the Justice department to make their determination to indict or not. Since Attorney General Lynch recused herself, let the Asst' Attorney General decide what to do or let President Obama or whoever in Justice Dept. is responsible. But he decided he would become the investigator, judge and jury and pissed off both Republicans and Democrats with his decisions. No hubris. He didn't know his place.
So now, how can you trust him running the FBI and doing investigation of Trump or anyone else? His own people were pissed when he let Hillary go considering she broke laws regarding the handling of classified info. Does anyone really think that if he stayed, and said there was no legal issue with Russia collusions, that the Democrats would not say that Trump had the fix in with Comey just as he "helped" Republicans during the election? There's no way Trump could win if Comey stayed on. Look how they're criticizing the Assistant AJ who wrote the letter criticizing Comey. And that guy was supported completely by both side before the letter. Better Trump bring in some one else, hopefully a person who has the approval of both sides. But whatever happens, the Democrats and liberal biased press will say Trump had the fix in. They're never going to admit there was no collusion.
Speaking of belittling, look how the press and politicians belittle Trump. Calling him everything from Hitler, "orange turd", dictator, etc.
-
They knew a photographer is with the Russian delegation. They could see him. You know, it is a guy with a big camera. They could see him taking photos. They posed for him, for god's sake. And yet the WH (or the leak) didn't "anticipate" Russians are going to publish it. Seriously!? What did they think the photos are for? Lavrov's family album? What's the Russian fault in all of this?
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/05/AP_17130592326727/lead_960.jpg?1494606118)
That photographer must have a really good camera. The picture of Trump with Lavrow is quite nice (although some competition judges would point out that if the photographer had stepped back a bit, the two portraits on the wall wouldn't be cut in half). Perusing other pictures from the same day, Putin looks also good in his red hockey jersey (but that's another story).
-
Something not Comey or Russia....
Michelle Obama on Trump rollback: ‘Think about why someone is okay with your kids eating crap’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/12/michelle-obama-on-trump-rollback-think-about-why-someone-is-okay-with-your-kids-eating-crap/?utm_term=.efa26f5b3731)
A fiery Michelle Obama vigorously defended the healthy eating initiative that was her biggest legacy as First Lady on Friday, telling a public health summit in Washington D.C. that something was “wrong” with an administration that did not want to give consumers nutrition information or teach children to eat healthily.
“We gotta make sure we don’t let anybody take us back,” Obama said. “This is where you really have to look at motives, you know. You have to stop and think, why don’t you want our kids to have good food at school? What is wrong with you? And why is that a partisan issue? Why would that be political? What is going on?”
In a 43-minute conversation, peppered with sarcastic remarks and veiled references to the Trump administration, Michele Obama discussed topics from life since her husband left the presidency to her Let's Move! initiative.
“Take me out of the equation -- like me or don’t like me,” Obama added. “But think about why someone is okay with your kids eating crap. Why would you celebrate that? Why would you sit idly and be okay with that? Because here’s the secret: If someone is doing that, they don’t care about your kid.”
The comments were Obama’s first public remarks on the Trump administration’s assault on nutrition policy, which has already seen the delay of rules meant to reduce sodium and refined grains in school lunches and provide calorie counts on restaurant menus. The former First Lady championed many of those programs.
It's not enough they (Trump and his swamp) want to screw up the environment, they want to work to make kids less healthy? While at the same time make it more difficult to get health insurance? Heck, even Budget chief Mick Mulvaney wanted to weigh in...Daily on Healthcare: Senate healthcare talks 'a disaster' (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-on-healthcare-senate-healthcare-talks-a-disaster/article/2622935)
(http://...Mulvaney was asked what he thought of the "Jimmy Kimmel test." "I do think it should meet that test," Mulvaney said of a new healthcare law. "We have plenty of money to deal with that. We have plenty of money to provide that safety net so that if you get cancer you don't end up broke … that is not the question. The question is, who is responsible for your ordinary healthcare? You or somebody else?" [b]He said the debate centered on whether others should pay the burden of paying for someone's healthcare. "That doesn't mean we should take care of the person who sits at home, eats poorly and gets diabetes. Is that the same thing as Jimmy Kimmel's kid? I don't think that it is."[/b])
But hey, don't bother to teach your kids about good nutrition...let them grow up obese and die of diabetes so we don't have to cover their health care...that's kinda like being against abortion but for the death penalty. (never could get that)
-
Another Not Comey nor Russia...
35 of 37 economists said Trump was wrong. The other two misread the question. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/08/35-of-37-economists-said-trump-was-wrong-the-other-two-misread-the-question/?utm_term=.c8175012413d)
President Trump's administration says his tax cut will pay for itself. It turns out it's really hard to find an economist who agrees.
The University of Chicago's Booth School of Business regularly polls economists on controversial questions. In a survey (http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reforms) the school published last week on Trump's tax plans, only two out of the 37 economists that responded said that the cuts would stimulate the economy enough to cancel out the effect on total tax revenue.
Those two economists now both say they made a mistake, and that they misunderstood the question.
“I screwed up on that one,” said one of those two economists, Kenneth Judd, when asked about his response to Trump's tax claim. “I meant to say that this is a horrible idea, a bad idea — no chance in hell.”
The other respondent who said that Trump's tax cuts would pay for themselves was Bengt Holmström of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who confirmed in an email to The Washington Post that he had also misread the question.
This on the heals of Trump trying to teach economics to The Economist magazine claiming he discovered "PRIME THE PUMP".
(https://i.onthe.io/vllkyt3nhr699qbbmg.531ef203.jpg)
-
What's the Russian fault in all of this?
No fault on the part of the Russians...I admire their ability to play Trump like a big orange fiddle. The WH knew that the optics of Trump meeting with the Russians wouldn't look good so they tried to do it out of the #FAKENEWS US media's prying eyes. It apparently didn't occur to the WH that the Russians would have something to gain by promoting the heck out of Trump kowtowing to the Russians. It's played very well in Moscow–heck, even Trump tweeting about the Russians laughing (although he got what they were longing about wrong)
TrumpTweet: Russia must be laughing up their sleeves watching as the U.S. tears itself apart over a Democrat EXCUSE for losing the election.
-
Something not Comey or Russia....
Michelle Obama on Trump rollback: ‘Think about why someone is okay with your kids eating crap’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/12/michelle-obama-on-trump-rollback-think-about-why-someone-is-okay-with-your-kids-eating-crap/?utm_term=.efa26f5b3731)
It's not enough they (Trump and his swamp) want to screw up the environment, they want to work to make kids less healthy? While at the same time make it more difficult to get health insurance? Heck, even Budget chief Mick Mulvaney wanted to weigh in...Daily on Healthcare: Senate healthcare talks 'a disaster' (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-on-healthcare-senate-healthcare-talks-a-disaster/article/2622935)
(http://...Mulvaney was asked what he thought of the "Jimmy Kimmel test." "I do think it should meet that test," Mulvaney said of a new healthcare law. "We have plenty of money to deal with that. We have plenty of money to provide that safety net so that if you get cancer you don't end up broke … that is not the question. The question is, who is responsible for your ordinary healthcare? You or somebody else?" [b]He said the debate centered on whether others should pay the burden of paying for someone's healthcare. "That doesn't mean we should take care of the person who sits at home, eats poorly and gets diabetes. Is that the same thing as Jimmy Kimmel's kid? I don't think that it is."[/b])
But hey, don't bother to teach your kids about good nutrition...let them grow up obese and die of diabetes so we don't have to cover their health care...that's kinda like being against abortion but for the death penalty. (never could get that)
We don't need the Federal government imposing it's will across all 50 states. The Constitution gave that power to the people and the States, not the federal government. Let each state decide what they want to do in schools with their food program as they should with the curricula. We got to get out of this idea that Washington DC is the know it all. Let people at the local and state levels decide how they want to live, learn, eat and die.
-
Obligatory Comey/Russian content–from the not-left-leaning nationalreview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com)
Donald Trump, Auteur-in-Chief (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447603/james-comey-firing-donald-trump-reality-tv-governance)
by MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY May 12, 2017 5:25 PM
This is Trump’s show; everyone else is just living in it.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwOrUSO55Uopab_toAuwvTmLA2Btf4eBdMPTTXxBckarwWLfDmoQ)
When Donald Trump fired FBI director James Comey, David Frum described it as “a coup.” Writing at Vox, Philip Carter declared the firing “another win for Vladimir Putin.” Laurence Tribe decided to use the T word: treason.
Maybe you believe Donald Trump capable of involving himself in a foreign-led conspiracy that concluded with him becoming president of the United States, only to screw it up by acting in the most guilty way imaginable. But to my eyes this looks more like a case of the E word: Donald Trump was having another episode. He saw something he didn’t like in the media, got angry, and thought he could end it by sending out a pink slip. After all, “You’re fired!” had ended scores of storylines before, hadn’t it?
That might sound like a defense, but it’s not. The administration lied. Rod Rosenstein dutifully produced the official reason, that Director Comey had mishandled the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal. But dozens of White House sources and a half-dozen Trump interviews this week confirmed that Comey was fired simply because he annoyed Trump. The giveaway is another word that has featured prominently in coverage of the firing and the potential candidates to assume control of the FBI: Loyalty.
Trump has this idea that the Executive Branch is an extension of the Trump campaign, the Trump brand, or even the Trump family. If the FBI director is someone whom Donald Trump technically employs, and Donald Trump can fire him, then it follows that he ought to be on Team Trump. Instead of being loyal to the country or the law, Trump imagines that everyone on the federal payroll ought to bend the knee.
James Comey made the mistake of continuing to appear in headlines or stories that angered Trump, so he had to go. Sad!
-
Let people at the local and state levels decide how they want to live, learn, eat and die.
So, how has that been working' for ya bud?
Pretty piss poor, which is why the states should not be allowed to fail to meet minimum standards.
The states have already proven their incompetence hence the severe health problem of pediatric obesity which then evolves into adult obesity which evolves into Type 2 diabetes.
So, ask yourself, who benefits?
High sodium, high sugar, processed foods, who benefits?
Follow the money...this is Trump's new swamp.
-
Things that make you go hum...
’With few exceptions’: No business ties to Russia, Trump’s lawyers say in letter (https://www.rt.com/usa/388147-trump-lawyers-letter-russia-ties/)
President Donald Trump has no income, equity or debt from Russian sources, according to his lawyers. The review of Trump’s tax returns going back 10 years showed two major exceptions: a 2013 beauty pageant and a 2008 sale of a Florida estate.
then...
Donald Trump's tax law firm has 'deep' ties to Russia (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-tax-law-firm-deep-ties-russia/story?id=47376041)
The lawyers who wrote a letter saying President Trump had no significant business ties to Russia work for a law firm that has extensive ties to Russia and received a “Russia Law Firm of the Year” award in 2016.
-
So, how has that been working' for ya bud?
Pretty piss poor, which is why the states should not be allowed to fail to meet minimum standards.
The states have already proven their incompetence hence the severe health problem of pediatric obesity which then evolves into adult obesity which evolves into Type 2 diabetes.
So, ask yourself, who benefits?
High sodium, high sugar, processed foods, who benefits?
Follow the money...this is Trump's new swamp.
The Feds imposed "Let No Child Be Left Behind" across the country. It's a failure and has hurt children across the country.
It's better to have locals decide what they want. Local communities and the people who live there know what's best for their children. They're not stupid. They can determine teaching criteria and food programs that are best for their kids. Then because things are done differently among the various states, we can learn from one another and improve overall instead of everyone doing it the same way as Washington says which may be marginal at best.
It would be like having one post processing program or one camera manufacturer. If I suggested no competition or variety, you'd think I was crazy. Yet you want one national education and food program policy for everyone.
-
Yet you want one national education and food program policy for everyone.
At least minimums, yes...
-
The Feds imposed "Let No Child Be Left Behind" across the country. It's a failure and has hurt children across the country.
It's better to have locals decide what they want. Local communities and the people who live there know what's best for their children. They're not stupid. They can determine teaching criteria and food programs that are best for their kids. Then because things are done differently among the various states, we can learn from one another and improve overall instead of everyone doing it the same way as Washington says which may be marginal at best.
It would be like having one post processing program or one camera manufacturer. If I suggested no competition or variety, you'd think I was crazy. Yet you want one national education and food program policy for everyone.
As an occasional visitor to USA, it seems to me that many Americans don't know what's best for their children. And many are indeed stupid or uncaring.
Canadians fare slightly better, but also nothing to brag about. According to Statistics Canada, one in four Canadian adults is clinically obese, compared with one in three in the United States.
Health experts say the current generation of children may be the first in American history to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. What's smart about that?
Childhood obesity is a serious problem in the United States putting kids at risk for poor health.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html
The percentage of children with obesity in the United States has more than tripled since the 1970s
- Children with obesity are at higher risk for having other chronic health conditions and diseases that impact physical health, such as asthma, sleep apnea, bone and joint problems, type 2 diabetes, and risk factors for heart disease.
- Children with obesity are bullied and teased more than their normal weight peers,18 and are more likely to suffer from social isolation, depression, and lower self-esteem.
- In the long term, childhood obesity also is associated with having obesity as an adult, which is linked to serious conditions and diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and several types of cancer.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/obesity/facts.htm
-
After Trump's disastrous trip to CIA Headquarters, it's probably a good idea he avoids FBI headquarters for a while...
Trump Told He Would Not Be Greeted Warmly at FBI: Officials (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-not-planning-visit-fbi-headquarters-after-comey-firing-spokesperson-n757771)
(https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi_building500.jpg/@@images/image/high)
The White House has abandoned the idea of President Trump visiting FBI headquarters after being told he would not be greeted warmly, administration officials told NBC News.
Amid the continuing fallout over his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, Trump was considering an appearance at the FBI's J Edgar Hoover Building in downtown Washington, DC. The White House publicly floated the idea as recently as Thursday morning.
Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, asked by a reporter whether such a visit was imminent, replied, I believe that it's very likely that takes place sometime in the next few days."
But that idea was dropped later Thursday, administration officials said, after the FBI told the White House the optics would not be good. FBI officials made clear that the president would not draw many smiles and cheers, having just unceremoniously sacked a very popular director.
-
Childhood obesity is a serious problem in the United States putting kids at risk for poor health.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html
But heaven forbid that the federal government try to do anything about it...let the states bungle uh, handle it :~)
-
Trump Told He Would Not Be Greeted Warmly at FBI:
But you can bet, he would be received very warmly by SVR (current incarnation of KGB)
-
Funny you should mention Russia...this just in from RT.com (https://www.rt.com)
«Идиот, клоун и смущение»: новый опрос показывает падение рейтингов и резкое отношение к Трампу (https://www.rt.com/usa/387929-trump-ratings-quinnipiac-poll/)
(https://cdn.rt.com/files/2017.05/original/59137e65c46188ef228b4577.jpg)
Oooops, sorry, let me translate: ‘Idiot, clown and embarrassment’: New poll shows falling ratings & scathing attitudes to Trump
The results of a recently released survey of American voters show President Donald Trump’s approval rating plummeting as his opponents use some choice expressions to describe their commander-in-chief.
The results of the survey, conducted by the Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University, show that, “idiot, incompetent and liar” were the most commonly given answers when respondents were asked for the first word that comes to mind when they think about President Trump.
In fact, of the top 20 most given words, only four (strong, great, successful and leader) were positive and four (president, businessman, business and trying) were neutral.
Other less-than-flattering descriptors were “buffoon, con-man, clown, narcissistic, bigot and embarrassment.”
From the survey (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2456)
What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Donald Trump? (Numbers are not percentages.
Figures show the number of times each response was given. This table reports only words that were mentioned at least five times.)
idiot 39
incompetent 31
liar 30
leader 25
unqualified 25
president 22
strong 21
businessman 18
ignorant 16
egotistical 15
asshole 13
stupid 13
arrogant 12
trying 12
bully 11
business 11
narcissist 11
successful 11
disgusting 10
great 10
clown 9
dishonest 9
racist 9
American 8
bigot 8
good 8
money 8
smart 8
buffoon 7
con-man 7
crazy 7
different 7
disaster 7
rich 7
despicable 6
dictator 6
aggressive 5
blowhard 5
decisive 5
embarrassment 5
evil 5
greedy 5
inexperienced 5
mental 5
negotiator 5
patriotism 5
Yep, Trump is right...the Russians are laughing all right!
#MAGA #ROTFL
-
Kids want to eat junk food and don't like being told to eat something healthy instead? I'm not sure that's newsworthy :-)
-
Yes, but nether is her criticism of the current situation, but they did report on that.
The problem I have with this whole eat healthy thing is we don't give any responsibility to the parents. We expect the government to solve the problem just like with getting children to do better in school. But guess what, study after study have shown without parental involvement, more then likely it won't work.
Sure, a handful of kids will get it, but the most won't and no politician addresses this. I get it though, it's kind of hard to tell a room full of parents that they are really bad parents without backlash; look at outcry when Obama talked about being a good father. But it needs to be done.
You're 100% right , Joe. It all starts in the home. But it's politically incorrect to say that. You'll be called a racist, uncaring, a fascist, etc. How dare you blame the parent. My wife retired from teaching. But she would tell me how teachers are afraid to discipline their school kids. Next thing, the parents are complaining abiout the teacher to the principal, even the press. When I was a kid, my head was handed to me by my parents if they got a bad report from the school about me. Today there's no respect. The kids are out of control in the classes and in the lunchroom.
Things are different today that cause these problems. Broken families are huge. High divorce rates. Kids don't learn respect the way we did. Even when parents are politically involved, they're out to lunch. Homework? Look at the campaign to stop it. How are the children suppose to learn without it? Eating, well that's a problem because of fast foods. Years ago people ate healthier food with smaller portions at home or took lunches to school or had lunch provided by the school. Today, kids "bop" out to McDonalds for a large portion of fries. Everyone's say we need to spend more money. That's BS. Nothing's going to change until the family is straightened out. Blaming the government is an excuse for parent failure. We often don't teach what's right any longer. Media plays into, Hollywood, everyone's cursing. No wonder we got a president who curses and speaks like he does. We're all doing it. Even a congresswoman is calling the president a scumbag. Look a the vile, disrespectful words about the president in this thread. It's become normal. We've lost our way.
-
But heaven forbid that the federal government try to do anything about it...let the states bungle uh, handle it :~)
Jeff, you're from Chicago, Illinois I believe. I think you want the federal government involved so they'll provide more money so you can bail out your state's teaching pension fund. It's going broke because your state failed in controlling its costs for teachers and other government pensions. Why should the rest of the country pick up your state's mistakes? Maybe you should clean house in Illinois before telling South Carolina, Florida and the rest of the country what they should do about their education system. Frankly, the real truth about getting the government involved is about the money and politics, not about learning. Many, many states need money for their pensions systems that are going broke. So Democrats mainly figure they'll get the government to provide it. Bail out the pensions, higher salaries for teacher's unions who support Democrats, etc. Even Puerto Rico government pensions is bankrupting the island. They're looking for Washington to bail them out also. Well, what about health care? Where's all the money coming from? Do you want to pay more taxes for Puerto Rico?
-
You're 100% right , Joe. It all starts in the home. But it's politically incorrect to say that. You'll be called a racist, uncaring, a fascist, etc. How dare you blame the parent. My wife retired from teaching. But she would tell me how teachers are afraid to discipline their school kids. Next thing, the parents are complaining abiout the teacher to the principal, even the press. When I was a kid, my head was handed to me by my parents if they got a bad report from the school about me. Today there's no respect. The kids are out of control in the classes and in the lunchroom.
Things are different today that cause these problems. Broken families are huge. High divorce rates. Kids don't learn respect the way we did. Even when parents are politically involved, they're out to lunch. Homework? Look at the campaign to stop it. How are the children suppose to learn without it? Eating, well that's a problem because of fast foods. Years ago people ate healthier food with smaller portions at home or took lunches to school or had lunch provided by the school. Today, kids "bop" out to McDonalds for a large portion of fries. Everyone's say we need to spend more money. That's BS. Nothing's going to change until the family is straightened out. Blaming the government is an excuse for parent failure. We often don't teach what's right any longer. Media plays into, Hollywood, everyone's cursing. No wonder we got a president who curses and speaks like he does. We're all doing it. Even a congresswoman is calling the president a scumbag. Look a the vile, disrespectful words about the president in this thread. It's become normal. We've lost our way.
Alan, I wholeheartedly agree with you on your first point. If the parents don't take responsibility no state or federal program can make kids eat healthier or behave more respectfully towards their teachers. As soon as parents start treating their kids like little princes and princesses who can't do wrong the game is lost.
However your point about disrespectful words about the president is a little of the pot and the kettle. When Trump blurps out disrespectful comments about others you find it a relief that he cuts the crap and shies away from political correctness, but if other politicians do the same it's disrespectful. I think you can be so called "non political correct" without being personal disrespectful, however that's a trick that in my mind Trump hasn't got yet. Hopefully he is the fast learner you say he is, allthough I don't see too many positive signs since he came into office.
-
Alan, I wholeheartedly agree with you on your first point. If the parents don't take responsibility no state or federal program can make kids eat healthier or behave more respectfully towards their teachers. As soon as parents start treating their kids like little princes and princesses who can't do wrong the game is lost.
However your point about disrespectful words about the president is a little of the pot and the kettle. When Trump blurps out disrespectful comments about others you find it a relief that he cuts the crap and shies away from political correctness, but if other politicians do the same it's disrespectful. I think you can be so called "non political correct" without being personal disrespectful, however that's a trick that in my mind Trump hasn't got yet. Hopefully he is the fast learner you say he is, allthough I don't see too many positive signs since he came into office.
I think the president and everyone else can be respectful and unpolitically correct. But, he doesn't have to be disrespectful in order to tell the truth. So there we agree. My point is that the whole society has gotten coarse. It's infected the president, Congress, Hollywood, the left and right, late-night comedy shows, internet threads and forums, TV, radio, the press, everywhere. It's OK to be tough and respectful at the same time. He should be strong without vulgarity. The President and many of us have forgotten or never learned how to be both at the same time.
-
"Comey was fired simply because he annoyed Trump"
Isn't the official phrase that many positions in the government "serve at the pleasure of the president"?
-
Emphasis mine (quotes from Jeff's previous post):
President Donald Trump has no income, equity or debt from Russian sources, according to his lawyers. The review of Trump’s tax returns going back 10 years showed two major exceptions: a 2013 beauty pageant and a 2008 sale of a Florida estate... The lawyers who wrote a letter saying President Trump had no significant business ties to Russia work for a law firm that has extensive ties to Russia and received a “Russia Law Firm of the Year” award in 2016.
Jeff, that's reaching too far.
Many world-wide law firms have "extensive ties to Russia." The same goes for every multinational company on Earth. They've had a significant presence in Russia ever since the 90's. When you do business in Russia, you register as a Russian legal entity. In the beginning, when I was there, those law firm were headed by foreigners, some of Russian descent. These days, they are probably 90-100% staffed by local Russians. So no wonder that some will get a title of "Russia Law Firm of the Year."
Besides, just from the standpoint of logic, would you rather prefer that a law firm with no ties to Russia issued a statement about Trump's ties to Russia? How would they know?
-
Funny you should mention Russia...this just in from RT.com (https://www.rt.com)...
Jeff, I'd have never thought you'd be quoting RT, "Putin's propaganda arm" (in your own words), thus spreading their psychological war against our dear leader? ;)
-
Jeff, I'd have never thought you'd be quoting RT, "Putin's propaganda arm" (in your own words), thus spreading their psychological war against our dear leader? ;)
But of course, I seek news and information in all sorts of weird places. in fact, NationalReview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com) had a good one recently...(I really miss right wing conservatives like William F. Buckley Jr. that could actually speak well without trying to inflame a debate)
(http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_newsite_static_wfb_firing-line.jpg)
The Comey Debacle (http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/447594/donald-trump-james-comey-debacle-fbi-director-fired-certified-letter)
Rather than rationalizing and enabling the president’s behavior, conservatives need to convince Trump that he’s his own worst enemy.
Dear Reader (including anyone hiding in the bushes), Good times, huh? Let’s start . . . here:
Ann Coulter ✔@AnnCoulter
Comey firing is a red herring to distract from the fact that Trump hasn't started building the wall.
5:31 PM - 9 May 2017
Now, I don’t think this is actually true, but I’ve been told for months now that I have to get better at taking some things seriously without taking them literally. And I think Ann has a point.
So, I’m going to ask my pro-Trump and passionately anti-anti-Trump friends to just take a step back and ask yourselves: “What does Donald Trump’s manufactured, self-inflicted, and pathological need for drama get us?”
If you’re about to answer “Neil Gorsuch,” the everlasting gobstopper of Trump rationalizations, please hold off one second. If you’re about to answer “judges,” please take a moment as well.
Because the correct answer, in policy terms, is . . . nothing. Actually, less than nothing because all this drama makes getting things done harder.
In the best possible light, all the insanity from the president of the United States is St. Elmo’s Fire, a lightshow to entertain us. It’s a Mexican soap opera without the redeeming sex and cleavage. It’s a reality-TV show without the cat fights, stiletto heels, and thrown glasses of wine.
(http://brandmediaweek.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834519bc269e20133f1f81ffa970b-pi)
-
Jeff, that's reaching too far.
Hey, I'm not making the news...I'm just quoting articles in the media. I thought it delicious irony that Trump would of course use a really well connected law firm to try to prove that he has no ties to Russia...what better law firm than the one that won “Russia Law Firm of the Year” award in 2016? Optics much?
Funny thing, that's the same law firm that Sheri Dillon works for. You remember her, she took the stage during President-elect Donald Trump’s press conference in defense of Trump's plan to resolve conflicts of interest by distancing himself from his company. You remember right?
TRUMP BUSINESS PLAN CASTS SPOTLIGHT ON LAW FIRM THAT WORKED FOR RUSSIA (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-business-plan-spotlight-law-firm-worked-russia-542399).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C159I-ZWEAEk0Xr.jpg)
That was the the one where Trump had stacks and stacks of folders with blank paper in them as proof his taxes are so complex? Nice props...
You remember that, right?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C161j2fXAAAZLwO.jpg:small)
Fun times huh, the days before Trump became president?
-
Well, anything's better than soccer.
I absolutely draw the line on this statement!!! There is no sport on earth that is better than soccer. I've pretty much given up on all American sports these days (football and basketball players are not normal sized people. Baseball is too slow. Ice Hockey is good at playoff time but boring during the season). Fortunately, cable channels carry almost all top flight European teams these days and you can find Internet streams for teams you follow (in my case Ajax of Amsterdam who just won the semifinal of the Europa League and will face Manchester United in the final!!!) More people watch the Champions League final and World Cup matches than the number for US sports championships.
-
We don't need the Federal government imposing it's will across all 50 states. The Constitution gave that power to the people and the States, not the federal government. Let each state decide what they want to do in schools with their food program as they should with the curricula. We got to get out of this idea that Washington DC is the know it all. Let people at the local and state levels decide how they want to live, learn, eat and die.
Do you want to relegate your Medicare to the 50 states?
-
After Trump's disastrous trip to CIA Headquarters, it's probably a good idea he avoids FBI headquarters for a while...
(https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/fbi_building500.jpg/@@images/image/high)
That's an old picture of the FBI building before all the concrete started breaking apart and the had to put up netting (my old office was two blocks away).
-
"Comey was fired simply because he annoyed Trump"
Isn't the official phrase that many positions in the government "serve at the pleasure of the president"?
Yes, but remember when the office was reorganized, the director was given a longer term that would span two presidential terms. Comey is a Republican who was appointed by a Democratic President. The Federal Reserve chairperson also has a term that is staggered. The FBI director should only be fired for gross malfeasance and it's not clear to me that Comey was guilty in this regard. The fact that both sides appear to hate him perhaps indicated that he was not afraid of making tough calls. I wonder if Trump would act to fire Janet Yellen were the Fed to raise interest rates?
-
I absolutely draw the line on this statement!!! There is no sport on earth that is better than soccer.
Cricket.
-
Hey, I'm not making the news...I'm just quoting articles in the media. I thought it delicious irony that Trump would of course use a really well connected law firm to try to prove that he has no ties to Russia...what better law firm than the one that won “Russia Law Firm of the Year” award in 2016? Optics much?...
In the same article you quoted, there is this passage, something I said as well (emphasis mine):
Another law professor, who writes regularly about Trump’s business interests and conflicts, tells Newsweek he sees no conflict of interest or any problems with Morgan Lewis advising the president-elect on his business and also doing work for the Russian government. “I don’t think Trump could find good legal advice, especially tax advice, without going to a global law firm that does work in Russia,” says Andy Grewal of the University of Iowa. “A law firm of this size represents everyone, everywhere. Conflicts are par for the course.”
-
Cricket.
Yes, three day test matches really get the blood running!!!
-
Well, this doesn't surprise me...
DONALD TRUMP, NOT A POPULAR PRESIDENT OR BABY NAME (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-baby-names-popular-2016-caitlyn-jenner-608614)
President Donald Trump’s popularity has been plummeting and not just in the polls. Since the now commander-in-chief started his campaign trail, the name Donald has decreased in popularity among new parents. In fact, in 2016, the name Donald dropped 45 spots below its 2015 baby name ranking, according to the Social Security Administration’s yearly Popular Names list.
Every year, the Administration releases a list of the top 1,000 names parents have chosen to name their children, and in 2016, the name Donald dropped from the 443rd spot to 488.
(http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/top-of-content-image/ap_269136077534.jpg)
-
That's an old picture of the FBI building before all the concrete started breaking apart and the had to put up netting (my old office was two blocks away).
Funny, I got that from the FBI's web site.
I wonder if the concrete breaking apart is a subliminal message?
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/09/28/National-Economy/Advance/Images/fi-hoover0021440124330.jpg&w=480)
I wonder what Hoover would say about Trump?
I suspect he would have a lot more on Trump than Putin :~)
-
Yes, three day test matches really get the blood running!!!
Not like 5 day matches then? If you can't get worked up by an exciting draw after 5 days, well then words fail me. These days you usually get a result as the play is more aggressive and the wickets carefully prepared.
It's a stunning game and the psychology over 5 days is often remarkable. The strong men can be unmanned by simple things and be lulled into playing stupidly. Make no mistake these guys are clever and mentally robust.
Try listening to one while doing other things (like programming), watching might be too demanding on time but the radio lets you enjoy two things at once. Soccer? Pah, prima donnas the lot of them.
-
At the risk of going back on topic, was there ever a definitive reason given for Comey's dismissal? I don't pay close daily attention to the antics in the Trump government, but from what I can tell there have been several reasons given. That in itself is kind of weird, isn't it?
One responder mentions "...at the pleasure of the President...", which may be technically true, but that's just a cute way of saying who it is that appoints that position. It can't really mean that the person in the job is there at the whim of whoever is currently President, can it? That only happens is the kind of banana republic we used to make jokes about.
I also read somewhere above something about the dignity of the office. What a howler, thanks for the comic relief. You have a guy in office who brags about grabbing pu**y, speaks of his daughter in sexual terms, and encourages crowds to chant "lock her up" during political campaigns, and NOW you want to bring dignity and respect back? To mangle a couple of metaphors, that ship sailed months ago, and all the horses left the barn and they ain't coming back.
-
Yes, but nether is her criticism of the current situation, but they did report on that.
The problem I have with this whole eat healthy thing is we don't give any responsibility to the parents. We expect the government to solve the problem just like with getting children to do better in school. But guess what, study after study have shown without parental involvement, more then likely it won't work.
Sure, a handful of kids will get it, but the most won't and no politician addresses this. I get it though, it's kind of hard to tell a room full of parents that they are really bad parents without backlash; look at outcry when Obama talked about being a good father. But it needs to be done.
Of course the parents need to lead it - totally agree. But the schools shouldn't be enabling bad options either.
-
Jeff, you're from Chicago, Illinois I believe. I think you want the federal government involved so they'll provide more money so you can bail out your state's teaching pension fund. It's going broke because your state failed in controlling its costs for teachers and other government pensions.
Yes, I'm from Chicago but my daughter is 34 yrs old so I have no dog in that hunt. I really don't care other than the fact that the teachers end up getting the shaft.
But the inability of the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois to effectively run the schools kinda runs afoul of the argument of "keep the feds out" and let the states and local communities handle education even if they end up screwing everything up.
-
How about you? Do you exercise, do you eat healthy? Because if you don't, your post is nothing more then hot air.
Well, my wife and I are primarily plant based with seafood. We avoid processed foods, high sodium and sugars. I no longer smoke or drink alcohol and I've even switched from Diet Coke to Perrier because of the chemicals and food coloring. We have workout equipment and a personal trainer. I have had serious health issues recently so I'm working on radically improving my health...thanks for asking :~)
So, maybe my post is something more than hot air?
-
Wow...what a week! But it ain't over–we still have the Sunday shows to get through. In the meantime just in case somebody still believes Trump when he says This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won., well here's Politifact to the rescue ~)
Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim Russia story 'made-up' by Democrats (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/12/donald-trump/trump-calls-trump-russia-story-made-/)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vRl9o6W90DnnqKs/giphy.gif)
During a May 11 interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, President Donald Trump said he had made the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey prior to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s recommendation. (Yahoo)
Sources:
NBC News, Interview with Donald Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/transcript-donald-trump-nbc-news/), May 11, 2017
Office of Director of National Intelligence, Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf)": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution, Jan. 6, 2017
In his interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, President Donald Trump dismissed the very idea that there was any tie between his presidential bid and the Russians.
"This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story," Trump said May 11. "It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."
Made-up? By Democrats?
With multiple investigations under way, we don’t know whether there was collusion between members of the Trump team and Russian interference in the election.
But that isn’t the question. The question is whether Democrats plucked the idea out of thin air.
A few highlights from the past year say otherwise.
--snip--
Our ruling
Trump said, "This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won."
The record shows that credible evidence led the FBI to begin investigating possible ties between the Trump team and Russia in July 2016. That is the start of the story, more than three months before the election.
The American intelligence community expressed with confidence that Russia aimed to interfere in the election to harm Clinton and help Trump.
Democrats did not create the story, nor do they control the agenda of the House and Senate committees which are conducting their own investigations.
We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-pantsonfire.gif)
You can always tell when Trump is lying...his lips move.
-
I absolutely draw the line on this statement!!! There is no sport on earth that is better than soccer.
Other than rugby and cricket, to name but two ;)
Jeremy
-
As a matter of fact, I scoff at them. In Center City Philly, the price of union labor is higher today then it was before the recession. Businesses are hiring non-union is areas no one would have dared to 10 years. The giant Rats and Fat Cats are being inflated all over the place. But no one cares, especially when their craftsmanship is hit or miss on projects. I have photographed so many union projects in Philly and the end result is pathetic, especially for what they charge.
Like everything else, the union movement has accomplished both good and bad things. What I don't get is why people are not as bothered by corporate monopolies.
-
Yes, I'm from Chicago but my daughter is 34 yrs old so I have no dog in that hunt. I really don't care other than the fact that the teachers end up getting the shaft.
But the inability of the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois to effectively run the schools kinda runs afoul of the argument of "keep the feds out" and let the states and local communities handle education even if they end up screwing everything up.
My wife gets her pension from NY. Pensions fortunately for us in NY are guaranteed by the NY State Constitution. The NY legislature can't reduce pension amounts. But NY and the whole country face issues because just like the Feds, politicians in states have sold their future income to government pensions so they can be elected by getting support from government unions.
Same thing with the Federal government as far as screwing things us. Just look at the college loan program. Because the Feds guaranteed loans in any amount for any dumb kid who thinks he's college material, the demand has driven college costs 4 fold while everything else went up maybe 2 fold. The universities are swimming in easy money for their administrators and staffs. There's over $1.2 trillion dollars in loans outstanding. This hurts the economy and children who can't buy a house because they're in debt. They wind up at home into their 30's until they can get on their feet. Letting the feds get involved with school funding will just make the matter worse. If states get bailed out, there's no incentive for states to even try to control costs. It's like what happened with the banking industry during the recession. "To big to fail" just allowed banks to do stupid things and they're doing them again because they know they'll get bailed out again.
-
I was referring to a government pension above not private.
-
I would like to say not all union projects are sub-par; most turn out very good. But when your work is not consistently exceptional and you insist on charging high prices, you kind of damage your cause. Combine this with all the headaches, like the giant Rat, which does more harm then good from a marketing stand point, and people start to hate you.
Also, many of the protest with the Rat are not in front of large chain stores or big business; I could understand that, although not agree with it. Most are in front of small businesses, like a local coffee and sandwich shop down the street, or a privately owned daycare around the corner.
In NYC an journeyman electrician in Local 3 union makes over $100 an hour with benefits. Who needs college? Of course, big builders like Trump use union labor. He didn't build Trump Tower with non-union "scab" labor. But small companies and startups just can't afford to pay union wages so homes, small businesses, etc get done with non-union workers, many who are immigrants. I don't know the percentage of how many of those are illegals, but it's a lot. That's just not in NYC but across the nation. Illegals keep costs for construction down but take away jobs from Americans. This has driven a lot of support for Trump from the construction industry.
-
Well, my wife and I are primarily plant based with seafood. We avoid processed foods, high sodium and sugars. I no longer smoke or drink alcohol and I've even switched from Diet Coke to Perrier because of the chemicals and food coloring. We have workout equipment and a personal trainer. I have had serious health issues recently so I'm working on radically improving my health...thanks for asking :~)...
Better late than never ;)
-
My musician friend told me that he is not allowed to plug his guitar into a wall outlet himself, in union-controlled venues. Instead, they require him to hire an electrician at a rate of $200 per hour (the number per my memory) - way more than he charges for his music performance.
-
Better late than never ;)
It is astounding how resilient is the human body and how effective a healthy diet can be.
There are a number of documented cases (with measurable test results and MRI image scans) where a change of lifestyle resulted not only in stabilizing serious and life-threatening conditions, but quite often in a dramatic reversal of the disease. This is true for for heart diseases, osteoarthritis, diabetes, and even some types of cancers.
In my personal circle of friends, my friend's uncle who suffered a heart attack in his sixties, consequently changed his diet and committed to a regular gym exercise, where he exercised to his mid nineties. He died two years ago at age 97.
-
Wow...what a week! But it ain't over–we still have the Sunday shows to get through. In the meantime just in case somebody still believes Trump when he says This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won., well here's Politifact to the rescue ~)
You can always tell when Trump is lying...his lips move.
How the Germans see Trump (from the latest issue of Spiegel)
The life of the US president must feel like a constant nightmare. One of the kind you are on a stage and suddenly realize that you do not know which piece is played. Or that you do not wear pants.
..
Again and again, Trump finds himself in situations where his extensive ignorance of elementary facts and context is so obvious that most other people would sink into the ground with shame. But Trump does not even seem to notice this. The Emperor is naked, but he couldn't care less.
-
the FBI to begin investigating possible ties between the Trump team and Russia in July 2016. That is the start of the story, more than three months before the election.
One would think they would have come up with indictments by now, 10 months later? If there is something to indict for, that is. The rest is a made-up story by the desperate and delusional election losers.
-
Has Trump tweeted about this (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/05/14/charlottesville_n_16610610.html) yet?
-
Since the 1970's, the selection of FBI Director requires the advice and consent of the Senate. I wonder if the law should be changed to require the advice and consent of the Senate to fire the FBI director.
If the purpose of the longer terms and Senate approval was to further politically isolate the Director, then the President having the authority to fire at will, reduces that political isolation.
-
It is astounding how resilient is the human body and how effective a healthy diet can be.
There are a number of documented cases (with measurable test results and MRI image scans) where a change of lifestyle resulted not only in stabilizing serious and life-threatening conditions, but quite often in a dramatic reversal of the disease. This is true for for heart diseases, osteoarthritis, diabetes, and even some types of cancers.
In my personal circle of friends, my friend's uncle who suffered a heart attack in his sixties, consequently changed his diet and committed to a regular gym exercise, where he exercised to his mid nineties. He died two years ago at age 97.
I agree, Les. A wholesome diet and regular exercise are the key to a healthy and long life, within the limits of one's genetic disposition.
I get the impression that a lot of confusion results because of the variability of this genetic disposition among individuals. Some people can smoke cigarettes for most of their life, and die at the age of 97 without any symptoms of lung cancer. Others can over eat junk food, not bother to exercise, and yet still not be overweight.
The result of such observations tends to feed the denialism of overweight and obese people who tend to claim that it is their genes that are causing them to be overweight, rather than over eating, because they are not eating more than certain friends or colleagues who are not overweight.
However, the fundamental principle is, one can over eat and not becomes overweight, but one cannot become overweight without over eating.
There's a huge problem in addressing the issue of diet because the processed food industry is so massive and influential, and the complexities of diet combined with individual genetic disposition are so great, almost like climate change.
The processed food industry also employ their own dieticians who might tend to behave like the scientists employed by the tobacco industry, when asked for advice on the harmful effects of certain processed foods.
My own view is that the solution is the introduction of an additional subject on diet, in all schools for children. The regular subjects are maths, science, literature, history, English, foreign languages, and even religion. Why not introduce a new subject on dietary matters? Too difficult?
-
My own view is that the solution is the introduction of an additional subject on diet, in all schools for children. The regular subjects are maths, science, literature, history, English, foreign languages, and even religion. Why not introduce a new subject on dietary matters? Too difficult?
You are absolutely right, Ray, the most effective way to educate the general population on the proper nutrition, would be to add such a subject in all schools.
And while we are at it, such classes should be offered as a refreshment course also for all doctors. Most practising physicians never learnt anything about the nutrition as a tool to prevent and heal diseases.
2,500 years ago, Hippocrates believed “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” Nowadays, the doctors routinely prescribe antibiotics and betablockers.
-
One would think they would have come up with indictments by now, 10 months later? If there is something to indict for, that is. The rest is a made-up story by the desperate and delusional election losers.
Nah. Ken Starr took 9 months just to deal with the Lewinski part of the Bill Clinton/Paula Jones stuff, for example. Plus the House committee was sidetracked by weeks of Nunes' nonsense, and so on.
-
I have often thought about the advantages of taking the senior year/final semester of high school and, instead of continuing strictly academic studies, concentrate on those skills necessary to become an independent citizen adult. In the final year/semester:
English - Business type writing. How to write a resume and cover letter. How to write to a business or an elected office. How to read legal documents like leases and such.
Math - Budgeting, basic investing, understanding credit, understanding loans... especially student loans!
History - Interpreting current events, How to identify and evaluate biases in information. Understanding how local, state, and federal government works. How to conduct research (not academic research, but practical research)
Science - Health and nutrition, Understanding diseases and how to limit the spread of them. How to identify and evaluate biases in technical information. How to conduct research so one does not depend on Internet forums. ;D
While one of the purposes of High School is to prepare the student for higher academics, another purpose is to teach the students the basic skills necessary to function as a citizen in today's society.
I have a doctorate and over 30 years experience in my chosen career. The last time I used Calculus was... in my last Calculus class...30+ years ago. ;D I think that the majority of adults don't use Calculus in their daily lives. ;)
But almost on a daily basis, I need to understand all the other stuff in this post.
We have too many students graduating that can do calculus but can't write a simple cover letter or understand the conditions of credit/loans.
-
Since the 1970's, the selection of FBI Director requires the advice and consent of the Senate. I wonder if the law should be changed to require the advice and consent of the Senate to fire the FBI director.
If the purpose of the longer terms and Senate approval was to further politically isolate the Director, then the President having the authority to fire at will, reduces that political isolation.
All the Secretaries (Defense, State, treasury, etc.) also serve at the pleasure of the President. Although they are confirmed by the Senate, the President can fire them at will. Of course, the Director is hired for ten years. But in the end, someone has to decide if they guy is doing a good job or not. And he works for the Justice Dept and the President. A boss should be able to fire a subordinate if he wishes and then, of course, he'll have to deal with the political fallout. I don't think we want to get into a whole Senate discussion about firing someone. Do you want the whole country looking at what you did or didn't do as an employee and listening to criticism and maybe even hearings? Comey already went though that enough. It's in the President's corner now to handle the problem and fallout.
-
Nah. Ken Starr took 9 months just to deal with the Lewinski part of the Bill Clinton/Paula Jones stuff, for example. Plus the House committee was sidetracked by weeks of Nunes' nonsense, and so on.
Ken Star is why the Democrats want a Special Prosecutor. Because it will drag on past the 2018 elections and be in the news constantly making it difficult for Republicans to focus on legislating and will effect the election better for the Dems. It's the same reason they want his tax returns released. Just another thing to knock the President every day. The beauty of a Special Prosecutor and tax returns, is that there doesn't have to be anything there. The press and the politicians can always find something to knock the President. That's how it works. Trump should resist on both scores. Other republicans should know better than to support these two things.
-
I have often thought about the advantages of taking the senior year/final semester of high school and, instead of continuing strictly academic studies, concentrate on those skills necessary to become an independent citizen adult. In the final year/semester:
English - Business type writing. How to write a resume and cover letter. How to write to a business or an elected office. How to read legal documents like leases and such.
Math - Budgeting, basic investing, understanding credit, understanding loans... especially student loans!
History - Interpreting current events, How to identify and evaluate biases in information. Understanding how local, state, and federal government works. How to conduct research (not academic research, but practical research)
Science - Health and nutrition, Understanding diseases and how to limit the spread of them. How to identify and evaluate biases in technical information. How to conduct research so one does not depend on Internet forums. ;D
While one of the purposes of High School is to prepare the student for higher academics, another purpose is to teach the students the basic skills necessary to function as a citizen in today's society.
I have a doctorate and over 30 years experience in my chosen career. The last time I used Calculus was... in my last Calculus class...30+ years ago. ;D I think that the majority of adults don't use Calculus in their daily lives. ;)
But almost on a daily basis, I need to understand all the other stuff in this post.
We have too many students graduating that can do calculus but can't write a simple cover letter or understand the conditions of credit/loans.
+1 Also, how about how to dress and conduct yourself in a job interview. Kids dress like slobs like they're going to McDonalds.
Some of the stuff your mentioned was covered in Social Studies when I was a kid, relating to how government works, American history, patriotism. What about gym and sports to keep physically heathy? Do they even cover this stuff anymore?
-
I have often thought about the advantages of taking the senior year/final semester of high school and, instead of continuing strictly academic studies, concentrate on those skills necessary to become an independent citizen adult...
Makes sense. Instead, we have this as the "modern educayshun" (an Aussie comedian's take):
https://www.facebook.com/seen.everything/videos/1154800587957810/
(Sorry for the Facebook link, couldn't find the original)
-
U.S. lawmakers ask Trump to turn over any Comey tapes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-idUSKCN18A0TU
"U.S. lawmakers on Sunday called on President Donald Trump to turn over any tapes of conversations with fired FBI chief James Comey, potentially setting up a showdown with the White House as Democrats considered a boycott of the vote on Comey's replacement.
In a highly unusual move, Trump last week appeared to suggest on Twitter that he might have tapes of conversations with Comey and warned the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation against talking to the media. Trump and a White House spokesman declined to confirm or deny whether such tapes exist.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the White House must "clear the air" about whether there are any taped conversations.
"You can't be cute about tapes. If there are any tapes of this conversation, they need to be turned over," Graham told NBC's "Meet the Press" program. "
Edit: Treasury unit to share records with Senate for Trump-Russia probe: WSJ
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-treasury-idUSKBN188314
"The Senate probe took on added significance after Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey earlier this week amid an agency investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible Moscow ties to the Trump presidential campaign."
Cheers,
Bart
-
that's the bad thing about bluffing.. sometimes your bluff is called.
-
that's the bad thing about bluffing.. sometimes your bluff is called.
Indeed, and the backfire may be even worse:
"Trump's threat about tapes has intensified calls from Democrats for an independent probe of alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump must immediately provide Congress with any tapes and warned that destroying existing tapes would violate the law."
So even if there were no tapes, the allegation could be that they were destroyed ...
Stupid move by Trump, once again.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump revealed classified information to Lavrov at White House meeting: Washington Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX
"U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister during their meeting last week, potentially jeopardizing a source of intelligence about Islamic State, The Washington Post reported on Monday, citing current and former U.S. officials.
The newspaper said the information Trump relayed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak had been provided by a U.S. partner through a highly sensitive intelligence-sharing arrangement.
The partner had not given Washington permission to share the material with Moscow, and Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State militant group, the Post said, citing the unnamed officials."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Looks like we won't be talking about Comey, or was it health care? Can't keep up with all the accusations from liberal Washington Post. McMaster denied that any sources and methods were released and Washington Post story was false
LT. GEN. H.R. McMASTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: "I have a brief statement for the record. There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.
At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of the State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on the record accounts should outweigh anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/15/mcmaster_the_story_that_came_out_tonight_as_reported_is_false.html
-
Trump revealed classified information to Lavrov at White House meeting: Washington Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKCN18B2MX
"U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister during their meeting last week, potentially jeopardizing a source of intelligence about Islamic State, The Washington Post reported on Monday, citing current and former U.S. officials.
The newspaper said the information Trump relayed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak had been provided by a U.S. partner through a highly sensitive intelligence-sharing arrangement.
The partner had not given Washington permission to share the material with Moscow, and Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State militant group, the Post said, citing the unnamed officials."
Cheers,
Bart
I guess nobody new that he could be this stupid, it's almost an art form: "The Art of The Stupid"
Now back to the cycle: Everyone in awe, supporters calling it fake news.
I would rather have a crooked president than a stupid one, that's just me.
-
I would rather have a crooked president than a stupid one, that's just me.
He certainly fits both categories.
-
At one time, you had to wait until the major papers checked their sources and published anything. But most published stories were true. These days there is no guarantee that even Washington Post or New York Times stories are based on facts.
-
The Washington Post and the NY Times hate Trump and often lie or just distort the news. We've been coordinating terrorist info with the Russians for years. They have a big problem with the Muslim Chechnya region where terrorists have blown u[p bombs in Moscow and from where terrorist have gone to the Mideast to support ISIS. Chechnya is where the family of the two Boston marathon bombing brothers came from. The Russians warned the FBI about them who checked a little but then dropped the ball and stopped watching them before the bombing. By the way, that was on Comey's watch. So now we're telling the Russians about laptop bombs which have been in the news publicly for a couple of weeks. We started to stop allowing them on flights from certain Mideast countries and may expand the ban. So the Washington Post takes an important terrorist safeguard between our two countries, sharing certain info, and turns it into an attack on Trump.
-
So now we're telling the Russians about laptop bombs which have been in the news publicly for a couple of weeks.
Oh, is that what Trump told the Russians? How do YOU know...WaPo and NYT went out of their way to give no hint or clue exactly what Trump told them. But Tillerson confirmed Trump told them "something"...
"During President Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, a broad range of subjects were discussed among which were common efforts and threats regarding counter-terrorism. During that exchange the nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods or military operations," Tillerson said in a statement.
So, Trump DID exchange the nature of specific threats but didn't discuss sources, methods or military operations...uh, huh...based on the potentially sensitive nature of the threats intelligence experts presume Russia may be able to reverse engineer where the intelligence came from potentially putting sources, methods or military operations NOT revealed still at serious risk.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/3f00dc691b336788e2cb0145aabd96920f068cb5/c=4-0-956-716&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2017/05/10/USATODAY/USATODAY/636300283797489976-AP-TRUMP-US-RUSSIA.jpg)
But WTF were the Russians even doing in the Oval Office in the first place?
The Russians are not our friends...they tried to impact our elections (and most certainly did) and Trump agrees to allow them into the Oval, including Russian journalists & photographers, get's embarrassed by the Russians tweeting the photos and leaks intelligence to them?
What does Putin have on Trump that Trump is so willing to do really stooopid things on behalf of Russia and to the detriment of the USA?
(https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/trump-russians-laughing.jpg)
-
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18486247_10212892865064784_6800043232586543823_n.jpg?oh=a26e7a0128d47554a836bd490219721b&oe=59B90E87)
Just change the /14 to /17 and he would be right :~(
-
The Washington Post and the NY Times hate Trump and often lie or just distort the news.
How would you characterize Fox News and rt.com ?
Actually, I get my news mainly from the Guardian and Spiegel. They both are amongst the firsts to report on any breaking news and their coverage is more global than of the American publications.
-
At one time, you had to wait until the major papers checked their sources and published anything. But most published stories were true. These days there is no guarantee that even Washington Post or New York Times stories are based on facts.
Maybe things have become easier. When the official news comes from the White House, it's more likely than not fake news/alternative facts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Giant sleeper cells:
-
By the way, that was on Comey's watch.
Did you even bother on checking the dates on this claim? Comey was confirmed on July and sworn on September 2013. The Boston Marathon incident was in April 2013.
Fake news! Sad!
-
Well, there you have it. Tillerson and McMasters officially denying it happened, Trump tweeting that he did do it.
Tillerson: Trump did not discuss 'sources, methods' in meeting with Russia's Lavrov
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tillerson-idUSKCN18B2PP
Trump did not discuss 'sources, methods' with Russia's Lavrov: McMaster
http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/05/15/trump-did-not-discuss-sources-methods-wi?videoId=371680773&videoChannel=1003
Trump, in tweets, defends his sharing of information with Russians
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y
Trump says he has 'absolute right' to share facts with Russians
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y
The only thing unclear is how highly classified the shared info was, but Trump doesn't make that distinction.
The reason that sources revealed this to the Washington Post suggests that they were very upset. They wouldn't have risked their positions if it was a harmless exchange.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, there you have it. Tillerson and McMasters officially denying it happened, Trump tweeting that he did do it.
Tillerson: Trump did not discuss 'sources, methods' in meeting with Russia's Lavrov
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tillerson-idUSKCN18B2PP
Trump did not discuss 'sources, methods' with Russia's Lavrov: McMaster
http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/05/15/trump-did-not-discuss-sources-methods-wi?videoId=371680773&videoChannel=1003
Trump, in tweets, defends his sharing of information with Russians
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y
Trump says he has 'absolute right' to share facts with Russians
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tweets-idUSKCN18C19Y
The only thing unclear is how highly classified the shared info was, but Trump doesn't make that distinction.
The reason that sources revealed this to the Washington Post suggests that they were very upset. They wouldn't have risked their positions if it was a harmless exchange.
Cheers,
Bart
Haha! I've got to say, it's always funny how he trashes all damage control efforts. My guess is that McAster should be on his desk right now with the hands on his head: "Noooo, What did you doooo!!!!" We had this!!!!!!
Waiting for supporters to shift from fake news to presidential rights, any minute now.
-
... The Russians are not our friends...
You sure you want them as our enemies? ;)
-
You sure you want them as our enemies? ;)
Babushka stronk, like bear! ;)
-
How would you characterize Fox News and rt.com ?
Actually, I get my news mainly from the Guardian and Spiegel. They both are amongst the firsts to report on any breaking news and their coverage is more global than of the American publications.
First off the Washington Post (WAPO) and the NY Times (NYT) are American newspapers unlike RT which is Russian. WAPO and NYT have had the most political influence throughout the world and in Washington DC. Many of their articles are re-broadcasted to other media by reuters and other similar outlets throughout the world so they have immense power to influence public opinion throughout the world. The rest of the world's newspapers just pick up the biased news from WAPO and NYT. Unfortunately, both are biased liberal and pro-democrat and have been for decades. Lately, the Post has gone off the rails totally with their Trump hatred and distorted news. NYT tries to be less "tabloid" but their true colors shows. A good way to tell who reads these papers is to look at the comments at the bottom of an article. 95% of the comments are anti-Trump. The ones in WAPO are more vile then the more erudite anti-Trump comments in the NYT.. Both papers write for their liberal readership just like MSNBC broadcasts their liberal content for anti-Trump and liberal believing viewers.
I don't know about the Guardian or the Spiegel. But like I said, if they get their info from liberal media in the US, they're just taking the same liberal points of view as the NY Times and Washington Post.
Fox isn't a newspaper but a broadcaster on cable. There are actually two Fox channels. One is more conservative oriented and present more conservative panels like MSNBC and CNN present more liberal panels. But FOX also does straight news that's more fair and balanced.
-
Oh, is that what Trump told the Russians? How do YOU know...WaPo and NYT went out of their way to give no hint or clue exactly what Trump told them. But Tillerson confirmed Trump told them "something"...
Trump tweeted that he discussed defeating ISIS terrorism and airline security. One has to assume if he was discussing airline security, the big recent problem with laptop bombs came up. We've stopped allowing laptops on planes leaving from ten Arab nations and it's likely to be expanded. We're working with the Russians to defeat terrorism, a common enemy. The Russian told us about the Boston bombers and we're telling them about the laptop bomb issue. This is all perfectly legitimate and smart to discuss for both countries. All the people present at the meeting stated no means and methods were discussed about how we got the info about the laptop bombs. Of course the anti-Trump Washington Post finds something every day about Trump to gripe about. Their dedication is to destroy Trump. Today or tomorrow they'll be more bad news about Trump. They're always crying "wolf".
-
The issue of presidents and classified information is complicated.
The president is the ultimate authority of classification for all classified information generated by the US. He has what is called Original Classification Authority (OCA). Sometimes it is called original classifying authority.
The president can designate other US government officials with OCA. For example, the Secretary of State has OCA for all classified information originating from the Department of State, but not for information originating from, for example, the Department of Defense.
When an OCA determines that a piece of information is to be protected at a classification level (classification), at another classification (reclassification) or that the information is no longer classified (declassification), this decision has to be documented. Otherwise there is a real risk that different organizations will treat the same information at different levels.
One could make the argument that the PotUS ain't gonna do no documentation as he has people to do so. That is probably a viable viewpoint. I don't think anyone expects the PotUS to actually sit down and fill out the classification/reclassification/declassification paperwork. However, that means that the PotUS needs to coordinate his classification decision either before disclosure (best practice) or immediately after disclosure. In any case, the PotUS' classification decisions need to be documented.
A wise president would carefully coordinate classification decisions with the major stakeholders, but there is no legal requirement to do so. The president is the OCA for the United States and not just for the Executive Branch.
There are no federal laws that restrict the president's OCA concerning information whose classification originates from the United State's government. There are, however, policies that govern the OCA activity.
6 U.S. Code § 485 is a federal law that establishes policy for information sharing within the US and foreign governments but does not limit the president's OCA. 6 U.S. Code § 485 does not address classified information at all, but uses general terms such as "terrorism and homeland security information".
If, and this has not been demonstrated, Trump disclosed classified information to someone, he has not violated any federal law. He may have violated policy however. But Law and policy are two different things. If Trump did use his OCA in disclosing this information, there needs to be documentation of that classification decision. Again, that is policy not law.
All this applies to classified information that originates from the US.
One of the issues of the alleged action was that the disclosure involved information that was classified by another country and given to the US under an information sharing agreement. Some of these agreements are very sensitive. Rarely are they are governed by US federal law (especially the sensitive relationships). However, there are US policies governing how this information needs to be handled. There may be foreign laws involved, and most importantly, there are sensitive relationships that are formulated on mutual trust.
If, and this has not been demonstrated, Trump disclosed classified information that originated from a foreign government he has
1. Not violated any US federal law.
2. May have violated US policy.
3. May have violated the laws of the other country. Not that this matters much as the president is, for practical purposes, not bound by federal laws of other countries.
4. Probably violated the trust with regards to not only the country of agreement, but with other countries we have other agreements. If he violated the trust of country A, why would countries B-Z think he would not violate their trust.
Assuming that Trump did what he is being accused of, and that has not been settled. Trump has
Not broken any federal laws
Broken policy
Certainly adversely affected the level of trust in other nations.
My opinion: What he did was not illegal, but incredibly shortsighted and potentially harmful to the US' relationships of trust that will take years/decades to repair.
-
All the people present at the meeting stated no means and methods were discussed about how we got the info about the laptop bombs.
Hum...General McMasters while defending Trump at the WH briefing said that Trump had not planned on disclosing the classified info and there had been no plan to tell the Russians, it just came out during the course of the conversation (read: Trump was bragging about his good intel). And Trump didn't disclose the source of the information because, uh, well, Trump hadn't been briefed on where the intel came from...
Wait, what?
Somebody told Trump about the intel but wisely didn't tell him the source of the intel so he couldn't blab it out?
So, that begs the question, is Trump not getting his intel briefings for some reason or is he simply not paying attention?
Yeah, no way this doesn't hurt America...
#MAGA / #MRGA
-
Giant sleeper cells:
Well, this is funny, sort of...but not really because:
White Nationalist Leads Torch-Bearing Protesters Against Removal of Confederate Statue (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-nationalist-leads-torch-bearing-protesters-against-removal-confederate-statue-n759266)
A torch-wielding mob chanting racist slogans descended on a Charlottesville, Virginia, park Saturday evening, to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue.
Chanting "All White Lives Matter," and "No More Brother Wars," the crowd, which said they were protecting their "white heritage" from the Charlottesville City Council's decision to remove a statue in the Virginia town's park.
They also chanted "You will not replace us" and "Russia is our friend." Dozens of protesters also brought bamboo tiki torches to a second rally once it became dark out.
So, white nationalists think Russia is our friend?
Wonder where they got that idea?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7Tod5YXUAAz0F-.jpg)
-
Well, at least this is slightly amusing....
Meet Robin Bell, the artist who projected protest messages onto Trump's D.C. hotel last night (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/miranda/la-et-cam-robin-bell-projections-20170516-story.html)
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-591aa154/turbine/la-1494917447-e5tibtkd6d-snap-image/750/750x422)
For a short period on Monday night, a large projection appeared on the facade of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., that read “Emoluments Welcome,” along with an animation of the flags of nations where President Trump has business projects.
This was followed by a message that read “Pay Trump Bribes Here,” with an arrow that pointed to the front door of the hotel. Yet another featured an excerpt of the emoluments clause from the U.S. Constitution, which restricts members of the U.S. government from receiving gifts from foreign powers. (Trump is being sued by one watchdog group for potentially violating this clause.)
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-591aa1ca/turbine/la-1494917571-vvj1niw1n5-snap-image/750/750x422)
So, it didn't last long...about 10 minutes until security guards came over and blocked the LCD projector but long enough for the photos to go viral :~)
-
...Yeah, no way this doesn't hurt America...
How's is engaging Russia in fighting ISIS going to hurt us?
If, according to the left, alt-right sees Russia as our friend, I wonder if alt-left sees ISIS as more of a friend than Russia?
-
Yea, so top secret CNN knew the name of the city months ago. Lol
Don
Quote :
The intelligence behind the US ban on laptops and other electronics is considered so highly classified that CNN, at the request of US government officials, withheld key details from a previous story on the travel restrictions.
The concern, US officials told CNN, was that publishing certain information, including a city where some of the intelligence was detected, could tip off adversaries about the sources and methods used to gather the intelligence.
There is some disagreement, according to one of the sources, as to how far the President went. The intelligence relates to what is known as a special access program, or SAP, which covers some of the most classified information and is protected with unique access and security protocols.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-fallout/index.html
-
Panetta: Trump needs grown-ups around him
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/16/leon-panetta-classified-intelligence-newday.cnn
Washington Post reporter stands by story
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/15/wash-post-writer-response-white-house-erin.cnn
Cheers,
Bart
-
How's is engaging Russia in fighting ISIS going to hurt us?
Not at all sure how it's gonna help anybody other than to help Assad overcome what he claims are rebels who may or may not be with or against ISIS. Do you fully understand what's going on in Syria? I sure don't...maybe YOU should volunteer to be a Trump advisor. Heck, you even worked in Russia so you would probably fit right in, right?
Personally, I would prefer the discussions about intelligence matters be done by professionals in the intelligence agencies. They are the ones who know how to exchange intel in such a way that it won't piss off allies or get assets killed. It was probably good that Trump didn't know the source of the intel otherwise he would probably blabbed that as well.
If, according to the left, alt-right sees Russia as our friend, I wonder if alt-left sees ISIS as more of a friend than Russia?
Wait, are you saying that torch-wielding protesters chanting 'Russia is our friend' rally at Confederate statue in Virginia was a left wing fake news story? Are you saying that the Alt-Right DOESN'T think Russia is their friend? Or are you saying non of that happened?
As for the "alt-left"...who is that exactly...we know that the alt-right are Russian loving white supremacists, so who would the alt-left be? Lenin loving socialists? And you think socialists would somehow support ISIS?
Pretty sure nobody in America wants to support ISIS other than some radical anti-western jihadists...
As far as the whole alt-left deal, what exactly is alt of the left? Here's an interesting (for some) piece from that bastion of alt-leftism, The Guardian:
Why the 'alt-left' will succeed where centrists fail (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/15/why-the-alt-left-will-succeed-where-centrists-fail)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/35d4dfba197ecb37b1a6f18c42bbbe9173c7f16a/595_513_3895_2336/master/3895.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=566878174698f7831fc7cb7e3cef24e0)
By Bhaskar Sunkara
Could you be a member of a political conspiracy without even knowing it? I’ve found out in recent months that I’m a member of the “alt-left”. Commentators like Vanity Fair’s James Wolcott try to break down the movement’s main currents: a handful of randos on Twitter, Glenn Greenwald, Susan Sarandon, Tulsi Gabbard and Cornel West.
Not bad company, if I do say so myself. For Wolcott, what we all share is a soft spot for Russia, a kind of “Trumpian” rhetoric that attacks cultural liberalism and a shocking opposition to the “CIA/FBI/NSA alphabet-soup national-security matrix” he so trusts.
New York Magazine contributors are a bit more coherent in their definition. They point to Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon as “alt-left” standard bearers.
Analytically, the label doesn’t make sense. After all, the United States doesn’t have a labor-based party, much less a socialist one. In its stead, we’ve had the Democratic party, and mainstream Democrats have never had much interest associating themselves with the left.
Feisty internet reactionaries faced off against Beltway conservatives and traditionalists, dubbing themselves the “alt-right”, but there was no doubt that an actual “right” existed before them. On the left, though, who are we the “alt” to?
The “alt-left” label is simply meant as a slur, a way to associate America’s most consistent foes of oppression and exploitation with those who mean to shred whatever social and civil rights we still have. But it does connote a real style and temperament – a willingness to speak to an anti-establishment mood, to break with “politics as usual” in a far more fundamental way than Trump did.
Look at those scary "alt-left" radicals above looking like they are going to stomp you...compare those to the "alt-right" below
(http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/maxresdefault-e1464888685807-800x430.jpg)
Ok, I'll admit, Bernie Sanders can look pretty scary :~)
-
... As for the "alt-left"...who is that exactly...
New name for the old concept with a much more appropriate name: loony left.
And yes, I would prefer Russia to be our friend than our enemy, or at least our best frenemy. If you ever listen to Putin, he never refers to the States in the same manner our politicians refer to Russia (i.e., as a devil's spawn), he always uses a polite term "our partners." As partners, we defeated Natzis, as partners, we can defeat radical Islam too. Remember that they volunteered their intelligence findings about the Tsarnaev brothers. Our "professionals," who, according to you, are supremely qualified to handle it, then screwed up.
As for the Angry Birdie Bernie, no, he is not necessarily dangerous himself, but his Bernie Jugend is.
-
Our "professionals," who, according to you, are supremely qualified to handle it, then screwed up.
I said the pros would more qualified than Trump...and it's not entirely clear what Russia actually told "us" about Tsarnaev brothers...
Boston Marathon bombs: Russia 'withheld' information on Tsarnaev (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26975845)
The Russian government withheld intelligence from the US on one of the Boston Marathon bomb suspects that may have led to further scrutiny before last year's attack, US media report.
In 2011 Russian officials warned the FBI about ethnic Chechen Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was a US resident.
But Russia declined requests for more information on him, the reports say.
Twin blasts killed three people and hurt more than 260 last April. Tsarnaev later died in a police shootout.
Before the bombing US authorities were aware of Tsarnaev - a radical Muslim - but decided he posed a "far greater threat to Russia" than to the US, the New York Times says.
According to an inspector general's report reviewed by the Times and other US media, the Russians told the FBI that Tsarnaev "was a follower of radical Islam" and "had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country's region to join unspecified underground groups".
But according to the inspector general's report, only after the bombing did the Russians provide the FBI with additional intelligence, including an intercepted telephone conversation between Tsarnaev and his mother in which the two discussed what was described as Islamic jihad.
So, did Russia actually help? Seems they could have done more...
-
Trump asked Comey to close Flynn probe: NY Times, citing Comey memo
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-idUSKCN18C2Q8
"President Donald Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey to shut down an investigation into ties between then-White House national security adviser Michael Flynn and Russia, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing a Comey memo.
“I hope you can let this go,” Trump told Comey, according to two people who read the memo, the Times reported.
An associate of Comey who has seen the memo told Reuters that the details of the document as reported by the New York Times were accurate. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ouch...that's gonne leave a mark. Be sure to watch CNN tonite when Sally Yates gets interviewed by Anderson Cooper.
Blood is in the water...
-
Following advice, potential FBI chiefs steer clear of job under Trump
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-idUSKCN18C2PI
"The Trump administration's search for a new FBI director hit roadblocks on Tuesday when two high-profile potential candidates, a moderate judge and a conservative senator, signaled they did not want the job.
Advisers to Judge Merrick Garland and U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas told Reuters they discouraged them from leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation, cautioning that they would be leaving important, secure jobs for one fraught with politics and controversy. "
And further down the article:
"The difficulty in filling key administration jobs is not just limited to the FBI director post.
Trump’s habits of contradicting his top aides, demanding personal loyalty and punishing officials who contradict him in public has discouraged a number of experienced people from pursuing jobs, said three people who declined to discuss possible positions with administration officials.
"It’s becoming increasingly difficult to attract good people to work in this administration," said one senior official. "In other cases, veteran people with expertise are leaving or seeking posts overseas and away from this White House." "
Not sure, is that draining the swamp? Or is that dehydrating the pool of experience?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump was never going to pick Cornyn anyway and screw up Rep in Senate.
Don
-
And yes, I would prefer Russia to be our friend than our enemy, or at least our best frenemy. If you ever listen to Putin, he never refers to the States in the same manner our politicians refer to Russia (i.e., as a devil's spawn), he always uses a polite term "our partners."
I can agree with you here. It's a bit disingenuous to have the left, who for years have been arguing that the right were too belligerent with post-Soviet Russia, suddenly adopting the Reaganesque "Evil Empire" language simply because it's the "anti-Trump." (On the other hand, it's still completely nuts to see people that loudly proclaim to honor traditional American values finding common cause with a Russian autocrat. But in my experience most of those that scream loudest about traditional American values are among the least educated on what they really mean, and where they come from. But I digress.)
As with most international relations, I would generally favor a genuine Realpolitik approach to Russia, with the understanding that, fundamentally, their goals and ours (at least in Europe) are not necessarily compatible, but even that is probably too nuanced and subtle for opposed political parties to embrace.
-
And then this...
U.S. Officials ‘Warned Israel’ Not to Share Sensitive Intel With Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-officials-warned-israel-not-100556239.html?.tsrc=fauxdal)
U.S. intelligence officials reportedly warned their Israeli counterparts to exert caution in sharing top secret information with Donald Trump’s administration for fear of it being passed to Russia and then to Moscow’s ally and Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran.
Discussions between U.S. and Israeli security services prior to Trump’s inauguration on January 20 gave rise to concerns that sensitive intelligence might exchange hands between him and the Russian government, Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronothreported (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4906642,00.html) in January.
The paper published the report amid accusations of links between Trump’s campaign team and the Russian government. Now, just four months into Trump’s presidency, it has emerged that the commander in chief may have divulged highly classified intelligence to the Russian government.
On Monday, the Washington Post , citing officials with knowledge of the matter, reported that Trump boasted about top-secret information in his meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak.
Officials said he divulged sensitive information about an Islamic State militant group (ISIS) plot relating to aviation security that a key ally had secured, without the consent of that ally. It raised concerns among security officials that Russia could exploit that intelligence channel and identify the ally and method of intelligence used. Israel reportedly already had these concerns.
According to Yedioth , Israeli intelligence officials feared that its famous Mossad secret service would have its most sensitive methods and operations breached, potentially falling into the hands of the Iranian regime.
Fears reportedly surfaced after U.S. intelligence officials told their Israeli counterparts that it had credible information that Russian elements hacked the Democratic National Party servers to damage Hillary Clinton before Trump’s victory.
U.S. officials implied that Israel “be careful” of passing top-secret information to Washington from January 20 onwards until alleged ties between Trump and Russia were disproved. The implication was that Israeli information, which had been discreetly shared with trust for years, could reach Tehran and harm Israeli national security.
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/2Ymc2ngKIjEb6lACM47tHA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/da9eacaba10756d676257570b5a82117)
Add to that this...
ISRAEL DEMANDS EXPLANATION OVER U.S. OFFICIAL'S WESTERN WALL COMMENTS (http://www.newsweek.com/israel-demands-explanation-over-us-officials-western-wall-comments-609723?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss-related&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news)
Israel wants the White House to explain why a U.S. diplomat preparing President Donald Trump's visit to Jerusalem said Judaism's Holy Western Wall in its Old City is part of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, an Israeli official said Monday.
Israel considers all of Jerusalem as its indivisible capital, a claim that is not recognized internationally, and the Western Wall—the holiest prayer site for Jews—is part of territory it captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
Israel's Channel 2 reported that during a planning meeting between U.S. and Israeli officials, the Israelis were told that Trump's visit to the Western Wall was private, Israel did not have jurisdiction in the area and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not welcome to accompany Trump there.
Trump's administration has been sending mixed messages in its dealings with a right-wing Israeli government that had hoped for a more sympathetic attitude from the Republican president after a rocky relationship with his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.
"The statement that the Western Wall is in an area in the West Bank was received with shock," said the official in Netanyahu's office.
That's gonna make next weeks Trump visit to Israel just a bit uncomfortable for the big orange dummy...
Do ya think it's too late to institute a travel ban on Air Force One's return to America after Trump's trip?
Too much to hope for?
-
American Institutions Strike Back (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/liberal-democracys-defenses-against-trump/526950/)
The president’s incompetence may yet save the country that put him in the White House.
(http://www.villages-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Donald-Trump.jpg)
The bad news is that Donald Trump is the most incompetent president in modern American history. The good news is that Donald Trump is the most incompetent president in modern American history.
He was too incompetent to understand his own health care bill, or accurately describe the direction in which the “armada” designed to intimidate North Korea was heading, or restrain himself from disclosing highly classified information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. But he’s also too incompetent, it appears, to destroy liberal democracy.
When Trump fired James Comey a week ago, many Republicans denied that he had done so to shut down the FBI’s inquiry into his campaign’s Russia ties. Trump, they said, could not have been that stupid. He could not have been stupid enough to believe that firing Comey would quash the Russia investigation.
But, increasingly, it appears that Trump was. Rather than building a high-minded pretext for firing Comey, Trump, according to the New York Times, invited Comey to dinner in January and demanded his personal loyalty. If that wasn’t incriminating enough, in February he baldly asked Comey to end the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Then, after Comey asked for more funding to investigate the Trump campaign’s Russia ties, Trump fired him—essentially asking the man he had handed a loaded gun to fire it at his head.
The Kremlin, it turns out, is not the only institution able to outwit Donald Trump.
-
I can agree with you here. It's a bit disingenuous to have the left, who for years have been arguing that the right were too belligerent with post-Soviet Russia, suddenly adopting the Reaganesque "Evil Empire" language simply because it's the "anti-Trump." (On the other hand, it's still completely nuts to see people that loudly proclaim to honor traditional American values finding common cause with a Russian autocrat. But in my experience most of those that scream loudest about traditional American values are among the least educated on what they really mean, and where they come from. But I digress.)
As with most international relations, I would generally favor a genuine Realpolitik approach to Russia, with the understanding that, fundamentally, their goals and ours (at least in Europe) are not necessarily compatible, but even that is probably too nuanced and subtle for opposed political parties to embrace.
China's going to be a problem in the years ahead so having Russia on their northern border as a "friend" would be smart.
-
I said the pros would more qualified than Trump...and it's not entirely clear what Russia actually told "us" about Tsarnaev brothers...
Boston Marathon bombs: Russia 'withheld' information on Tsarnaev (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26975845)
So, did Russia actually help? Seems they could have done more...
Maybe if the Russians gave us more info, they would have blown their "means and methods" jeopardizing their agents in Chechnya. I think the main point is that both sides should be helping each other against common enemies. Didn't we work in WWII with that murdering bastard Stalin who killed 20 million of his own Russian people? He made Putin look like your fairy Godmother. Well, we had a common enemy then and have one now. Doesn't the left always say we should talk with our adversaries to create common ground to work together? If this all happened with Obama, you'd be saying what a wise leader he is. But, because it's Trump, everything is wrong, bad, stupid. We're only hurting ourselves when we attack the man instead of thinking about the principal. We use to say politics ends at our borders. Now we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.
-
Well, we had a common enemy then and have one now.
So, who's the enemy? ISIS? Sure, you bet...but while we're enemies of Assad, Russia is a friend of Assad. Assad (and by extension, Russia) are friends with Iran. Is Iran our friend? Assad, Iran and by extension Russia are enemies of Israel but Israel is our friend who gave us the ISIS intel and now it seems that an agent of our friend, Israel is now at risk...ABC: Israeli Spy's Life at Risk Because of Leak (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/spy-leak-classified-intelligence/2017/05/16/id/790547/)...
An Israeli spy's life is at risk because President Donald Trump allegedly divulged highly classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and ambassador last week, U.S. officials told ABC News on Tuesday.
The spy had infiltrated ISIS and recently provided intel to the U.S. about a plot to bomb a plane flying to the U.S. – information that was shared with the agreement the source remain confidential.
And Trump blows that out of the water because he wanted to brag about how good his intelligence agencies are?
Trump 'wasn't even aware' of where info shared with Russia came from, adviser says (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-wasnt-aware-info-shared-russia-adviser/story?id=47436439)
So, the big dummy brags and we all lose...
-
So, who's the enemy? ISIS? Sure, you bet...but while we're enemies of Assad, Russia is a friend of Assad. Assad (and by extension, Russia) are friends with Iran. Is Iran our friend? Assad, Iran and by extension Russia are enemies of Israel but Israel is our friend who gave us the ISIS intel and now it seems that an agent of our friend, Israel is now at risk...ABC: Israeli Spy's Life at Risk Because of Leak (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/spy-leak-classified-intelligence/2017/05/16/id/790547/)...
And Trump blows that out of the water because he wanted to brag about how good his intelligence agencies are?
Trump 'wasn't even aware' of where info shared with Russia came from, adviser says (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-wasnt-aware-info-shared-russia-adviser/story?id=47436439)
So, the big dummy brags and we all lose...
Well, we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. Turkey's been an ally and with us in NATO for decades. We have our air forces at their Incirlik Air Base for at least 50 years. Currently we fly missions against ISIS from there. Yet we support the Kurds in Iraq and just gave them weapons to go against ISIS and Turkey objects because they're afraid of a KURD homeland on Turkish territory. If fact, Turkey even bombed our Kurdish friends there.
Likewise, we should work with Russia against a common terrorist enemy ISIS even though we don't like that Russia is helping Assad? Maybe the expression should have been don't cut your nose off to spite your face. The problem is many can't get past their burning hatred of Trump. This should be about American security not politics.
-
Turkey under Erdogan is not a very reliable NATO partner.
Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel said on Monday that Germany would explore moving its troops from Turkey's Incirlik airbase after German politicians were blocked from visiting soldiers based there. The air base is being used in the international fightback against so-called "Islamic State" (IS) militants.
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-likely-to-pull-troops-out-of-incirlik-air-base/a-38842366
-
Turkey under Erdogan is not a very reliable NATO partner.
Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel said on Monday that Germany would explore moving its troops from Turkey's Incirlik airbase after German politicians were blocked from visiting soldiers based there. The air base is being used in the international fightback against so-called "Islamic State" (IS) militants.
http://www.dw.com/en/germany-likely-to-pull-troops-out-of-incirlik-air-base/a-38842366
Yes, Erdogan is going to be more and more a problem. Lots of countries are problems. Does that mean we shouldn't try to work out things when we have common interests? Same with Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba, etc
-
Foreign affairs and their resulting relationships arecomplicated and nuanced. They can rarely be explained in a sound-byte or posting on an Internets Tubes forum.
-
Foreign affairs and their resulting relationships arecomplicated and nuanced. They can rarely be explained in a sound-byte or posting on an Internets Tubes forum.
Relationships can be explained pretty simply. Life's not that complicated. The challenge is to do it honestly without bias? For example, we have 137 pages about Trump, mostly with bias for and against. Nobody's minds have been changed. Like spitting in the wind.
-
Relationships can be explained pretty simply. Life's not that complicated. The challenge is to do it honestly without bias? For example, we have 137 pages about Trump, mostly with bias for and against. Nobody's minds have been changed. Like spitting in the wind.
The worst thing is also Trump hasn't changed. How is it called when someone is doing crazy things over and over again, and people expect a good result?
-
Nobody's minds have been changed. Like spitting in the wind.
Since when has anyone's political opinion been changed by reading other people's opinions posted on an obscure photography internet forum?
If you are not here for the entertainment, you will be disappointed. ;D
The last thing anyone should expect is a reasonable, logical discussion on topics here. ;)
-
Relationships can be explained pretty simply. Life's not that complicated. The challenge is to do it honestly without bias? For example, we have 137 pages about Trump, mostly with bias for and against. Nobody's minds have been changed. Like spitting in the wind.
I disagree with this. Although I started out thinking that he was probably just another snake oil salesman promoted to his level of incompetence, after seeing the links to various articles and reading the increasingly lame excuses for his bizarre behaviour, I am now convinced that he is in fact a skin-deep reality TV clown with few redeeming values. He is the kind of guy I would never hire. I am not gloating, this is a bad thing for the USA and for everyone else. Let's hope that your democratic institutions can withstand the worst of this.
I think back to that moment in one of the Republican leadership debates where he made that silly and phoney speech about witnessing a baby being injected with a vaccine with a horse needle and two weeks later was found to be autistic. You know that didn't happen, there was probably no such baby, doctors don't use horse needles on babies, and I don't believe for one second that he witnessed any such thing. I have read in these pages that Trump makes bombastic statements and everyone expects him to. Yeah, no kidding. But that kind of lame-ass excuse for repulsive behaviour is sounding more and more pathetic every day.
As David Frum continually points out, politics is not a game played by two teams. It actually really affects people's lives and requires adult participation, not reality TV fakery.
-
I have read in these pages that Trump makes bombastic statements and everyone expects him to. Yeah, no kidding. But that kind of lame-ass excuse for repulsive behaviour is sounding more and more pathetic every day.
To add to the problem of Trump's inability to to be believed, he often unfortunately steps on the attempts by supporters to support him. The latest victim is National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster who said he was in the room and it didn't happen. Then the next day Trump tweets he DID sensitive information with the Russians and claimed he was legally entitled to...so, McMaster trots out and said it didn't happen then Trump says it did. No wonder the WH claim that the Comey memo didn't accurately represent what Comey and Trump talked about was unsigned because nobody wanted to have their name involved with a denial that Trump, if he behaves as usual, will come out and say he did say that to Comey but he was only joking...(he's used that one before).
Hard to be a Trump supporter or surrogate these days...
Bit By Bit, Trump Is Shredding Credibility Of White House Officials (http://www.npr.org/2017/05/16/528657254/surrounded-by-controversy-trump-administration-confronts-eroding-credibility)
Can you rely on what White House officials say on behalf of the U.S. government to be true?
The answer, even by the account of President Trump himself, is no.
Of all the crises and controversies consuming this White House, perhaps none is more fundamental than the collapse of its credibility. And a close look at some of the administration's policies, statements and controversies suggests chief responsibility of that collapse can be laid at the feet of the man who works in the Oval Office.
Take one of the latest dramas to play out in Washington, D.C.: whether Trump revealed highly classified secrets in a White House meeting with senior Russian diplomats, as alleged by The Washington Post on Monday.
Monday night, Trump dispatched National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who is held in high regard by leaders of both parties and by journalists, to knock down the story. McMaster called it false even as he confirmed much of the rough outline of the story.
And yet the questions intensified on Tuesday — not least because Trump himself tweeted that he had shared sensitive information with the Russians. Trump even noted that he is legally entitled to do so — which legal analysts largely say he is, because he is president.
So Trump directly undercut his own national security adviser's statements on a controversy reaching a fever pitch in the nation's capital.
(http://cdnph.upi.com/sh/th/upi/UPI-9281440591904/2015/3faa43ad2d971086f140e55a4c7de64a/Donald-Trump-spars-with-Univision-journalist-Jorge-Ramos.jpg)
-
Trump needs better IT people at his properties. https://www.propublica.org/article/any-half-decent-hacker-could-break-into-mar-a-lago?utm_source=pardot&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter
-
Before the bombing US authorities were aware of Tsarnaev - a radical Muslim - but decided he posed a "far greater threat to Russia" than to the US, the New York Times says.
Now, lets pause for a moment and think about the implications of this alt-left (loony left) way of thinking.
Soooo...we knew he is dangerous, but that's was apparently ok because he is a "far greater threat to Russia." So, we decided to let him go, because, well, if he harms Russia, that's ok, he would be actually helping us, right?
Sooo... when he traveled to Russia in 2012 and spent six months there, in a Muslim-dominated region, apparently for training and indoctrination, did WE warn Russia about it? That we think he is a danger to them? A year after they warned us first? And now we have the audacity and chutzpah to complain they didn't help us "more"? It only serves us right the he turned around and actually harmed us instead of Russia.
-
...so, McMaster trots out and said it didn't happen then Trump says it did...
You should read what happened more carefully. There is no contradiction.
McMaster said (emphasis mine): " “at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed.”
Trump tweeted: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."
"Sharing facts" is perfectly possible without disclosing "sources or methods." Again, no contradiction, just another fake news.
-
You should read what happen more carefully. There is no contradiction.
McMaster said (emphasis mine): " “at no time, were intelligence sources or methods discussed.”
Trump tweeted: "As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."
"Sharing facts" is perfectly possible without disclosing "sources or methods." Again, no contradiction, just another fake news.
+1
-
In case you need to read it...
Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.8232a8c9ac7c)
Just to be clear, the WaPo article never said Trump disclosed methods or sources (since it turned out Trump hadn't been briefed) nor any military operations. But this is a transcript of what McMaster said:
H.R. MCMASTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: Hey, good evening everybody! I just have a brief statement for the record. There's nothing that the President takes more seriously than the security of the American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The President and the Foreign Minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, including threats to civil aviation.
At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed, and the President did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials, who were present, including the Secretary of the State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. That on the record account should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen. Thanks, everybody.
That kinda sounds like a non-denial denial. "That on the record account should outweigh the anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen."
What didn't happen? Trump did or didn't disclose sensitive intel he wasn't supposed to do because it violated the agreement by which it was shared with US intel?
So, then Trump tweets: As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining.......to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
Yeah, ok...what didn't Trump do or not do? We know he pissed off the CIA, NSA and all of our intel partners. So, yeah, Trump pretty much hung McMaster out to dry...
But hey, let's see if our good friend Vlad can come to Trump's rescue...
Putin ready to provide records of Trump-Lavrov talks to prove no secrets were leaked (https://www.rt.com/news/388673-putin-schizophrenia-trump-lavrov-leak/)
Russian President Vladimir Putin says he is ready to provide records of the recent meeting between US leader Donald Trump and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, where US media claim state secrets were leaked.
"If the US administration deems it possible, we are ready to provide the Senate and Congress with the transcript of the conversation between Lavrov and Trump," Putin said at a press conference, following a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni on Wednesday.
Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov followed up on Putin's statement with a clarification that there was no audio recording at the Trump-Lavrov meeting, and the only form of record available is a transcript.
Ah, so, Russia didn't bug the Oval Office...wonder if Trump did?
Wow, with friends like that you sure don't need "friendimies", right?
RT went on to tweet:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_9wq5UVwAAjd5U.jpg)
‘Reading US papers is dangerous’: Moscow ridicules report that Trump shared secrets with Russian FM on.rt.com/8bu7 (https://t.co/QO5WdRRTnH)
-
... So, yeah, Trump pretty much hung McMaster out to dry....
I had no doubt that you'd let lowly, simple rules of logic I presented change your preconceived views on the matter. Instead, you are trying to drown it with a deluge of citations, links and pictures. Funny, but not useful much.
-
First off the Washington Post (WAPO) and the NY Times (NYT) are American newspapers unlike RT which is Russian. WAPO and NYT have had the most political influence throughout the world and in Washington DC. Many of their articles are re-broadcasted to other media by reuters and other similar outlets throughout the world so they have immense power to influence public opinion throughout the world. The rest of the world's newspapers just pick up the biased news from WAPO and NYT. Unfortunately, both are biased liberal and pro-democrat and have been for decades. Lately, the Post has gone off the rails totally with their Trump hatred and distorted news. NYT tries to be less "tabloid" but their true colors shows. A good way to tell who reads these papers is to look at the comments at the bottom of an article. 95% of the comments are anti-Trump. The ones in WAPO are more vile then the more erudite anti-Trump comments in the NYT.. Both papers write for their liberal readership just like MSNBC broadcasts their liberal content for anti-Trump and liberal believing viewers.
I don't know about the Guardian or the Spiegel. But like I said, if they get their info from liberal media in the US, they're just taking the same liberal points of view as the NY Times and Washington Post.
Fox isn't a newspaper but a broadcaster on cable. There are actually two Fox channels. One is more conservative oriented and present more conservative panels like MSNBC and CNN present more liberal panels. But FOX also does straight news that's more fair and balanced.
Wow. You really do think the whole world revolves around the US.
Most of the world's news outlets do not get their news from US sources. They get US news from US sources, often their own, but also often from other US media outlets. Even when they get information from US sources (and not their own) it typically has local analysis and very frequently shows the various differing views coming out of the US.
Major news organisations around the world have their own staff in the US, Europe, Asia, and so on. You need to get out more.
-
I had no doubt that you'd let lowly, simple rules of logic I presented change your preconceived views on the matter.
;)
Can we at least agree that Trump has a jump start at knocking James Buchanan off the title of Worst President EVER?
Worst. President. Ever. (http://http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-worst-president-james-buchanan-214252)
-
Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation By the Justice Department...
Now we'll get to the bottom of all this stuff. I'm actually impressed that the assistant AG did this and it takes the investigation out of partisan politics.
-
How long before the Asst. AG is fired? ;-)
-
Robert Mueller, Former F.B.I. Director, Is Named Special Counsel for Russia Investigation By the Justice Department...
Now we'll get to the bottom of all this stuff. I'm actually impressed that the assistant AG did this and it takes the investigation out of partisan politics.
Payback's a bitch for trying to pin the blame for firing Comey on Rosenstein (before implicating himself at a later point in time).
-
Can we at least agree that Trump has a jump start at knocking James Buchanan off the title of Worst President EVER?...
Ok, I give you that it's been a pretty bad start :)
-
Ok, I give you that it's been a pretty bad start :)
Admitting you have a problem is the fist step toward recovery. Gook luck!
Here's some soothing reading while you contemplate a full recovery:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/deconstructing-mcmaster
-
Ok, I give you that it's been a pretty bad start :)
Based on that diagnosis, what's the prognosis? Great End or Really Bad End?
-
Based on that diagnosis, what's the prognosis? Great End or Really Bad End?
Will see :)
(http://quotesideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/642351294-rocky-balboa-quotes-hd-wallpaper-3.jpg)
-
Yeah, but Stallone could read a script (that he wrote). There's little evidence of Trump being able to stay on script :-)
-
It just keeps getting worse...
Trump ally Kevin McCarthy tells Paul Ryan he thinks Trump is getting paid by Putin…astonishing recording:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/house-majority-leader-to-colleagues-in-2016-i-think-putin-pays-trump/2017/05/17/515f6f8a-3aff-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html
Out of curiosity, when was the last news anyone heard about healthcare, tax reform, the wall, or any of the other nutty bullshit Trump was supposed to be doing? Are Trump supporters tired of winning yet?
-
They leaked the only info showing Trump colluded with Putin. :D
Don
-
"The incredible media hypocrisy over Trump's Russia leak"
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/17/marc-thiessen-incredible-media-hypocrisy-over-trumps-russia-leak.html
-
Adding some photo content to the Trump thread, here's a story about the photographer who got to shoot the Trump/Russian meeting.
‘Hysteria over my White House shoot is nonsense’ – Russian photographer who filmed Lavrov & Trump (https://www.rt.com/news/388034-russian-photographer-hysteria-white-house/)
(https://phototass3.cdnvideo.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/uploads/i/20170511/4491178.jpg)
Министр иностранных дел РФ Сергей Лавров и президент США Дональд Трамп, Вашингтон, 10 мая
© Александр Щербак/ТАСС
A Russian photographer from the TASS news agency, who was the official photographer for Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov during his US trip, has spoken out about the hype surrounding his recent work assignment, describing the criticism as "absurd and ludicrous." On Wednesday, photographer Aleksandr Shcherbak, together with an American photojournalist, were in the Oval Office ahead of the closed-door meeting between Lavrov and US President Donald Trump and tasked with taking official pictures to be distributed to international media.
"Proper protocol was followed in this procedure," the White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said at a Thursday press briefing, adding that the White House also "had an official photographer in the room." However, the routine assignment triggered hysteria in the US media and spurred a range of conspiracy theories. There was even a suggestion that Shcherbak could have planted a spying device in the Oval Office.
“I cannot understand the hysteria around this issue,” Shcherbak told RT, rejecting such insinuations as ridiculous. “Everyone who’s has to undergo a standard screening procedure. First they checked me, then my belongings and devices, and only afterwards took me to the Oval Office.” “I think this media outcry is due to their anger of not being allowed in for such an important meeting. But I’m not surprised anymore by what Western media outlets say. As we have seen they do not hold themselves to any ethical standard,” the photographer added.
Describing the whole situation as "nonsense," the Russian photographer posted an "address to the US media" on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ascherbak). "I am an individual who is not in the public eye and I've never commented on my work before, but this hysteria around my photoshoot at the White House has forced me to write this post," Shcherbak wrote (https://www.facebook.com/ascherbak/posts/10212964001723571?pnref=story) on Thursday.
I'm not sure he really understood what happened regarding the ban of US journalists and why he was allowed to go in and shoot. But in any event, it wasn't his fault, he was just ding his job. Bet he never expected to get this much attention...
Here's a link to a report with "Sasha" video story (https://www.rt.com/news/388034-russian-photographer-hysteria-white-house/)
-
"The incredible media hypocrisy over Trump's Russia leak"
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/17/marc-thiessen-incredible-media-hypocrisy-over-trumps-russia-leak.html
Trump may have stumbled badly in his meeting with the Russians, but he has a long way to go before he does the kind of damage that President Obama and his team of intelligence sieves did – with the help of The New York Times and other news outlets now crowing over his error.
So, pivot and blame Obama?
And that makes Trump look less stooopid?
-
(https://cdn1.nyt.com/images/2017/02/15/us/15xp-flynntimeline/15xp-flynntimeline-thumbLarge.jpg)
Trump Team Knew Flynn Was Under Investigation Before He Came to White House (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/michael-flynn-donald-trump-national-security-adviser.html)
Title kinda says it all...either stupid, crooked or incompetent...prolly all three.
And what does Flynn know that worries Trump to the point Trump asked Comey to stop the Flynn investigation? And does Flynn get immunity? Likely not at this point.
The other guy in the middle of a criminal investigation is Paul Manafort. Seems Manafort and Flynn are both in deep doodoo.
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7d6ef90b6699a47f39f9af904c0b89f2254d8ac8/0_42_2901_1741/master/2901.jpg?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=dbf82652e92d8ef836e0ea92ba054696)
Flynn and Manafort emerge as ‘key figures’ in probe as special counsel takes over Russia investigation (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/flynn-and-manafort-emerge-as-key-figures-in-probe-as-special-counsel-takes-over-russia-investigation/)
NBC News reports two close aides to Donald Trump have emerged as “key figures” in the investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Four law enforcement officials told NBC News that “multiple grand jury subpoenas” have been issued in connection with former Campaign Manager Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
-
Does Donald Trump still want to be president? (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/17/does-donald-trump-still-want-to-be-president.html)
By John Moody–Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News.
President Trump seems hell-bent on courting controversy, if not downright enmity, from the Washington establishment. His vague comments about what he said, or didn’t say, to former FBI Director James Comey, as well as similar questions about what he told Russian diplomats in the Oval Office raise a serious question: does he still want to be president?
There is no surer way to ensure negative press coverage (“No politician in history has been treated worse,” he lamented on Wednesday) than to antagonize the press. Banning American news media from his Oval Office conversation with Russia’s foreign minister, while allowing a TASS photographer to record the event, may be payback against a press corps he despises. But it also fuels suspicions that he is indebted, somehow, to the Kremlin.
His undisciplined tweets give the public contradictory information, and a sense that he wants to run the country via social media instead of democratic debate.
The question is: to what end?
Does anybody really think America can stand 1,342 (and counting down) more days of Trump?
BTW, here's a handy countdown clock TIME UNTIL TRUMP LEAVES OFFICE (https://howlonguntiltrumpleaves.com)
-
"The incredible media hypocrisy over Trump's Russia leak"
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/17/marc-thiessen-incredible-media-hypocrisy-over-trumps-russia-leak.html
Do you think this is credible? What else do you expect from Fox news opinion then to eternally support Donald Trump and not miss an opportunity to take another stab at Obama?
-
Frankly, the more I read of Trump's shenanigins with the Russians, the more I expect to see him in matching hair, skin & jumpsuit, with shackles & handcuffs.
-
Does Donald Trump still want to be president? (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/17/does-donald-trump-still-want-to-be-president.html)
By John Moody–Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News.
I always had a feeling that Trump never wanted to be president. What he wanted was for the GOP to kick him out. Then he could start another populist career being a political commentator. It is, after all, much easier to criticize the president than it is to be the president. By having the GOP establishment kick him out of the race, he would then be free to criticize both the DNC and the RNC. That's money in the bank for Trump. "If they had not kicked me out, I could have turned this country around!" It is what Trump does best, garner publicity and criticize. I think he found his true medium not in real estate but in reality TV.
During his campaign, I really thought that he was making all these outrageous comments in order to be not selected. I imagine that he was surprised that every time he said something stupid, his numbers went up! After a while, what could he do? He really could not quit his campaign as that would not look good for him. Until the election, even he did not think he had much of a chance, hence his peremptory comments about the election. He was setting the stage. He wanted to lose so he could criticize the election system.
But now that he is president, he can paint an picture of "everyone is against me" and "I am the most attacked president in the history that I don't know". now he can, with his ego intact, resign "Listen, I tried to help the country but the congress, GOP, media, Disney, McDonalds, ect were all against me. There is really nothing I could do. The system is broken and it is everyone else's fault but mine". Thereby setting himself up for a bigly career as a political commentator. "Well if only congress let me handle things, I would have fixed xxx" without actually having any accountability for doing anything.
I would not be surprised if he resigned during his term and I would be surprised if he ran for re-election.
He does not want the job of being president, he wants a job where he can criticize the president.. and the political parties without being held accountable.
-
Frankly, the more I read of Trump's shenanigins with the Russians, the more I expect to see him in matching hair, skin & jumpsuit, with shackles & handcuffs.
I doubt Trump could be imprisoned while in office.
Don
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222.pdf
-
Trump also defended Hilary after the election, that she shouldn't be prosecuted regarding anything she did, that is time to move on. He probably feels similarly about Flynn who supported him and told Comey how he felt.
-
Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians - sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106
"Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.
The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.
Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.
In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time.
The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election."
Why deny the contacts if there was nothing to hide???? At best it was stupid, but maybe there was more. Time will tell.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Do you think this is credible? What else do you expect from Fox news opinion ..
Pieter, you can surely do better than that. The ad hominem media argument is very tiresome and worn out by now.
There are dozen examples in the article, all verifiable from the press coverage at the time. The author himself is (emphasis mine):
A member of the White House senior staff under President George W. Bush, Thiessen served as chief speechwriter to the president and to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Before joining the Bush administration, Thiessen spent more than six years as spokesman and senior policy adviser to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC). A weekly columnist for The Washington Post, Thiessen is also a contributor to Fox News...
Actually, come to think of it, writing for the WaPo is what should disqualify him from being taken seriously at this point ;)
-
Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians - sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106
"Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.
The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.
Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.
In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time.
The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election."
Why deny the contacts if there was nothing to hide???? At best it was stupid, but maybe there was more. Time will tell.
Cheers,
Bart
The article itself states there was no evidence of wrongdoing or collision with the Russians. Thanks for providing more evidence there's nothing there. More fake news. This whole thing is about politics. Trying to now destroy President Trump because they failed at destroying candidate Trump.
-
I doubt Trump could be imprisoned while in office.
Don
That is correct, the president enjoys a temporary immunity from criminal prosecution via the justice department while in office. Once his term is over, however, he is liable for criminal prosecution. The only body that can try the president is the Senate after articles of impeachment have been approved by the House.
The limit of the Senate's power is to remove the president from office. The Senate does not have the power to send the former president to prison. That power, would transfer back to the judicial branch where the, now former, president would be tried again.
The SCotUS did determine that a president can be subject to a civil trial for activities conducted prior to the president assuming the office. The president enjoys some level of immunity against civil action for actions taken during the president's term.
oops, I left out something about the penalties of impeachment.
Article 1 section 3 of the constitution
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
-
... he wants a job where he can criticize the president...
Like most of us in this thread... and wider ;)
-
Like most of us in this thread... and wider ;)
Absolutly, everyone here is an expert. All you have to do is ask them. ;D
-
The article itself states there was no evidence of wrongdoing or collision with the Russians. Thanks for providing more evidence there's nothing there. More fake news. This whole thing is about politics. Trying to now destroy President Trump because they failed at destroying candidate Trump.
1. You're jumping to conclusions.
2. The search is for collusion between the campaign team and the Russians who influenced the elections.
Personally, I do not think the Russians are so stupid to directly work together with Trump. He remains an easy target to play. Their main goal was to weaken the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming President (she knew too much about how the Russians operate in the global theater). The question is what was the role of the Trump campaign team?
In the meantime, Trump did and does a number of stupid things, like trying to cover up or bully people into submission, (because he either doesn't get good advice, or he doesn't listen to it, and he doesn't understand that politics is about winning over adversaries and forging coalitions) that may well incriminate him. He is creating a swamp of lies himself that is pulling him down. By alienating factions (and the opposing electorate) that play an important role in a democracy, bypassing the media with Tweets, not inviting the press, marginalizing their role, showing contempt for the judiciary, not trusting the impartiality of the former FBI director, deliberately disseminating lies to confuse the public and bolster his own achievements, the list goes on. The approval ratings speak for themselves, the public is not buying it either, even increasing numbers of those who voted for the Republican candidate. Heck, even Congress and Senate members are having doubts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
1. You're jumping to conclusions.
2. The search is for collusion between the campaign team and the Russians who influenced the elections.
Personally, I do not think the Russians are so stupid to directly work together with Trump. He remains an easy target to play. Their main goal was to weaken the chances of Hillary Clinton becoming President (she knew too much about how the Russians operate in the global theater). The question is what was the role of the Trump campaign team?
In the meantime, Trump did and does a number of stupid things, like trying to cover up or bully people into submission, (because he either doesn't get good advice, or he doesn't listen to it, and he doesn't understand that politics is about winning over adversaries and forging coalitions) that may well incriminate him. He is creating a swamp of lies himself that is pulling him down. By alienating factions (and the opposing electorate) that play an important role in a democracy, bypassing the media with Tweets, not inviting the press, marginalizing their role, showing contempt for the judiciary, not trusting the impartiality of the former FBI director, deliberately disseminating lies to confuse the public and bolster his own achievements, the list goes on. The approval ratings speak for themselves, the public is not buying it either, even increasing numbers of those who voted for the Republican candidate. Heck, even Congress and Senate members are having doubts.
Cheers,
Bart
I'm not jumping to conclusions. It's the people who are saying he colluded with the Russians that are doing the jumping. There hasn't been any evidence of collusion. Clapper said so much previously. Even your own article says there's no collusion. However, the biased media has been pushing it making weak-minded Republican politicians get wobbly in the knees. When all you get is negative press day after day about collusion, collusion etc, it becomes the Big Lie. People start believing. The Democrats love it. Their smear efforts are paying off.
Of course he hasn't made friends in tradition political circles. But he's the anti-politician who ran on draining the swamp. Traditional politicians on both side are terrified of this. They've all gotten cozy with the power and money. They don't want Trump upsetting the apple cart and changing the way things are done. Frankly, I don't think they have much to worry about anyway. He's turning out to be rather traditional.
-
It seems even the British have a sense of humor about ISIS. Maybe someone at BBC has been watching Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKL9b5-DL4A&feature=youtu.be
-
Pieter, you can surely do better than that. The ad hominem media argument is very tiresome and worn out by now.
Does that mean that Alan won't use the argument anymore either? If so I'll eat my words. If not I'm not so sure ;)
-
It seems even the British have a sense of humor about ISIS. Maybe someone at BBC has been watching Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKL9b5-DL4A&feature=youtu.be
:) :D ;D
You got to love it that BBC moved past PC, at the time when Oxford considers avoiding eye contact to be racist.
-
Does that mean that Alan won't use the argument anymore either? If so I'll eat my words. If not I'm not so sure ;)
Pieter, I am perfectly ok if you, Alan, or anyone else considers this or that media source biased or unreliable, as I am first to do so. But dismissing outright an otherwise verifiable story simply because it's been published in this or that media is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Heck, even Jeff quotes RT and the National Review ;)
-
But dismissing outright an otherwise verifiable story simply because it's been published in this or that media is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Where do you get I dismissed it outright, I read the article and didn't say anything about the facts. It's the conclusion "what Trump did is not as bad as what some Obama officials did" that I don't agree with and is coloured by the typical Fox bias.
-
Where do you get I dismissed it outright, I read the article and didn't say anything about the facts...
You said:
Do you think this is credible?
-
You said:
? ? ? ? What has that to do with me, I'm asking you a question if you think it's credible. Either yes or no would have been a perfectly fine answer and I am really puzzled why me asking you that question makes you think I dismissed it out of hand without reading it ???
-
... I'm asking you a question if you think it's credible...
I do not post things I don't think, with a reasonable certainty, are credible.
-
I do not post things I don't think, with a reasonable certainty, are credible.
Unfortunately, we have no clue whether any word out our President's mouth is credible.
-
I do not post things I don't think, with a reasonable certainty, are credible.
Then why do you post I dismissed the article "out of hand". That's pure speculation from your side and secondly far from the truth.
-
WaPo: The president shat himself
White House: The President would never shit himself
Trump: I SHAT MYSELF ON PURPOSE
This, every day.
-
That would be the Dilbert cartoon author:
-
That would be the Dilbert cartoon author:
...and he would be wrong.
-
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/170518-time-magazine-cover-embed.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=518)
-
Scary stuff in that Time article.
-
Unfortunately, we have no clue whether any word out our President's mouth is credible.
The President's mouth is Toxic.
-
Will the truth win out? All of the President's Falsehoods:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.8146851f7c5f
-
"Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias"
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/
(https://i4.s.heat.st/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/tone1.jpg?w=619)
(https://i2.s.heat.st/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/other-presidents-tone.jpg?w=577)
-
Will the truth win out? All of the President's Falsehoods:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.8146851f7c5f
That has become a paid site. There is no way I am going to finance fake news.
-
Just because the media is biased against Trump does not mean that they are wrong. Maybe they know him better than you do. :)
Besides, wouldn't we all be a little suspicious of the press if it was NOT critical of those in power? When I hear politicians complain about the media being against them, it makes me suspect that they are doing a good job. The media is not the marketing department of the people in power.
-
According to mediabiasfactcheck.com (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heat-street/)
HEAT STREET
(https://mediabiasfactcheck.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/right06.png?w=620&h=69)
RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Heat Street is a conservative opinion and commentary website. Launched in February 2016, the website is headed by British writer and former politician Louise Mensch. It is owned by News Corp under Dow Jones & Company. This source has a right wing bias through wording and story selection. Heat Street was also one of the sources Donald Trump quoted for his debunked claim (http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/examining-trumps-wiretap-claim/) that his phone was wiretapped by Obama.
Source: http://heatst.com/
In actuality, the original source is a better source to look at...
News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days (https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085)
The report is based on an analysis of news reports in the print editions of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the main newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, and three European news outlets (The UK’s Financial Times and BBC, and Germany’s ARD).
Findings include:
President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents. He was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage.
Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.
European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.
Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.
Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.
And some conclusions...
Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.
What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “’worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”[32]
So, just because it's negative doesn't mean it's wrong...and if Trump would just shut his mouth (and quite tweeting) the number of negative stories would go down.
BTW, Heat Street is to the right of Fox and just to the left of Breitbart. Pretty charts though Slobodan :~)
-
At least this is funny!
TIME MAGAZINE RIPS OFF MAD MAGAZINE? (http://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2017/05/18/time-magazine-rips-off-mad-magazine)
Once More, With Stealing Dept.
In 1952, Time Magazine called MAD “a short lived, satirical pulp.” Now they’re stealing our material! Honestly, we’re flattered, but we would have appreciated a credit — something like, “Idea stolen from MAD, which in 1952 we called a short lived satirical pulp!”
(http://www.madmagazine.com/sites/default/files/imce/2017/05-MAY/MAD-Magazine-Kremlin-White-House-Time_591db85de5bd56.08245698.jpg)
-
Ya can't make this stuff up...seriously!
Looks Like The President Copied His Speech From Elle Woods (http://www.carbonated.tv/entertainment/donald-trump-reese-witherspoon-speech-legally-blonde-jimmy-fallon)
“The Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon listened to President Donald Trump’s latest commencement address at the Liberty University and thought he heard something familiar — specifically, throwbacks to the famous 2001 comedy “Legally Blonde.”
Trump's speech was pretty reminiscent of Elle Woods' (Reese Witherspoon) address to her law school classmates at graduation.
“I watched Trump’s commencement speech, and it sounded kind of familiar,” the late-night host said, before playing a combination of clips from the billionaire baron’s address simultaneously with Woods' speech to her graduating class at the Harvard University.
The video highlighting common words and sentences showed Elle's famous line:
"It is with passion, courage, conviction, and most importantly, have faith in yourself. We did it!"
Followed by Trump’s recent address:
"It is with passion, courage and your convictions, and most importantly, be true to yourself. I did it!" he said.
Donald Trump Plagiarizes Legally Blonde Grad Speech - Monologue - You Tube (https://youtu.be/SSLyFiHOC5I)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAMcq85XoAISr25.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/RepTedLieu (https://twitter.com/RepTedLieu)
-
Ya can't make this stuff up...seriously!
And yet, you did:
"Did President Trump Plagiarize His Commencement Speech from 'Legally Blonde'?"
http://www.snopes.com/trump-legally-blonde-speech/
-
"Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias"
(unjustified) bias or (inconvenient) truth ?
My call: a bit of both ;)
-
And yet, you did:
"Did President Trump Plagiarize His Commencement Speech from 'Legally Blonde'?"
http://www.snopes.com/trump-legally-blonde-speech/
Got ya!
:~)
-
Enough of the fun stuff...
Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html)
WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
The Whitehouse has not denied the report...
-
First on CNN: Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/michael-flynn-donald-trump-russia-influence/)
Washington (CNN)Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN.
The conversations deeply concerned US intelligence officials, some of whom acted on their own to limit how much sensitive information they shared with Flynn, who was tapped to become Trump's national security adviser, current and former governments officials said.
"This was a five-alarm fire from early on," one former Obama administration official said, "the way the Russians were talking about him." Another former administration official said Flynn was viewed as a potential national security problem.
The conversations picked up by US intelligence officials indicated the Russians regarded Flynn as an ally, sources said. That relationship developed throughout 2016, months before Flynn was caught on an intercepted call in December speaking with Russia's ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak. That call, and Flynn's changing story about it, ultimately led to his firing as Trump's first national security adviser.
Officials cautioned, however, that the Russians might have exaggerated their sway with Trump's team during those conversations.
Flynn's lawyer declined to comment.
No wonder Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn...
-
https://www.rt.com/usa/389030-comey-testify-collusion-trump/ (https://www.rt.com/usa/389030-comey-testify-collusion-trump/)Ex-FBI chief Comey to testify to Senate panel in public session (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-comey-senate-idUSKCN18F2MB)
Former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump last week amid an agency probe into alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. election, has agreed to testify before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee at a public hearing, the committee said in a statement on Friday.
The hearing will be scheduled after the May 29 Memorial Day holiday, the statement said.
The gift that keeps on giving...
-
And from the far right...
Krauthammer: There’s ‘A Loyalty Problem Inside the White House’ (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/19/krauthammer-theres-a-loyalty-problem-inside-the-white-house/)
On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” columnist Charles Krauthammer argued the New York Times’ report about President Trump’s conversations with Russian officials about FBI Director James Comey’s firing shows that there’s “a loyalty problem inside the White House.”
Krauthammer began by saying the White House’s protests about leaks with regard to Trump’s discussions with Russian officials about FBI Director James Comey’s dismissal is “inadvertently self-indicting. Because, after all, the idea that journalists are going to receive leaks is — it’s a constant.”
Of course if it was up to Trump he would throw the journalists in jail for writing about the leaks :~)
-
As an outsider, and a person who has never visited the US, I'm rather amazed at all the confusion that's going on.
In a free democracy with transparent voting procedures, it would be expected that the people get the president they deserve.
If the majority is too stupid to work out which is the best candidate, then they must suffer the consequences.
If the system is designed in such a way that the total majority of individual votes in all states combined, does not determine the results, then presumably that's for a reason, in order not to marginalize the less populated states.
The US has chosen, within the parameters of its voting system, to elect an apparently incompetent president. This is not Donald Trumps's fault. My understanding is that he was initially very surprised that his tactics during the election campaign appeared to be very successful. It's understandable that he continued with such tactics and eventually became President.
The fact that he became President could be considered as a criticism of the intelligence of the American people plus their obvious disenchantment with previous governments. There was no other candidate who could 'trump' Trump. Don't blame Trump for that.
All this concern about Russia's involvement in the election outcome, is a total distraction and a waste of money.
America's problems are it's huge debt, it's continuing military expenditure, and its lousy health care system for the poor and vulnerable. Fix it if you can. If you can't, then suffer the consequences.
-
Officials identify White House 'person of interest' in Trump-Russia investigation (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/19/officials-identify-white-house-person-of-interest-trump-russia)
The FBI investigation into ties between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russian officials has reached the White House, according to a damaging new report on Friday.
The Washington Post reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-probe-reaches-current-white-house-official-people-familiar-with-the-case-say/2017/05/19/7685adba-3c99-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_fbiprobe-banner-315pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e37292f5c0b7) that investigators have identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, according to people familiar with the matter. The individual is described as someone who is “close to the president”.
In a statement, White House press secretary Sean Spicer did not deny the report, saying simply: “As the president has stated before – a thorough investigation will confirm that there was no collusion between the campaign and any foreign entity.”
Jared Kushner?
-
In a free democracy with transparent voting procedures, it would be expected that the people get the president they deserve.
We did...
If the majority is too stupid to work out which is the best candidate, then they must suffer the consequences.
We are...
If the system is designed in such a way that the total majority of individual votes in all states combined, does not determine the results, then presumably that's for a reason, in order not to marginalize the less populated states.
That's the way it's supposed to work...
The US has chosen, within the parameters of its voting system, to elect an apparently incompetent president.
Yep, but it was not without impact from outside of the normal election process...Russia had a hand in perverting the process.
My understanding is that he was initially very surprised that his tactics during the election campaign appeared to be very successful.
Yeah, pretty sure he was surprised (and a bit freaked out) that he won...so was the rest of the world BTW...
All this concern about Russia's involvement in the election outcome, is a total distraction and a waste of money.
Well, that's where you are wrong...is it not wise to study what the Russians did so the rest of the world can avoid being similarly attacked? They (the Russians) tried to impact the French elections and there is the German election next year...don't you think it's important for the democracies of the western world to be prepared to defend their elections?
If you can't, then suffer the consequences.
Yeah, thanks, we already figured that out (DOOOH!)
-
Well, that's where you are wrong...is it not wise to study what the Russians did so the rest of the world can avoid being similarly attacked? They (the Russians) tried to impact the French elections and there is the German election next year...don't you think it's important for the democracies of the western world to be prepared to defend their elections?
Every involved authority tries to influence elections, whether internally or externally. The bottom line is that each individual casts a vote, if they want to. (In Australia it's compulsory. You get fined for not voting.) If Americans are too stupid to analyse the media reports and the innuendos from whatever source, and make up their own mind, then don't blame the Russians. Blame yourselves and work out what you did wrong.
-
If Americans are too stupid to analyse the media reports and the innuendos from whatever source, and make up their own mind, then don't blame the Russians. Blame yourselves and work out what you did wrong.
Yep ya got us...from now on political parties should hire MIT grads to run their IT departments and campaign managers shall NOT use gmail (and have a password other than "PASSWORD").
Cool, got any sage advice about what to do about confermation bias and fake news? What about how to attract honest people to run for office? Surely you know how to fix America, right? Help us, please...
-
Yep ya got us...from now on political parties should hire MIT grads to run their IT departments and campaign managers shall NOT use gmail (and have a password other than "PASSWORD").
Cool, got any sage advice about what to do about confermation bias and fake news? What about how to attract honest people to run for office? Surely you know how to fix America, right? Help us, please...
Sure! No problem! You have a democratic system similar to Australia's, which consists of a House of Representatives, and a Senate, largely made up of two major parties, one on the left and one on the right.
The IQ of your representatives should be higher than average, wouldn't you agree? Whatever the biases of your politicians in government, if they don't have the nous to understand that an intelligent compromise on policies is required, in order to make America great again, then you're stuffed. ;)
-
The IQ of your representatives should be higher than average, wouldn't you agree? Whatever the biases of your politicians in government, if they don't have the nous to understand that an intelligent compromise on policies is required, in order to make America great again, then you're stuffed. ;)
It's not about intelligence, it's mostly about influence and money to win the next election.
If it were about doing the right things for the people whom they are supposed to represent, then things like healthcare, education, environment, etc. would be in better shape than they are now.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's not about intelligence, it's mostly about influence and money to win the next election.
If it were about doing the right things for the people whom they are supposed to represent, then things like healthcare, education, environment, etc. would be in better shape than they are now.
Cheers,
Bart
Everything is about intelligence, Bart. We're smarter than the apes because we're more intelligent. Smart economics beats stupid economics. Smart control of the economy beats stupid control. But everything has a cost and decisions have to be made about priorities. The USA has spent a huge amount on its armed forces and conflicts in the Middle East and Far East, and on various bases around the world.
If they hadn't joined the second world war against Germany and Japan, I don't know what sort of society we'd be in today. Not favourable to freedom, I suspect.
-
As an outsider, and a person who has never visited the US, I'm rather amazed at all the confusion that's going on.
In a free democracy with transparent voting procedures, it would be expected that the people get the president they deserve.
If the majority is too stupid to work out which is the best candidate, then they must suffer the consequences.
If the system is designed in such a way that the total majority of individual votes in all states combined, does not determine the results, then presumably that's for a reason, in order not to marginalize the less populated states.
The US has chosen, within the parameters of its voting system, to elect an apparently incompetent president. This is not Donald Trumps's fault. My understanding is that he was initially very surprised that his tactics during the election campaign appeared to be very successful. It's understandable that he continued with such tactics and eventually became President.
The fact that he became President could be considered as a criticism of the intelligence of the American people plus their obvious disenchantment with previous governments. There was no other candidate who could 'trump' Trump. Don't blame Trump for that.
All this concern about Russia's involvement in the election outcome, is a total distraction and a waste of money.
America's problems are it's huge debt, it's continuing military expenditure, and its lousy health care system for the poor and vulnerable. Fix it if you can. If you can't, then suffer the consequences.
You are right that we are diverted from our problems of debt, high health care costs, increasing deficits, North Korea and other miscreants, etc. Unfortunately the establishment is more concerned with power and politics. The elite establishment on both sides as well as business and the media saw Trump as a threat and tried to stop him from being president and now are trying to destroy him since he was elected. The Washington Post and the NY Times, always liberal and Democrat, have made it their mission to attack him every day. Yes, Trump often gives them ammunition. But if he was Obama, it would be overlooked or downplayed.
Frankly, if you look at his policies since he became President, they are rather traditional even if you you're looking from the other side. Certainly they're not radical nor even much different then what we have. Obamacare isn't going away. He supports most of it just in another form. He's strengthened our military and international policies, something ready to be done after Obama. WE need tax reform; the stock markets have shown their appreciation of his plans by going up about ten percent. He put a first rate justice on the Supreme Court. He is learning his job and I suspect he'll turn out to be a rather competent steward of the office when all is said and done. Frankly, I don't know how he puts up with all the attack for almost two years. To have beat everyone singlehandedly including many from his own party, and now have to defend yourself against the barrage of attacks from the press and others is not easy. Sure it's easy to be "presidential" like Obama did when you have the support of the media. But everyone is out to get you, everything you do is attacked. Well, they say presidential politics isn't tiddlywinks.
-
Ahhmmmm.....
About that cover....
The message is...? That Trump has changed his religion to... Christian Orthodox?
You know, that's the St. Basil's Cathedral, an Orthodox church. Kremlin is on the other side of the street in Moscow... just saying.
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/170518-time-magazine-cover-embed.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=518)
-
Ahhmmmm.....
About that cover
Talk to Mad Magzine...that's who Time ripped off :-)
-
"Study Finds Journalists Dumber Than Average and Drink Too Much"
http://www.taraswart.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Results-of-study-into-journalists-mental-resilience.pdf
“the highest functions of journalists brains were operating at a lower level than the average population, due to dehydration, self-medicating, and fueling their brains with caffeine and high-sugar foods”
Journalism is one of many industries under an increasing amount of pressure in the digital age. Low pay, frequent deadlines, and high levels of accountability all contribute to high reported stress levels.”
There you go :)
Come to think of it, one way to reduce stress is to lower the "high levels of accountability"... seems to be working. Just publish any innuendo, rumor, wishful thinking, etc., and watch your stress go down ;)
-
Finally some good news about Trump from the Washington Post. He seems to gotten off to a good start on his first foreign trip. Now if he can only watch his choice of words so he doesn't start a war with Saudi Arabia, Israel or with the Vatican.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gets-elaborate-welcome-in-saudi-arabia-embarking-on-first-foreign-trip/2017/05/20/679f2766-3d1d-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html
-
So now CNN's Anderson Cooper is making crude comments about Trump. You'd think he'd be careful after all those biased eye rolls. The attacks and hatred never end by the liberal media.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/anderson-cooper-apologizes-for-conjuring-image-of-trump-defecating-on-his-desk/
-
Jeff likes posting pictures of Trump, so I'll play: ;)
-
So while we argue about so-called collusion with the Russians, the Chinese executed or jailed upwards of twenty of our CIA agents between 2010-2012.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html
-
They were not really agents, but sources, a big difference. We would have done the same; remember the Rosenbergs?
If they had executed US citizens that were CIA agents, I am sure we would not know about it nor would we ever admit to it.
I guess I wasn't clear with my point. The issue is that we're getting distracted with supposed collusion with the Russians while America trade and military secrets are being stole blind by the Chinese and they're killing our CIA sources to boot. WE better start focusing on real world issues or we're going to wind up a day late and a dollar too short.
-
"Study Finds Journalists Dumber Than Average and Drink Too Much"
http://www.taraswart.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Results-of-study-into-journalists-mental-resilience.pdf
There you go :)
Hum, must be why Foreign Policy magazine (http://foreignpolicy.com) (rated least biased by mediabiasfactcheck.com (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/)) published this...
Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/)
By JASON BRENNAN NOVEMBER 10, 2016
Democracy is supposed to enact the will of the people. But what if the people have no clue what they’re doing?
OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-12/education-level-sharply-divides-clinton-trump-race) back in August, Hillary Clinton was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election, college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate. Trump supporters might retort: “That’s because Trump supports the little guy and Clinton helps the already privileged college grads.” But that’s false: Trump supporters in the primaries had an average income (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/) of about $72,000 per year. They aren’t rich, but make more than the national average and more than Clinton supporters.
Trump owes his victory to the uninformed. But it’s not just Trump. Political scientists have been studying what voters know (http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=22955) and how they think for well over 65 years. The results are frightening. Voters generally know who the president is but not much else. They don’t know which party controls Congress, what Congress has done recently, whether the economy is getting better or worse (or by how much). In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, most voters knew Al Gore was more liberal than George W. Bush, but significantly less than half knew that Gore was more supportive of abortion rights, more supportive of welfare-state programs, favored a higher degree of aid to blacks, or was more supportive of environmental regulation.
Just why voters know so little is well-understood. It’s not that people are stupid. Rather, it’s that democracy creates bad incentives.
Consider: If you go to buy a car, you do your research. After all, if you make a smart choice, you reap the rewards; if you make a bad choice, you suffer the consequences. Over time, most people learn to become better consumers.
Not so with politics. How all of us vote, collectively, matters a great deal. But how any one of us votes does not. Imagine a college professor told her class of 210 million students, “Three months from now, we’ll have a final exam. You won’t get your own personal grade. Instead, I’ll average all of your grades together, and everyone will receive the same grade.” No one would bother to study, and the average grade would be an F.
That, in a nutshell, is how democracy works.
Most voters are ignorant ormisinformed because the costs to them of acquiring political information greatly exceed the potential benefits. They can afford to indulge silly, false, delusional beliefs — precisely because such beliefs cost them nothing. After all, the chances that any individual vote will decide the election is vanishingly small. As a result, individual voters tend to vote expressively, to show their commitment to their worldview and team. Voting is more like doing the wave at a sports game than it is like choosing policy.
--snip--
Trump’s victory is the victory of the uninformed. But, to be fair, Clinton’s victory would also have been. Democracy is the rule of the people, but the people are in many ways unfit to rule.
So, there ya go...
Course, that was written by a likely stressed out, alcoholic associate professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business :~)
Edited to fix typo
-
Jeff likes posting pictures of Trump, so I'll play: ;)
Oh gooding, my turn?
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-05/20/10/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-01/anigif_sub-buzz-14690-1495289581-4.gif?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
Looks like Trump upped his game, it looks like he bowed and added a bit of a curtsey.
My, that's a very pretty neckless! This must be the most beautiful neckless ever...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/trump-saudi-arabia.jpg)
Hum, I think it looks just like the one they gave Obama...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/12/1415752978488_wps_16_ADDS_INFORMATION_ON_THE_G.jpg)
I bet that will tick off the big orange one :~(
-
So now CNN's Anderson Cooper is making crude comments about Trump.
Actually, the comment was about Jeffrey Lord...
During an interview on his show Friday night, CNN host Anderson Cooper interrupted a conservative pundit with a not-so-subtle jab that he later regretted.
Cooper told Jeffrey Lord, a supporter of the president, that if Trump “took a dump on his desk,” he would still defend him. The host apologized on Twitter after his show, saying he regrets the “crude sentence,” which he followed up with an apology on air.
“It was unprofessional,” Cooper said. “I am genuinely sorry.”
Pretty sure Cooper was correct...Jeffrey Lord would still defend him (Trump).
BTW, does anybody else think that the way Trump sites on chairs looks like he's sitting on a toilet? Hey, Alan brought up the bathroom humor...
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/,scalefit_950_800_noupscale/58cc192d1d0000f42c7cf000.jpeg)
-
Guess old king was supposed to jump up like LeBron to put medal around Trump's neck. :D
Don
-
Mandel Ngan is taking interesting photos of the Trump big trip with some nice compositions. I am an amateur looking at them on CNN website with retina mini iPad but seems those are some really dark blacks. Guess it is a norm for these type of photos ?
Don
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/05/politics/trump-foreign-trip-cnnphotos/
-
Hum, must be why Foreign Policy magazine (http://foreignpolicy.com) (rated least biased by mediabiasfactcheck.com (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-policy/)) published this...
Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/)
So, there ya go...
Course, that was written by a likely stressed out, alcoholic associate professor of strategy, economics, ethics, and public policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business :~)
Edited to fix typo
60 million Trump voting Americans are Ignorant, Literally. Have you considered that Hillary and her campaign were terrible? Because of her stupidity, she lost when she should have won 55%-45% of the popular vote and more than that in the Electoral College. And please don't tell us about Russia. She was the one who unethically conspired with the DNC chair to marginalize Sanders and who set up the unauthorized if not illegal email server. And all those smart people who voted for this corrupt individual anyway. You had a chance to nominate Sanders but choose her instead. So who's ignorant?
-
So who's ignorant?
So I guess you didn't read the whole article huh? Spoiler alert...it's the American voter.
-
... Looks like Trump upped his game, it looks like he bowed...
Only to protect his hair from being messed up by the shorter king ;)
-
So I guess you didn't read the whole article huh? Spoiler alert...it's the American voter.
The article is wrong. It wasn't all American voters. Trump voters got it right. So did Sander's voters. Both groups, totaling a majority of voters, wanted someone to shake up politics as usual. With Hillary, you would have gotten more of the same old elite, corrupt establishment.
Plus, we can look at Melania for four years instead of Hillary. Now, isn't that worth it? :)
-
Apparently when Trump met the Saudi leader the Saudi leader said.....welcome to the Gulf.... and Trump replied....where's the club house. ;)
-
Apparently when Trump met the Saudi leader the Saudi leader said.....welcome to the Gulf.... and Trump replied....where's the club house. ;)
Trump's going to build a new golf course there. It going to have grass traps.
(corrected spelling)
-
... Hum, I think it looks just like the one they gave Obama...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/12/1415752978488_wps_16_ADDS_INFORMATION_ON_THE_G.jpg)
Hmmm... I am not sure... looks like Obama was just dressing up for a visit to the 'hood: ;)
-
Hmmm... I am not sure... looks like Obama was just dressing up for a visit to the 'hood: ;)
I guess as an old white guy you have no idea how racially insensitive that is, huh?
-
The tale of two arrivals:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/huBMI0yl4Rg/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Remember...
-
I guess as an old white guy you have no idea how racially insensitive that is, huh?
Why is that racially insensitive? We've got to lighten up a little. Every group, race, nationality, culture, have their own "tics" and styles of dress and personalities. People joke about whether the Scotchman is wearing underwear under his kilt. Whether Californians are all "La La Land". Heck, I use to wear gold chain too, maybe not that much, couldn't afford it. It went out of style. Frankly only rich black men could afford to wear it; it's their style and ego statement. I'm sure they're proud they can wear it. On the other hand, it's always funny when you make fun of people's ego, to show their hubris. So, I know some white men who wouldn't be caught dead driving around in anything beneath a Lexus or Mercedes. It's a joke around here. Does that make me prejudiced?
-
Why is that racially insensitive?
--snip--
Frankly only rich black men could afford to wear it; it's their style and ego statement.
--snip--
I Does that make me prejudiced?
Really?
Wait, you aren't joking, right?
Oh my...
-
Really?
Wait, you aren't joking, right?
Oh my...
Don't hide behind "righteous indignation," explain instead to us unwashed, low-information, uneducated, ignorant, deplorable masses why. Why is it ok to throw every "-ism," every "-ist," every kitchen sink and what not at an old white man, but god forbid one makes a joke about a certain subculture.?
-
Can someone who is more familiar with american politics than I am explain why it's ok for Trump to demonize muslims while at the same time signing a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the country from where all the 9/11 terrorists came?
-
Can someone who is more familiar with american politics than I am explain why it's ok for Trump to demonize muslims while at the same time signing a multi-billion dollar arms deal with the country from where all the 9/11 terrorists came?
Because a) he is not "demonizing Muslims," he is demonizing radicalized Muslims and b) it is a $100 billion deal
-
Really?
Wait, you aren't joking, right?
Oh my...
You've learned very well from the anti-Trump media how to take things out of context to demean what was said. I was laughing at the ego centric display that rich black men use to show that they've made it. Those one or two pounds of gold chain run about $15000 per pound. Poor blacks can't afford it. No different than some white guy (or black or Asian for that matter) showing off driving around in a Ferrari. We all can laugh at the hubris of it all. But it isn't racist. It's about the foolish things all people do to display their superiority. The Democrats want to make it racist because they play identity politics, dividing Americans one group against the other. Racial, gender, class, etc. So now you're doing the same thing. Playing racial politics.
-
Why is it ok to throw every "-ism," every "-ist," every kitchen sink and what not at an old white man, but god forbid one makes a joke about a certain subculture.?
Hum, I think I wrote racially insensitive didn't I?
Are you saying your attempt at humor wasn't playing on racial stereotypes? Why not use the photo of Trump instead of Obama? Simple, that wouldn't have been as funny to you, right? It honestly didn't occur to you that you were intentionally comparing Obama to gangsta's from the hood as a racial joke?
That is what being racially insensitive looks like. And it's not the first time racially insensitive posts have been made in this thread. (and it wasn't the last).
I didn't find your post funny...
P.S. if you don't think your post is racially sensitive, I dare you to make some prints of the post and hand them out at 53St & Halstead here in Chicago...ask the members of 'the hood' what they think.
-
I was laughing at the ego centric display that rich black men use to show that they've made it.
Wow...so black men now need to wear goofy huge chains and necklaces to show they are rich?
I see a lot of successful black guys here in Chicago...I don't see a lot (read any) black men wearing 1 or 2 pound gold chains...I've seen some wannabe rap performers trying to be gangsta do that but I'm not sure how "successful" they are...the current crop of rappers like Chance the Rapper (http://www.gq.com/story/how-chance-the-rappers-life-became-perfect) from here in Chicago don't try to be gangsta. Won a Grammy for best new artist, best rap album, best rap performance (and nominated for 4 others awards). He doesn't wear 2 lbs gold chains...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8Kc1hlOIAX1UpI4rjMyoHkYlvUY_2Tb2LKAZYS-QNlzVdWfocRQ)
-
... Why not use the photo of Trump instead of Obama? ...
I would have... except I couldn't find pics of six white men wearing 2 lb gold chains to go with it ;)
-
NATION FAVORS TRAVEL BAN ON PERSON WHO HAS RECENTLY VISITED MUSLIM COUNTRY (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/nation-favors-travel-ban-on-person-who-has-recently-visited-muslim-country)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/Borowitz-Trump-travel-ban-800.jpg)
RIYADH (The Borowitz Report)—In a notable shift of public opinion, a substantial majority of Americans now favor a travel ban on a person who has recently visited a Muslim country, a new poll shows.
According to the poll, if such a person travelled to a country in the Middle East, for example, he should be subjected to extreme vetting before he is allowed to return to the United States.
By Andy Borowitz May 20, 2017
-
I would have... except I couldn't find pics of six white men wearing 2 lb gold chains to go with it ;)
(http://akns-images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2013325/rs_560x415-130425135027-1024.duck.ls.42513.jpg)
The chains are under their beards...
-
...The chains are under their beards...
Which one is you, again? Sorry, couldn't tell, the camouflage is too good. ;)
-
You didn't look too hard...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/04/article-2518250-19D53D9700000578-34_634x510.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/04/article-2518250-19D53E4E00000578-28_634x462.jpg)
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/senior-man-in-hiphop-clothes-giving-the-finger-picture-id474059618?s=170667a&w=1007)
(https://banterinmyboots.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/screen-shot-2013-04-04-at-2-30-36-pm-1.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Giovanni_Cariani_011.jpg)
-
We men know what ostentatious and gaudy things are used for whether they're gold chains around our necks or gilded penthouses like Trumps or Ferraris, jets, or Rolexes. And it's got nothing to do with race. It's either to impress other men with our status or...
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/weirdest-bowerbird?source=relatedvideo
-
Leicas around your neck. "I've arrived." Racist?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/4e/91/524e91238620a52826ef6ab3fdae7d1a.jpg)
-
You didn't look too hard...
You are right, one has to look real hard to find those. And even then, they are mostly staged, stock shots meant as a parody of the very subculture we are talking about.
Besides, those chains are pathetic. Nothing like this:
-
We men know what ostentatious and gaudy things are used for...
Hole getting deeper..."not guilty your honor, I wasn't trying to be racist, I was just trying to be sexist".
(Is that working for anybody else?)
-
Hole getting deeper..."not guilty your honor, I wasn't trying to be racist, I was just trying to be sexist"...
I am sure that in your wet dream, we would be taken to court, sentenced, and jailed for being racist or sexist, or anything else in words and thoughts. Fortunately, the 1st amendment still stands. You would have to work harder to repeal it.
-
Hole getting deeper..."not guilty your honor, I wasn't trying to be racist, I was just trying to be sexist".
(Is that working for anybody else?)
Not sexist, sexy. :)
-
Fortunately, the 1st amendment still stands.
I think you are confusing me with Trump...he's the one who wants to throw journalists in jail. We're still living in America where free speech is protected. However, ignorant, racist or sexist hate speach (or any of a host of hate based topics) is not free to stand uncommented on when spewed forth.
Keep digging 😀
-
And now, back to Trump content...very funny if you are not a Trump supporter.
John Oliver: Donald Trump’s Last Seven Days “Absolutely Insane” (http://deadline.com/2017/05/john-oliver-donald-trump-week-insane-impeachment-russia-investigation-comey-nut-job-1202099497/)
(http://cdn3-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/2015/02/johnoliverheader.jpg)
UPDATED with video: Last week in “Donald Trump” was so nuts that John Oliver was forced to devote virtually all of Last Week Tonight to talking about it.
“The last seven days have been absolutely insane – so much so that, by Friday night, it may have broken Anderson Cooper,” Oliver acknowledged.
He’s of course referring to Cooper’s Friday show, during which the host interrupted Trump surrogate Jeffrey Lord as he defended yet another indefensible Trump statement, saying, “If [Trump] took a dump on his desk you would defend him.”
“And, more importantly, Jeffrey Lord did not immediately answer, ‘No,'” Oliver laughed.
Here's the entire show on YouTube (https://youtu.be/FVFdsl29s_Q)
-
...However, ignorant, racist or sexist hate speach (or any of a host of hate based topics) is not free to stand uncommented on when spewed forth....
Ok, then... time to go back to the original intent of this thread: hateful, deranged attacks on the President of the United States, based of twisted, fabricated "scandals" and fake news. Which will not stand uncommented on when spewed forth.
-
Ok then how about some fact checking Trump (a full time job)?
...here's a story to help.
Fact Checking President Trump’s Statements on His First Foreign Trip (http://fortune.com/2017/05/22/fact-checking-president-trump-statements-first-foreign-trip/)
(http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-board-tirade/files/2016/05/thedailybeast.com_.jpg)
Here's a new U.S. export: President Donald Trump's exaggerations about his record.
In his speech in Saudi Arabia on Sunday during his first foreign trip as president, Trump claimed to have accomplished record spending on the armed forces, even though Congress has yet to pass a budget that reflects his plans and promises. Trump releases a detailed budget proposal Tuesday after having come up only with an outline before, and nothing is achieved until and unless Congress passes something.
Trump often takes credit for accomplishments that have yet to be realized or that were the work of his predecessor, as he did last week when boasting about a Coast Guard icebreaker that the Obama administration started. But it was his first opportunity to do so abroad.
Trump's foreign trip came as something of a break from the storm over the investigation into his 2016 campaign's relationship with Russia. That episode prompted a number of questionable statements by the president and his aides. Here's a review of claims on various matters over the past week:
-
Speaking about Pinocchio:
(http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/insider-sources.png)
-
Meanwhile the Trump admin is hoping that the attention will be on Trump, Russia, etc while they role out a draconian budget.
White House pitches budget as welfare reform (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/22/trump-budget-what-is-in-it-238679)
The Trump administration wants to take an ax to the safety net in order to balance the budget.
(http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/63936de/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F1f%2F3e%2Fafd27e0e4a2ba5697fbe43604538%2F170519-mulvaney-budget-gty-1160.jpg)
The Trump administration is billing its budget as a plan to “reform the welfare system” and replace “dependency with dignity of work,” while saving $274 billion over 10 years, according to a 4 page memo (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015c-315a-d476-abdf-7d7a8c5d0001) obtained by POLITICO.
The White House budget, to be released Tuesday, will suggest taking an ax to safety net programs like food stamps and popular family benefits like the child tax credit, in order to achieve the ambitious goal of balancing the federal budget over a decade.
“A New Foundation for American Greatness"
This is gonna be absolutely great for the wealthy 1%
but if you are poor, you are screwed...
but it's ok, it's not personal, it's just business...
-
(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Priest-Trump-Flynn-1-320x240-1479851345.jpg)
"Lock him up"
Letter: Michael Flynn cites ‘public frenzy,’ invokes 5th Amendment (http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/michael-flynn-to-decline-senate-intel-committee-subpoena-ap/)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination on Monday and declined to hand over documents sought under subpoena by a Senate panel investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.
In a letter to the Senate intelligence committee , Flynn’s attorneys justified the decision by citing an “escalating public frenzy against him” and saying the Justice Department’s recent appointment of a special counsel has created a legally dangerous environment for him to cooperate with the panel’s investigation.
“The context in which the committee has called for General Flynn’s testimonial production of documents makes clear that he has more than a reasonable apprehension that any testimony he provides could be used against him,” the attorneys wrote in the letter, which was obtained by the AP (http://apne.ws/2q3S9Y9).
The Russia story is gonna be like a centipede wearing a lot of shoes yet to drop (credit for the concept to Senator John McCain).
-
So far the only illegality that we know of was Flynn did work as a lobbyist for Russia and Turkey before filing as a lobbyist.
On a separate note, McCain has been stewing quietly for what Trump said about him during the campaign. I keep thinking about the saying that revenge is never as sweet as when it's served as cold desert.
-
Now, about that glowing orb...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAYlEH8V0AEKXeg.jpg)
WHY DONALD TRUMP TOUCHED A GLOWING ORB IN SAUDI ARABIA (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-touching-glowing-odd-has-nothing-do-star-wars-saudi-arabia-613047)
A picture of Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi with their hands on a glowing orb has the internet confused—prompting comparisons with Lord of the Rings, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and other films.
In reality, the widely shared photograph depicts Trump, King Salman and al-Sissi at the opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in Riyadh.
During the center’s opening ceremony, the leaders placed their hands on the globe in a gesture of solidarity to launch the center.
Creeeeeepy!
-
Ooooops, he stepped in it again...
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hugR310FJLbyFUtnGAmfhMDDrvM=/0x0:492x273/920x613/filters:focal(207x98:285x176)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54891499/Screen_Shot_2017_05_22_at_12.22.52_PM.1495469414.png)
Speaking to reporters beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, May 22, President Trump denied ever mentioning Israel in a meeting
with Russian officials in the Oval Office on May 10. (The Washington Post)
Trump said what?!? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/22/trump-said-what/?utm_term=.3b906bf7dc2b)
If only it were a “Saturday Night Live” sketch. The Associated Press reports:
President Donald Trump says he never “mentioned the word or the name Israel” during a recent conversation with top Russian diplomats.
Speaking alongside Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump was referencing revelations that he divulged classified information about an Islamic State threat in a recent meeting with Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador.
U.S. officials said the information originated from Israel.
Trump says, “I never mentioned the word or the name Israel in that conversation.” But it was never alleged that Trump told the Russians that Israel was the source of the intelligence, just that he shared the information with the Russians.
Moreover, by conveying his message in Israel, he obviously confirmed that the information came from Israel.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden reacted to this forehead-slapping blunder via email:
Choice one. Say nothing.
Choice two. If FORCED to comment, say no specific sources were mentioned.
Choice three. Don’t use choice two standing next to the Israeli prime minister.
Was Trump “exhausted,” as a briefer claimed yesterday in explaining why he muffed the phrase “Islamic extremism” in his speech in Saudi Arabia? If so, we are reminded that a 70-year-old obese man with a horrible diet and refusal to exercise (except for a weekend of golf) may not have the wherewithal to make it through the rigors of the presidency. He was only a couple of days into the trip when, apparently, he couldn’t spit out his lines correctly. The alternative explanation is that he is not, as he famously said, “I'm like a smart person (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-explains-skipped-intel-briefings-im-smart-person)” That realization should petrify both Americans and our allies and entice our enemies, who are probably convinced they can fool the hapless president again and again.
Trump’s error is so laughably horrible it left many observers shaking their heads. “I can’t imagine why the President would be commenting on this in a public setting on camera,” said former ambassador Eric S. Edelman. “To the extent that information was unintentionally shared in the conversations with the Russians, he will now be seen to be confirming the origin. It is just further evidence of his total lack of understanding of the uses and abuses of classified information.”
Wow, he was doing so good reading off the teleprompter! Too bad he's not "like a smart person".
-
Oh, come on! It was the American press who outed Israel a week or so ago.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSBvRorro-dojDMD5uQ7Dw7-DZIXbN_nCeDPHY_XpQisTh6QumI)
Donald Trump is “exhausted,” his staffers say, and that’s why he’s committing some gaffes (http://www.salon.com/2017/05/22/donald-trump-is-exhausted-his-staffers-say-and-thats-why-hes-committing-some-gffes/)
A senior White House official said Trump's Islamist/Islamic slip-up was due to him being "exhausted"
The White House wants you to believe that President Donald Trump didn’t mean to offend Muslim audiences when he referred to Islamist extremism as “Islamic extremism.”
He was just an “exhausted guy.”
That’s what an unnamed senior White House official told CNN on Monday, claiming that Trump intended to say “Islamist extremism” but said “Islamic extremism” because he was “just an exhausted guy” by the time he delivered the speech. The prepared remarks do indeed show Trump saying “Islamist extremism,” which is the correct term when referring to the political movements that attempt to create governments based around Islamic theological precepts.
Such a busy boy...
Actually, I do think he bit off a lot and will likely be paying for it (as we are paying for his trip) and he DID mean to use the correct phrase but it's still totally hypocritical consider this...
Radical Islamic terrorism: The dogma that didn't bark in Trump's speech (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-trump-speech-20170522-story.html)
President Trump is receiving generally high marks, even from some of his usual critics, for the speech he delivered Sunday in Saudi Arabia at the Arab Islamic American Summit – especially for his conciliatory comments toward Islam, which he called “one of the world’s great faiths.”
Of course, the Twittersphere had a field day contrasting the tone and careful language of the speech with Trump’s previous pronouncements, including his claim in 2016 that “I think Islam hates us…. There’s a tremendous hatred there.”
And while it’s an exaggeration to say that Barack Obama could have given the speech, it’s notable that Trump never used the term he excoriated his predecessor -- and Hillary Clinton -- for eschewing.
“These are radical Islamic terrorists and [Clinton] won't even mention the word, and nor will President Obama,” Trump said at an Oct. 9 debate with his Democratic rival.
-
Oh, come on! It was the American press who outed Israel a week or so ago.
Actually there were press reports that Israel was the sourse but no press reports ever said he told the Russians it was Israel (in fact reports said he wasn't even briefed) so why did he blurt this out? But in effect he confirmed the reports...
-
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18557008_10155833144081729_5176602835424215997_n.jpg?oh=ee2109609c7f467a24fa9799856afed1&oe=59A485FC)
-
And while we are hairsplitting about Islamist vs. Islamic extremism, another attack on the West:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-40007886
-
Not very good image of Putin (deleted to save space).
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13511010_601383516710671_6872748455445120663_n.jpg?oh=455a1eb5f6605520190e6e771527fd24&oe=59AC3B7F)
Really, Obama was the first to use social media effectively in his 2008 campaign. The GOP didn't have a clue.
It was tighter in 2012 but even then neither Twitter nor Facebook were in a situation to create such loud echo chambers.
With the addition of fake news (real fake news–you know like Podesta was running a child porn ring from a pizza place) and the hack of the DNC computers and Podesta's emails, Russia turned the tables on us very effectively. Putin however wasn't as effective in ruining the French election...almost but it was too late and the world was catching on to the Russian tricks. We'll see how thing shake out in Germany next year.
But really, if you think about it, while Putin won some aspects, he lost others. Flynn got fired so he lost an agent in place in the WH. The Russian investigation is chewing up to much air time there's no way Trump would dare bring up easing sanctions. So, in the grand scheme I don't think Putin got all he wanted...but he sure did impact our election and cast doubt on the democratic system. So, he made out ok...
Unless you still doubt Putin and the Russians were behind the shenanigans...do you?
-
(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18557008_10155833144081729_5176602835424215997_n.jpg?oh=ee2109609c7f467a24fa9799856afed1&oe=59A485FC)
Oh, I don't know - he didn't have the capacity 8 or 4 years ago, or hadn't thought of doing it in the way he may have this time?
Of course logic isn't a strong suite for many Trumpeters.
-
Now, about that glowing orb...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAYlEH8V0AEKXeg.jpg)
WHY DONALD TRUMP TOUCHED A GLOWING ORB IN SAUDI ARABIA (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-touching-glowing-odd-has-nothing-do-star-wars-saudi-arabia-613047)
For some reason I am reminded of the movie Sleeper
-
... Of course logic isn't a strong suite for many Trumpeters.
Nor is humor for many anti-Trumpeters.
-
... Unless you still doubt Putin and the Russians were behind the shenanigans...do you?
I do, of course. As far as Putin is concerned. I am pretty positive some Russians could have been involved as individuals, it was too easy and too tempting not to. And some Aussies, Norwegians, Mongolians kids, etc., as the history shows prior penetrations into much more secure systems of NASA, Dept. of Defense, and similar.
-
And while we are hairsplitting about Islamist vs. Islamic extremism, another attack on the West:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-40007886
As I write this post, the suicide bomber has not been identified. Do you have any special knowledge about his/her identity and/or affiliation with any terrorist group?
-
As I write this post, the suicide bomber has not been identified. Do you have any special knowledge about his/her identity and/or affiliation with any terrorist group?
At the time of posting, he was just guessing, insinuating. I assume he had no insider knowledge of the event.
By now, the police say they have identified the perpetrator, but at this stage of the investigation, they will not yet disclose more information about identity, and motives, and accomplices. IS have claimed the activity.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Nor is humor for many anti-Trumpeters.
That's because there's absolutely nothing funny about him.
-
Steeling one from Jeff; here's article I just read on CNN.
You mean "stealing"? :~)
I have no doubt that the whole issue of the private email server, Hillary's poor handling of the issue and Comey's flailing about in public was clearly a major, perhaps the most important issue, surrounding her campaign as indicated by this CNN article.
No question...no doubt about it.
But a weird thing just popped into my head, while the email issue came out as the single most important issue against Hillary, there is no single negative issue against Trump because, well, there were so MANY negative issues against Trump that no single issue ever burbled up to the top.
I meant, go back and look at all the things Trump said and did that were seriously egregious yet they bounced off Trump like he was made of Teflon. None of the stuff that would have killed a typical politician seemed to make a dent.
Personally, I don't think there was one single defining reason why Hillary lost and Trump won other than the fact that just over 92 million people didn't vote in 2016. Why? Lots and lots of reasons but the fact that so many didn't vote meant that the winner was guarantied to be voted in by a minority, which I think is a sad commentary on our democracy these days.
-
It's funny, but it's kinda sad because it's funny...
THE ONION LEAKS A TROVE OF TRUMP DOCS (http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-onion-leaks-a-trove-of-trump-docs)
(http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Bethea-The-Onion-Leaks-a-Trove-of-Trump-Docs-800.jpg)
The Onion has been tormenting Donald Trump for years. But, for a President Trump, it needed something “much bigger, much broader,” Cole Bolton, the editor-in-chief, said.
COURTESY THE ONION
The staff of the Onion, a satirical online newspaper that’s been a reliable antidote to reality for nearly three decades, was not thrilled by the prospect of a Trump Presidency. The paper’s longtime writer Chad Nackers told me in March (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/20/the-onion-struggles-to-lampoon-trump) that the thought of having to frequently satirize Trump and the bit players in his Administration for four years—or more—filled many of the publication’s staffers with “comedic dread.” The Onion has been tormenting Trump for close to twenty years, beginning back when he was a mere citizen-object of scorn, with headlines like 2012’s “Donald Trump Stares Forlornly at Tiny, Aged Penis in Mirror Before Putting On Clothes, Beginning Day (http://www.theonion.com/article/donald-trump-stares-forlornly-at-tiny-aged-penis-i-28589)” and, from 2013, “When You’re Feeling Low, Just Remember I’ll Be Dead in About 15 or 20 Years (http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/when-youre-feeling-low-just-remember-ill-be-dead-i-31008)” (The latter provoked Trump’s general counsel, Michael Cohen, to demand an apology to his client. The Onion ignored this request.) But, for a President Trump, Cole Bolton, the Onion’s editor-in-chief, told me last week, “We needed something much bigger, much broader, which can hit all the themes we want to hit in a single stroke.”
More than a dozen writers and eight graphics editors have been assembling that something over the past four months: seven hundred pages of Trump-related documents that have been “leaked” to the Onion. The first batch was revealed at noon on Monday on the Onion’s Facebook page, as well as on a special Web site. “Document dumps,” Bolton said, “are the vogue way to talk about major breaking news in the world, whether it’s WikiLeaks or the Panama Papers. Leaks seemed like the perfect means to get at Trump and his inner circle, as well as his decision-making.”
More than a dozen writers and eight graphics editors have been assembling that something over the past four months: seven hundred pages of Trump-related documents that have been “leaked” to the Onion. The first batch was revealed at noon on Monday on the Onion’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/TheOnion/), as well as on a special Web site (http://www.theonion.com/trumpdocuments). “Document dumps,” Bolton said, “are the vogue way to talk about major breaking news in the world, whether it’s WikiLeaks or the Panama Papers. Leaks seemed like the perfect means to get at Trump and his inner circle, as well as his decision-making.”
Gotta tell ya, they did a LOT of work to do this special web site and even Trump supporters can appreciate the effort (if not the humor).
Thanks ONION (http://www.theonion.com)!
-
... speach...
You mean "speech"? ;)
P.S. Sorry, wanted to let this one slide, but since you opened the door, couldn't resist. I didn't want to denigrate you, you know ;)
-
Personally, I don't think there was one single defining reason why Hillary lost and Trump won....
I agree and I think that is an important consideration. People seldom make decisions based solely on only one factor.
-
That's because there's absolutely nothing funny about him.
/nod
-
So while the liberal left goes on and on about unproven collusions, Trump is in the Mideast taking care of America's business, both security and economic. He's re-cemented our pre-Obama strong relationship with most Muslim nations over there and reaffirmed our commitment to keep Iran in its place to the great applause of all the Sunni Muslims and Israelis. Our allies there were getting very queasy about that relationship because of Obama's waffling and weakness, even sending signals to Russia. Even the Chinese were sticking their nose in the Arab tent because of Obama's fecklessness. So it seems we're all buddy, buddy again. The reversal started with Trump's missile attack on the Syrian airbase.
In the Pacific, Mattis and the aircraft carrier group re-cemented our strong relationship with our Pacific friends. No more militarized islands for the Chinese as they built up during the Obama years. In Europe, NATO seems pretty happy we're still holding their hands. Are they paying up yet? And the Brits are thinking that Brexit is starting to look like a great idea considering the terrorist explosion in Manchester. PM May is expecting another explosion which will really reverse the Brexit doubters.
Meanwhile the Dems and the biased fake news media are quarrelling over the reason Melania "slapped away" Donald's hand. Who's the joke?
-
Who's the joke?
Well, Trump is of course...now that you ask. Add to that the legions of Trump voters who voted for him and against their own self interests...
Trump’s Own Voters Would Be Among Hardest Hit by His Budget (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-s-own-voters-would-be-among-hardest-hit-his-n763491)
In his June 2015 presidential announcement speech, Donald Trump focused on two issues that ultimately helped him win the general election, especially the Midwest battlegrounds — and made him different than Mitt Romney in 2012, or Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in 2016. The first was his explicit condemnation of immigration and Mexico. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best… They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." The second issue was his call to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. "Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it," he said.
Those two subjects — seizing on immigration/race and protecting entitlements — eventually made him the first Republican since 1988 to carry Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the first since 1984 to win Wisconsin. So it's striking that President Trump's first budget cuts Medicaid and a part of Social Security, arguably hurting many of the voters who helped him win in 2016.
Trump's Cuts to SNAP and Social Security Would Hit the Rust Belt Hard (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trump-budget-snap-social-security/527799/)
The president’s full budget includes reductions in income-support programs that core Republican voters rely on—more so than other groups do.
In the key Rustbelt states that tipped the 2016 election to President Trump, blue-collar white voters at the core of his constituency represent a majority of those receiving benefits from the federal income-support programs he has targeted for large cutbacks in his budget, according a new analysis conducted for The Atlantic.
Whites without a four-year college degree constitute most of those receiving assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Social Security’s Supplemental Security Income program, and Social Security’s disability program in each of the five Rustbelt states that flipped from Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016: Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They also represent a majority of the programs’ beneficiaries in other heavily working-class interior states—from Arkansas and Kentucky through Missouri and Montana—that are central to GOP fortunes in upcoming elections.
Trumpcare Is Already Hurting Trump Country (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/opinion/trumpcare-health-care-bill.html?_r=0)
The mere threat that Obamacare will be dismantled or radically changed — either by Congress or by President Trump himself — has persuaded several big insurance companies to stop selling policies or significantly raise premiums. The practical effect is that some lower-income and middle-class families may have no good options for insurance and will have to spend more on health care.
There’s no new Affordable Care Act yet; the House passed a very bad bill, but the Senate has yet to act. Still, in places like Iowa, Nebraska and Tennessee, companies such as Aetna and Wellmark are so spooked by the uncertainty that they are considering abandoning the market. Other insurers are asking state regulators for permission to raise premiums by as much as 53 percent. This should trouble not just the 12.2 million people who have bought insurance on federal and state exchanges, but also policy makers, since Washington may have to spend more on subsidies if premiums go up.
Mr. Trump, not surprisingly, describes things differently. He claims that uncertainty in the insurance industry is evidence that Obamacare is collapsing and needs repeal, not that he and his allies have created the uncertainty. This is disingenuous nonsense. On the whole, insurance markets in much of the country are on stable footing and will remain so if Congress doesn’t do things to undermine Obamacare, according to a March report by the Congressional Budget Office. And insurers selling policies under the A.C.A. actually did better financially in 2016 than in the year before, according to an April report by Standard & Poor’s.
So, why are insurers fearful and threatening to quit Obamacare or jack up premiums? There are a few big reasons. First, the House passed a bill this month that would take insurance away from at least 24 million people by slashing spending on Medicaid and cutting the subsidies the government uses to help people buy insurance. Second, Mr. Trump has threatened to stop making about $7 billion in payments to insurance companies to help lower the cost of co-pays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for lower-income and middle-class families. If the administration carries out that threat, insurers would raise premiums by about 19 percent, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Third, insurers are worried that the Trump administration will stop enforcing the A.C.A. provision that requires people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. That could hurt them by reducing the number of younger and healthier people who sign up.
It can be hard to feel sympathy for bureaucratic and faceless insurance companies. After all, they often deny people access to medical procedures and drugs. But Mr. Trump and his Republicans in Congress have left them with little choice. They can stay with the exchanges and risk large losses if elected leaders blow them up, or they can pull out now, or raise rates, in parts of the country where it is harder to make money.
What’s bizarre about the Republican strategy is that it is likely to cause the most damage where many of Mr. Trump’s supporters live. Rural and suburban areas are more likely to lose insurers and see big premium increases if Obamacare goes down, because companies have less incentive to stay in markets where there are fewer potential customers and where it is harder to put together networks of hospitals and doctors.
Republicans might hope that blame for any future problems with Obamacare will fall on former President Barack Obama and the Democrats. A Kaiser poll, however, shows that 61 percent of Americans already know where the fault should lie: with the Republicans who are now in charge. Another poll from Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/207671/affordable-care-act-gains-majority-approval-first-time.aspx) found that Obamacare became more popular than ever after Republicans began trying to destroy it. Senate Republicans ought to keep these polls in mind as they come up with their version of Trumpcare.
Of course, the above is all from that evil "biased fake news media" so certain Trump supports will take comfort that it can't possibly be true, right? But then there's this from Fox News...
Fox News Poll: Trump approval down, voters support special counsel on Russia (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/fox-news-poll-trump-approval-down-voters-support-special-counsel-on-russia.html)
American voters disagree with President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, think the dismissal was for self-serving reasons, and approve of a special counsel being appointed to investigate Russian government efforts to influence the election and the Trump campaign. In addition, a majority opposes the Republican plan to replace Obamacare.
That’s according to a new Fox News Poll of registered voters nationwide.
The last month took a toll on the president’s ratings. The poll finds 40 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing, down from 45 percent last month. Disapproval is up 5 points to 53 percent.
Some of the drop in approval comes from Republicans, as just 81 percent approve of the president. GOP approval had been between 84-87 percent during Trump’s first three months in office. Plus, his approval among whites without a college degree went from 62 percent last month to 53 percent now. Working-class whites were a key voting bloc for him in the election (66 percent backed Trump according to the Fox News Exit Poll).
READ THE FULL FOX NEWS POLL. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/05/24/fox-news-poll-may-24-2017.html)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/05/24/fox-news-poll-trump-approval-down-voters-support-special-counsel-on-russia/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-7/embed_image/image.img.jpg/612/344/1495652057226.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/05/24/fox-news-poll-trump-approval-down-voters-support-special-counsel-on-russia/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-11/embed_image/image.img.jpg/612/344/1495652084630.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/05/24/fox-news-poll-trump-approval-down-voters-support-special-counsel-on-russia/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-19/embed_image/image.img.jpg/612/344/1495652119995.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
And that's from a Fox Poll...I repeat, THAT'S FROM A FOX NEWS POLL
#Ruhroh
Looks like the joke is on us, huh?
and, I ain't laughing...
-
Ooooops...
President Trump's Budget Includes a $2 Trillion Math Mistake (http://time.com/4791113/trump-budget-math-mistake/)
President Trump's budget includes what critics charge is a simple accounting error that adds up to a $2 trillion oversight, though the White House said it stands by the numbers.
Under the proposed budget released Tuesday, the Trump Administration's proposed tax cuts would boost economic growth enough to pay for $2 trillion in spending by 2027. But the tax cuts are also supposed to be revenue-neutral, meaning that money is already supposed to pay for the revenue lost from the tax cuts.
Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers called the oversight an "elementary double count" and "a logical error of the kind that would justify failing a student in an introductory economics course" in an op-ed in the Washington Post.
But it's Trump so they always double down...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO2URPFOa-Zr1mf0dUi0lvmWBzjemRqG3uiDPGqNVjVRx6KLzT)
Trump Team Stands by Budget’s $2 Trillion Math Error (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-team-stands-budget-s-2-trillion-math-error-n763996)
Critics are charging that President Trump's proposed budget, entitled "A New Foundation for American Greatness," rests on some shaky math.
President Donald Trump's newly unveiled budget contains a massive accounting error that uses the same money twice for two different purposes. Based on its supersized projections of 3 percent GDP, the president's budget forecasts about $2 trillion in extra federal revenue growth over the next 10 years, which it then uses to pay for Trump's "biggest tax cut in history."
But then it also uses that very same $2 trillion to balance the budget.
White House budget director Mick Mulvaney didn't deny the math, saying it was done "on purpose," during a press briefing Tuesday.
"I'm aware of the criticisms and would simply come back and say there's other places where we were probably overly conservative in our accounting," he said. "We stand by the numbers."
"We thought that the assumption that the tax reform would be deficit-neutral was the most reasonable of the three options that we had," he said.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, asked about the fiscal fumble during an economics conference the same day, replied, "This is a preliminary document that will be refined."
Hum...
#StayInSchool
-
Well, Trump is of course...now that you ask. Add to that the legions of Trump voters who voted for him and against their own self interests...
Of course, the above is all from that evil "biased fake news media" so certain Trump supports will take comfort that it can't possibly be true, right? But then there's this from Fox News...
And that's from a Fox Poll...I repeat, THAT'S FROM A FOX NEWS POLL
#Ruhroh
Looks like the joke is on us, huh?
and, I ain't laughing...
Trump will continue to get attacked because the biased media hates him. Ok I get it. Meanwhile he is doing things the country needs in my opinion. He put Gorsuch on the court. He has made allies and adversaries begin to respect us again after 8 years of Obama weakness. That will help us internationally with trade, security, and other relations with foreign countries. They may not like him, but that's ok. He's still commander-in-chief of the armed forces and President/CEO. Today, he again called for NATO to pay up to their faces. And he sailed a destroyer within 12 miles right past the militarized islands China built in the South China Sea. Finally a president with balls.
-
Meanwhile he is doing things the country needs in my opinion.
Like that "Travel Ban"?
Oooops, seems like the appeals court upheld the ban of the ban...
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/05/26/us/26travelban/26travelban-master768.jpg)
Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Enforcing Trump Travel Restrictions (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/appeals-court-upholds-ban-enforcing-trump-travel-restrictions-n764701)
A federal appeals court Thursday upheld one of two bans on enforcing President Donald Trump's executive order restricting travel from six predominately Muslim countries.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, voted 10-3 to uphold a ruling by a federal judge in Maryland who declared in March that the president's revised travel order amounted to unconstitutional religious discrimination.
Campaign statements by Donald Trump, who originally called for a ban on Muslim immigration, "provide direct, specific evidence" of what motivated his executive orders — "President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States," the appeals court said.
Well, maybe Trump will get a hand from his good friend Gorsuch when the ban gets to the Supreme Court. Course, Trump's batting average in the courts has pretty much sucked of late huh?
#MAGA
-
America First!
(well maybe this is what Trump was thinking of)
Trump appears to push NATO's newest leader as he makes his way to the front of the pack at a summit
(http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-push-shove-nato-montenegro-dusko-markovic-2017-5)
(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/59270e10621e6c0c268b4910-514/stevekopack%20ontwitterdidtrumpjustshoveanothernatoleadertobeinthefrontofthegrouphttpstcobl1r2aueld.jpg)
President Donald Trump's push to get in front of the pack at the NATO summit in Belgium is getting attention on social media.
Footage from the gathering shows Trump putting his right hand on the right arm of Dusko Markovic, the prime minister of Montenegro, and pushing himself ahead as NATO leaders walked inside the alliance's new headquarters in Brussels.
Trump then stands near Markovic and speaks to Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite.
Montenegro is scheduled to become NATO's 29th member in early June.
Watch the moment:
Donald Trump PUSHES The Prime Minister Dusko Markovic Of Montenegro To Be In Front of Group (VIDEO) (https://youtu.be/ecTuW_KU7YE)
#TheUglyAmerican
-
I was amazed by this today, not what he said, it was a long time coming, but to find out that we cover 72% of the total funding for NATO. That is ridiculous!
Now I am for fairness, and I know the USA has the largest economy in the world plus the agreement states that all countries are to pay 2% of their GDP, but I doubt the GDP of the USA is 161% larger then all of the other countries of NATO combined.
Thats right, we pay 2.61 times more into NATO then all of the other countries combined.
That's not true.
The US contributes 22.1446 of direct NATO costs as at January this year (the latest report I could find).
You are looking at total military expenditure - the US does not allocate all of its military expenditure to NATO, obviously.
This is a common bit of "fake news" peddled about this subject.
-
Campaign statements by Donald Trump, who originally called for a ban on Muslim immigration, "provide direct, specific evidence" of what motivated his executive orders — "President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States," the appeals court said.
This is a tragic development for American justice system and democracy. It turns judges into mind readers, instead of reading the law.
-
CNN is fake news I guess.
NATO Spending (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spending/index.html)
Anyway, I may have misspoken, however my merit was not wrong, far from it.
Total military spending under NATO nations (by treaty) should be at least 2% of GDP; NATO spending and others. We spend 2.61 times more then all other NATO countries combined and several NATO countries are not spending the 2% they agreed upon.
Countries are not living up to the agreement, which is the point I am making.
I am tired of seeing European countries criticize us on healthcare while at the same time not paying their fair share in NATO, which they agreed upon.
In my perfect world, the USA would go back to the 1930s isolationism. Let other nations, separated from us, by two massive oceans, figure it out. We are just spending too much on this.
It's misleading news. On NATO, the US contributes 22.1446% of the total direct expenditure. Total defence expenditure by the US is more than NATO, but not the portion the US spends on NATO.
The 2% is a guideline (and 20% of that is to be spent on equipment), not a treaty requirement. Still, I agree that all members should be hitting that target (with a tolerance of 0.1% for actuals versus planned). But if you (and others) keep trying to make the point by repeating misleading data, all you do it weaken your argument. It's being done to make the gap more dramatic, but it's quite simply wrong.
As to isolationism - well, those oceans are pretty small these days.
-
CNN is fake news I guess.
NATO Spending (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/news/nato-trump-defense-spending/index.html)
So, how are you reading the story?
According to IHS Jane’s Annual Defence Budgets Report the USA spent $633bn...the next 10 countries don't spend what the USA spends.
China $191.8bn
United Kingdom $53.8bn
India $50.7bn
Saudi Arabia $48.7bn
Russian Federation $48.5bn
France $44.4bn
Japan $41.7bn
Germany $35.8bn
South Korea $33.5bn
Australia $26.8bn
$575.8bn
Why?
Are we really the world's policemen? Do we want to be?
Is our military industrial capability so incompetent that we have to spend 3X what China spends?
We spend what we spend on defense because "we" want to...imagine what the world could do if we spend the $1.57 trillion the world spends on defense on something that actually helps people...
Yeah, I know, there are lot's of "Evil Losers" and wing nut countries like North Korea and Iran...
-
According to IHS Jane’s Annual Defence Budgets Report the USA spent $633bn...
do they divide that figure into salaries, pensions, benefits, medical care and the rest ? just curious...
-
do they divide that figure into salaries, pensions, benefits, medical care and the rest ? just curious...
Not that I'm aware of...here's as much info that they "give" away...
2016’s $1.57 Trillion Global Defence Spend to Kick off Decade of Growth, IHS Markit Says (http://news.ihsmarkit.com/press-release/2016s-15-trillion-global-defence-spend-kick-decade-growth-ihs-markit-says)
About IHS Markit (www.ihsmarkit.com)
IHS Markit (Nasdaq: INFO) is a world leader in critical information, analytics and solutions for the major industries and markets that drive economies worldwide. The company delivers next-generation information, analytics and solutions to customers in business, finance and government, improving their operational efficiency and providing deep insights that lead to well-informed, confident decisions. IHS Markit has more than 50,000 key business and government customers, including 85 percent of the Fortune Global 500 and the world’s leading financial institutions. Headquartered in London, IHS Markit is committed to sustainable, profitable growth.
I'm sure if one were to pay, one could drill down on the spending by breakdown. But even then I'm sure the true costs such as long term impact of toll war takes on people would be hard to quantify...
-
OMG!!!!
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170525104407-trump-nato-screengrab-large-169.jpg)
Oh god, he's talking again.
By Jasper Juinen/Bloomberg/Getty Images.
TRUMP DROPS THE MIC ON TRAINWRECK NATO MEETING BY CALLING GERMANS “VERY EVIL” (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/donald-trump-germany-evil)
....The world’s classiest man closed by thanking Germany for contributing a portion of the Berlin Wall, and the 9/11 Museum for a remnant from the North Tower, both of which now adorn NATO headquarters’ new grounds, before adding, graciously, “I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost. I refuse to do that.”
Lest you thought that was the moment of peak awkwardness, you underestimated President Donald Trump! Because later, this happened (http://theweek.com/speedreads/701517/trump-reportedly-told-eu-officials-germany-evil):
Trump . . . apparently decided to air his grievances over Germany's trade surplus with the U.S. “The Germans are evil, very evil,” Trump reportedly complained in the meeting, attendees told German newspaper Der Spiegel. “Look at the millions of cars they sell in the U.S. We’ll stop that.” Der Spiegel reported that E.U. Commission leader Jean-Claude Juncker disagreed with Trump, defending the merits of free trade for the global economy. New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman notes that depending on the translation, Trump may have been calling the Germans merely “very bad” and not “very evil.”
In fairness to Trump, it’s possible that he was simply in a poor mood after Macron said bonjour to German Chancellor Angela Merkel before saying hi to him (http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-macron-cooly-ignores-trump-just-long-enough-to-make-it-uncomfortable/) a slight the 45th president presumably wants to bomb Paris over.
Of course, Trump apparently forgot the U.S. can't negotiate a deal with Germany alone. It has to deal with the entire EU, since Germany is a member state. Merkel reminded Trump of this when they met in March (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/17/donald-trump-angela-merkel/99295936/), noting that trade agreements with the U.S. have "not always been all that popular in Germany either."
#MASA
(wanna know what the "S" stands for? Fill in the blank)
-
Press is playing Trump haters like fiddles. Even Daily Kos have now changed it from evil to correct bad. :D
Mathieu von Rohr @mathieuvonrohr
·
7h
Replying to @maggieNYT
The true English quote: "The Germans are bad, very bad. See the millions of cars they are selling in the US. Terrible. We will stop this.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/867864433032298497
-
"White House blows cover of CIA chief in Afghanistan"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/26/white-house-exposes-cia-chief/9586633/
-
"White House blows cover of CIA chief in Afghanistan"
Not sure what you are suggesting. Because shit happened in 2014, it's okay for shit to happen today?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump in Brussels 'The Germans Are Bad, Very Bad' :
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-in-brussels-the-germans-are-bad-very-bad-a-1149330.html
"U.S. President Donald Trump voiced significant displeasure over Germany's trade surplus on Thursday during a meeting with European Union leaders in Brussels. "The Germans are bad, very bad," Trump said, according to meeting participants."
Okay. Everybody who does better is bad.
"According to a report in the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, many EU officials were appalled by how little the Americans appeared to know about trade policy. The guests from Washington seemed not to be aware that EU member states only negotiate trade treaties as a bloc. According to the paper, Trump's chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, claimed during meetings, for example, that different customs tariffs are in place between the U.S. and Germany than between the U.S. and Belgium."
They simply do not get it. Angela Merkel already explained it 12 times (!) to Trump when visiting Washington, on the 13th attempt he seemed to grasp the concept though. Apparently not.
"The new U.S. president finds Germany's surpluses unfair because they necessarily mean that its trading partners have a trade deficit, the U.S. in this case. But the German government has also been criticized within the EU for its trade surplus. In a recent interview with SPIEGEL, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble also said that the surplus was too large.
Still, after numerous meetings between European leaders and Trump along with several attempts to explain international trade policy, the EU thought that progress had been made. As Trump made clear on Thursday, however, that hope was in vain."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump directly scolds NATO allies, says they owe 'massive' sums:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-europe-idUSKBN18K34D
"U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday intensified his accusations that NATO allies were not spending enough on defense and warned of more attacks like this week's Manchester bombing unless the alliance did more to stop militants.
In unexpectedly abrupt remarks as NATO leaders stood alongside him, Trump said certain member countries owed "massive amounts of money" to the United States and NATO -- even though allied contributions are voluntary, with multiple budgets."
That's not how the system works, though.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump and other leaders clash on trade, climate at G7:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-idUSKBN18L2ZU
"Leaders from the world's major industrialized nations began talks on Friday at a G7 summit in Sicily which is expected to expose deep divisions with U.S. President Donald Trump over trade and climate change.
The two-day summit, at a cliff-top hotel overlooking the Mediterranean, began a day after Trump blasted NATO allies for spending too little on defense and described Germany's trade surplus as "very bad" in a meeting with EU officials in Brussels.
After receiving warm receptions in Saudi Arabia and Israel, Trump's confrontational stance with long-standing partners in Europe cast a cloud over the meeting in Taormina, where leaders are due to discuss terrorism, Syria, North Korea and the global economy."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not sure what you are suggesting. Because shit happened in 2014, it's okay for shit to happen today?
Just to show the hypocrisy of the president-loving press vs. president-hating press. And nobody called for impeachment back than, although the cover was actually blown, vs. speculating that it might be blown if someone does a multi-step reverse engineering.
-
Just to show the hypocrisy of the president-loving press vs. president-hating press. And nobody called for impeachment back than, although the cover was actually blown, vs. speculating that it might be blown if someone does a multi-step reverse engineering.
Thanks for explaining, much clearer now. No matter who does it, it's bad, very bad.
U.S. takes 'full responsibility' for Manchester intelligence leaks: Tillerson:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-manchester-tillerson-idUSKBN18M1DS
"The United States government takes full responsibility for leaks of the British police investigation into Monday's deadly bomb attack in Manchester which killed 22 people, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Friday.
Appearing alongside British foreign secretary Boris Johnson in London, Tillerson said that "all across America, hearts are broken" at news of the attack on people attending a concert by U.S. pop singer Ariana Grande."
The question that remains now is; Why was it leaked? Was it a reaction to Trump saying too much off-script to the Russian Foreign Minister?
Cheers,
Bart
-
America First!
(well maybe this is what Trump was thinking of)
Trump appears to push NATO's newest leader as he makes his way to the front of the pack at a summit
(http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-push-shove-nato-montenegro-dusko-markovic-2017-5)
(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/59270e10621e6c0c268b4910-514/stevekopack%20ontwitterdidtrumpjustshoveanothernatoleadertobeinthefrontofthegrouphttpstcobl1r2aueld.jpg)
#TheUglyAmerican
I actually gasped out loud when I saw this video.
-
Just to show the hypocrisy of the president-loving press vs. president-hating press. And nobody called for impeachment back than, although the cover was actually blown, vs. speculating that it might be blown if someone does a multi-step reverse engineering.
That's not really accurate though. The press was no fan of the Bush administration, but didn't call for impeachment over the Valerie Plame incident. The difference is that while every president is going to make mistakes, bad calls, and take blatantly political positions, Trump seems to be unique in the scope of his ineptitude and ignorance so far..
-
That's not really accurate though. The press was no fan of the Bush administration, but didn't call for impeachment over the Valerie Plame incident. The difference is that while every president is going to make mistakes, bad calls, and take blatantly political positions, Trump seems to be unique in the scope of his ineptitude and ignorance so far..
Because he's 'better' at it...
Cheers,
Bart
-
He criticized Germany for having a positive trade balance? He threatened taxes (assume he meant import duties) on BMW because they build a lot of cars. But BMW has an american plant from which they export to the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_US_Manufacturing_Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_US_Manufacturing_Company).
Was he drunk?
-
...
Was he drunk?
...
no FANTASTIC
VERY BAD
he is TRUMP
-
Too funny.
Emmanuel Macron swerves past Donald Trump to embrace Angela Merkel
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/emmanuel-macron-swerves-past-donald-trump-embrace-angela-merkel/
"Emmanuel Macron swerves to avoid Donald Trump and embrace German chancellor Angela Merkel instead, in a video that has emerged of the apparent snub in Brussels.
The newly elected French President tweeted the video of himself walking up the red carpet towards the group of Nato leaders, seemingly headed straight towards the US President.
But at the last second Mr Macron ducks to the right and shares a warm embrace with Mrs Merkel, leaving Mr Trump to lower his hands awkwardly back down to his sides.
Mr Macron then proceeds to greet other leaders including Mr Trump, who grabs his French counterpart's hand with a characteristic pumping action."
Cheers,
Bart
-
My eyes were on Kolinda Grabar in that red dress. :D
-
Also funny...
At the U.S. ambassador's residence in Brussels, Trump congratulated Macron on his "tremendous victory."
Then, the highly anticipated moment of truth came: The two went in for the handshake. MACRON WAS PREPARED.
(http://wdef.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/cbsnews1.cbsistatic.comhubir201705253d602217-1111-4656-a0ba-85472abac473resize620xfb2b76a6ec665fe35ad8ee71ce5ce97errtx37kqn-cae5b962896ea6b486459e0a9d61688dd1962446.jpg)
(http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/05/25/65983dd1-43ba-4470-8b2f-846726841072/resize/620x/f01028943c172ac80a54a77c284501c4/rtx37kp3.jpg)
White knuckles much?
Did that HURT? Donald Trump and Macron engage in 'white-knuckle, jaw-clenching' handshake (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/809247/Donald-Trump-Emmanuel-Macron-handshake-Melania-Trump-France-Brussels-US-president)
The United States president and Mr Macron gazed into each others eyes as they both opted for a firm grip, complete with white knuckles and grimaces.
But it was the French president who appeared to keep the handshake going as Mr Trump attempted to pull away.
France 24’s White House pool reporter Philip Crowther, who was on the scene, said both leaders’ jaws clenched as a result.
He said: "The two presidents, each wearing dark suits and blue ties (Trump's was thick and royal blue; Macron's was skinny and navy) sat in antique cream-upholstered arm chairs, with two American and French flags behind them.
"They shook hands for an extended period of time. Each president gripped the other's hand with considerable intensity, their knuckles turning white and their jaws clenching and faces tightening."
You go Emmanuel!
So, do Macron's hands look big or does Trump's look small?
Yes...
-
Actually, it seems Trump's behavior at NATO is not helping America...
Trump Hands Putin a Win at First NATO Meeting (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/25/trump-nato-meeting-brussels-defense-spending-transatlantic-alliance/)
European leaders hoped President Donald Trump would explicitly endorse NATO’s bedrock collective defense clause during his visit to Brussels on Thursday, after he spent the presidential campaign suggesting it was hollow. He didn’t.
In a speech at the opening of NATO’s new headquarters, Trump slammed U.S. allies for not spending enough on defense before an uncomfortable-looking audience of fellow heads of state, and in between sparked awkward run-ins with other leaders that underscored strained U.S.-European relations since Trump took office.
--snip--
And while Trump addressed the threat of terrorism, he didn’t harp on the Russian threat to allay allies’ fears, in another swing-and-miss. Baltic countries, in particular, are worried about massing Russian military forces that could overwhelm them, and were hoping for the typical, ironclad U.S. commitment, but left disappointed. “It certainly fell short of what the Europeans were hoping to hear,” said Derek Chollet, a former senior Pentagon official now with the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “These are allies who are extremely worried about their own future. They see the Russia threat as an existential one. They live with it every day,” he told Foreign Policy.
Experts and former U.S. officials, shocked at the omissions, slammed Trump.
“Trump’s behavior at this NATO meeting in Brussels is a definitive win for Putin,” said Jorge Benitez, a NATO expert at the Atlantic Council who was at the NATO confab. “It just increases a lot of the doubts and fears and concerns our allies have had,” he told FP.
“Every US President since Truman has pledged support for Article 5–that US will defend Europe. Not so Trump today at #NATO. Major mistake,” former U.S. ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns wrote on Twitter.
Others thought if Trump continued to harp allies on defense spending, it could backfire. “It can have a blowback effect where countries say to Trump, well screw you I’m not going to go home and appear to my people that I’m knuckling under to you,” said Jim Townsend, who was the Pentagon’s top NATO envoy up until January. “That’s puny-minded. That’s not a tactic worthy of the American president,” he said.
And, before you ask, this is from foreignpolicy.com (http://foreignpolicy.com) which is rated Least-Biased.
But, it kinda gets worse...it seems our allies are actually laughing at Trump...
(http://shareblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/AP_17145596171318.jpg)
Watch our allies laugh and whisper as Trump reveals he still has no idea how NATO works
He had no clue every world leader was laughing at him.
Watch the vid. Priceless!
MSNBC Video (http://shareblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/MSNBC_05-25-2017_10.42.30.mp4?_=1)
-
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Just arrived in Italy for the G7. Trip has been very successful.
We made and saved the USA many billions of dollars and millions of jobs.
5:13 AM - 26 May 2017
10,624 10,624 Retweets 50,118 50,118 likes
Hum...
Did Donald Trump's trip create or save 'millions' of jobs? (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/26/donald-trump/did-donald-trumps-trip-create-or-save-millions-job/)
Our ruling
Trump said that deals struck on his first foreign trip as president created and saved "millions of jobs."
We can’t know for sure how many jobs will be created or saved -- nor, despite the certainty of his language, does Trump -- but the evidence at this point is so thin and so premature as to be little more than puffery or wishful thinking. We rate the statement False.
BTW, politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/) is rated as Least Biased (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/) by mediabiasfactcheck.com (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com)
-
Kolinda does look good in that red dress and she is probably laughing when Trump said " I never asked, once, what the new NATO headquarters cost – I refuse to do that.” :D
-
... every world leader...
World leaders!? Bunch of freeloaders! Soon to be vassals.
-
I actually gasped out loud when I saw this video.
Apparently, "racist" Trump just got new followers, after pushing aside a two-cent contributor to NATO:
https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/videos/463047367373592/
-
While you are mocking Trump:
-
While you are mocking Trump:
So you have some evidence to suggest that the Manchester bombing was done by a refugee or are you just providing an example of fake news?
Our experience may be different, but here, at least, the intelligence agencies see no issue with refugees and terrorism:
https://youtu.be/p1aQfSQCHAg
-
So you have some evidence to suggest that the Manchester bombing was done by a refugee...
Immigrant, same difference. It doesn't really matter how they got there, and in which generation.
-
Immigrant, same difference. It doesn't really matter how they got there, and in which generation.
And there it is...true colors.
Course, nothing about the Manchester bombing has anything to do with Trump, so your attempt at deflecting criticism of Trump by trying to use a tragic event as some sort of shiny object is pretty scurrilous IMHO...but it wouldn't be the first time...
-
...nothing about the Manchester bombing has anything to do with Trump..
Really!? Nothing? Except that it got him elected? The promise to prevent the cancer spreading here?
-
Really!? Nothing? Except that it got him elected? The promise to prevent the cancer spreading here?
How's that Muslim Travel Ban working for ya?
Yes, Trump was very successful at spreading FUD and hate. That helps us how?
I don't suppose you might be related to Denton County Sheriff, Tracy Murphree?
(http://www.khou.com/img/resize/content.wfaa.com/photo/2017/05/23/0425sheriffdenton_1461625165628_1914944_ver1.0_1495568105558_9537574_ver1.0.jpg?preset=534-401)
That's the guy who posted a "warning" on his Facebook page. (https://www.facebook.com/tracy.murphree.5/posts/10213499408625536?pnref=story)
Pay attention to what you see in Manchester England tonight. Pay attention to what is happening in Europe. This is what happens when you disarm your citizens....
Yeah, probably no relation huh? Just a similar point of view?
-
Immigrant, same difference. It doesn't really matter how they got there, and in which generation.
You're an immigrant, right? Are you off to the local federal penitentiary to request voluntary incarceration (you know, since "same difference" and all that)?
-
Oh, and Ariane Grande and "Islam is love" comment at a Clinton rally in 2016?
Never happened.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/ariana-grande-said-islam-love/
More fake news from Slob.
-
Art, Class and Eloquence- Entries in the Yad Vashem guestbook, the Holocaust memorial in Israel, to commemorate the 6 million victims
Obama - 2008
"I am grateful to Yad Vashem and all of those responsible for this remarkable institution," Obama's note in the guest book said. "At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man's potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise up from tragedy and remake our world."
"Let our children come here, and know this history, so that they can add their voices to proclaim 'never again.' And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims, but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit."
Bush - 2008
"God bless Israel," Bush wrote in his note. According to the Associated Press, the memorial chairman said Bush had tears in his eyes as he toured the memorial, and he reportedly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the US should have bombed Auschwitz to stop the genocide.
When first lady Laura Bush visited the memorial in May 2005, she wrote a longer message:
"Each life is precious. Each memory calls us to action to honor those lost. We committ (sic) ourselves to reject hatred and to teach tolerance and live in peace."
Clinton - 2009
"Yad Vashem is a testament to the power of truth in the face of denial, the resilience of the human spirit in the face of despair, the triumph of the Jewish people over murder and destruction and a reminder to all people that the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten," Clinton's note said. "God bless Israel and its future."
Trump - 2017
"It is a great honor to be here with all of my friends — so amazing and will never forget!" Trump wrote in a note signed by him and first lady Melania Trump.
-
re Manchester, published yesterday:
“… Meanwhile, MI5 revealed it is currently probing 500 active investigations which relate to 3,000 people. It added that it has foiled five terror plots in the last eight weeks … “
Shows the scale of the problem facing European security services.
Really!? Nothing? Except that it got him elected? The promise to prevent the cancer spreading here?
-
And speech excerpts of the American leaders at the NATO summit
Obama at the NATO summit after the Russian invasion of Crimea:
First and foremost, we have reaffirmed the central mission of the Alliance. Article 5 enshrines our solemn duty to each other—“an armed attack against one … shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is a binding, treaty obligation. It is non-negotiable. And here in Wales, we’ve left absolutely no doubt—we will defend every Ally.
George W. Bush expressed that same thought after NATO expansion in 2002.
Nations in the family of NATO, old or new, know this: Anyone who would choose you for an enemy also chooses us for an enemy. Never again in the face of aggression will you stand alone.
As a candidate, Donald Trump had expressed doubt about the point of both NATO and Article 5. His pro-Putin tilt is notorious, culminating in blurting highly secret information to the Russian foreign minister in an Oval Office meeting from which American media were barred. On May 25, he was literally speaking at the dedication of—in words that appeared at the top of his printed text—the unveiling of a memorial to Article 5 at NATO’s new headquarters. And here is all he had to say on that score: "We will never forsake the friends who stood by our side.” That’s a sweet thought, but it’s not a guarantee.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trumps-moral-holiday/528327/
-
So you have some evidence to suggest that the Manchester bombing was done by a refugee...
Immigrant, same difference.
Say what?
So someone forced to leave those whom they love and their home and everything they possess to save their own life is, according to you, no different from someone who for financial reasons tries his luck in another country?
You've got to be kidding, and in poor taste at that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Anti-Trump
In April 2017, a bar called Coup opened to great curiosity in New York’s East Village. Bars open in the Village virtually every week, but what made Coup such a big story was its purpose: all of its profits are going to organizations being threatened or defunded by the current President. Coup is a protest bar, and the protest is against Donald Trump.. \...
Continued \... (https://magazine.tablethotels.com/en/2017/05/the-anti-trump/)
(https://cdn1.tablethotels.com/media/ecs/global/magazine/story-images/052717/death.jpg)
-
The Anti-Trump
Continued \... (https://magazine.tablethotels.com/en/2017/05/the-anti-trump/)
(https://cdn1.tablethotels.com/media/ecs/global/magazine/story-images/052717/death.jpg)
Very interesting idea, I wonder if it will stimulate opening of more similar places.
The other unmentioned benefit endorsed by this restaurater is the promotion of a plant-based meals - move away from meat, dairy, and seaafood.
-
Finally ZB is dead :D
-
You're an immigrant, right? Are you off to the local federal penitentiary to request voluntary incarceration (you know, since "same difference" and all that)?
You know better than that. Better than the non sequitur you attempted. You know perfectly well that I had in mind a Muslim immigrant, given the context and the illustrations in the same post.
-
... So someone forced to leave those whom they love and their home and everything they possess to save their own life is, according to you, no different from someone who for financial reasons tries his luck in another country?...
The current tsunami in Europe is a mixture of both. Besides, regardless of the initial reason, their baggage remains the same. Are you saying no refugee has been involved in terrorism? There are dozens of examples in Europe and here. Are you saying that refugees are somehow a different breed than their brethren? That they feel a special type of gratitude toward those who helped them and received them with open arms and would never respond to the siren call of their faith? Then why terror attacks in Germany and Sweden, for instance, two countries known for the warmest welcome?
-
Oh, and Ariane Grande and "Islam is love" comment at a Clinton rally in 2016?
Never happened.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/ariana-grande-said-islam-love/
More fake news from Slob.
I posted the meme in a metaphorical sense. Besides, based on the very link you provided, the conclusion wasn't "never happened," but "unproven." The same link states that she is known, without any doubt, to have said that she hates America. The same link states that she sent warm wishes in writing to her Muslim fans on at least one occasion. So, connecting the dots in a metaphorical sense may result in an unproven, but highly likely sentiment.
Now I fully expect you to debunk that Lieutenant Columbo never said what's in that meme I posted either.
-
re Manchester, published yesterday:
“… Meanwhile, MI5 revealed it is currently probing 500 active investigations which relate to 3,000 people. It added that it has foiled five terror plots in the last eight weeks … “
Shows the scale of the problem facing European security services.
Who would have thought that Manoli would help me with a quote, but, hey, thanks, bro! :)
For those who insist it is all about "a few mentally disturbed," here is a "fake news" from a know "ultra-right wing source," CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/europe/paris-attacks-threats/
A couple of quotes from the article (emphasis mine):
French President Francois Hollande this summer said intelligence services were uncovering evidence of new terrorist plotting every week.
Surveillance files have been opened on more than 5,000 suspected Islamic extremists in France, but security services only have the manpower and resources to monitor a small fraction of these numbers 24/7. Around 1,000 have traveled to Syria and Iraq to fight jihad or are in transit there, and those are just the ones French authorities know about.
The numbers are staggering... Throughout Europe, more than 6,000 extremists are estimated to have traveled to Syria and Iraq, with 1,500 having returned.
I hope the Supreme Court will overturn the lower, aging-hippies, "long-march-through-institutions" courts, to prevent the cancer from spreading here. If not, I am moving to Canada ;)
-
How fitting that it is totally empty ;D ;D ;D
Coup is a protest bar, and the protest is against Donald Trump.
The Anti-Trump
Continued \... (https://magazine.tablethotels.com/en/2017/05/the-anti-trump/)
(https://cdn1.tablethotels.com/media/ecs/global/magazine/story-images/052717/death.jpg)
-
Who would have thought that Manoli would help me with a quote, but, hey, thanks, bro! :)
.. and why wouldn't I help you, Slobodan - if it helps you stay objective, reasoned and focused ? :)
-
2 1/2 min. video clip sequence from the Grumpy7 summit. Main Grump and the others also in similar G-mood. But the accompanying music is quite uplifting.
http://www.spiegel.de/video/donald-trump-auf-europareise-rueckblick-in-szenen-video-1770115.html
-
The current tsunami in Europe is a mixture of both. Besides, regardless of the initial reason, their baggage remains the same.
Not quite the same. Most were persecuted by their Muslim (some of the Sunni faction others of the Shia faction) fellow countrymen, others by people who happen to have other faiths, and others were bombed/gassed by the Western forces or Russian or Turkish forces.
Are you saying no refugee has been involved in terrorism?
Are you saying that all refugees have been involved in terrorism (which would be logical if just being a Muslim automatically leads the majority to become Jihadi), or could there perhaps be other reasons for some, very few, of the people turning to Radicalism / Extremism? We see similar things with (alt-)Right-wing Extremism / Left-wing Extremism / Environmental Extremism / pick your flavor of extremism. These are not normal people, they can have (and some act driven by) all kinds of faiths/beliefs/misconceptions/dogmas. Some could believe in the flying spaghetti monster as their deity, it does not make a real difference. The only thing that matters is that these losers got actively radicalized by other extremists to do their dirty work.
The process of radicalization is becoming better understood as we take the time to study it, and not just label it with something convenient, like Islam.
There are dozens of examples in Europe and here.
Examples of what? Extremism/radicalization? That's a process, one isn't born as an extremist, and just having one faith or another is also not determining that outcome.
Are you saying that refugees are somehow a different breed than their brethren? That they feel a special type of gratitude toward those who helped them and received them with open arms and would never respond to the siren call of their faith?
No, that would be the lazy approach, not trying to understand their individual motivations.
Then why terror attacks in Germany and Sweden, for instance, two countries known for the warmest welcome?
Which demonstrates your lack of understanding, the lack of investing in finding out what the real motivation is. Slapping on a label, e.g. Muslim, is downright lazy and stupid.
The recent lorry attack in Sweden was done by a guy who was denied a refugee status (because he apparently was no refugee) and thus was supposed to have left the country for months already, except that he went into hiding. He was an illegal, without work, without legal access to money/food, no medical care available, no prospects whatsoever. These people are easy targets for actors who's job it is to recruit and radicalize these people.
Germany has suffered a number of terrorist attacks over decades, some of the perpetrators had mental issues, some were traumatized with no proper treatment, some were illegals, some were right-wing extremists, some claimed to be religiously inspired. Again, also easy targets for actors who's job it is to recruit and radicalize these people if they needed more steering than the internet to self-radicalize.
France has a very different situation with many people coming in from the former French colonies, and not being well coached/integrated/assimilated into the French society. Adding to that, they (temporarily) took in a large number of refugees from the Near Eastern countries. Large numbers of these people, if even legal immigrants or citizens, have low social status, are unemployed, have no future prospects, and are easy targets to actors who's job it is to recruit and radicalize these people.
The UK also had problems with the radicalization of people without prospects (or with mental instability).
Belgium also had problems, with local criminals with prior convictions, no prospects, the rest of what developed is history.
If people like Trump start discriminating based on faith or even country of birth, it will only feed these sentiments of exclusion, a good foundation for radicalization. US judges do not agree with Trump.
In blow to Trump, U.S. appeals court refuses to reinstate travel ban:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSKBN18L2IO
"In a stinging rebuke to President Donald Trump, a U.S. appeals court refused on Thursday to reinstate his travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority nations, calling it discriminatory and setting the stage for a showdown in the Supreme Court.
The decision, written by Chief Judge Roger Gregory, described Trump's executive order in forceful terms, saying it uses "vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination." "
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. ‘Final act of bravery’: Men who were fatally stabbed trying to stop anti-Muslim rants identified
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/27/man-fatally-stabs-2-on-portland-ore-train-after-they-interrupted-his-anti-muslim-rants-police-say/?utm_term=.20d1f176b237
"Two men were stabbed to death and one injured Friday on a light-rail train in Portland, Ore., after they tried to intervene when another passenger began “ranting and raving” and shouting anti-Muslim hate speech at two young women, police said."
So who's the terrorist here?
-
You know better than that. Better than the non sequitur you attempted. You know perfectly well that I had in mind a Muslim immigrant, given the context and the illustrations in the same post.
Ah, a special pleading only against Muslim immigrants. You didn't like it when your status was brought up for discussion under a broad stroke? Funny, that.
You ignored the link from an expert about immigrants and terrorism, too?
-
Ah, a special pleading only against Muslim immigrants...
That's where terrorism comes from.
-
I posted the meme in a metaphorical sense. Besides, based on the very link you provided, the conclusion wasn't "never happened," but "unproven." The same link states that she is known, without any doubt, to have said that she hates America. The same link states that she sent warm wishes in writing to her Muslim fans on at least one occasion. So, connecting the dots in a metaphorical sense may result in an unproven, but highly likely sentiment.
Now I fully expect you to debunk that Lieutenant Columbo never said what's in that meme I posted either.
It never happened. The meme was produced, that's abundantly clear, to play on the current events. She was never at a Clinton rally, so she clearly couldn't be accurately quoted on something she said somewhere she wasn't. It's not that hard.
You would think that if she were a "Muslim-sympathiser" (which is essentially how you're trying to portray her, with every possible negative connotation) that it wouldn't have been one of her concerts that was targeted, or would you like to suggest that she was in on it somehow?
You can posit absurd things all you like and try to duck and weave with fictional characters as part of your defence, but you were wrong and the more you try to weasel your way out of that the deeper you get. You're a peddler of fake news because you don't have any real news to support your position.
You don't like Muslims but you like Trump, but Trump is boasting about a hundred billion dollar arms deal to the Saudis. You know, Muslims, and the origin of all the 9/11 attackers. It goes beyond just normal hypocrisy.
You didn't like your immigrant status being discussed earlier, you said it was non sequitur, but given your ethnic origins it's pretty obvious they have a large part to play in how you feel about Muslims.
-
That's where terrorism comes from.
Right, never been a terrorist from anywhere else. Got it.
-
Right, never been a terrorist from anywhere else. Got it.
99% of all terrorist acts in the last two decades comes from Islamic radicals. Yes, there were IRA and Basques, etc., but they mostly phoned in advance, to prevent civilian casualties, not target them. And they did not have any global reach nor desire. No other cause of terrorism has global aspirations and reach like the Islamic one.
-
...You didn't like your immigrant status being discussed...
Knock yourself out.
...given your ethnic origins it's pretty obvious they have a large part to play in how you feel about Muslims.
That is exactly the point. 500 years under them teaches you a thing or two about them. You, and most others here, on the other hand, only have a vague theoretical idea, totally unaware of the danger when they reach a critical mass. Europe, however, is starting to learn. The hard way.
-
99% of all terrorist acts in the last two decades comes from Islamic radicals. Yes, there were IRA and Basques, etc., but they mostly phoned in advance, to prevent civilian casualties, not target them. And they did not have any global reach nor desire. No other cause of terrorism has global aspirations and reach like the Islamic one.
99%? Really.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1970.E2.80.93present
Now, some of the things included I wouldn't count as terrorist attacks, but even taking those out, it's hardly 99%. It's certainly not 99% in the US, for example.
Is terrorism getting worse? More widespread? More dangerous? Yes. Is most of it Islamic radicals? Yes that's a fair figure. Do most Muslims support it? It doesn't appear so. Have most terror attacks come from Muslim immigrants or refugees? No.
-
Knock yourself out.
That is exactly the point. 500 years under them teaches you a thing or two about them. You, and most others here, on the other hand, only have a vague theoretical idea, totally unaware of the danger when they reach a critical mass. Europe, however, is starting to learn. The hard way.
Right, you have 500 years experience, Slob? For the most part, you know what you've been told which is the same as most of us. Again, why aren't you protesting about Trump arming the Saudis?
-
Right, you have 500 years experience, Slob?...
Are you deliberately shortening my name in a derogatory fashion (slob = a lazy and slovenly person)? Since I believe in free speech, once again, knock yourself out. But if not (deliberate), the proper shortening would be Slobo.
As for Saudis, I believe I stated in some other threads that it is a pity we are friends with such a society. But, realistically, given the choice of them or Iran... Besides, it is a good business. Hundred billions is not a small change. It is still better to get it (billions) from them, then to give it (billions) to Iran, as Obama did.
-
A good read:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/what-explains-the-idiocy-of-the-liberal-elite-its-their-education/#
"What Explains the Idiocy of the Liberal Elite"
Let’s try to explain to ordinary people what drives the liberal elite. The elite persists with some very strange and disturbing views. Are its members brainwashed, snobbish or just so remote from real life that they do not understand how things work? What is the pathology of liberal eliteness?
The elite are supposed to be educated. So why are they so silly?
Ah! There is a clue. That word ‘educated’. What does ‘educated’ mean today? It doesn’t mean they know a lot about the world. It means they have been injected with the views and assumptions of their teachers. They have been taught by people who themselves have little experience of the real world. They have been indoctrinated with certain ideas.
-
... not being well coached/integrated/assimilated into the French society. Adding to that, they (temporarily) took in a large number of refugees from the Near Eastern countries. Large numbers of these people, if even legal immigrants or citizens, have low social status, are unemployed, have no future prospects, and are easy targets to actors who's job it is to recruit and radicalize these people...
Terrorism apologist of the year!
So, "not being well coached/integrated/assimilated...have low social status, are unemployed, have no future prospects..." are the real causes of terrorism?
Europe is full of Gypsies, who certainly fit the above description pretty well. None of which resorted to terrorism. Europe was full of gastarbeiters (guest workers) from Greece, Turkey, former Yugoslavia (my grandfather and uncle too), etc., who also could fit the above description, at least in terms of being marginalized and having a low social status. None of them resorted to terrorism.
So how is it that only one particular group of immigrants and refugees is so susceptible to radicalisation? What does that group and its indoctrinators have in common? Where does that indoctrination start and take place? Take the time to study those questions too, and maybe you'll discover the real reason for that particular terrorism.
-
How many "baizuo"-s (literally, the "white left") we have in this thread?
https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/chenchen-zhang/curious-rise-of-white-left-as-chinese-internet-insult
baizuo is [a derogatory term] used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.
-
If people like Trump start discriminating based on faith or even country of birth, it will only feed these sentiments of exclusion, a good foundation for radicalization. US judges do not agree with Trump.
We have a right to defend ourselves as do you. We are at war with Islamist Jihadi terrorists. Many countries have terrorists who would immigrate to our country (and yours). Your argument would have allowed German and Japanese nationals to immigrate to the US during WWII. A restrictive immigration plan with certain vetting is reasonable. Most sane countries even do that in peacetime.
-
Islamist terrorists were radicalized long before Trump. The World Trade Center was first bombed by Al Khaida in 1994, 7 years before the second bombing on 911.
-
A good read:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/what-explains-the-idiocy-of-the-liberal-elite-its-their-education/#
"What Explains the Idiocy of the Liberal Elite"
A good read if you like right wing wingnutz with an English accent...spectator.co.uk (https://www.spectator.co.uk) (rated as Right-Center Bias) is "just" to the left of Fox News. I'm sure you would love to watch to him speak James Bartholomew introduces his new book, 'The Welfare of Nations'. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRfw4r1P_Ig) and ends his opinions with the claim he coined the term ‘virtue signalling’ in The Spectator (not sure why he thinks he's the first to use it since wikipedia says that Virtue signaling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling) has be been used before James used it and the article says "Bartholomew incorrectly claimed to have invented the phrase") It should be noted that Virtue signaling is a trolling term favored by the alt-right.
James thinks educated people are "silly"...
Why would anyone support Hillary Clinton — a ruthless, charmless Washington insider with socialist tendencies? Why do lawyers, churchmen, the BBC and, indeed, most educated people support the EU — an organisation as saturated with smug self-righteousness as it is with corruption; one which created the euro, which in turn has caused millions of people to be unemployed; an organisation which combines a yawning democratic deficit with incompetence over immigration and economic growth?
The elite are supposed to be educated. So why are they so silly?
Ah! There is a clue. That word ‘educated’. What does ‘educated’ mean today? It doesn’t mean they know a lot about the world. It means they have been injected with the views and assumptions of their teachers. They have been taught by people who themselves have little experience of the real world.
--snip--
The elite’s fuller education in the key beliefs explains why it was for Remain and Clinton. They voted for Remain because, in doing so, they demonstrated they were not racist but tolerant internationalists. They were not put off by the incompetence of the EU, because they have been taught an irrational respect for government — even EU government. They also perceived the EU as more likely to pursue environmentalism than an elected British government. You could say they were trained to vote for Remain. Clinton, too, ticked every box. Members of the elite could effortlessly show how feminist they were by wanting her to win. She was also the embodiment of the other key tenets: more equality, more government and anti-racism.
So, James sounds like a right ass, voted to leave the EU, hates woman's rights, hates any form of welfare and believes in allowing inequality for all (I won't mention the fact he sounds racist). Sounds like he would fit right in the GOP here in America...doesn't surprise me that James Bartholomew's views fit right in your echo chamber Slobodan...
It might not surprise anybody that I think he's full of shyte.
-
The World Trade Center was first bombed by Al Khaida in 1994
Alan, do a Google search on 'Al Khaida' and see what happens ...
-
How many "baizuo"-s (literally, the "white left") we have in this thread?
Yeah, ok...but China isn't uh, a bastion of knowledge and freedom...
From the same article:
Finally, it should to be noted that the internet in China is subject to strict censorship. The Chinese government has been known to hire a large number of ‘internet commentators’ (known as the 50 cent party) to fabricate social media posts. According to a recent research conducted by scholars at Harvard University, 29% of the ‘accused 50 cent posts’ they investigated fall into the category of ‘taunting of foreign countries. It is nonetheless impossible to know whether these accused posts are indeed written by government employees. Similarly, it is hard to tell whether some of the criticisms of baizuo are coming from fabricated commentators-for-hire. However, given the strict censorship regime, criticizing democratic values such as pluralism, tolerance, and solidarity is certainly one of the safest ‘critical’ opinions ordinary citizens can express online.
So, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in what the "Chinese netizens" have to say about us, ya know?
So, did you see this on Fox with Tucker?
-
Enough about the liberal elite, now lets look at "The conservative mind"
The conservative mind has become diseased (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-conservative-mind-has-become-diseased/2017/05/25/523f0964-4159-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d71ea99a6250)
By Michael Gerson Opinion writer May 25
To many observers on the left, the initial embrace of Seth Rich conspiracy theories by conservative media figures was merely a confirmation of the right’s deformed soul. But for those of us who remember that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were once relatively mainstream Reaganites, their extended vacation in the fever swamps is even more disturbing. If once you knew better, the indictment is deeper.
The cruel exploitation of the memory of Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead last summer, was horrifying and clarifying. The Hannity right, without evidence, accused Rich rather than the Russians of leaking damaging DNC emails. In doing so, it has proved its willingness to credit anything — no matter how obviously deceptive or toxic — to defend President Trump and harm his opponents. Even if it means becoming a megaphone for Russian influence.
The basic, human questions are simple. How could conservative media figures not have felt — felt in their hearts and bones — the God-awful ickiness of it? How did the genes of generosity and simple humanity get turned off? Is this insensibility the risk of prolonged exposure to our radioactive political culture? If so, all of us should stand back a moment and tend to the health of our revulsion.
But this failure of decency is also politically symbolic. Who is the politician who legitimized conspiracy thinking at the highest level? Who raised the possibility that Ted Cruz’s father might have been involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Who hinted that Hillary Clinton might have been involved in the death of Vince Foster, or that unnamed liberals might have killed Justice Antonin Scalia? Who not only questioned President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, but raised the prospect of the murder of a Hawaiian state official in a coverup? “How amazing,” Trump tweeted in 2013, “the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s ‘birth certificate’ died in plane crash today. All others lived.”
We have a president charged with maintaining public health who asserts that the vaccination schedule is a dangerous scam of greedy doctors. We have a president charged with representing all Americans who has falsely accused thousands of Muslims of celebrating in the streets following the 9/11 attacks.
In this mental environment, alleging a Rich-related conspiracy was predictable. This is a concrete example of the mainstreaming of destructive craziness.
Those conservatives who believe that the confirmation of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is sufficient justification for the Trump presidency are ignoring Trump’s psychic and moral destruction of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Clinton, with a small number of changed votes, would have defeated Republicans. But Trump is doing a kind of harm beyond anything Clinton could have done. He is changing the party’s most basic moral and political orientations. He is shaping conservatism in his image and ensuring an eventual defeat more complete, and an eventual exile more prolonged, than Democrats could have dreamed.
#MAKEAMERICABATSHITCRAZYAGAIN
-
A good read:
It's so full of hyperbole and dumbed-down misrepresentations, that it's not worth a second thought.
Is that the best you can come up with ?
-
Are you deliberately shortening my name in a derogatory fashion (slob = a lazy and slovenly person)? Since I believe in free speech, once again, knock yourself out. But if not (deliberate), the proper shortening would be Slobo.
Before I respond to anything else, let me apologise. No, I wasn't doing that. Of course I know the term, but it was honestly just a shortening that would typically happen here (Australia). Actually, Slob, Slobbo, or Dan, would all be pretty normal here.
I'll go with Slobo from now on, and again my sincere apologies.
Let us now resume the discussion.
-
As for Saudis, I believe I stated in some other threads that it is a pity we are friends with such a society. But, realistically, given the choice of them or Iran... Besides, it is a good business. Hundred billions is not a small change. It is still better to get it (billions) from them, then to give it (billions) to Iran, as Obama did.
Even though you want to give us 500 years of "experience" in dealing with Muslims? Business makes it OK to arm a group you consider the most dangerous? In particular the origin of the most devastating attacks?
-
...So, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in what the "Chinese netizens" have to say about us, ya know...
Perhaps, but that coincides with what the other half of Americans have to say about you ;)
-
It's so full of hyperbole and dumbed-down misrepresentations, that it's not worth a second thought...
As if the vast majority of anti-Trump or simply loony-left articles isn't? Besides, this particular one is pretty "fair and balanced." In my opinion, of course. It is also my opinion that American universities have become Mao Tsedong's "re-education" camps, i.e., indoctrination centers of the extreme left.
-
Terrorism apologist of the year!
Apologist? Huh?
So, "not being well coached/integrated/assimilated...have low social status, are unemployed, have no future prospects..." are the real causes of terrorism?
You disappoint me Slobodan. Apparently, your mind is so closed to analysis and solutions, that you prefer to dwell in pointing at, and blaming, others (which has never worked).
Europe is full of Gypsies, who certainly fit the above description pretty well. None of which resorted to terrorism. Europe was full of gastarbeiters (guest workers) from Greece, Turkey, former Yugoslavia (my grandfather and uncle too), etc., who also could fit the above description, at least in terms of being marginalized and having a low social status. None of them resorted to terrorism.
Thanks for making my point, there were also many Muslims amongst the groups you described.
So how is it that only one particular group of immigrants and refugees is so susceptible to radicalisation? What does that group and its indoctrinators have in common? Where does that indoctrination start and take place? Take the time to study those questions too, and maybe you'll discover the real reason for that particular terrorism.
The crux is that it is not one group of immigrants and refugees that is so susceptible to radicalization! It can happen to anybody, given the 'right' conditions. Your fixation on Muslims make you blind to that fact.
As an example, in the Netherlands we had several terrorist hijackings, e.g. one in 1975 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Dutch_train_hostage_crisis) when a train was hijacked (the hijacking lasted for 12 days and three hostages were killed), and one in 1977 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Dutch_train_hostage_crisis) (the hijacking lasted for 482 hours (20 days); two hostages and six hijackers were killed). At the same time another group of terrorists took hostages at an elementary school (they took 105 children and five teachers hostage).
Most of the South Molluscan population, where these hijackers came from, adhered to the Calvinist branch of Protestantism, due to the Dutch colonization at that time (not that religion had anything to do with it here either).
Discrimination, e.g. based on religion, can lead to innocent deaths.
Two men stabbed to death on Oregon train trying to stop anti-Muslim rant
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-muslims-portland-idUSKBN18N080
"Christian started shouting ethnic and religious slurs, apparently at the two young women, one of whom wore a Muslim head-covering, the Portland Police Department said in a statement."
Trump's Muslim ban attempts have already had their effect, even without the ban becoming law.
Cheers,
Bart
-
European allies see the two sides of Trump:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-trump-allies-analysis-idUSKBN18O0BP?il=0
"As Trump headed home, European officials were left with mixed feelings: relief that he had been patient enough to listen to their arguments and unsettled by a Jekyll-and-Hyde figure who is still finding his way on the big policy issues.
"It all fits with his strategic ambiguity approach to life," said Julianne Smith of the Centre for a New American Security. "It may do wonders when dealing with adversaries. But it doesn't work when dealing with allies," she said."
Cheers,
Bart
-
... So, did you see this on Fox with Tucker?
No, as I don't watch TV. At this point I pretty much already know what each TV station, including Fox, is going to say, so why bother.
I get my info generally from three sources: Apple News, Google News, and Bing News. The last one I am particularly fond of, as it's opening page is usually a magnificent photograph of the day. But I digress. All three sources are news aggregators, i.e., contain news and articles from a variety of sources. That way I get info from left to right. CNN, HuffPost, MSNBC, Fox, NYT, WaPo, foreign press, etc. Pretty varied, don't you think?
-
No, as I don't watch TV. At this point I pretty much already know what each TV station, including Fox, is going to say, so why bother.
I get my info generally from three sources: Apple News, Google News, and Bing News. The last one I am particularly fond of, as it's opening page is usually a magnificent photograph of the day. But I digress. All three sources are news aggregators, i.e., contain news and articles from a variety of sources. That way I get info from left to right. CNN, HuffPost, MSNBC, Fox, NYT, WaPo, foreign press, etc. Pretty varied, don't you think?
You do realize that these search engines partially filter information based on your prior surfing behavior? Also, information positions can be bought or suppressed, as was demonstrated earlier by different people surfing with the same search terms for info about Hillary Clinton's private email server. Maybe not as severe as Facebook and similar which disseminate fake news, but people do tend to get info that keeps them inside their bubble. and surrounds them with advertizing tuned to their profile.
I prefer to first read News agencies that are objectively classified as least biased (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/current-news/), like Reuters.com, before looking at more biased sources. Depending on the geography and field of expertise, there are other least biased (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/) sources as well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump tells 'confidants' U.S. will leave Paris climate deal: Axios
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN18O00J?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29
"U.S. President Donald Trump has told "confidants," including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave a landmark international agreement on climate change, Axios news outlet reported on Saturday, citing three sources with direct knowledge.
On Saturday, Trump said in a Twitter post he would make a decision on whether to support the Paris climate deal next week.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A source who has been in contact with people involved in the decision told Reuters a couple of meetings were planned with chief executives of energy companies and big corporations and others about the climate agreement ahead of Trump's expected announcement later in the week. It was unclear whether those meetings would still take place."
This can lead to import duties on exported American goods, reduced investments in the USA, and and reduced confidence in a trading partner.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You do realize that these search engines partially filter information based on your prior surfing behavior?...
I knew someone is is going to come back with that. These are not search engines. I do not do search on them. They are news aggregators. When I want to read about something, there is a list of articles to chose from, containing all the diverse sources. So I might check what Fox said and what HuffPost said about the same news.
I prefer to first read News agencies that are objectively classified as least biased, like Reuters.com
Did you just say "objectively classified"!? An oxymoron?
-
... your mind is so closed to analysis and solutions...
Please enlighten us with your analysis and solutions.
... it is not one group of immigrants and refugees that is so susceptible to radicalization! It can happen to anybody, given the 'right' conditions.
But it didn't.
You constantly fail to see the difference between individual causes and isolated incidents vs. a global reach and unified ideology/religion that transcends centuries and continents.
-
Did you just say "objectively classified"!? An oxymoron?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Business makes it OK to arm a group you consider the most dangerous? In particular the origin of the most devastating attacks?
Again, not sure if you deliberately pretend that you do not see the difference or you genuinely do not understand it. I also provided several other reasons, besides business (e.g., Iran), but you latch onto just one. You are now putting me in a position to appear to defend a country and society/ideology that I despise on many levels, but here it goes:
There is a difference between a government and (some of) its people. There are Americans that fight alongside ISIS or commit terrorist acts on their behalf. Do we blame American government for that? SA clearly denounces terrorism (at least officially):
"Saudi Arabia declares Muslim Brotherhood 'terrorist group'"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26487092
This is the strongest warning so far to Saudis fighting with extremist groups in Syria.
The Saudis clearly now fear similar blowback from having encouraged jihadist rebels there as they faced a decade ago when militants returning home attacked domestic targets.
The statement also bans an exhaustive list of activities - including meetings, funding and online communication - that could be seen as supporting such groups.
We do not know for sure if SA is saying one thing and secretly doing something else. We do know they are actively peddling wahhabi teachings, with its medieval (original) interpretations of the Muslim faith, the same one that serves as a justification for ISIS. Their defense might be the difference between words and actions, i.e., they are encouraging wahhabi faith, not wahhabi terrorism. Just like here, where you are free to say whatever you want, but not free to act on it.
In other words, dealing with SA is a complex and complicated balancing act. By the way, that goes way beyond Trump, through both Dem and Reps administrations, for decades.
-
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
Ah, "methodology"! Sounds so scientific and objective. Let's see what their first sentence says (emphasis mine):
When determining bias there isn’t any true scientific formula that is 100% objective. There are objective measures that can be calculated, but ultimately there will be some degree of subjective judgement to determine these.
Enough said. At least they admit it. You don't.
-
... it was honestly just a shortening that would typically happen here (Australia). Actually, Slob, Slobbo, or Dan, would all be pretty normal here.
I'll go with Slobo from now on, and again my sincere apologies...
No problem, thanks.
I often use Dan with Starbuck baristas, so that they don't butcher it writing in on the cup, or trying to pronounce aloud. Something like this: :)
-
Ah, "methodology"! Sounds so scientific and objective. Let's see what their first sentence says (emphasis mine):
Enough said. At least they admit it. You don't.
If only you could read further than what you erroneously think confirms your own bias, you'd see how silly your remark is. Not 100% objective means that some news can have some bias in one aspect of the metrics used, and no bias, or in another direction, for another metric. On average (which is why they score on a number of criteria, like political bias, how factual the information is, and if the media if they provide links to credible, verifiable sources) the result will be, just that, an average, based on objective criteria. They apply an equal weighting on the importance of the scoring parameters for determining bias, one could also use other weightings or more parameters which would also give objective results.
So either you are (convincingly) pretending that you do not understand statistics, or you are really that ignorant.
While I can appreciate your architecture photography, I'm truly disappointed in your unconstructive trollish conduct in these matters, but feel free to go on, we live in a free world.
And to get back to the subject of the thread, despite your attempt to derail it, here's some more news from a least biased source
Senate intelligence panel requests Trump campaign documents: Washington Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-documents-idUSKBN18M2QF
and at the same time:
In shakeup, Trump to set up 'war room' to repel attacks over Russia probe
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-warroom-idUSKBN18M2FU
And,
Trump hits out at 'fake news' following Kushner reports
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kushner-idUSKBN18O0G0
""It is my opinion that many of the leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies made up by the #FakeNews media," Trump wrote in a series of Twitter posts on Sunday.
Shortly after the tweets, Trump's Homeland Security Secretary, John Kelly, made the rounds of Sunday television news shows to praise any so-called back channel communications, especially with Russia, as "a good thing."
The White House faces mounting questions about potential ties between Russia and Trump's presidential campaign, which are also the subject of criminal and congressional investigations. Trump officials were preparing to establish a "war room" to address an issue that has begun to dominate his young presidency."
So, either it's fake news, or it is a good thing. It can't be both, can it? Well, I suppose that with Trump anything's possible.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I knew someone is is going to come back with that. These are not search engines. I do not do search on them. They are news aggregators.
And how do you think they aggregate? They use algorithms. Just like the search engines...how do you think they find what to show you? Do you honestly think they serve up the exact same set of stories for everybody? I know for a fact they everything you google about anything is a major fact in what the algorithms serve to me in google news. So how do I know this? I've got friends who work for google who have explained the basics of google algorithms. The algorithms all produce echo chambers...that's what they are designed todo and they do it too well.
You may delude yourself into believing you are getting unfiltered news, you're not.
The only way to get a randomized selection of news is to have a bunch of news sites and randomly visit them in no particular order or reason.
-
And how do you think they aggregate? They use algorithms. Just like the search engines...how do you think they find what to show you? Do you honestly think they serve up the exact same set of stories for everybody? ...
Asked and answered:
When I want to read about something, there is a list of articles to chose from, containing all the diverse sources. So I might check what Fox said and what HuffPost said about the same news.
I am not reading just Google news. Are you saying that Bing (which I do not use for searches) knows what I am googling? Or Apple news? And even if they did, and exchanged info among them, it is totally irrelevant, as long as I am presented with various sources for the same news.
For instance, the two stories attached in the screenshot below have, collectively, 12 sources. If you click on the "See realtime coverage" and then on "See all 2633 articles" there are...well, 2633 articles to choose from. Among the 12 on the front page, there are:
-The Hill
-WaPo
-CNN
-ABC News
-NYT
-Salt Lake Tribune
-BBC News (which I check as a separate web link as well)
-The Independent
-Axios
-euronews
If your theory is true, and Google et al "know" my political leanings, then Google would show me Fox, Braitbart, etc. (not showing at all in this case), and hide CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc.
-
... I'm truly disappointed in your unconstructive trollish conduct in these matters...
Sorry that my views do not coincide with yours. Apparently, that makes them, by default, ignorant and misguided.
-
Sorry that my views do not coincide with yours. Apparently, that makes them, by default, ignorant and misguided.
If you say so.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If your theory is true, and Google et al "know" my political leanings, then Google would show me Fox, Braitbart, etc. (not showing at all in this case), and hide CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc.
You completely misunderstand what the algorithms are doing...google et al couldn't care less what your political leanings are. They only care you click on their URL so you can be counted as a viewer so they can charge for advertising. The do log when and how often your IP address visits and what urls you click through to. That factor is used in the algorithm in determining what sources to feed you. If you repeatedly click through to a source more often you'll see that source more often.
So you may think you are not being led but you are...
-
You completely misunderstand what the algorithms are doing...google et al couldn't care less what your political leanings are. They only care you click on their URL so you can be counted as a viewer so they can charge for advertising. The do log when and how often your IP address visits and what urls you click through to. That factor is used in the algorithm in determining what sources to feed you. If you repeatedly click through to a source more often you'll see that source more often.
So you may think you are not being led but you are...
And additionally, that information can be sold to companies like Cambridge Analytica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica), which will then aid paying customers with influencing the choices that people make at election time.
"SCL Group calls itself a "global election management agency"[12] known for involvement "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting".[6] SCL’s involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will."
Did Cambridge Analytica influence the Brexit vote and the US election?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/nigel-oakes-cambridge-analytica-what-role-brexit-trump
Scary stuff, where money buys votes, while the people think they decide themselves. It's beyond Orwellian.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. And Reuters have also been reporting on 'Cambridge Analytica' before:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-australia-data-idUSKBN1710M2
-
Which would make you two the only two guys in the universe who are blissfully spared from the media and voting manipulation, right? You are the chosen ones, keepers of the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?
-
... Trump's Homeland Security Secretary, John Kelly, made the rounds of Sunday television news shows to praise any so-called back channel communications, especially with Russia, as "a good thing."...
About that:
Nixon in mid-1969 directed his national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, to establish a secret channel of communication with representatives of the North Vietnamese government in order to accelerate movement toward a settlement... commencing a process that would result twenty-seven months later in the signing of an accord ending U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia.
-
Which would make you two the only two guys in the universe who are blissfully spared from the media and voting manipulation, right? You are the chosen ones, keepers of the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Nobody is spared. Some are just more aware than others. Which is why it's also such a bad move of the FCC to repeal Net Neutrality.
U.S. FCC chairman plans fast-track repeal of net neutrality: sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-idUSKBN1790AP
"The chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is moving quickly to replace the Obama administration's landmark net neutrality rules and wants internet service providers to voluntarily agree to maintain an open internet, three sources briefed on the meeting said Thursday.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump, met on Tuesday with major telecommunications trade groups to discuss his preliminary plan to reverse the rules, the sources said.
The FCC declined to comment but Pai previously said he is committed to ensuring an open internet but feels net neutrality was a mistake.
The rules approved by the FCC under Democratic President Barack Obama in early 2015 prohibited broadband providers from giving or selling access to speedy internet, essentially a "fast lane", to certain internet services over others. As part of that change, the FCC reclassified internet service providers much like utilities."
Without such rules, (to put it simply) ISPs can decide to favor certain data providers, and give faster connections for 'selected' (paying) data providers.
Net neutrality going down in flames as FCC votes to kill Title II rules
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-goes-down-in-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/
Cheers,
Bart
-
About that:
Apples and oranges, different channels? One was a government channel by the national security adviser, the other appears to be designed together with the Russians to keep the US government out of the democratic checks and balances loop.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which would make you two the only two guys in the universe who are blissfully spared from the media and voting manipulation, right? You are the chosen ones, keepers of the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Naw, of course not...but I am aware of the forces out there and do my best to keep an open mind and solicit various points of view and engage in vigorious debate.
And speaking of truth, at least I still hold that truth has importance and value...something it's clear Trump supporters have given up...in painfull point of fact, Trump supporters are immune to the truth.
Outbreak of Dunning Kruger Disease spreads to all 50 states (http://thesciencepost.com/outbreak-of-dunning-kruger-disease-spreads-to-all-50-states/)
[edited to fix link above]
-
Nobody is spared. Some are just more aware than others.
Then there's this...
How Facebook's tentacles reach further than you think (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39947942)
Facebook's collection of data makes it one of the most influential organisations in the world. Share Lab wanted to look "under the bonnet" at the tech giant's algorithms and connections to better understand the social structure and power relations within the company.
A couple of years ago, Vladan Joler and his brainy friends in Belgrade began investigating the inner workings of one of the world's most powerful corporations.
The team, which includes experts in cyber-forensic analysis and data visualisation, had already looked into what he calls "different forms of invisible infrastructures" behind Serbia's internet service providers.
But Mr Joler and his friends, now working under a project called Share Lab, had their sights set on a bigger target.
"If Facebook were a country, it would be bigger than China," says Mr Joler, whose day job is as a professor at Serbia's Novi Sad University.
He reels off the familiar, but still staggering, numbers: the barely teenage Silicon Valley firm stores some 300 petabytes of data, boasts almost two billion users, and raked in almost $28bn (£22bn) in revenues in 2016 alone.
And yet, Mr Joler argues, we know next to nothing about what goes on under the bonnet - despite the fact that we, as users, are providing most of the fuel - for free.
"All of us, when we are uploading something, when we are tagging people, when we are commenting, we are basically working for Facebook," he says.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/B1ED/production/_96194554_4c309035-ee0e-4093-8712-e89839d3caf1.jpg)
Part of a huge flow chart mapping the influence and connections of Mark Zuckerberg
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/D8FD/production/_96194555_3c7a28f4-bf98-4df5-96ea-476616b896cd.jpg)
Share Lab presents its information in minutely detailed tables and flow charts
The scale of Facebook's reach can be stated in raw numbers - but Share Lab's maps make it visceral, in a way that drawing parallels cannot.
"We haven't really got appropriate historical analogies for the tech giants," explains Dr Powles. Their powers, she continues, extend "far beyond" the likes of the East India Company and monopolies of old, such as Standard Oil.
And while many may consider the objectives of Mark Zuckerberg's empire to be rather benign, its outcomes are not always so.
Facebook, argues Dr Powles, "plays to our base psychological impulses" by valuing popularity above all else.
Not that she expects Share Lab's research to lead to a mass Facebook exodus, or a dramatic increase in the scrutiny of tech titans.
"What is most striking is the sense of resignation, the impotence of regulation, the lack of options, the public apathy," says Dr Powles. "What an extraordinary situation for an entity that has power over information - there is no greater power really."
It is this extraordinary dominance that the Share Lab team set out to illustrate.
But Mr Joler is quick to point out that even their grand maps cannot provide an accurate picture of the social media giant's capabilities.
There is no guarantee, for example, that there are not many other algorithms at work that are still heavily guarded trade secrets.
Eeeeeek! Unplug the computer :~)
-
Again, not sure if you deliberately pretend that you do not see the difference or you genuinely do not understand it. I also provided several other reasons, besides business (e.g., Iran), but you latch onto just one. You are now putting me in a position to appear to defend a country and society/ideology that I despise on many levels, but here it goes:
There is a difference between a government and (some of) its people. There are Americans that fight alongside ISIS or commit terrorist acts on their behalf. Do we blame American government for that? SA clearly denounces terrorism (at least officially):
"Saudi Arabia declares Muslim Brotherhood 'terrorist group'"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26487092
We do not know for sure if SA is saying one thing and secretly doing something else. We do know they are actively peddling wahhabi teachings, with its medieval (original) interpretations of the Muslim faith, the same one that serves as a justification for ISIS. Their defense might be the difference between words and actions, i.e., they are encouraging wahhabi faith, not wahhabi terrorism. Just like here, where you are free to say whatever you want, but not free to act on it.
In other words, dealing with SA is a complex and complicated balancing act. By the way, that goes way beyond Trump, through both Dem and Reps administrations, for decades.
I totally agree with what you're saying above, but how do you reconcile that with the simplistic support of just banning all Muslims or calling the whole religion bad (unless you want to call all religions bad, in which case different discussion)?
-
A follow up from Macron...
(http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/trump_macron-800x430.png)
Macron says his white-knuckle handshake with Trump was a 'moment of truth' (http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-macron-says-trump-handshake-was-moment-of-truth-2017-5)
PARIS (AP) — French President Emmanuel Macron says his now famous white-knuckle handshake showdown (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-macron-handshake-2017-5) with U.S. counterpart Donald Trump was "a moment of truth" — designed to show that he's no pushover.
Macron told a Sunday newspaper in France that "my handshake with him, it wasn't innocent."
Macron added: "One must show that you won't make small concessions, even symbolic ones, but also not over-publicize things, either."
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.125921679.3221/sticker,220x200-bg,ffffff-pad,220x200,ffffff.u2.jpg)
:~)
-
... the simplistic support of just banning all Muslims or calling the whole religion bad (unless you want to call all religions bad, in which case different discussion)?
First, I do consider all religions bad, some more than others, depending on historical context. For the rest, I am not sure what/who you had in mind. Me or...? For the record, I do not call for banning all Muslims or saying the whole religion is bad.
I have acquaintances of very different religious backgrounds. In the attached picture from a Christmas (!) gathering, people next to me are: a Syrian doctor, wife, a Syrian hi-tech entrepreneur, wife, Lebanese Catholic, married to a Georgian Orthodox Christian, a Jew psychologist and her doctor husband, a Brit converted to Judaism. They've all (Muslims) been here for more than 20-30 years, drink wine with us, women do not wear hijab, etc. They left on their own volition (a concept known as "self-selection" - i.e., people who selected themselves to come because they value the system and culture they are coming to, not because someone forced them to).
-
I see you needed a Serb to explain it to you ;)
...Vladan Joler and his brainy friends in Belgrade...
-
A follow up from Macron...
(http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/trump_macron-800x430.png)
Macron says his white-knuckle handshake with Trump was a 'moment of truth' (http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-macron-says-trump-handshake-was-moment-of-truth-2017-5)
(https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.125921679.3221/sticker,220x200-bg,ffffff-pad,220x200,ffffff.u2.jpg)
:~)
The surprising thing is that it took that long for someone to teach Trump a lesson on the proper handshaking. And certainly, it didn't hurt Macron's approval rate.
-
Merkel: "Europe can no longer rely on US and Britain"
Trump: "Mission accomplished!"
-
Merkel: "Europe can no longer rely on US and Britain"
Trump: "Mission accomplished!"
congratulations!
It is always easier to brake things down than to built things up.
I guess that is why the US is making so much weapons ( of mass destruction).
With Trumps nuclear head detonating every day this kind of success is guaranteed.
-
If only you could read further than what you erroneously think confirms your own bias, you'd see how silly your remark is. Not 100% objective means that some news can have some bias in one aspect of the metrics used, and no bias, or in another direction, for another metric. On average (which is why they score on a number of criteria, like political bias, how factual the information is, and if the media if they provide links to credible, verifiable sources) the result will be, just that, an average, based on objective criteria. They apply an equal weighting on the importance of the scoring parameters for determining bias, one could also use other weightings or more parameters which would also give objective results.
So either you are (convincingly) pretending that you do not understand statistics, or you are really that ignorant.
While I can appreciate your architecture photography, I'm truly disappointed in your unconstructive trollish conduct in these matters, but feel free to go on, we live in a free world.
And to get back to the subject of the thread, despite your attempt to derail it, here's some more news from a least biased source
Senate intelligence panel requests Trump campaign documents: Washington Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-documents-idUSKBN18M2QF
and at the same time:
In shakeup, Trump to set up 'war room' to repel attacks over Russia probe
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-warroom-idUSKBN18M2FU
And,
Trump hits out at 'fake news' following Kushner reports
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kushner-idUSKBN18O0G0
""It is my opinion that many of the leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies made up by the #FakeNews media," Trump wrote in a series of Twitter posts on Sunday.
Shortly after the tweets, Trump's Homeland Security Secretary, John Kelly, made the rounds of Sunday television news shows to praise any so-called back channel communications, especially with Russia, as "a good thing."
The White House faces mounting questions about potential ties between Russia and Trump's presidential campaign, which are also the subject of criminal and congressional investigations. Trump officials were preparing to establish a "war room" to address an issue that has begun to dominate his young presidency."
So, either it's fake news, or it is a good thing. It can't be both, can it? Well, I suppose that with Trump anything's possible.
Cheers,
Bart
For the heck of it I looked up Reuters, who you think is fair and balanced, and clicked on the first recent Reuters news story I saw. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-trump-allies-analysis-idUSKBN18O0BP?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29
It's full of bias. It's all taken from the European standpoint, what's good for them. It makes backhanded swipes of Trump as a disaster. Yet, it never mentions that he is acting mainly as he promised his voters during the campaign. He doesn't work for Europe or European leaders. If they don't like his pressure, let them get a different job. He doesn't have to kiss their asses. He works for America and Americans and their security and economic needs. Yet this aspect of his position is missing from the article. That's why Reuters is biased to the left and why you are reading biased liberal news even with Reuters.
-
It's full of bias.
Actually based on what I've seen and read it was a pretty darn accurate reporting of the events and what people thought about it. Yes it has a Eropean slant because well Trump and the administration were hiding from the US press. They held zero press briefings so the Ameri point of view became filtered by the Euro point of view because that is who talked to the press.
This was an accurate report that happens to paint a picture of a guy that was played by the professionals. Trump supporters will be pleased because Trump was the tough guy but they won't understand what happened... that Trump embarrassed himself and all of America.
Sad...but not biased. The truth kinda sucks huh?
-
On UK betting markets, the odds on Trump failing to see out his four-year term dropped to 5/6 from evens on Betfair, implying a 55 percent chance that he will leave.
Betfair was also offering odds of 12/5 percent that Trump would leave office this year, implying a 27 percent chance that he would depart. Betfair said that the odds for such an early departure had never been shorter.
Spokeswoman Jessica Bridge added that Ladbrokes had taken close to 50,000 pounds on various wagers over Trump's future, including whether he would be impeached and the year he might be replaced.
This shows all kinds of new business activities created by the recent Trump actions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4514426/UK-punters-early-exit-Trump-bookmakers.html
-
Actually based on what I've seen and read it was a pretty darn accurate reporting of the events and what people thought about it. Yes it has a Eropean slant because well Trump and the administration were hiding from the US press. They held zero press briefings so the Ameri point of view became filtered by the Euro point of view because that is who talked to the press.
This was an accurate report that happens to paint a picture of a guy that was played by the professionals. Trump supporters will be pleased because Trump was the tough guy but they won't understand what happened... that Trump embarrassed himself and all of America.
Sad...but not biased. The truth kinda sucks huh?
You're right, it has a European slant. That's anti-Trump. So you agree with my point. It's biased, not fair and balanced as Bart claimed. They could have added to the article something like, "Although many Europeans leaders were concerned at Trump's antagonistic approach, he was in keeping with much of what he promised his voters - that he would put American interests first."
But you didn't get that because not only are Europeans anti-Trump, many are anti-American. And the reporters there who work for Reuters are as biased in their viewpoints.
-
This shows all kinds of new business activities created by the recent Trump actions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4514426/UK-punters-early-exit-Trump-bookmakers.html
Are these the same bookies who gave Trump an 15% chance of being elected?
-
Take the bet!
-
And speech excerpts of the American leaders at the NATO summit
Obama at the NATO summit after the Russian invasion of Crimea:
First and foremost, we have reaffirmed the central mission of the Alliance. Article 5 enshrines our solemn duty to each other—“an armed attack against one … shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is a binding, treaty obligation. It is non-negotiable. And here in Wales, we’ve left absolutely no doubt—we will defend every Ally.
George W. Bush expressed that same thought after NATO expansion in 2002.
Nations in the family of NATO, old or new, know this: Anyone who would choose you for an enemy also chooses us for an enemy. Never again in the face of aggression will you stand alone.
As a candidate, Donald Trump had expressed doubt about the point of both NATO and Article 5. His pro-Putin tilt is notorious, culminating in blurting highly secret information to the Russian foreign minister in an Oval Office meeting from which American media were barred. On May 25, he was literally speaking at the dedication of—in words that appeared at the top of his printed text—the unveiling of a memorial to Article 5 at NATO’s new headquarters. And here is all he had to say on that score: "We will never forsake the friends who stood by our side.” That’s a sweet thought, but it’s not a guarantee.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trumps-moral-holiday/528327/
So Obama let the Russians hijack Crimea and take part of the eastern Ukraine. He let Russia and Iran move into Syria as power brokers. He let China create militarized islands in the South China Sea against international law and world court rulings. What makes you think he would really have honored NATO commitments if push came to shove?
And if I recall correctly, the same people who honor Bush now were the same people who castigated him about Iraq. They called him a warmonger and should be impeached.
And Trump is what?
-
And Trump is what?
In way WAY over his head...
-
So Obama let the Russians hijack Crimea and take part of the eastern Ukraine. He let Russia and Iran move into Syria as power brokers. He let China create militarized islands in the South China Sea against international law and world court rulings. What makes you think he would really have honored NATO commitments if push came to shove?
And if I recall correctly, the same people who honor Bush now were the same people who castigated him about Iraq. They called him a warmonger and should be impeached.
And Trump is what?
Whoa, you realy expanded on that post! I was much less ambitious in my post, just wanted to compare what did he say vs the previous US leaders.
Nothing that couldn't be fixed by hiring a good speech writer.
-
Whoa, you realy expanded on that post! I was much less ambitious in my post, just wanted to compare what did he say vs the previous US leaders.
Nothing that couldn't be fixed by hiring a good speech writer.
He won the election because his voters appreciated his frankness if not his ineloquence. He's shaken up the European leaders just like he did the Republicans who ran against him in the Primary. At least he didn't call them names like Lying Ted, Low Energy Bush and Little Marco.
-
He has shaken them alright. Unfortunately, not in a wise and respectable way.
Trump's Trip Was a Catastrophe for US-Europe Relations (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/trump-nato-germany/528429/)
-
He has shaken them alright. Unfortunately, not in a wise and respectable way.
Trump's Trip Was a Catastrophe for US-Europe Relations (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/trump-nato-germany/528429/)
Well, Obama was respectable, eloquent, passionate, inspirational, a really nice guy who they smiled to his face and laughed behind his back taking advantage of his weakness in execution and wanting to be liked. They're upset at Trump because he's nobody's fool and knows their game.
-
That approach can work sometimes or for a while, but not in the long run.
Not that we can do much from here, it's more like watching a huge boulder rolling down the mountain.
On a second thought, maybe by now some of the other leaders are already getting fed up with Trump's bullying and rude ways.
It started with the France's Supreme Hand Crusher, then Canada' s Trudeau may forget his polite ways and knock him out, (Trudeau's Box Fight) (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-fight-how-justin-trudeau-outclassed-patrick-brazeau-five-years-ago-in-a-boxing-match-for-the-ages), but whatever Trump does, he shouldn't upset Wladimir Putin. His karate slaps and kicks could really hurt.
-
You're right, it has a European slant. That's anti-Trump.
Uh, no...sorry, it's got a "European slant" because none of the US administration people would talk to the US press...get it?
The US reporters would have been HAPPY to ask Trump & Co. questions but in a break from tradition, nobody from Trump & Co. talked to the press. Tillerson DID have a press conference, but it was ONLY for Saudi journalists...no Americans were allowed in.
So, the fact that the article had a European viewpoint is that is who would talk to the US reporters...get it? The reason that the US people weren't quoted is because they hid from the press. I guess that makes some sort of deluded sense if you are convinced the media is the enemy...but you shouldn't be surprised at the result.
Yet, again, Trump got played at a game he doesn't even know how to play.
BTW, Noah Barkin who is a Special Correspondent Europe for Reuters, has been working for them for 23 years...and before you ask, he's originally from California and holds degrees from U.C. Berkeley and Columbia University so, he's an American.
-
Trump Had At Least 15 Chances To Address The Portland Attack On Twitter. He Didn’t. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-had-at-least-15-chances-to-address-the-portland-attack-on-twitter-he-didnt_us_592b8d3ee4b053f2d2ad461d?42h)
Instead, the president tweeted about “fake news,” attacked the media and congratulated Republicans on the congressional win in Montana.
President Donald Trump has been tweeting regularly throughout the weekend, but not once has he mentioned the fatal stabbing in Portland, Oregon (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/portland-attack-commuter-train_us_5929362ce4b053f2d2acaf56) that left two men dead after they confronted a man spewing hatred to two Muslim girls.
On Friday, Ricky John Best and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche were stabbed to death while traveling on one of Portland’s MAX trains. They both stood up to confront a man verbally attacking two girls, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Police say Jeremy Joseph Christian, 35, who has ties to white supremacist groups, targeted the girls for “religiously and racially motivated reasons.” When confronted by Best, Namkai-Meche and a third man, 21-year-old Micah David-Cole Fletcher, Christian violently attacked them with a knife. Fletcher survived the stabbing but remains in the hospital with serious injuries.
Since the fatal attack made national news on Saturday, Trump has sent more than a dozen tweets. Not one of those messages mention Portland, the two deceased men being hailed as “heroes,” or a condemnation of the attacker’s actions that are being investigated by police as a hate crime.
Instead, Trump has focused his public comments on deriding the news media, congratulating Republicans on a congressional win in Montana and his recent trip to the Middle East and Europe.
Hum...I guess it doesn't fit his narrative huh? They were not killed by an undocumented immigrant or a "radical Islamic terrorist." They were killed facing down a man allegedly spewing hate speech directed at two teenage girls, one of whom was wearing a hijab. Jeremy Joseph Christian, the wackjob who murdered them has a criminal record including felony robbery, kidnapping and weapon convictions was a known white Supremacist. I guess that's not something Trump wants to talk about...
-
That approach can work sometimes or for a while, but not in the long run.
Not that we can do much from here, it's more like watching a huge boulder rolling down the mountain.
On a second thought, maybe by now some of the other leaders are already getting fed up with Trump's bullying and rude ways.
It started with the France's Supreme Hand Crusher, then Canada' s Trudeau may forget his polite ways and knock him out, (Trudeau's Box Fight) (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-fight-how-justin-trudeau-outclassed-patrick-brazeau-five-years-ago-in-a-boxing-match-for-the-ages), but whatever Trump does, he shouldn't upset Wladimir Putin. His karate slaps and kicks could really hurt.
However, after he insulted Angela Merkel first by presenting a fake bill for past NATO contributions, Trump was smart enough to avoid Angela Merkel's death grip when she was visiting in the Whitehouse ... He was briefed that she had meticulously prepared herself for the visit, he probably thought it had to do with physical exercise. ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Some on this forum are being hypocrites.
So who?
Don't you think this far too strong language ...and at the same time you are not addressing the persons in question.
Should we all feel insulted?
-
Some (light) libertarians were all too happy that Trump was for decreasing our military and praised him for that, but then, when he bombed Syria, suddenly it became okay, not to mention his increase in military spending in his budget is suddenly okay too.
Some liberals want to see our military decrease in size, but were for electing a known hawk, that would have done the opposite, and are now upset that Trump has told our NATO friends that they need to start living up to the agreement because we are no longer going to supply unlimited support, a net effect of having the smaller military they want.
Neither of these make sense, and are both hypocritical.
What the heck are you blathering on about? Trump has NEVER been for DECREASING our military, he wants tons more money...he just doesn't want other countries getting away with paying less. And I for one think bombing Syria was a waste of 59 perfectly good Cruise missiles.
As for liberals wanting to spend less, yes indeed. money is better spent on keeping people alive vs killing them (sorry if that's too liberal for you) and yes, I'm pissed that Trump behaved poorly in Europe but what does that have to do with Hillary the Hawk? I "think" I've made it clear that I was for Bernie first and foremost but ONLY voted for Hillary because, well she was running against the orange dipshit. They were both shitty candidates, but while Hillary was one scoop, Trump was two scoops with sprinkles (and not the good kind).
Take a chill pill dooode, ya gonna pop a blood vessel.
(and ya might wanna quit putting words in people's mouths)
-
As for liberals wanting to spend less, yes indeed. money is better spent on keeping people alive vs killing them (sorry if that's too liberal for you) and
Exactly. When the stated goal is to save American lives, it's the height of shortsighted idiocy to fund an unneeded massive military increase with a massive cut to health, science and research programs.
-
'Atlanticist' Merkel rams home frustration with Trump after summits
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-merkel-trump-idUSKBN18P0VV?il=0
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel underlined her doubts about the reliability of the United States as an ally on Monday but said she was a "convinced trans-Atlanticist", fine-tuning her message after surprising Washington with her frankness a day earlier.
In a speech in Berlin, Merkel showed how seriously she is concerned about Washington's dependability under President Donald Trump by repeating the message she delivered a day earlier that the days when Europe could completely count on others were "over to a certain extent".
She made those comments, which sent shock waves through Washington, after Trump criticized major NATO allies over their military spending and refused to endorse a global climate change accord at back-to-back summits last week.
"Recent days have shown me that the times when we could rely completely on others are over to a certain extent," Merkel said."
"Juergen Hardt, the German government's coordinator for transatlantic policies, said Trump's administration was irritating foreign allies.
"Never before has there been so much uncertainty about the political course, and so many contradictions in the president's statements, four months after the inauguration of a new U.S. president," Hardt told Reuters.
"That weakens America and irritates its partners," said Hardt, the foreign policy expert in parliament for Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats."
Trump tweets against Germany, escalating row after tense summits
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-germany-trump-idUSKBN18Q138
"U.S. President Donald Trump called Germany's trade and spending policies "very bad" on Tuesday, intensifying a row between the allies and immediately earning himself the moniker "destroyer of Western values" from a leading German politician.
Trump took to Twitter early in the day in the United States to attack Germany, a day after Chancellor Angela Merkel ramped up her doubts about the reliability of Washington as an ally.
The tit-for-tat row has escalated rapidly after Trump criticized major NATO allies over their military spending and refused to endorse a global climate change accord at back-to-back summits last week.
"We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change," Trump tweeted on Tuesday."
Frustration is rarely good council.
As Trump grapples with crisis, communications aide steps down
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN18Q179
"A senior aide to President Donald Trump is leaving the job, the White House said on Tuesday, as the president considers wider staff changes amid growing political fallout over probes into Russia and his presidential campaign.
White House Communications Director Mike Dubke confirmed reports he had resigned, saying in a statement, "It has been my great honor to serve President Trump and this administration." Dubke, who had been in the job just three months, gave no reason for leaving."
Oh well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In a speech in Berlin, Merkel showed how seriously she is concerned about Washington's dependability under President Donald Trump by repeating the message she delivered a day earlier that the days when Europe could completely count on others were "over to a certain extent".
She certainly had many opportunities to watch Trump up close and how he makes his decisions. If you can't rely on your busines partner, it's better to ditch him and explore other more practical options.
-
She certainly had many opportunities to watch Trump up close and how he makes his decisions. If you can't rely on your business partner, it's better to ditch him and explore other more practical options.
This is actually more serious than it may seem to a casual observer. Although she first mentioned it in a speech running up to the upcoming elections in Germany, she is not the kind of person to just make empty threats or promises because of elections (we saw that when she ditched nuclear power generation, and opened the doors for refugees with 'Wir schaffen das'). Instead, it's an observation she shared, and will act upon! We've already seen her and Emmanuel Macron of France together, and they seemed to get along (with Macron making a show of it by initially ignoring Trump as he joined the group of other G7 leaders).
This may also lead to things like a change in Defense purchases, which have largely been of USA produced equipment to facilitate cooperation in international campaigns.
Trump is playing very damaging games with international relations, and Russia is loving the turmoil it causes between the (former) allies. He couldn't have caused such a thing himself.
Merkel, minister stress U.S. ties after critical Trump tweet
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-germany-trump-idUSKBN18Q138
"U.S. President Donald Trump called Germany's trade and spending policies "very bad" on Tuesday, intensifying a row between the longtime allies and immediately earning himself the moniker "destroyer of Western values" from a leading German politician.
As the war of words threatened to spin out of control, Merkel and other senior German politicians stressed the importance of Germany's Atlantic ties, with Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel suggesting the spat was just a rough patch.
Trump took to Twitter early in the day in the United States to attack Germany, a day after Chancellor Angela Merkel ramped up her doubts about the reliability of Washington as an ally."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Since it's sophomore humor month.
This photo proves I agree with you.
Great try at underplaying (indeed in a sophomoric way) the impact of the current (and possibly the next) leader of the German government on (amongst others) the future of the USA. She couldn't care less about such feeble attempts, as I don't. Angela Merkel is an educated person, with a morally inspired and sensible outlook to the longer-term future of her home country and the rest of the world.
Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have an attention span beyond a single page of information (provided it has diagrams and country maps to condense the complexity of real life). Reports have it, that (written?) instructions were given to the G7 participants, to keep their exchanges with Trump brief, and not go into too much (nuanced) detail on the various subjects that were discussed.
The sad(!) truth is that the man is a disaster for the USA and its international relations. It just takes some of his electorate longer to register that universally accepted fact (despite some hopes that he'd switch to a more Presidential mode after the campaign, which he didn't).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Historical echoes: http://induecourse.ca/all-the-presidents-men-for-the-trump-era/ (http://induecourse.ca/all-the-presidents-men-for-the-trump-era/)
-
Historical echoes: http://induecourse.ca/all-the-presidents-men-for-the-trump-era/ (http://induecourse.ca/all-the-presidents-men-for-the-trump-era/)
Yep...I particularly think #5 is spot on...
#5 The rats will turn on themselves.
Trump is obsessed with hunting down the sources of leaks to the press from his administration. What’s hilarious is that every time one of his officials reads the riot act to his or her staff about leaks, that gets leaked. Nixon was similarly obsessed with it; in fact one of the great revelations in the Watergate story is how the ratfucking stretched back to long before the break-in, as Nixon tried to find out how was leaking to the press. (Which is how Watergate became connected to the Pentagon papers, as Nixon ordered wiretaps on reporters and government employees to find out who was doing the leaking). But here’s the point: It is one thing to have a single mole in an otherwise solid and high-trust organisation. But when everyone starts leaking on everyone else, the gig is up. And that is what eventually caused the dam to burst over Watergate, when it became every man for himself. Like I said, history doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme.
The more that Trump's admin screams about leaks, the more leaks we get. Wonder how that works? :~)
-
Since it's sophomore humor month.
See if you can spot the real story and the fake humor story...
NEARLY HALF OF DONALD TRUMP'S TWITTER FOLLOWERS ARE FAKE ACCOUNTS AND BOTS (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-twitter-followers-fake-617873)
If you thought this was fake, you would be wrong...
Because Donald Trump is the president of the United States and the most famous person on the planet, one wouldn't think he would need to employ a bot to boost his Twitter following. It appears, however, he might have done just that. As screenwriter John Niven pointed out Tuesday morning, Trump's Twitter account saw an unusal spike in followers over the weekend, many of which appear to have been created artificially.
Trump currently has 31 million followers and, sure enough, if you browse through them you will find an unusal number of tweet-less, picture-less accounts that joined the service in May 2017. If you're still curious, you can enter Trump's handle, @realDonaldTrump, into Twitter Audit, a service that assesses the authenticity of one's followers, and find that only 51 percent of Trump's are real.
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/full/public/2017/05/30/donald-trump.PNG)
How about...
Study: 'Donald Trump' Tops List of New Meth Nicknames (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/study-donald-trump-tops-list-of-new-meth-nicknames-w484809)
True or false?
When it comes to talking about President Donald Trump, there is no shortage of nicknames to use. If you hear someone mention "Agent Orange," "Cheeto-in-Chief," "Mango Mussolini," or "Putin's Puppet," you know they mean Trump.
But it seems "Trump" has an alternative meaning of its own. Some people also use the name of the 45th president when they want to buy or sell methamphetamine, according to a new study (https://www.addictions.com/explore/drugs-decoded/) published Tuesday by treatment and recovery site Addictions.com.
(http://img.wennermedia.com/article-leads-horizontal/rs-meth-f635bfba-83bb-48ec-bd94-e186aad4390c.jpg)
What does is say when the President of the United States becomes a emphanism for meth?
Then there's this one...
DONALD TRUMP LAUNCHES SUBSCRIPTION BOX SERVICE (YES, REALLY) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-launches-subscription-box-service-yes-1008557)
(ok, it's in the headline that it's true)
The "Big League Box" is going for $69 per month.
President Donald Trump is diving into the business of subscription box services.
On Monday, CNN reporter Betsy Klein tweeted that she received an email from the Trump campaign announcing that it would be launching a Birchbox-inspired model called the "Big League Box," which is described as "a handpicked bundle of exclusive and vintage official Donald J. Trump merchandise delivered to your door every month as a recurring donor." The Center for Public Integrity political reporter Dave Levinthal also took a screenshot of the email that noted its recurring donation cost of $69 per month.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/delivery.png)
Twitter message (https://twitter.com/betsy_klein/status/869268254744858624/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Fnews%2Fdonald-trump-launches-subscription-box-service-yes-1008557)
Yeah, so marking up a photo of euro leaders might be seen as some as funny, but there's nothing funny about having this jerk as a president.
-
oooops...I posted too soon, just saw this:
Trump asks world leaders to call him on his cellphone (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-trump-cellphone-20170530-story.html)
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-592e17ec/turbine/la-1496192999-q4b70vy48o-snap-image/750/750x422)
President Trump has been handing out his cellphone number to world leaders and urging them to call him directly,
an unusual invitation that breaks diplomatic protocol. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press)
President Trump has been handing out his cellphone number to world leaders and urging them to call him directly, an unusual invitation that breaks diplomatic protocol and is raising concerns about the security and secrecy of the U.S. commander in chief's communications.
--snip--
The notion of world leaders calling each other up via cellphone may seem unremarkable in the modern, mobile world. But in the diplomatic arena, where leader-to-leader calls are highly orchestrated affairs, it is another notable breach of protocol for a president who has expressed distrust of official channels. The formalities and discipline of diplomacy have been a rough fit for Trump — who, before taking office, was long easily accessible by cellphone and viewed himself as freewheeling, impulsive deal-maker.
Presidents generally place calls on one of several secure phone lines, including those in the White House Situation Room, the Oval Office or the presidential limousine. Even if Trump uses his government-issued cellphone, his calls are vulnerable to eavesdropping, particularly from foreign governments, national security experts say.
Some Trump supporters may say "that's just Trump being Trump, why not break with protocol?"
Well, there's a reason why "diplomatic protocol" exists, to facilitate diplomacy something Trump knows nothing about. He's about as undiplomatic as you can get and the US and the rest of the World got a close up view of the "Big Orange Ugly American" in action.
#BOUA
-
In the era of ISIS beheading, this is what liberals think is ok:
-
Then there's this...
Trump Tweets:
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The U.S. Senate should switch to 51 votes, immediately, and get Healthcare and TAX CUTS approved, fast and easy. Dems would do it, no doubt!
8:59 AM - 30 May 2017
15,980 15,980 Retweets 58,730 58,730 likes
Except, the big orange dummy doesn't understand how the Senate works...The GOP is using a process known as budget reconciliation in trying to pass bills to overhaul the Affordable Care Act and the tax system. Through reconciliation, the party can approve its plans with only a majority vote in the Senate, in which it controls 52 of 100 seats.
President Trump tells Senate to 'switch' rules, but his message is moot (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/30/president-trump-tells-senate-switch-rules-but-his-message-moot/102308234/)
President Trump suggested in a puzzling tweet on Tuesday that the Senate should “switch” its rules to allow health care and tax reform to pass with a simple majority of 51 votes.
But there is no need for the Senate to do this. Senate GOP leaders are already planning to use special budget rules to consider both of those legislative priorities, so they can avoid the threat of a Democratic filibuster and push tax reform and health care through with 51 “yes” votes.
And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has already ruled out doing away with the filibuster for other legislation, fearing that would change the deliberative nature of the Senate and come back to haunt Republicans if they lose control of the chamber.
-
In the era of ISIS beheading, this is what liberals think is ok:
Yeah, well I don't think it's ok...and even Kathy apologized...she released a video saying:
"Hey everybody, it's me, Kathy Griffin," she says in the video. "I sincerely apologize. I am just now seeing the reaction to these images. I'm a comic. I crossed the line. I move the line. Then I cross it. I went way too far. The image is too disturbing. I understand how it offends people. It wasn't funny. I get it. I've made a lot of mistakes in my career. I will continue. I ask your forgiveness. Taking down the image. I am going to ask the photographer to take down the image. And I beg for your forgiveness. I went too far. I made a mistake and I was wrong."
Kathy Griffin apologizes for beheaded Trump photo: 'I crossed the line' (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/kathy-griffins-beheaded-donald-trump-photo-grabs-secret/story?id=47733696)
So, just be sure you are careful who you paint with that "liberal" brush Slobodan, I don't appreciate the insult. And need I point out that at least she recognized her mistake and apologized almost immediately...something the big orange dumbass has yet to learn how to do...
-
Yeah, well, Trump supporters won't like this (but the odds are few will bother to read it...)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DTSexism-584265724.jpg)
REBECCA SOLNIT: THE LONELINESS OF DONALD TRUMP (http://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-the-loneliness-of-donald-trump/)
ON THE CORROSIVE PRIVILEGE OF THE MOST MOCKED MAN IN THE WORLD
Once upon a time, a child was born into wealth and wanted for nothing, but he was possessed by bottomless, endless, grating, grasping wanting, and wanted more, and got it, and more after that, and always more. He was a pair of ragged orange claws upon the ocean floor, forever scuttling, pinching, reaching for more, a carrion crab, a lobster and a boiling lobster pot in one, a termite, a tyrant over his own little empires. He got a boost at the beginning from the wealth handed him and then moved among grifters and mobsters who cut him slack as long as he was useful, or maybe there’s slack in arenas where people live by personal loyalty until they betray, and not by rules, and certainly not by the law or the book. So for seven decades, he fed his appetites and exercised his license to lie, cheat, steal, and stiff working people of their wages, made messes, left them behind, grabbed more baubles, and left them in ruin.
He was supposed to be a great maker of things, but he was mostly a breaker. He acquired buildings and women and enterprises and treated them all alike, promoting and deserting them, running into bankruptcies and divorces, treading on lawsuits the way a lumberjack of old walked across the logs floating on their way to the mill, but as long as he moved in his underworld of dealmakers the rules were wobbly and the enforcement was wobblier and he could stay afloat. But his appetite was endless, and he wanted more, and he gambled to become the most powerful man in the world, and won, careless of what he wished for.
One of the really well turned phrases that I like:
The man in the white house sits, naked and obscene, a pustule of ego, in the harsh light, a man whose grasp exceeded his understanding, because his understanding was dulled by indulgence. He must know somewhere below the surface he skates on that he has destroyed his image, and like Dorian Gray before him, will be devoured by his own corrosion in due time too. One way or another this will kill him, though he may drag down millions with him. One way or another, he knows he has stepped off a cliff, pronounced himself king of the air, and is in freefall. Another dungheap awaits his landing; the dung is all his; when he plunges into it he will be, at last, a self-made man.
-
In the era of ISIS beheading, this is what liberals think is ok:
Earlier you said you only posted stories you knew were credible. Do you have any data to show that liberals in general think this is OK?
I'm not a liberal (in your sense of the word liberal) but still find your remark stupid and unnecessarily insulting
-
Yeah, well, Trump supporters won't like this (but the odds are few will bother to read it...)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DTSexism-584265724.jpg)
REBECCA SOLNIT: THE LONELINESS OF DONALD TRUMP (http://lithub.com/rebecca-solnit-the-loneliness-of-donald-trump/)
One of the really well turned phrases that I like:
Fine phrases maybe but wrong target. To an outsider (I'm not American) it looks as if Trump would not exist without the modern Republican Party, a shadow of its former self in the twentieth century. The modern Republican Party's programme seems to consist of taking money from poor people to give to rich people in the form of tax cuts, and taking money from America's soft power in the world to give to rich people in the form of tax cuts. This will make America a more miserable place and the world a more dangerous place since without soft power (diplomacy, education, international accords like the Paris agreements) reaching for the military option arrives much more readily. Trump is a useful front man. Mistakes can be blamed on him and dirty work shrugged off with "Waddya expect?". When he's outlived his usefulness, he can be cast off in favour of a gentleman like Mr Pence who has the breathtaking effrontery to call himself a Christian while advocating policies which make poor people poorer and rich people richer. No wonder close allies like Germany are beginning to signal that it may be time to turn elsewhere. The United States has done a dreadful thing in electing Mr Trump and the current Republican Party, to itself and to everyone else. The next stage is unstable, desperate strong man rule of the Erdogan kind.
-
It will be difficult and ugly for USA and the Republican Party, to get out of this mess. Although Bill Maher reported, that Mike Pence is already scratching out "Vice" from his business cards, and other names such as Paul Ryan and Orin Hatch are mentioned, it is still a big question, who would prevail and become Trump's successor.
150 years ago, as Congress prepared to impeach President Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s former secretary John Hay concluded: “Impeachment is demonstrated not to be an easy thing. The lesson may be a good one some day.” The lesson, as good in 2017 as it was in 1868, is that removing a president is an ugly process, which can dangerously inflame tensions in an already divided nation.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/what-america-can-learn-from-johnsons-impeachment/528477/
-
Reported 10 minutes ago:
Trump pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal: Axios
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-idUSKBN18R1J4?il=0
"U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Axios news outlet reported on Wednesday, citing two unidentified sources with direct knowledge of the decision.
Trump refused to endorse the landmark climate change accord at a summit of the G7 group of wealthy nations on Saturday, saying he needed more time to decide. He then tweeted that he would make an announcement this week."
Well, there you have it. Besides the negative effects on the global climate, and the negative health effects, and damage to infrastructure, this is going to hurt the USA economy when the rest of the world will start taxing American produced goods with a carbon tax. One can only hope that states like California and local companies will ignore Trump and still persist in improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.
Just like Angela Merkel mentioned, the USA is no longer a trustworthy partner. This will have geopolitical consequences as well.
"The decision to withdraw from the climate accord was influenced by a letter from 22 Republican U.S. senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, calling for an exit, Axios reported."
Thanks a lot :'(
Cheers,
Bart
-
And need I point out that at least she recognized her mistake and apologized almost immediately...
Yes, she misspoke, said something stupid in the heat of the moment, slip if the tongue, nothing else.
Oh, wait.... No, that was a photo shoot, planned in advance and excuted as a deliberate act. Plenty of time to reconsider, before, during and after the shoot.
"Immediate" apology? Yes, right after a huge backlash. Even the snowflakes almost melted, seeing all that gore. Not to mention the most important backlash, when the devil itself (a.k.a. CNN) decided to reconsider their relationship.
-
That's fantastic news Wolf, thanks for sharing.
-
Earlier you said you only posted stories you knew were credible....
The story is her photo shoot with a severed head prop. That's the story. And that's 100 percent credible. My commentary is my opinion, not a story.
-
Slight dicrepancy how the US press and Whitehouse summed up G7. You'll have to feel sorry for Kevin Spicer, trying to put the lipstick on the pig.
In his G7 summarization, Kevin Spicer used six times "historic", five times "extraordinary" and three times "unique" adjectives.
In contrast, David Frum from Atlantic said that "Trump's Trip Was a Catastrophe for U.S.-Europe Relations" and USA Today reported that Allies distance themselves from U.S. after Trump's first foreign trip. NY Times writes that Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Europe’s most influential leader, has concluded, after three days of trans-Atlantic meetings, that the United States of President Trump is not the reliable partner her country and the Continent have automatically depended on in the past.
-
So, they are now going to partner with...?
-
USA will remain as a business partner for most European countries, but far more down on the ladder.
-
So, they are now going to partner with...?
Mostly the 194 other countries in the world who signed the agreement, amongst others China.
American products will be taxed based on Carbon effects, if no alternatives become available.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The story is her photo shoot with a severed head prop. That's the story. And that's 100 percent credible. My commentary is my opinion, not a story.
Pretty cheap cop out for an even cheaper comment.
-
Not sure how Trump can pull us out of the Paris Accord
Article 28 paragraph 1 of that accord states that a state can withdraw from the accord after three years have passed since the state has ratified the accord. The US ratified the accord on 3 Sep 2016. The earliest we can submit withdraw notification would be 3 Sep 2019 and we would still be bound by the agreement until 3 Sep 2020 at the earliest.
Also, it is unclear whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate. This has happened only once and the SCotUS refused to hear the challenge. Withdrawing from this treaty may take a senate action.
Now, Trump could just decide to remain a ratified signatory of the accord and just ignore it.
Which would not be that hard to do as the Paris Accord has very few measurable requirements on the signatories and no enforcement on those signatories that do not follow the accord... which may explain why so many countries were eager to sign this accord. It sounds good, but does not really accomplish much.
The Paris Accord is not a well written accord.
===edit===
Further research showed that this may not be as simple as I first thought
It all depends on the interpretation of "ratified" which, strangely, can be complicated.
The United States considers ratification as being from the legislative branch, specifically the Senate. Our constitution requires the Senate, and only the Senate, to ratify treaties.
The United States can enter into agreements without the mechanism of treaties.
There are Executive agreements - made by the President
There are Congressional-Executive agreements -- made by the President and a simple majority of both the House and the Senate
The Paris Accord, evidently, falls into an Executive agreement as it has never been put to the Senate for ratification. So it should be pretty clear whether the US has ratified the Paris Accord, right?
Well, no.
The United Nations, considers a treaty to be ratified if the specific country has a mechanism for ratifying treaties. Some countries are prevented by their constitution to ratify constitutions so there are different terms used that represent essentially the same thing.
In the case of the Paris Accord (never referred to as a Paris Treaty), it is an agreement based on another treaty. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a treaty that the United States signed and was ratified by the Senate. The Paris Accord keys off of the terms of the UNFCCC. This is why it is an accord and not a separate treaty.
However, the UN asked for and has received ratification from the nation members that have ratified the UNFCC. So in some ways, the UN is treating the Paris Accords as a separate treaty-- which it kinds is and kinda ain't.
So now the complicated question is can Trump withdraw from the accord while not withdrawing from the UNFCCC? That is not an easy question to answer.
But in any case, I wanted to amend my post to more accurately report that the Paris Accord is an Executive agreement and has not, under US law, been ratified by the Senate; but is considered ratified by international bodies.
Most complex and confusing.
-
Seen in Antwerp:
I don't think we need his help for that ;)
-
Not sure how Trump can pull us out of the Paris Accord
Article 28 paragraph 1 of that accord states that a state can withdraw from the accord after three years have passed since the state has ratified the accord. The US ratified the accord on 3 Sep 2016. The earliest we can submit withdraw notification would be 3 Sep 2019 and we would still be bound by the agreement until 3 Sep 2020 at the earliest.
From the Reuters article:
"The accord, agreed on by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015, aims to limit planetary warming in part by slashing carbon dioxide and other emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Under the pact, the United States committed to reducing its emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
One doesn't need to wait till 2025 to see if a signatory is on track to 26-28% below the 2005 levels or not.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/CO2-by-country--1990-2025.png)
Also, it is unclear whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate. This has happened only once and the SCotUS refused to hear the challenge. Withdrawing from this treaty may take a senate action.
"Axios said details of the pullout are being worked out by a team that includes EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The choice is between a formal withdrawal that could take three years or leaving the U.N. treaty that the accord is based on, which would be quicker but more extreme, according to Axios."
Nicaragua, Syria, USA. the world's only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not sure how Trump can pull us out of the Paris Accord
Article 28 paragraph 1 of that accord states that a state can withdraw from the accord after three years have passed since the state has ratified the accord. The US ratified the accord on 3 Sep 2016. The earliest we can submit withdraw notification would be 3 Sep 2019 and we would still be bound by the agreement until 3 Sep 2020 at the earliest.
Also, it is unclear whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty that has been ratified by the Senate. This has happened only once and the SCotUS refused to hear the challenge. Withdrawing from this treaty may take a senate action.
Now, Trump could just decide to remain a ratified signatory of the accord and just ignore it.
Which would not be that hard to do as the Paris Accord has very few measurable requirements on the signatories and no enforcement on those signatories that do not follow the accord... which may explain why so many countries were eager to sign this accord. It sounds good, but does not really accomplish much.
The Paris Accord is not a well written accord.
Most other countries will not follow the accord including European nations. Why would you expect them to pay climate change taxes when they aren't paying taxes for defense as agreed to in NATO against Russia and other threats?
-
Most other countries will not follow the accord including European nations. Why would you expect them to pay climate change taxes when they aren't paying taxes for defense as agreed to in NATO against Russia and other threats?
Citizens do not pay defense tax. Defense is paid for by allocating a part of the country's budget.
Products and services that are imported, can be taxed in several different ways, usually by an import duty.
To reach the Paris climate goals, activities are already being implemented. Fossil fueled power generation is gradually being replaced by renewable and cleaner or clean alternatives. Huge solar and wind farms are being built, and they're just reaching cost levels that do not require subsidies to be economically viable.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Citizens do not pay defense tax. Defense is paid for by allocating a part of the country's budget.
Products and services that are imported, can be taxed in several different ways, usually by an import duty.
To reach the Paris climate goals, activities are already being implemented. Fossil fueled power generation is gradually being replaced by renewable and cleaner or clean alternatives. Huge solar and wind farms are being built, and they're just reaching cost levels that do not require subsidies to be economically viable.
Cheers,
Bart
A country's budget is paid for in taxes. All money is fungible. So it's the individual citizen of your country that pays for it eventually. Import duties can go to the people for health care or to buy tanks instead. Which do you think your countrymen will vote for?
-
In the era of ISIS beheading, this is what liberals think is ok:
Far more insulting than Griffin's image is Slobodan's suggestion that "liberals" (his term) approve of it.
-
Far more insulting than Griffin's image is Slobodan's suggestion that "liberals" (his term) approve of it.
Yeah, right. Let's change the subject and talk about... me.
-
Peter, That's not true.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-democratic-donations-support/
-
Liberals are apparently very fond of decapitation (in case someone thinks the last example is an exception):
-
Yeah, right. Let's change the subject and talk about... me.
Don't kid yourself, nobody is interested talking about you. They only talk about some of the nonsense you post here :P
-
Liberals are apparently very fond of decapitation (in case someone thinks the last example is an exception):
Care to share some pictures of KKK beheadings? They might be more interesting then comic book pictures ;)
-
Don't kid yourself, nobody is interested talking about you. They only talk about some of the nonsense you post here :P
I am glad that my little contribution to all the other nonsense in this thread is noticed.
-
Liberals complain that the Alt Right encourages nut jobs to attack liberals. Will they say the same thing that their beheading and other physical and verbal attacks on Trump might encourage some nut job on the left who might take a shot at Trump?
-
Liberals complain that the Alt Right encourages nut jobs to attack liberals. Will they say the same thing that their beheading and other physical and verbal attacks on Trump might encourage some nut job on the left who might take a shot at Trump?
There are idiots and deplorables in both parties. When one goes low, the other goes lower.
-
Ok, something less gore. Hopefully I can get some bipartisan agreement on this one:
-
This is actually more serious than it may seem to a casual observer. Although she first mentioned it in a speech running up to the upcoming elections in Germany, she is not the kind of person to just make empty threats or promises because of elections (we saw that when she ditched nuclear power generation, and opened the doors for refugees with 'Wir schaffen das'). Instead, it's an observation she shared, and will act upon! We've already seen her and Emmanuel Macron of France together, and they seemed to get along (with Macron making a show of it by initially ignoring Trump as he joined the group of other G7 leaders).
This may also lead to things like a change in Defense purchases, which have largely been of USA produced equipment to facilitate cooperation in international campaigns.
Trump is playing very damaging games with international relations, and Russia is loving the turmoil it causes between the (former) allies. He couldn't have caused such a thing himself.
Merkel, minister stress U.S. ties after critical Trump tweet
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-germany-trump-idUSKBN18Q138
"U.S. President Donald Trump called Germany's trade and spending policies "very bad" on Tuesday, intensifying a row between the longtime allies and immediately earning himself the moniker "destroyer of Western values" from a leading German politician.
As the war of words threatened to spin out of control, Merkel and other senior German politicians stressed the importance of Germany's Atlantic ties, with Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel suggesting the spat was just a rough patch.
Trump took to Twitter early in the day in the United States to attack Germany, a day after Chancellor Angela Merkel ramped up her doubts about the reliability of Washington as an ally."
Cheers,
Bart
Trump wants more equitable trade deals with Europe and wants them to pay more for their defense so it costs America less for NATO. He's fighting for American interests just as Merkle is fighting for German interests. To argue one is right and the other wrong has nothing to do with it. Where is Merkle going to go? Russia? China? Turkey? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Great Britain? This is just posturing on both their sides. Some deal will be made down the line.
-
Ok, something less gore. Hopefully I can get some bipartisan agreement on this one:
And we voters get to look at Melania for the next 4 years instead of Hillary. :)
-
And we voters get to look at Melania for the next 4 years instead of Hillary. :)
Now, if we only could get Melania and Bill together.
-
Now, if we only could get Melania and Bill together.
Given Bill's reputation... ;)
-
Ok, something less gore. Hopefully I can get some bipartisan agreement on this one:
Slobodan, I can sure agree to that one, quite funny.
-
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18813321_1446147715423956_5969041131959102424_n.jpg?oh=39da8e4d87123a3c72973399b85770e4&oe=59A47699)
And the BIGLY WORD for today?
COVFEFE
Can you use that word in a sentence Donny?
"Despite the constant negative press "covfefe,"
Wait, what?
Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Who can figure out the true meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy!
Oh, ok..that helps?
The man is going nutz...
-
Trump wants more equitable trade deals with Europe and wants them to pay more for their defense so it costs America less for NATO. He's fighting for American interests just as Merkle is fighting for German interests. To argue one is right and the other wrong has nothing to do with it. Where is Merkle going to go? Russia? China? Turkey? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Great Britain? This is just posturing on both their sides. Some deal will be made down the line.
Deals need trust, state to state beyond the personalities. That's in danger of becoming the missing ingredient here. No trust, no deals.
-
Deals need trust, state to state beyond the personalities. That's in danger of becoming the missing ingredient here. No trust, no deals.
Trump is a tough negotiator. From personal experience, he'll take it to the edge. But since there are needs on both sides to continue to have a relationship, this will get solved.
From my side as an American, I believe that Europe has had it too easy and less expensive as it should have been. Germany and the rest of Europe are big boys now. This isn't 1950. They are all very rich. They should have the pride to stand up and defend themselves. They shouldn't even need America. Europe has gotten too comfortable with depending on America for security at our taxpayers expense. We no longer are rich like we used to be. We can't afford it. Trump understands that. Europe is going to have to learn how to stand on its own feet. Frankly, I think this will be great for Europe. And for America too.
-
Yeah, right. Let's change the subject and talk about... me.
I'm not changing the subject. (whatever the subject is at the moment) I'm commenting on what you said. That is not changing the subject. Slobodan didn't say "some liberals", he said "liberals" - an unsupportable assertion that serves no purpose but extending divisiveness.
I'm not splitting hairs here. I am a liberal, yet I certainly don't approve of that image.
-
So, they are now going to partner with...?
With Italy No Longer in U.S. Focus, Russia Swoops to Fill the Void (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/world/europe/russia-courts-italy-in-us-absence.html)
ROME — President Trump made the most of his short time in Italy. He was treated to a private audience with the pope, met with both the country’s president and its prime minister in Rome, flew to Sicily for a summit meeting of world leaders and visited with American troops at a nearby naval air station.
But as the sudden burst of diplomatic activity subsided with his departure, European and American officials fear a return to the new normal of American inattention as the administration struggles with political turmoil and Russia-related scandals back home.
All the while, Russia is assiduously courting Italy, a country that once had the largest Communist party outside the Soviet bloc and that many analysts consider the soft underbelly of the European Union.
In Rome, Mr. Trump left behind an embassy without an ambassador, and forfeited a geopolitical playing field that Moscow’s ambassador in Rome, Sergey Razov, is exploiting.
So, the big orange dummy hasn't filled the ambassadorship in Italy...but that's ok, Trump is a great negotiator, right? He doesn't need an ambassador...
TRUMP IS ENDANGERING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY WITH VACANT POSITIONS, CUTS AT STATE DEPARTMENT: CAREER DIPLOMATS, EXPERTS (http://www.newsweek.com/america-national-security-danger-vacant-positions-cuts-trumps-state-department-594243)
Empty senior positions and deep cuts at President Donald Trump’s state department are “dangerous” for national security and have eroded America’s power globally, according to former senior diplomats and foreign policy experts.
In an address to civil servants and diplomats in Washington D.C. on Wednesday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said funding cuts at the department are on the way. The remarks follow Trump’s budget proposal in March calling for a 28 percent slash to Tillerson’s department.
The $10.1 billion cut could leave 2,300 U.S. diplomats and civil servants without jobs (https://www.apnews.com/7afff2131d7b4b10b2c84b89c721b6c9?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics). The Trump administration has also yet to fill more than 107 senior department positions, according to government data (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/).
#MAGA or #DriveTheBusIntoTheDitch
-
Trump is a tough negotiator. From personal experience, he'll take it to the edge. But since there are needs on both sides to continue to have a relationship, this will get solved.
Yeah, tough negotiator...if you are talking about negotiating one on one about condos or golf courses...negotiating state to state requires diplomacy skills not heavy handed mean and nasty negotiating one on one.
So, how did that Euro trip work out?
Spicer's glowing review of Trump's 'incredible' trip abroad collides with reality in the briefing (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/5/30/1667341/-Spicer-s-glowing-review-of-Trump-s-incredible-trip-abroad-collides-with-reality-in-the-briefing)
Let’s begin by recapping the unprecedented level of sycophantic BS that flowed from Sean Spicer's lips during the first 10-plus minutes of Tuesday’s White House briefing. Cue Spicey:
I want to begin by recapping the incredible, historic trip that the president and first lady have just concluded because it truly was an extraordinary week for America and our people. [...] It was an unprecedented first trip abroad. [...] We've never seen before at this point in a presidency such sweeping reassurance of American interests and the inauguration of a foreign policy strategy designed to bring back the world from growing dangers and perpetual disasters brought on by years of failed leadership. [...] The leaders of more than 50 Arab Muslim nations was a historic turning point that people will be talking about for many years to come. [...] The president's historic speech was met with nearly universal praise. [...] This was a historic event [...] The president then went to Israel where he was received with incredible warmth [...] and gave a highly praised address at the Israel museum [...] This was an extraordinarily successful nine-day trip the president took.
Got that? Trump overwhelmed the world and, frankly, the language of mere mortals fails to capture what extraordinarily aaahmaaaaazing successes Trump pulled off overseas. But dammit, Spicey sure tried.
Ya gotta feel bad for the poor little guy having to give press briefings for an audience of one...Trump.
Do you honestly think Trump did a good job of dealing with NATO and the G7 Summit? You really think he did good or are you hoping he didn't do as bad as it looks like he did. Are you hoping the the #FAKENEWS isn't telling the truth when they say Trump completely screwed the pooch by alienating our allies and driving Europe to band together and away from the USA.
Germany's Angela Merkel Calls For European Solidarity After A Strained G7 Summit, And Other News (http://digg.com/2017/kushner-scandal-portland-tragedy-germanys-allies)
Perhaps that's why, after the G7 summit and a contentious NATO summit before it, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the following at a Munich beer hall on Sunday:
The times in which we could completely rely on others are more or less over. That's what I experienced the last few days. And therefore I can only say: We Europeans have to take our destiny into our own hands, of course in friendship with the US, in friendship with Great Britain...
Maybe it's the translation, but that's awfully reminiscent of classic break-up language.
Dooode...wake up, he sucks! He's hurting the US and the whole word.
-
Dooode...wake up, he sucks! He's hurting the US and the whole word.
And that's exactly why Angela Merkel said what she did. Stay away from the trouble!
-
Yeah, tough negotiator...if you are talking about negotiating one on one about condos or golf courses...negotiating state to state requires diplomacy skills not heavy handed mean and nasty negotiating one on one.
So, how did that Euro trip work out?
Spicer's glowing review of Trump's 'incredible' trip abroad collides with reality in the briefing (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/5/30/1667341/-Spicer-s-glowing-review-of-Trump-s-incredible-trip-abroad-collides-with-reality-in-the-briefing)
Ya gotta feel bad for the poor little guy having to give press briefings for an audience of one...Trump.
Do you honestly think Trump did a good job of dealing with NATO and the G7 Summit? You really think he did good or are you hoping he didn't do as bad as it looks like he did. Are you hoping the the #FAKENEWS isn't telling the truth when they say Trump completely screwed the pooch by alienating our allies and driving Europe to band together and away from the USA.
Germany's Angela Merkel Calls For European Solidarity After A Strained G7 Summit, And Other News (http://digg.com/2017/kushner-scandal-portland-tragedy-germanys-allies)
Dooode...wake up, he sucks! He's hurting the US and the whole word.
You mean he should negotiate like the feckless and weak Obama who gave the farm away to Iran, who kissed the asses of everyone, who allowed Europe and China and all the rest take advantage of America's "goodness" and money. No, what we need is someone tough. If Merkle and the rest of the world's leaders can't handle toughness from an American leader, maybe they need another job. You should be happy we have someone running our country who is tough and won't let other countries take advantage of us. Finally, someone who is fighting for us. Be smart. If he's a bastard, well he's our bastard. Don't listen to the world who want the status quo, a weak American president they can roll.
-
You should be happy we have someone running our country who is tough and won't let other countries take advantage of us.
I would if that is what we had...Trump is not that person...Trump is a bumbling idiot whose only frame of reference is himself not the rest of America.
I know you don't like reading the #FAKEMEDIA when it tells you something you don't want the hear but this is "telling"...
Trump's Interests vs. America's, European Union Edition (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/)
When meeting with Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel, the president talked about how EU policies affect the business he owns.
On the European leg of his first foreign trip, President Donald Trump elucidated the relationship between his business and his presidency, although in a way that only further complicates the already-difficult task of understanding how his financial interests might impact his decisions in office. According to the Belgian newspaper Le Soir, in a meeting with Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel, Trump discussed his skepticism toward the European Union through the lens of his experiences as a real-estate mogul. Per a translation in The Guardian, an anonymous source told the paper, “Every time we talk about a country, [Trump] remembered the things he had done. Scotland? He said he opened a club. Ireland? He said it took him two and a half years to get a license and that did not give him a very good image of the European Union.”
The meeting isn’t the first time the president has discussed the Trump Organization—which he still owns, but no longer operates—with other world leaders: In a phone call with Turkish President Recep Erdogan, one of the first Trump made after his election, he relayed praise from a business partner on the company’s towers in Istanbul; on the line with Mauricio Macri, the president of Argentina, Trump mentioned a long-stalled project in Buenos Aires (which suspiciously began moving forward after the exchange).
You honestly think he cares about the "forgotten people" of America? He's already forgotten about them...consider this:
Donald Trump's business ties explain a lot of his dictator worship (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/31/trump-business-ties-explain-dictator-worship-brian-klaas-column/102298944/)
As Donald Trump praises Rodrigo Duterte's death squads in the Philippines, Trump Tower Manila is going up.
President Trump makes more money when he embraces regimes that violate human rights. From the Philippines to China and Turkey to Saudi Arabia, the president’s adoration for authoritarian abusers is bad for those being oppressed but good for his wallet.
Staggering conflicts of interest that directly link Trump’s bank account to despots around the world are already transforming U.S. foreign policy. Trump is selling America’s moral authority to make more money by slapping TRUMP on shimmering new buildings.
Yeah, Trump is gonna negotiate alright...but only in his own personal best interest because that's the ONLY way he knows how to negotiate...
-
Trump under fire over expected global climate deal withdrawal
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-idUSKBN18R1J4
President Donald Trump came under pressure on Wednesday from corporate CEOs, U.S. allies, Democrats and some fellow Republicans to keep the United States in a global pact to fight climate change, while a source close to the matter said Trump was preparing to pull out of the Paris accord.
A U.S. withdrawal could deepen a rift with U.S. allies. The United States would join Syria and Nicaragua as the world's only non-participants in the landmark 195-nation accord agreed upon in Paris in 2015."
"The chief executives of dozens of companies have made last-minute appeals to Trump. The CEOs of ExxonMobil Corp, Apple Inc, Dow Chemical Co, Unilever NV and Tesla Inc were among those urging him to remain in the agreement. Tesla's Elon Musk threatened to quit White House advisory councils if the president pulls out."
We'll see what the covfefe in chief comes up with to destabilize the USA, just like Steve Bannon would like.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You mean he should negotiate like the feckless and weak Obama who gave the farm away to Iran, who kissed the asses of everyone, who allowed Europe and China and all the rest take advantage of America's "goodness" and money. No, what we need is someone tough. If Merkle and the rest of the world's leaders can't handle toughness from an American leader, maybe they need another job. You should be happy we have someone running our country who is tough and won't let other countries take advantage of us. Finally, someone who is fighting for us. Be smart. If he's a bastard, well he's our bastard. Don't listen to the world who want the status quo, a weak American president they can roll.
It takes two to tango. It's looking more and more as if the rest of the world is going to politely but firmly shut Trump out until he's gone. Really, if this continues Trump will be lucky if he can persuade Nicaragua to negotiate a deal on tamales. People don't like the guy and they don't want to do business with him. As soon as Trump's out of office they'll start talking again. Simple as that. The real challenge is to prevent a war breaking out in the meantime. There are no winners from any of this. Many of the points you raise most definitely need addressing but no one is going to do deals with Trump around. What's the point? If he ends up in the dock or resigning, anything agreed with him would be torn up anyway.
-
If Merkle and the rest of the world's leaders can't handle toughness from an American leader, maybe they need another job.
Learn to spell. Especially peoples' names. You'll earn respect and credibility.
-
While President Donald Trump mulls his rumored plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, others are apparently considering their own exit ― from Trump. Among them is Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of SpaceX, Tesla and a growing number of other startups. Musk said Wednesday that if Trump pulls the U.S. out of the landmark international accord on combating climate change, he’ll have no option but to resign from his role on Trump’s business advisory council.
And that's just the start.
-
Learn to spell. Especially peoples' names. You'll earn respect and credibility.
You're acting petty just like the media with their "gotcha" comments about Trump. I guess you agree with the rest of my post since you didn't comment on the really important stuff I said.
-
Maybe I'm missing something. It sounds like people have tacitly accepted the notion that Europe is somehow screwing the USA on trade deals. Is this even true? I don't recall even hearing about such an idea until recently, and it sounds to me like just more nonsense that Trump has made up. How has this been kept a secret all this while, if it was true?
These government subsidy things never make any sense to me. There was some kerfuffle the other day about Boeing not being happen at Bombardier receiving Canadian government aid, which is a pretty glaring example of a kettle complaining about a pot (not withstanding the fact that the way our governments here have handed out money to Bombardier has been pretty ham-handed and not very useful that anyone can tell). And it has been my understanding for a long time that US agriculture receives all kinds of government largesse, although I've always wondered if that only started after Big Corporate Farms entered the fray. I don't remember any such handouts to small family farms, although I don't know very much about that sector. I won't mention those too big to fail banks.
-
While the Trumpster may be on the verge of a substantial White House overall/reboot the problem isn't the people under him, the problem is him. Or so says that #FAKENEWS rag called The Wall Street Journal...
The White House Mess (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-white-house-mess-1496186985?mod=e2fb)
A shakeup needs to start with some self-reflection at the top.
White House aides are leaking that President Trump is considering a staff shakeup to stop them from leaking, and the casualty on Monday was communications director Mike Dubke. Mr. Trump certainly needs to fix his White House mess, but staff changes won’t matter unless the President accepts that he is the root of the dysfunction.
--snipp--
Mr. Trump also needs a formal policy process for debating legislative initiatives like health care and tax reform. Members of Congress tell us they have no clear idea whom to talk to with a question about specific policies. This compounds the internal confusion because Congress and other outsiders will bombard everyone on the senior staff. Lt. Gen. McMaster seems to have built this process on foreign policy, but it isn’t clear Mr. Cohn has the same authority on the domestic agenda.
The larger reality is that Mr. Trump is wasting the precious asset of time. He has a shortening window for legislative achievements before the 2018 election. Presidents typically get a staff who reflect their governing style, and if Mr. Trump can’t show more personal discipline, the fair conclusion will be that he likes the chaos.
This is the WSJ trying to get under Trump's skin and tell him what he should do, become president...not wasting his time and political juice on non-presidential activities like tweeting about stuff like covfefe...
While I'm not a Trump supporter (spoiler alert) I do certainly hope he doesn't simply screw America over–like he done so far.
-
Maybe I'm missing something. It sounds like people have tacitly accepted the notion that Europe is somehow screwing the USA on trade deals. Is this even true? I don't recall even hearing about such an idea until recently, and it sounds to me like just more nonsense that Trump has made up. How has this been kept a secret all this while, if it was true?
These government subsidy things never make any sense to me. There was some kerfuffle the other day about Boeing not being happen at Bombardier receiving Canadian government aid, which is a pretty glaring example of a kettle complaining about a pot (not withstanding the fact that the way our governments here have handed out money to Bombardier has been pretty ham-handed and not very useful that anyone can tell). And it has been my understanding for a long time that US agriculture receives all kinds of government largesse, although I've always wondered if that only started after Big Corporate Farms entered the fray. I don't remember any such handouts to small family farms, although I don't know very much about that sector. I won't mention those too big to fail banks.
Stop reading the liberal, left Democrat media who thinks Trump doesn't know what he's doing. They hate him so much that they can't see the forest through the trees. So let me explain the what Trump is about. It's so simple, yet his enemies refuse to see it much or talk about. They're having too much good time trying to make him look stupid, like a guy who's worth $3.5 billion is a dope. Sheesch!
So here's the deal. To him, unless he's getting the best deal around, it's not fair. Even if it was fair. That's it! Think no further than that. So he starts by demanding the moon hoping to negotiate down to getting a mountain. Now that he's America's negotiator-in-chief, he's going to act in the best interest of the USA and ask for the moon in his non-real estate position. That's who he is. He's been learning how to do that and been doing it since he sat on his father's lap. If you try to take a half-a-dollar from him, he'll make sure he gets two dollars back from you. Trade, NAFTA, North Korea, China trade, NATO, Russia, Iran, immigration, the wall, Obamacare; they're all the same. It doesn't matter if we subsidize farms while Canada subsidizes airplanes. He'll demand Canada stop putting interference with our plane manufacturers and then negotiate some deal that will make it better for America. That's why we hired him after watching Obama give away our advantages. Trump wants to make things better for us, not Canada or Europe or elsewhere. Sorry I have to be the one to tell you.
-
While the Trumpster may be on the verge of a substantial White House overall/reboot the problem isn't the people under him, the problem is him. Or so says that #FAKENEWS rag called The Wall Street Journal...
The White House Mess (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-white-house-mess-1496186985?mod=e2fb)
This is the WSJ trying to get under Trump's skin and tell him what he should do, become president...not wasting his time and political juice on non-presidential activities like tweeting about stuff like covfefe...
While I'm not a Trump supporter (spoiler alert) I do certainly hope he doesn't simply screw America over–like he done so far.
For 7 of 8 years, Obama blamed the former President Bush for the problems he can't solve. Instead of standing up and accepting he's the Chief Executive Officer of America, he blamed others. The media parroted his complaints as America fell into weakness internationally. Typical government bureaucratic complaints. Trump, on the other hand, has already turned around the world's feelings about America's standing again. With all the phony complaints, our enemies fear Trump. He's no pushover. Our allies, to their incessant whining about him, are being told to tow the line. And they will.
Regarding his staff, every CEO who takes over a business has to weed out the deadbeats, misfits, traitors, and others who can't support him as he needs. That takes some time. All former administrations have this issue as do commercial businesses. I'm sure Trump will fine tune his staff now and will make future changes as required during his entire term. One thing about Trump, he's not against firing people. Sometimes it even seems heartless. But he will hire and had already hired some top notch people around him. The bad ones will be replaced. That's a positive and the Wall Street Journal should understand that being a business paper. Unfortunately, they too have fallen into the anti Trumpers. What are you going to do?
-
Maybe I'm missing something. It sounds like people have tacitly accepted the notion that Europe is somehow screwing the USA on trade deals. Is this even true? I don't recall even hearing about such an idea until recently, and it sounds to me like just more nonsense that Trump has made up. How has this been kept a secret all this while, if it was true?
That all depends on whether or not a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing. It seems Trump has been led to believe this is so...but it's much more complicated that deficit bad/surplus good (it's a completely simplistic view in line with Trump's world view). Sorry to lay out so much data but, well you kinda asked for it :~)
Take this article from Forbes a magazine not noted for being a left wing progressive rag, right?
Mr. Trump, Here's Why Trade Deficits Are Good (https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2017/02/27/mr-trump-heres-why-trade-deficits-are-good/#1455404c2b96)
President Trump seems to have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to trade deficits.
He seems to think big trade deficits mean the U.S. is losing in the game of international trade. (http://www.toledoblade.com/business/2017/02/08/U-S-trade-deficit-in-16-was-highest-since-2012.html). But nothing could be further from the truth. They are good: The bigger the better, in fact.
Here's what you need to know:
In 2016 the U.S. bought $347 billion more goods from China than it sold that country, according to U.S. Government data. (https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2017/trad1216.htm).
Sales competition?
It's easy to see why most people view that massive sum as a failure. On the face of it, a trade deficit between two countries means that one country exported way more goods than the other. For anyone who thrives on competition and sales, this must sound like losing. For the highly competitive Mr. Trump, that almost certainly appears just so, likely with the accompanying mental headline: "Chinese Win In Export Battle -- Sold More to the U.S. than Vice Versa."
But international trade isn't a sales competition, and the U.S. isn't losing. In fact, it's winning at something far more important than export sales.
Get the most, give the least
The idea with international trade is to import the largest volume of goods and services for any level of exports, as David Ranson, director of research at consulting firm HCWE & Co. has explained to me many times. The more goodies you get rather than give, the better off you are. In fact, this is just like life. Anyone with a job wants to trade the fewest hours possible for the largest volume of dollars.
All this means that a big trade deficit shows that you got more for your exports than did the other country. The bigger the deficit, the better your country came out in the trade deal. Clearly, the U.S. came out $347 billion ahead. That's awesome, but it's only part of the deal. It actually gets better.
China funds the U.S.
The deficit itself ends up being financed by the country with the trade surplus. In simple terms, China funds the huge U.S. trade deficit by lending money, currently at ultra-low interest rates. That means that China is helping finance the U.S. economy. That's a good thing.
It's also worth remembering that if the U.S. had a trade surplus with China, then its economy would be financed by the U.S., which wouldn't be nearly as good.
So, Trump is all riled up on what he thinks is bad, us importing more than we export...when in fact running a trade deficit means we're winning...
As it relates to Europe, here a page from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President. Note, not sure if this has been updated in fact Robert Lighthizer was confirmed as President Donald Trump's trade czar only a few weeks ago so it doesn't look like the site has been updated or scrubbed...
European Union (https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union)
The U.S. economic relationship with the EU is the largest and most complex in the world, generating goods and services trade flows of about $2.7 billion a day [2012 estimate] and transatlantic investment is directly responsible for roughly 6.8 million jobs [2010 estimate]. This enormous volume of transatlantic trade and investment promotes economic prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic and in the dozens of other countries that trade with the transatlantic partners. The United States and the EU continue to pursue initiatives to create new opportunities for transatlantic commerce.
Key Trade and Investment Data and Trends
U.S. goods and services trade with the EU totaled nearly $1.1 trillion in 2014 (latest data available for Goods and Services trade). Exports totaled $495 billion; Imports totaled $587 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with the EU was $91 billion in 2014.
The United States had $699 billion in total (two ways) goods trade with the European Union during 2015, its largest Goods trade partner. Goods exports totaled $273 billion; Goods imports totaled $426 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with the EU was $153 billion in 2015.
Trade in services with the EU (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $388 billion in 2014 (latest data available). Services exports were $219 billion; Services imports were $169 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with the EU was $51 billion in 2014.
According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of Goods and Services to the EU supported an estimated 2.6 million in jobs in 2014 (latest data available) (1.2 million supported by goods exports and 1.4 million supported by services).
Exports
The EU countries, together, would rank 2nd as an export market for the United States in 2015.
U.S. goods exports to the EU in 2015 were $272.7 billion down 1.3% ($3.5 billion) from 2014 but up 46% from 2005. U.S. exports to the EU accounted for 18.1% of overall U.S. goods exports in 2015.
The five largest country markets were: United Kingdom ($56.4 billion), Germany ($49.9 billion), Netherlands ($40.7 billion), Belgium ($34.1 billion), and France ($30.1 billion).
The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2015 were: Aircraft ($34.8 billion), Machinery ($30.7 billion), Pharmaceutical Products ($26.4 billion), Optic and Medical Instruments ($26.2 billion), and Electrical Machinery ($20.9 billion).
U.S. domestic exports of agricultural products to the EU totaled $12.1 billion in 2015. The EU countries together would rank 4th as an Ag Export Market for the United States. Leading categories include: tree nuts ($3.0 billion), soybeans ($1.9 billion), wine and beer ($685 million), and prepared food ($499 million),
U.S. exports of services to the EU were $219.3 billion in 2014 (latest data available), up 6.5% ($13.4 billion) from 2013, and 80% since 2004. Intellectual Property (industrial processes, computer software), financial services, travel, professional and management consulting services, and transportation services (including education) categories accounted for most of U.S. services exports to the EU.
Imports
The EU countries together, would rank as the 2nd largest supplier of imports to the United States in 2015.
U.S. goods imports from the EU totaled $426.0 billion in 2015, up 1.9% ($7.8 billion) from 2014, and up 37% from 2005. U.S. imports from the EU accounted for 19.0% of overall U.S. imports in 2015.
The five largest country suppliers of imports are: Germany ($124.1 billion), United Kingdom ($57.8 billion), France ($47.6 billion), Italy ($44.0 billion), and Ireland ($39.4 billion).
The five largest categories in 2015 were: Machinery ($70.2 billion), Vehicles ($58.8 billion), Pharmaceuticals Products ($53.2 billion), Optic and Medical Equipment ($26.9 billion), and Organic Chemicals ($25.9 billion).
U.S. imports for consumption of agricultural products from EU countries totaled $20.0 billion in 2015. The EU countries together rank 3rd (to Canada and Mexico) as a supplier of Ag imports to the United States. Leading categories include: wine and beer ($5.5 billion), essential oils ($2.6 billion), snack foods (including chocolate) ($1.4 billion), vegetable oils ($1.1 billion), and processed fruits and vegetables ($1.1 billion).
U.S. imports of services from the EU were $168.7 billion in 2014 (latest data available), up 3.8% ($6.2 billion) from 2013, and up 58% since 2004. Travel (including education), transportation services, and intellectual property (industrial processes, computer software), professional and management consulting services and research and development services categories accounted for most of U.S. services imports from the EU.
Trade Balance
The U.S. goods trade deficit with the EU was $153.3 billion in 2015, a 7.9% increase ($11.3 billion) over 2014 The U.S. goods trade deficit with the EU accounted for 20.8% of the overall U.S. goods trade deficit in 2015.
The United States has a services trade surplus of $50.6 billion with the EU in 2014 (latest data available), up 16.6% from 2013.
Yeah so we're running a goods trade deficit with the EU was $153.3 billion in 2015 but a services trade surplus of $50.6 billion with the EU in 2014
So, we're running a net -$102.7 billion deficit with the EU. By Forbe's logic, we're winning there too...
-
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18767462_10213141161783329_4239943793016245473_n.jpg?oh=41ef88f82e32abaf34cf743fcd69566d&oe=59B73A6E)
-
That all depends on whether or not a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing. It seems Trump has been led to believe this is so...but it's much more complicated that deficit bad/surplus good (it's a completely simplistic view in line with Trump's world view). Sorry to lay out so much data but, well you kinda asked for it :~)
Take this article from Forbes a magazine not noted for being a left wing progressive rag, right?
Mr. Trump, Here's Why Trade Deficits Are Good (https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2017/02/27/mr-trump-heres-why-trade-deficits-are-good/#1455404c2b96)
So, Trump is all riled up on what he thinks is bad, us importing more than we export...when in fact running a trade deficit means we're winning...
As it relates to Europe, here a page from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President. Note, not sure if this has been updated in fact Robert Lighthizer was confirmed as President Donald Trump's trade czar only a few weeks ago so it doesn't look like the site has been updated or scrubbed...
European Union (https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/european-union)
Yeah so we're running a goods trade deficit with the EU was $153.3 billion in 2015 but a services trade surplus of $50.6 billion with the EU in 2014
So, we're running a net -$102.7 billion deficit with the EU. By Forbe's logic, we're winning there too...
First off the article doesn't seem correct in it's analysis. Maybe I missed it's point correctly. It argues that Exports valued at less total dollars are paying for Imports valued at a total of more dollars.That's a barter system and not what's happening. . What we are doing is paying for imports with dollars not America goods. We're paying for the goods with an IOU called the dollar. A piece of paper. China can use the dollar to buy stuff from America, our exports, and use the dollar surplus to buy from other countries such as for Saudi Arabian oil or subsidize us buying our bonds with the dollar surplus.
But this will only end badly as we are now the world's largest debtor. Years ago we were the world's largest creditor. I rather people owed me a lot of money than the other way around.
Regarding Europe, if Trump can get the EU to reduce its VAT taxes and import duties, America will be able to sell more and create more American jobs and greater wealth for the country. The idea that selling less goods internationally is somehow better than selling more is illogical. What business says it want to reduce sales and profits? That doesn't happen. They're always looking to expand sales and profits. Remember, countries do not produce and sell products. Private businesses do whether they're selling domestically or internationally. More sales are better. More exports are better.
-
The USA has the largest economy in the world. Really, the USA has the big stack; they are the Chipper MaGea at the poker table. Merkel may not like the one holding the cards right now, but that makes no difference.
Really, I don't like it when I play against some loud mouth player that always boast, but it does not stop me from working him and taking his chips. Not that I am for that kind of behavior, but I am not going to let them stop me from taking his money.
This is the same nonsense when people said Greek should tell Germany to shove it a few years ago with Germany's bailout demands. It made no sense then; in that card card, Germany had all of the chips.
Same thing here.
Speaking from what I know, photography, Schneider has two, maybe three, factories in the USA making the some of the best lenses to supply for, by far, the largest cinematography market in the world. Same thing with Carl Zeiss. Do you really think Merkel is just going to sit back and let them pay out the ass in the tariffs to operate in this country, especially considering Canon and Fuji are all but too ready to take over that market?
This isn't about Merkel. Forget the focus on her. The USA is very powerful but no longer as powerful as it likes to think, I'm afraid. Take cameras - Asia has a camera market much larger than the USA's. Even Europe has a larger camera market than the USA's. The US imports more because it manufactures less. But those jobs and that manufacturing won't come back. The fantasy here is to think they will and then lash out when they don't. The "rustbelt" jobs are gone for good. They can only be replaced with different jobs, different skills, different industries. My country has exactly the same problem.
Countries will still talk to the American state and do minor deals here and there but I don't think they will line up to do big deals with an administration (and its family entourage) seen largely as crooked, toxic and quite possibly short-lived politically. What on earth is the point? No upside in that for state players. Within a year, the US may be under UN-applied sanctions for busting the Paris climate change accords. Instead, it is quite likely China will start making hay and new friends as Trump degrades old alliances. Europe + China = a market for goods and services larger or potentially larger than anything the US can offer. The world order is changing and it's hard to see how the US will benefit from Trump's behaviour. His view is that of a generation ago and his bellicosity is a turn-off. China is investing massively in infrastructure to transport goods all over the European-Asian landmass, from Beijing to Berlin. The scale of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor alone is pretty darn large. The sheer size of what's happening is breathtaking but often not well publicized in the West. The big prize is China. Merkel is a messenger, if anything at all.
The world revolves around trade and trade revolves around alliances which promote peace. Similar problem here with the Brexit movement which badly underestimates Germany and France and overestimates Britain's clout in the world.
-
Trump is a tough negotiator. From personal experience, he'll take it to the edge.
But does he have any experience with negotiating with equals? It is easy to be a "tough negotiator" when negotiating with contractors where Trump can either just walk away in a snit or simply default on the agreement. When he knows that he can "out lawyer" the other party, it's easy to be a tough negotiator. But can he be trusted to negotiate when he can't walk away from the table... When he has to be held accountable for the results of the negotiation... when the only acceptable outcome is a compromise and not just what he wants?
Those are the questions that some of us have. He does not seem to have that experience nor the temperament that would lend itself to the belief that he can learn "on the job".
Running a country is not like running a business. Never has been, never will.
Different skill set and one I am doubtful that Trump has.
-
Stop reading the liberal, left Democrat media who thinks Trump doesn't know what he's doing. They hate him so much that they can't see the forest through the trees. So let me explain the what Trump is about. It's so simple, yet his enemies refuse to see it much or talk about. They're having too much good time trying to make him look stupid, like a guy who's worth $3.5 billion is a dope. Sheesch!
So you think no one has noticed that he's trying to do that?
-
So here's the deal. To him, unless he's getting the best deal around, it's not fair. Even if it was fair. That's it! Think no further than that. So he starts by demanding the moon hoping to negotiate down to getting a mountain. Now that he's America's negotiator-in-chief, he's going to act in the best interest of the USA and ask for the moon in his non-real estate position. That's who he is. He's been learning how to do that and been doing it since he sat on his father's lap. If you try to take a half-a-dollar from him, he'll make sure he gets two dollars back from you. Trade, NAFTA, North Korea, China trade, NATO, Russia, Iran, immigration, the wall, Obamacare; they're all the same. It doesn't matter if we subsidize farms while Canada subsidizes airplanes. He'll demand Canada stop putting interference with our plane manufacturers and then negotiate some deal that will make it better for America. That's why we hired him after watching Obama give away our advantages. Trump wants to make things better for us, not Canada or Europe or elsewhere. Sorry I have to be the one to tell you.
My real point was this. What exactly has happened recently that is so bad between Europe and the USA that Trump feels the need to go insulting everyone with whom the USA has had previous good relations. This seems like a manufactured crisis to me. If there are things to renegotiate in trade agreements, there are ways to do that. Shooting his mouth off making imbecilic statements about "evil" Germany and BMW is not "tough negotiation". How many of you would continue to sit in a room negotiating with someone whose opening gambit is to call you names in what has been an otherwise friendly relationship? You are bending over so far to find something good and useful in him that it strains credulity. You can't possibly believe that anyone is fooled or pressured by these transparent "tactics".
And if the USA really and truly is annoyed that other countries are not pulling their weight in their own common defense, all the USA has to do is shut down some of their 700 military bases around the world. See if that prompts some action.
Permit me an anecdote. A neighbour lady is Moroccan-born and she visits family back home every couple of years. During her last trip she was at a local fest and met a Chinese businessman who was involved in a local infrastructure project. He had been living there for several years and stunned her because he spoke their local dialect very well. This is a common thing to see, I am told. Who do you think people are going to want to do business with, Trump or a guy like that?
I am curious. You said that he is worth $3.5 billion. Is this self-declared or a best guess? I question your assertion that because someone has money that he is smart. Sometimes it's true, of course, but not always. Just means he did something right along the way, doesn't mean he's a suitable world leader. I've worked along several good salesmen that I wouldn't hire to run a hotdog stand.
-
China and EU strengthen commitment to Paris deal with US poised to step away
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/china-eu-climate-lead-paris-agreement
"Beijing and Brussels to set up new alliance to reduce global carbon emissions as Donald Trump says he will announce decision later on Thursday"
China and the EU will forge an alliance to take a leading role in tackling climate change in response to Donald Trump’s expected decision to pull the US out of the historic Paris agreement.
Trump tweeted on Wednesday night that he would announce his decision at 3pm ET (8pm BST) on Thursday. There are fears that will he confirm reports that the US will soon join Nicaragua and Syria on the small list of countries refusing to back the climate accord, signed in 2015.
Who really needs Trump's USA? Too unreliable, energy draining, just like Steve Bannon likes. Trump doesn't understand that he's being played by Bannon, who earlier tried it with Sarah Palin (an even easier target). Bannon is a really clever guy, but with a very unpleasant goal, the disruption of society in the USA. It's easier to take control when all is in turmoil, and nobody knows if the news is fake or not.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Who really needs Trump's USA? Too unreliable, energy draining, just like Steve Bannon likes. Trump doesn't understand that he's being played by Bannon, who earlier tried it with Sarah Palin (an even easier target). Bannon is a really clever guy, but with a very unpleasant goal, the disruption of society in the USA. It's easier to take control when all is in turmoil, and nobody knows if the news is fake or not.
Cheers,
Bart
Unfortunately, the climate really does need it - the USA's investment in fossil fuels may be forfeiting any claim it has to being a leader (and the opportunity to be among the dominant players in renewable energy), but it's a huge blow to the planet even if all the other signatories actually make good on their commitments. And most of what is actually being done amounts to no more than bandaids that make people feel better, and give the illusion that our leaders are actually doing something.
Your last sentence reminds me of Trump's earlier business venture (President being his latest) as a casino owner. Casinos are designed in every way to guide people into position and distract them with all kinds of lights and sounds and even smells in order to addict them to their game, so that they don't notice what's actually being done to them - and even when they do, they are so addicted to the sensation they can no longer stop.
-
But does he have any experience with negotiating with equals? It is easy to be a "tough negotiator" when negotiating with contractors where Trump can either just walk away in a snit or simply default on the agreement. When he knows that he can "out lawyer" the other party, it's easy to be a tough negotiator. But can he be trusted to negotiate when he can't walk away from the table... When he has to be held accountable for the results of the negotiation... when the only acceptable outcome is a compromise and not just what he wants?
Those are the questions that some of us have. He does not seem to have that experience nor the temperament that would lend itself to the belief that he can learn "on the job".
Running a country is not like running a business. Never has been, never will.
Different skill set and one I am doubtful that Trump has.
No one is equal to an American president. Business CEO's and foreign leaders can only dream of having the levers of military and economic power that an American president has. Obama didn't know how to use them. Trump does and has the temperament to exercise them.
-
No one is equal to an American president. Business CEO's and foreign leaders can only dream of having the levers of military and economic power that an American president has. Obama didn't know how to use them. Trump does and has the temperament to exercise them.
I agree nobody can equal Trump (thank God), but currently his temperament will be the biggest stumbling block to exercise the American economic powers. You can't bully people into deals they don't want to make. His current behaviour is 100% counterproductive to making any new or better deals for the US.
-
No one is equal to an American president. Business CEO's and foreign leaders can only dream of having the levers of military and economic power that an American president has. Obama didn't know how to use them. Trump does and has the temperament to exercise them.
Exercise them to do what? What problem needs to be fixed, exactly? Are you saying that americans lack economic opportunity or that they are hampered by the rest of the world in some way? It was your own "free market" gurus who shaped your economy over the last generation. Are you actually blaming the left or hippies for that? Do you really think it's the media's fault that your manufacturing was sent elsewhere?
Your own leaders tossed your middle class overboard. Or are you blaming muslims and Europeans for that?
The strategy is so incoherent and confused that it's hard to know what you're even talking about.
-
I also do not have confidence that Trump understands that international negotiations encompass more than just the deal being negotiated. The world is much more nuanced than that. We may negotiate a deal with country A on issue 1, but in a way that influences issue 20 with country A. We may even negotiate a deal with country A on issue 1 in the context of how it affects a deal with country Q and issue 30.
It is all interconnected.
We often accept a less than optimal deal on issue 1, if it results in a more optimal deal on issue 50. Everything about foreign policy is about nuance and externalities.
I fear that Trump can't see past the deal immediately in front of him. He does not seem to have the attention span to think strategically.
I liken him to playing checkers in a chess match.
-
No one is equal to an American president. Business CEO's and foreign leaders can only dream of having the levers of military and economic power that an American president has. Obama didn't know how to use them. Trump does and has the temperament to exercise them.
Temperament for sure, but not the wisdom.
It still escapes me why he wasted all these good Tomahawks and other damage on a totally misguided and ineffective bombing mission in Syria.
-
Well, almost 30 minutes into the press conference, the message is pretty empty. So is the podium.
Cheers,
Bart
-
First off the article doesn't seem correct in it's analysis. Maybe I missed it's point correctly.
Let me see if you can grasp it if I type more slowly, a trade deficit is not automatically a bad think (as Trump thinks because we all know he hate to lose) but can actually be seen as a good thin (as the Forbes article tries to point out).
Ok, maybe if I point you to a Right-Center source called the CATO Institute:
Are Trade Deficits Really Bad News? (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-trade-deficits-really-bad-news)
(it should be noted that the article is from 1998 so the numbers are out of date but economic theory hasn't changed in the last decade)
America’s merchandise trade deficit could hit $250 billion in 1998, propelled to a record high by financial turmoil and plunging growth rates in the Far East. If the past is any guide, the widening trade gap will be reported almost universally as grim news. Critics of free trade will wave the deficit numbers as a rallying call to get tough with “unfair” trading partners.
But are trade deficits necessarily bad for the U.S. economy?
The answer is no. Trade deficits are not a sign of unfair trade practices or a lack of American “competitiveness.” Trade deficits are caused by factors in the macroeconomy that are not directly related to trade. To understand why, journalists should borrow a technique from investigative reporting and “follow the money.”
When Americans buy imports, foreigners must do something with the dollars they earn. They can either use the dollars to buy American exports or to invest in American assets, such as Treasury bills, stocks, real estate, and factories.
If the amount of investment capital entering the U.S. exceeds the amount flowing Out, the extra dollars entering the country can then be used by Americans to buy imports over and above the amount we could buy merely from what we earn by selling exports. So a current account deficit is simply the mirror image of a capital account surplus.
In the global economy, some countries, such as the United States, are net importers of capital and thus run a trade deficit. Others, such as Japan, are net capital exporters because domestic savings exceed domestic investment. The excess savings these capital exporters send abroad returns to their home market to purchase exports, creating a trade surplus.
--snip--
If a trade deficit is determined solely by rates of savings and investment, then the U.S. trade deficit will be impervious to a get-tough trade policy. Slapping higher tariffs on imports will only deprive foreigners of the dollars they would have earned by selling in the U.S. market.
This in turn will reduce the supply of dollars on the international currency market, raise the value of the dollar relative to other currencies, and make dollar-priced U.S. exports more expensive for foreign buyers, thus reducing demand for our exports. Eventually, the volume of exports will fall along with imports and the trade deficit will remain largely unchanged.
Nations do not trade with each other; people do. America’s trade deficit with the rest of the world is only the sum of the individual choices made by American citizens. Those choices, to buy an import or to sell an export, only take place if both parties to the transaction believe it will make them better off. In this way, the “balance of trade” is always positive.
The only reason the U.S. trade deficit is bad news is that so many people believe it is bad news.
So, think about the above...what part of trade deficits are not bad don't you understand? It's basic economics...Trump is a transactional win/loose sort of guy who simply doesn't understand economic theory and is simply parroting what the alt-right has been feeding him.
And if you think the CATO Institute is a left wing progressive conspiracy think tank, it's not...
From their web site:
About CATO (https://www.cato.org/about)
The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.
Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato’s Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets — turn out to be even more powerful in today’s world of global markets and unprecedented access to information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future.
It's the very hallmark of conservative republican principles...in fact, it was founded in 1974 in Wichita, Kansas as the Charles Koch Foundation and initially funded by Charles Koch. Yes, that's the one half of the Koch brothers who basically funded the rise of the Tea Party and is a huge source of GOP funding...
So, why would I possibly be able to agree with a right wing conservative? Because he's right...it's to America's best interests to be able to run a trade deficit (within reason) and be funded by other countries.
That's why it's so friggin' stupid of Trump to listen to his alt-right America 1st nut balls that really don't have a clue.
Sorry to say it bud but if you and other Trump supporters understood economics better you wouldn't be so ready to assume Trump knows what he's doing...
-
Well, way to go Donny...you wanted America 1st, now you're gonna get America all by itself (with Syria and Nicaragua).
SYRIA AND NICARAGUA...nice company you picked to hang out with butthead...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/VB7J3029.jpg)
(Ice is being broken for the new Trump Towers in Antarctica ©Jeff Schewe)
China and EU offer sharp contrast with US on climate change (https://www.ft.com/content/06ccfc32-45d4-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996)
(from Least-Biased Financial Times)
Donald Trump’s antagonistic encounter with his G7 allies in Sicily last week has set up an easy public relations victory for Li Keqiang, China’s premier, who is meeting EU leaders in Brussels this week.
On his European trip, Mr Li will reiterate China’s previous commitments to combating climate warming and promoting free trade in meetings with EU leaders and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, presenting a sharp contrast with the US president’s lack of enthusiasm for the Paris accord.
Mr Trump is poised to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two White House officials.
A decision by Mr Trump to back out of the Paris agreement the same week that Mr Li is in Europe would revive memories of the World Economic Forum’s annual Davos meeting, when President Xi Jinping portrayed China as a responsible global citizen just days before his US counterpart declared a new “America First” era at his inauguration.
“It has certainly given us an opportunity, especially on climate and trade issues,” said Wang Hui at the University of International Relations in Beijing. “Trump is a businessman who emphasises America’s own interests rather than common interests. China and Europe must now step up and assume our international responsibilities together.”
So, is it Trump's plan to piss off our European allies and pull out of Paris just to help Chine? Is that his new "negotiating tactic" to make America 1st again? This helps America how?
Does anybody else think we have a friggin' idiot for a President?
-
Trump is an Extinction Level Event
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQtw8DWAAA4ptb.jpg)
-
The only positive outcome is that we may be able to merge this thread and the one about climate change scepticism into one. ;)
But yes, it becomes pretty clear that Trump simply isn't smart enough a person to run a country, let alone the US.
I feel for the huge frustation that is felt by a large majority of Americans and am sorry for the hundreds of people that will probably die of heart releated desease as a result of the additional stress resulting from seeing their great country relegated to the role of WW big vilain in just a few months.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
France, Italy, Germany defend Paris Accord, say cannot be renegotiated
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-eu-idUSKBN18S6GN
"Italy, France and Germany said on Thursday they regretted U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and dismissed his suggestion that the global pact could be revised.
"We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies," the leaders of the three countries said in a rare joint statement.
Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron urged their allies to speed up efforts to combat climate change and said they would do more to help developing countries adapt"
Great opportunities lie ahead, China requiring European know-how and technology, and Europe seeking to achieve less dumping of Chinese steel and a mutual Trade Agreement.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Let me see if you can grasp it if I type more slowly, a trade deficit is not automatically a bad think (as Trump thinks because we all know he hate to lose) but can actually be seen as a good thin (as the Forbes article tries to point out).
Ok, maybe if I point you to a Right-Center source called the CATO Institute:
Are Trade Deficits Really Bad News? (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-trade-deficits-really-bad-news)
(it should be noted that the article is from 1998 so the numbers are out of date but economic theory hasn't changed in the last decade)
So, think about the above...what part of trade deficits are not bad don't you understand? It's basic economics...Trump is a transactional win/loose sort of guy who simply doesn't understand economic theory and is simply parroting what the alt-right has been feeding him.
And if you think the CATO Institute is a left wing progressive conspiracy think tank, it's not...
From their web site:
About CATO (https://www.cato.org/about)
It's the very hallmark of conservative republican principles...in fact, it was founded in 1974 in Wichita, Kansas as the Charles Koch Foundation and initially funded by Charles Koch. Yes, that's the one half of the Koch brothers who basically funded the rise of the Tea Party and is a huge source of GOP funding...
So, why would I possibly be able to agree with a right wing conservative? Because he's right...it's to America's best interests to be able to run a trade deficit (within reason) and be funded by other countries.
That's why it's so friggin' stupid of Trump to listen to his alt-right America 1st nut balls that really don't have a clue.
Sorry to say it bud but if you and other Trump supporters understood economics better you wouldn't be so ready to assume Trump knows what he's doing...
Jeff, let me put it another way. You're a great writer of photography books. https://www.amazon.com/Jeff-Schewe/e/B001I9Q7XG I assume you sell these all over the world. Let's say you sold $25,000 worth of books over the last 5 years to Europe while they had import taxes and VAT taxes much higher than what America puts on European books imported to the US.
Along comes Trump. He negotiates a deal with the EU that they will match our lower import charges reducing the cost of your books to European readers by 35%. Because of the lower cost, sales of your books increase significantly. Total sales over the next five years increases to $40,000. You and your publisher are $15,000 richer than you would have been if Europe kept those same taxes. America is $15,000 richer. The trade deficit is $15,000 less than it could have been.
Now, doesn't that sound like a good deal for you? Do you see how Trump is in your corner?
-
France, Italy, Germany defend Paris Accord, say cannot be renegotiated
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-eu-idUSKBN18S6GN
"Italy, France and Germany said on Thursday they regretted U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and dismissed his suggestion that the global pact could be revised.
"We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies," the leaders of the three countries said in a rare joint statement.
Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron urged their allies to speed up efforts to combat climate change and said they would do more to help developing countries adapt"
Great opportunities lie ahead, China requiring European know-how and technology, and Europe seeking to achieve less dumping of Chinese steel and a mutual Trade Agreement.
Cheers,
Bart
I don't see how not being part of the Paris Agreement prevents American companies from continuing to develop alternative energies. Free markets continue to operate. Musk isn't going to stop producing the electric Tesla car and rechargeable batteries. If there is a market for particular goods, the free market will create it. The American taxpayer doesn't have to subsidize it.
Worse yet, is that if American stayed in the Paris agreement, it would pay the amounts even though there's no penalty for not. But Europe and others won't pay what they said they would anymore than how they didn't pay the 2% for defense in the NATO situation.. America will wind up carrying the load as usual. Trump made the right decision for America.
-
Free markets continue to operate.
Markets are not free. They're anything BUT free.
-
Trump is the supreme idiot and a racist to boot. I've actually done business with this bozo and yes he tried to skip out on the last payment. It's amazing how powerful a Mechanics Lean is and the results it achieves. Mr balding yellow haired corpulent moron had to pay his bill before he could sell anything in the building. The guy's a loser and is trying to drag us all down with him. He'll always have that 35% of people who believe the earth is flat, President Obama was born in Kenya, and the sun rises in the west. The midterm elections in 2018 will make him a lame duck because the Dems will retake one of the houses of Congress. Today's decision to leave the Paris Agreement won't even take place until 2020 just when this bloated nitwit will get the boot from the American People (yes everyone who can vote will be voting).
-
Trump is the supreme idiot and a racist to boot. I've actually done business with this bozo and yes he tried to skip out on the last payment. It's amazing how powerful a Mechanics Lean is and the results it achieves. Mr balding yellow haired corpulent moron had to pay his bill before he could sell anything in the building. The guy's a loser and is trying to drag us all down with him. He'll always have that 35% of people who believe the earth is flat, President Obama was born in Kenya, and the sun rises in the west. The midterm elections in 2018 will make him a lame duck because the Dems will retake one of the houses of Congress. Today's decision to leave the Paris Agreement won't even take place until 2020 just when this bloated nitwit will get the boot from the American People (yes everyone who can vote will be voting).
I've done business in NYC with developers like Trump and was screwed by one too. They're all cheap, but rich. Now we need someone to represent America as we've been screwed by the world too often. Our last president let most of the world take advantage of us militarily and economically. Now one of these real estate bastards is working for us. Let's take advantage of it to secure a better future for America. Glad you got your money back. I didn't.
-
The only positive outcome is that we may be able to merge this thread and the one about climate change scepticism into one. ;)
But yes, it becomes pretty clear that Trump simply isn't smart enough a person to run a country, let alone the US.
I feel for the huge frustation that is felt by a large majority of Americans and am sorry for the hundreds of people that will probably die of heart releated desease as a result of the additional stress resulting from seeing their great country relegated to the role of WW big vilain in just a few months.
Cheers,
Bernard
Obama who signed the original agreement thought he was president of the world. Trump on the other hand knows he's only president of the US and acts that way. They'll be no more free rides at America's expense. Sorry.
-
The conventional wisdom was that the German Chancellor might lose power this fall. Now, thanks to anger at the U.S. president, she's leading in the polls.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/is-this-angela-merkels-moment-to-lead-trumps-move-to-pull-out-of-paris-accord-is-further-riling-europe
-
Along comes Trump. He negotiates a deal with the EU that they will match our lower import charges reducing the cost of your books to European readers by 35%.
So, along comes Trump (who didn't realize that he couldn't negotiate a unilateral trade agreement with Germany when he met with Angela Merkel) who is going to sit down with who, the G7 countries he just spat on? Eeeeeeek, I suspect that won't go down well...
I was going to write out a well thought out and researched response to your simplistic example but even though I had a bunch written, I realized it would be tilting at windmills. Trump and his supporters have overly simplistic and largely incorrect impressions of foreign trade, the impact on jobs the cost/benefit of trade deficits or surpluses and a misunderstanding of tariffs, duties, VAT and other taxes. I could try to explain these things to you but so far you don't seem to be grasping the explanations even if delivered by hyper conservative economics like the CATO Institute.
Trump, as he has admitted in several interviews, had no clue how difficult the job of being President would be. He's not having fun...his experience in his businesses are not serving to help him learn how to govern. The people he's surrounded himself with the exception of the national security and defense people are unschooled in governance and are political rookies. They are being outplayed on the field. Some Trump supporters thought that would be good to go to Washington and tear it down and build it back up with a different shape and nature. Problem is, doing that is very difficult as Trump & team have found out and they aren't handling the difficulties well.
Today Trump said: "We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore," thundered President Trump, "and they won't be."
Yeah, they aren't laughing...they are crying...while this is about the Paris Accords, it relates directly to international trade as well...it show a gross ineptitude in Trump's presidency.
The world's not laughing, Donald, it's crying (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40128046)
"President Trump's speech was confused nonsense," said Bob Ward from the UK's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.
"He announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, while also launching negotiations to re-enter the agreement.
"But the agreement states that no country can withdraw within three years of it coming into force, and the process of withdrawal takes a further year to complete.
Mr Ward continued: "That means the United States cannot complete withdrawal from the Paris Agreement before 5 November 2020, the day after the next presidential election in the United States. So Mr Trump will not have withdrawn from the agreement within this presidential term."
So you go right ahead and hope Trump somehow learns how to become something he's never shown any ability to do, has never done and is doing it exceptionally pool so far–you/we better hope he learns how to be president soon before we circle the drain.
-
So, along comes Trump (who didn't realize that he couldn't negotiate a unilateral trade agreement with Germany when he met with Angela Merkel) who is going to sit down with who, the G7 countries he just spat on? Eeeeeeek, I suspect that won't go down well...
Fortunately they didn't put him in a BMW ;)
-
So, along comes Trump (who didn't realize that he couldn't negotiate a unilateral trade agreement with Germany when he met with Angela Merkel) who is going to sit down with who, the G7 countries he just spat on? Eeeeeeek, I suspect that won't go down well...
I was going to write out a well thought out and researched response to your simplistic example but even though I had a bunch written, I realized it would be tilting at windmills. Trump and his supporters have overly simplistic and largely incorrect impressions of foreign trade, the impact on jobs the cost/benefit of trade deficits or surpluses and a misunderstanding of tariffs, duties, VAT and other taxes. I could try to explain these things to you but so far you don't seem to be grasping the explanations even if delivered by hyper conservative economics like the CATO Institute.
Trump, as he has admitted in several interviews, had no clue how difficult the job of being President would be. He's not having fun...his experience in his businesses are not serving to help him learn how to govern. The people he's surrounded himself with the exception of the national security and defense people are unschooled in governance and are political rookies. They are being outplayed on the field. Some Trump supporters thought that would be good to go to Washington and tear it down and build it back up with a different shape and nature. Problem is, doing that is very difficult as Trump & team have found out and they aren't handling the difficulties well.
Today Trump said: "We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore," thundered President Trump, "and they won't be."
Yeah, they aren't laughing...they are crying...while this is about the Paris Accords, it relates directly to international trade as well...it show a gross ineptitude in Trump's presidency.
It may all be best seen as a kind of passing fever in which the angry victim retreats to a lonely room, puts their hands over their eyes and shouts "Go away, world!". The good news is that it should pass reasonably soon. Elections may first hobble the guy, then remove him from office. In the meantime, the major powers are going to shut Trump out as best they can and wait on his passing. Yes, this will all affect trade and it will affect the scope of American influence too. They are interlinked. The more influence you have, the better the agreements you can strike with others. If you are going to slap everyone under thirty in the face, which is what this Paris stuff amounts to, then don't expect to have much influence in future. Fortunately, the US electoral system means this episode may be short-lived and so the damage not too bad. I guess we all hope so. Businesses arre likely to ignore him anyway. They aren't going to expose themselves to practices which might result in a carbon tax on their products, or miss out on the huge market for alternative energy ideas. There's nothing going for a seventy-year-old with no friends out there except for crooked lobbyists, alt-right crazies and a world view half a century behind the times. So far, Russia has sided with China over the Paris accords which means that even Mr Putin may be tiring of his antics
-
Obama who signed the original agreement thought he was president of the world. Trump on the other hand knows he's only president of the US and acts that way. They'll be no more free rides at America's expense. Sorry.
No, Obama was just aware that the US is part of the world and can both benefit from that and make the world benefit from it.
He wasn't talking about win win deals he was living and acting as one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Least biased Reuters is too mild with "misunderstood", but that's when you try to be unbiased
Trump misunderstood MIT climate research, university officials say
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-mit-idUSKBN18S6L0
"Massachusetts Institute of Technology officials said U.S. President Donald Trump badly misunderstood their research when he cited it on Thursday to justify withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Trump announced during a speech at the White House Rose Garden that he had decided to pull out of the landmark climate deal, in part because it would not reduce global temperatures fast enough to have a significant impact.
"Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100," Trump said.
"Tiny, tiny amount."
That claim was attributed to research conducted by MIT, according to White House documents seen by Reuters. The Cambridge, Massaschusetts-based research university published a study in April 2016 titled "How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?" (https://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-difference-will-paris-agreement-make-0422) showing that if countries abided by their pledges in the deal, global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100.
"We certainly do not support the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris agreement," said Erwan Monier, a lead researcher at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, and one of the study's authors.
"If we don't do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic," said John Reilly, the co-director of the program, adding that MIT's scientists had had no contact with the White House and were not offered a chance to explain their work. "
And in somewhat more realistic and stronger words from Technology Review, "the White House cherry-picked the lowest number they could find";
Trump Misused MIT Research in Reasons for Ditching Climate Deal
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608015/trump-misused-mit-research-in-reasons-for-ditching-climate-deal/
"As President Donald Trump explained his rationale for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement on Thursday, he cited research that seemed to suggest the global emissions cuts agreed to under the deal wouldn’t make a significant difference in worldwide temperatures.
“It is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree … Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,” he said, during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden. “Tiny, tiny amount.”
But that’s not actually what the relevant research found, or what the scientists in question concluded."
""In fact, the "two-tenths of one degree" figure seems to have come from an earlier study by the same group conducted in 2014, before the Paris deal was finalized the following year. It didn’t include all the eventual commitments to cut emissions by participating nations, or assume any continuation of those pledges beyond 2030, says Erwan Monier, coauthor of the study and principal research scientist at MIT’s department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.
It appears, he says, that the White House cherry picked the lowest number they could find among studies that explored the impact of the climate accord.
So it's dishonest Fake facts by Trump, again, and again. That, or he is too stupid to listen to Steve Bannon and Scott Pruitt and understand what their agenda is.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Macron - Trump made a stupid decision - Let's make our planet great again.
Great and moving speech.
http://www.spiegel.de/video/emmanuel-macron-zu-donald-trump-und-klimaabkommen-video-1771575.html
-
Macron - Trump made a stupid decision - Let's make our planet great again.
Great and moving speech.
http://www.spiegel.de/video/emmanuel-macron-zu-donald-trump-und-klimaabkommen-video-1771575.html
And Macron was clever enough to do it in English. And the invitation to USA citizens to come and work in France was a nice touch, probably also more to the point now that the EPA is getting dismantled.
U.S. environmental agency to offer buyouts to cut staff: memo
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-buyouts-exclusive-idUSKBN18S6N5
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to offer some employees a buyout program to reduce staff, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters, as President Donald Trump proposes slashing the agency's budget and workforce to reduce regulation.
The memo sent by acting Deputy Administrator Mike Flynn on Thursday said the agency wants to complete the buyout program by September. It did not give a dollar figure for the buyouts or say how many employees it hoped would take the offer.
The memo was sent to all employees at the same time EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt joined Trump at the White House to announce that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement."
Cheers,
Bart
-
And Macron was clever enough to do it in English. And the invitation to USA citizens to come and work in France was a nice touch, probably also more to the point now that the EPA is getting dismantled.
The only negative is that Canada wanted also all those smart Americans ;)
-
The only negative is that Canada wanted also all those smart Americans ;)
Only good news for their market value, and for feeling welcome instead of being pucked out for their warnings and for producing measurements of effects.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just to make sure we don't lose perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Especially relevant if we combine that with a view of that list sorted on per capita contribution.
China has a long way to go, but they do have a much larger population.
So using China as an excuse to feel disadvantaged is also based on Fake facts.
Besides, China is developing, whereas the USA has been polluting for a long time already, as shown in the attached Cumulative CO2 emission chart (arribution:By Chris55 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42211244).
Cheers,
Bart
-
So, along comes Trump (who didn't realize that he couldn't negotiate a unilateral trade agreement with Germany when he met with Angela Merkel) who is going to sit down with who, the G7 countries he just spat on? Eeeeeeek, I suspect that won't go down well...
I was going to write out a well thought out and researched response to your simplistic example but even though I had a bunch written, I realized it would be tilting at windmills. Trump and his supporters have overly simplistic and largely incorrect impressions of foreign trade, the impact on jobs the cost/benefit of trade deficits or surpluses and a misunderstanding of tariffs, duties, VAT and other taxes. I could try to explain these things to you but so far you don't seem to be grasping the explanations even if delivered by hyper conservative economics like the CATO Institute.
Trump, as he has admitted in several interviews, had no clue how difficult the job of being President would be. He's not having fun...his experience in his businesses are not serving to help him learn how to govern. The people he's surrounded himself with the exception of the national security and defense people are unschooled in governance and are political rookies. They are being outplayed on the field. Some Trump supporters thought that would be good to go to Washington and tear it down and build it back up with a different shape and nature. Problem is, doing that is very difficult as Trump & team have found out and they aren't handling the difficulties well.
Today Trump said: "We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore," thundered President Trump, "and they won't be."
Yeah, they aren't laughing...they are crying...while this is about the Paris Accords, it relates directly to international trade as well...it show a gross ineptitude in Trump's presidency.
The world's not laughing, Donald, it's crying (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40128046)
So you go right ahead and hope Trump somehow learns how to become something he's never shown any ability to do, has never done and is doing it exceptionally pool so far–you/we better hope he learns how to be president soon before we circle the drain.
You're the first businessman I ever met who didn't want to expand his sales and profits. You're allowing your hatred of Trump distort logical thinking. Maybe you don't need the extra money that lower European VAT and import taxes will bring you. Simply amazing how you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot.
-
Sorry, wrong idiom. I meant to say cut off your nose to spite your face.
-
You're the first businessman I ever met who didn't want to expand his sales and profits.
I haven't read that he said that, Jeff is just saying your logic is wrong, and I agree with him.
To say it differently, you need to look further then the end of your nose ;)
-
And Macron was clever enough to do it in English. And the invitation to USA citizens to come and work in France was a nice touch, probably also more to the point now that the EPA is getting dismantled.
First, may I remind you that French was the diplomatic language of the world. Now it's English. Second, Macron is posturing. France will abandon spending any money they said they would under the Paris Accords. The other countries will do the same. The world was hoping for America to help make them richer. Sorry. Trump ended the giveaway.
-
I haven't read that he said that, Jeff is just saying your logic is wrong, and I agree with him.
To say it differently, you need to look further then the end of your nose ;)
Trust me. Jeff is secretly hoping Europe reduces import duties and VAT taxes so he can sell more of his photo books in Europe. Like Trump, he's not a dummy. In Europe, Nikons cost 35-40% more than in the USA. Why do you think Europeans shop in B and H Photo when they travel to New York City? If the EU dropped import duties and VATs on cameras, most Europeans on LuLa would be "tickled pink", another idiom. They would buy more Nikons and more of Jeff's books. :)
-
First, may I remind you that French was the diplomatic language of the world. Now it's English.
Macron was not speaking to diplomats. He was speaking on French television, so in principle to the French audience and whomever else may be watching.
Second, Macron is posturing.
No, he's not taking Trump seriously as a partner.
France will abandon spending any money they said they would under the Paris Accords. The other countries will do the same. The world was hoping for America to help make them richer. Sorry. Trump ended the giveaway.
Keep dreaming. Make America last again.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Second, Macron is posturing. France will abandon spending any money they said they would under the Paris Accords. The other countries will do the same.
You seem to be a mind reader, but I think you're just dead wrong with this statement. Europe, Russia and China have all said they will continue under the accord and it will be the US that's hurt most by this in the end. Standing on the sideline with a big mouth and hollow slogans never does your economy any good.
-
Trust me. Jeff is secretly hoping Europe reduces import duties and VAT taxes so he can sell more of his photo books in Europe. Like Trump, he's not a dummy. In Europe, Nikons cost 35-40% more than in the USA. Why do you think Europeans shop in B and H Photo when they travel to New York City? If the EU dropped import duties and VATs on cameras, most Europeans on LuLa would be "tickled pink", another idiom. They would buy more Nikons and more of Jeff's books. :)
Yup, selling more Nikons will make America great again ;)
Your logic is so flawed that's it's really funny to read.
-
Macron was not speaking to diplomats. He was speaking on French television, so in principle to the French audience and whomever else may be watching.
No, he's not taking Trump seriously as a partner.
Keep dreaming. Make America last again.
Cheers,
Bart
Trump doesn't want to be his partner in the Paris Accords.
-
Like Trump, he's not a dummy.
No need to start insulting Jeff ... To even begin comparing, duh.
By the way, VAT has nothing to do with it. It's a mechanism to tax all consumables and services, with a lower rate for essentials and a higher rate for the rest.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yup, selling more Nikons will make America great again ;)
Your logic is so flawed that's it's really funny to read.
You haven't explained why selling more products when import duties go down is flawed.
-
No need to start insulting Jeff ... To even begin comparing, duh.
By the way, VAT has nothing to do with it. It's a mechanism to tax all consumables and services, with a lower rate for essentials and a higher rate for the rest.
Cheers,
Bart
Regardless what you call it, it raises the price of a product. If it was reduced or eliminated, people would buy more goods, including imports. So Jeff's photo book sales would increase.
-
Trump doesn't want to be his partner in the Paris Accords.
Right now it looks like nobody wants to be a Trump's partner.
-
Regardless what you call it, it raises the price of a product. If it was reduced or eliminated, people would buy more goods, including imports. So Jeff's photo book sales would increase.
No, if VAT goes down, other taxes have to go up to balance the government's budget. Besides, businesses don't pay VAT on purchases, they only pay for the part they (re)sell at a higher price (e.g. after augmenting the product or combining it with other products/services).
But this is kind of off topic anyway, just wanted to explain that your assumptions are wrong.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, if VAT goes down, other taxes have to go up to balance the government's budget. Besides, businesses don't pay VAT on purchases, they only pay for the part they (re)sell at a higher price (e.g. after augmenting the product or combining it with other products/services).
But this is kind of off topic anyway, just wanted to explain that your assumptions are wrong.
Cheers,
Bart
My assumptions are not wrong and goes to the heart of Trump's argument that he made during the campaign and currrently. That trade deals were not negotiated to be fair to America. Previous administrations were stupid and gave away the farm.
When Europe adds 35% to the cost of our exports to the EU, it makes our goods less competitive with similar European goods sold there. We lose sales and jobs. The opposite does not happen with your exports. Yours do not go up in price so you're able to sell your products easier here putting Americans out of work. Of course I expect Europe to oppose this because right now you have an advantage over us.
The fact that if you eliminate those import duties and have to raise taxes elsewhere is not our concern. We pay for things with higher personal and other corporate taxes because we don't tax your exports to us. So hopefully, Trump will push Europe to reduce import taxes or he will penalize your exports by matching the duties you charge. The latter might be bad for trade. But either way, we'll be playing on an even playing field, something past administration had no clue about. But make no mistake, Trump intends to make trade fair to America. Frankly it's the way Republicans can assure winning in 2018, as well. Of course Democrats will oppose him knowing that if his ideas are enacted, jobs will increase which makes Republicans stronger. So Democrats will put politics first before helping the American worker by castigating Trump. I hope Congress can see through this and help Trump and effectively the American worker and companies.
-
Right now it looks like nobody wants to be a Trump's partner.
Who cares to be in a bad deal? The Paris climate agreement is bad for America.
-
My assumptions are not wrong and goes to the heart of Trump's argument that he made during the campaign and currrently. That trade deals were not negotiated to be fair to America.
And you know that, how? Because compulsory liar Trump says so?
Cheers,
Bart
-
And you know that, how? Because compulsory liar Trump says so?
Cheers,
Bart
No. Because I was in business myself and understand economics. I don't need Trump. Anyone with a basic understanding of business or economics, would understand this point. Trying to smear me, another liberal trick, won't work. We're use to that game. One of the reasons Trump and the Republicans have been winning. Many Americans have finally figured out the game Democrats and liberals play. We're all racists, misogynists, dummies. We get all our news from Faux News. We know the spiel.
Another area of unfairness in trade is when a country devalues their money to make their exports cheaper. It does the same thing as excise taxes. It makes it harder for other countries to compete at home and sell their products to the country that changed its money valuation. This is another thing Trump will straighten out, hopefully.
-
No. Because I was in business myself and understand economics. I don't need Trump. Anyone with a basic understanding of business or economics, would understand this point. Trying to smear me, another liberal trick, won't work.
I have no idea what you mean. I'm just trying to find out where the idea comes from that the current deal(s) are unfair. An example may be too hard to ask for, so a source for the idea might help to understand.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have no idea what you mean. I'm just trying to find out where the idea comes from that the current deal(s) are unfair. An example may be too hard to ask for, so a source for the idea might help to understand.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, everyone knows that when you raise the price of something, the quantity of items sold goes down. If taxes or tariffs raise the cost for a import, the same thing happens. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-economic-effect-of-tariffs-1146368
-
You haven't explained why selling more products when import duties go down is flawed.
Alan, you're changing the subject. We were talking about the effects of a trade deficit and that a trade deficit is not normally a bad thing (and a trade surplus is not a good thing). The articles Jeff has quoted explain it very clearly, I can't do it any better.
Everybody (incl. you) except Trump seems to understand that lowering import tarriffs is good for business and economic growth. But Trump seems to be gung ho on increasing import duties because he thinks the US got an unfair deal (without providing any proof of that). He even wanted to charge BMW while they produce their cars in the US and export them from there. He doesn't understand economics and how international trade works. If he would work to lower tarriffs internationally I would be all for it, but he isn't. He's created a (flawed) image of everybody against the US and unfair deals, but I have yet to see one.
-
Bart, everyone knows that when you raise the price of something, the quantity of items sold goes down.
AKA Price elasticity, in case of consumables. But when a competing product is available then that will set a boundary, assuming there are no other discriminating factors, like service, etc.
If taxes or tariffs raise the cost for a import, the same thing happens. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-economic-effect-of-tariffs-1146368
Unless there are alternative products/services available, AKA competition, which is why trade agreements are often beneficial for both parties, more than America first types of isolationism. According to the article you quoted, the soft lumber tariffs were unfair to the Canadians. Will Trump make those fairer? Of course not, a deal is a deal, he'll say. Well done preceding government(s).
Nothing new, and no proof or source that 'the current trade deals' are unfair to the USA.
Just because e.g. BMW builds better cars, or uses better marketing than manufacturers of US cars for a certain target audience, doesn't mean that the Trade deal is unfair. Just build better cars.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And Macron was clever enough to do it in English. And the invitation to USA citizens to come and work in France was a nice touch
In all objectivity, what we have here is akin to what happened in Germany when Hitler was elected democratically.
It is no secret that some of Germany's brightest minds left and settled in the US with a tremendous value for the US economy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In all objectivity, what we have here is akin to what happened in Germany when Hitler was elected democratically.
It is no secret that some of Germany's brightest minds left and settled in the US with a tremendous value for the US economy.
Indeed, Bernard! Good lesson in history.
-
U.S. environmental agency chief says humans contribute to global warming
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-pruitt-idUSKBN18T2P0
"The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, said on Friday he believes human activity plays a role in global warming, but measuring that contribution with precision is difficult.
Speaking to reporters at the White House a day after President Donald Trump said he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord, Pruitt declined to directly answer questions about whether the president still believed global warming was a hoax, as he had said during the 2016 presidential campaign
Pruitt said he had indicated that global warming is occurring, and that "human activity contributes to it in some manner. Measuring with precision, from my perspective, the degree of human contribution is very challenging." "
Hmm, "human activity contributes to it in some manner". In some manner ...
On March 9th, 2017 he was reported to have said:
EPA chief unconvinced on CO2 link to global warming
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-pruitt-idUSKBN16G1XX
"The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday he is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change and said he wants Congress to weigh in on whether CO2 is a harmful pollutant that should be regulated.
In an interview with CNBC, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the Trump administration will make an announcement on fuel efficiency standards for cars "very soon," stressing that he and President Donald Trump believe current standards were rushed through.
Pruitt, 48, is a climate change denier who sued the agency he now leads more than a dozen times as Oklahoma's attorney general. He said he was not convinced that carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal is the main cause of climate change, a conclusion widely embraced by scientists."
So, if it isn't CO2 (which it clearly is), then what is it Scott, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed, Bernard! Good lesson in history.
Indeed, so maybe those promised walls are to keep Americans in?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Alan, you're changing the subject. We were talking about the effects of a trade deficit and that a trade deficit is not normally a bad thing (and a trade surplus is not a good thing). The articles Jeff has quoted explain it very clearly, I can't do it any better.
Everybody (incl. you) except Trump seems to understand that lowering import tarriffs is good for business and economic growth. But Trump seems to be gung ho on increasing import duties because he thinks the US got an unfair deal (without providing any proof of that). He even wanted to charge BMW while they produce their cars in the US and export them from there. He doesn't understand economics and how international trade works. If he would work to lower tarriffs internationally I would be all for it, but he isn't. He's created a (flawed) image of everybody against the US and unfair deals, but I have yet to see one.
Europe is the one that has higher import taxes. Of course you want to talk about it. That's all you guys will do, talk, just like the NATO 2% issue. Trump's not stupid. The only way you'll change is it's forced upon you by us matching your import costs. He's said that he's in favor of free trade, as long as its fair trade.
-
In all objectivity, what we have here is akin to what happened in Germany when Hitler was elected democratically.
It is no secret that some of Germany's brightest minds left and settled in the US with a tremendous value for the US economy.
Cheers,
Bernard
To compare Trump to Hitler is just plain hateful. I suppose you laughed at the vile and nasty Kathy Griffin's severed head of Trump. Your position is just like hers.
Regarding German immigrants to the US, may I remind you that the best came to America after the war because they didn't want to wind up in the Soviet Union. While they did contribute to America, it was America that gave them freedom as it did the European children, parents and grandparents of those who stayed and who now post here. You could be sure if Russia started to move into Eastern Europe, Macron and Merkel would be the first to call Trump begging him to help them.
-
To compare Trump to Hitler is just plain hateful. I suppose you laughed at the vile and nasty Kathy Griffin's severed head of Trump. Your position is just like hers.
Regarding German immigrants to the US, may I remind you that the best came to America after the war because they didn't want to wind up in the Soviet Union. While they did contribute to America, it was America that gave them freedom as it did the European children, parents and grandparents of those who stayed and who now post here. You could be sure if Russia started to move into Eastern Europe, Macron and Merkel would be the first to call Trump begging him to help them.
Alan, I agree that comparing Trump to Hitler would be hateful.
However, that's not what Bernard is saying. He is pointing out the state of the Nazi Germany after their people democatically elected Hitler. Some scientists, engineers, professors, and doctors saw the early signs of a dictatorial state with an evil agenda (after all "Deutschland Uber Alles" is not so different from "America First" slogan), and left Germany even before the start of the war. Also many artists and writers after witnessing anti-semitic propaganda, witch hunts and suppression of democracy had their worst premonitions and fled the country. Unfortunately, not everybody was able to escape. And while it is true that some of those brights minds arrived to USA only after the war, it was due also to the fact that emmigration for many of them was often not possible before and during the war.
When two of Trump's most prominent industry advisors (Elon Musk and Rober Igers) quit as his advisors, that's not so different as when some of the scientists in Nazi Germany left the country rather than working in such a state.
Goebbels proved to be an expert in his mastery of the dark art of propaganda and he implemented what Adolf Hitler wrote in ‘Mein Kampf’ with regards to the truth: if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one and if you tell if often enough, people will begin to believe it. Allegedly, Trump kept a copy of that book by his bedside, and indeed he keeps telling small and big lies all the time.
-
Alan, I agree that comparing Trump to Hitler would be hateful.
However, that's not what Bernard is saying. He is pointing out the state of the Nazi Germany after their people democatically elected Hitler. Some scientists, engineers, professors, and doctors saw the early signs of a dictatorial state with an evil agenda (after all "Deutschland Uber Alles" is not so different from "America First" slogan), and left Germany even before the start of the war. Also many artists and writers after witnessing anti-semitic propaganda, witch hunts and suppression of democracy had their worst premonitions and fled the country. Unfortunately, not everybody was able to escape. And while it is true that some of those brights minds arrived to USA only after the war, it was due also to the fact that emmigration for many of them was often not possible before and during the war.
When two of Trump's most prominent industry advisors (Elon Musk and Rober Igers) quit as his advisors, that's not so different as when some of the scientists in Nazi Germany left the country rather than working in such a state.
Goebbels proved to be an expert in his mastery of the dark art of propaganda and he implemented what Adolf Hitler wrote in ‘Mein Kampf’ with regards to the truth: if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one and if you tell if often enough, people will begin to believe it. Allegedly, Trump kept a copy of that book by his bedside, and indeed he keeps telling small and big lies all the time.
So you're comparing Trump to Hitler like Bernard did. Your hate of Trump is distorting your mind. Because two of America's business executives disagree with his position on climate policy and left his advisory board, you're comparing a policy difference to scientists leaving their homeland Germany because Hitler and his Brown Shirts were beating up German citizens and worse. Additionally, you're totally dismissing our Constitution and our Supreme Court and Congress that checks the President. America isn't Nazi Germany. Let me remind you that Obamacare is still the law of the land despite republicans having control of Congress and the presidency. Trump was already checked on the travel ban. You really need to get control of your anger and hate. Four years will be a long time otherwise.
-
Regardless what you call it, it raises the price of a product. If it was reduced or eliminated, people would buy more goods, including imports. So Jeff's photo book sales would increase.
You don't understand VAT at all, do you. It's a sale tax. It's broad-based. It applies to imports and locally produced items equally. If they lower it, the government will need to increase other taxes to maintain revenue, so consumers will still only have the same available disposable income and so demand won't change, plus every product would reduce which means Jeff's books wouldn't gain a price advantage. Price is just a component and you don't seem to get that. It's not as simple as you (and Trump) would like people to believe.
Tariffs, on the other hand, do affect imported goods compared to locally produced goods (or goods imported from other places that attract different tariff rates). On average, trade weighted, the EU and the US have about the same level of tariffs http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS so what you want is for the Europe to be less than the US? That might sound like a "good deal" but it's not fair and it's never going to happen. The US is a larger economy, so at the same rate, it's basically putting up a larger trade barrier than the EU, but an honest comparison is on the percentage where they are about the same.
If you take it as a simple mean, then the US is higher, but, again, I took the most honest and fair comparison above.
-
So you're comparing Trump to Hitler like Bernard did. Your hate of Trump is distorting your mind. Because two of America's business executives disagree with his position on climate policy and left his advisory board, you're comparing a policy difference to scientists leaving their homeland Germany because Hitler and his Brown Shirts were beating up German citizens and worse. Additionally, you're totally dismissing our Constitution and our Supreme Court and Congress that checks the President. America isn't Nazi Germany. Let me remind you that Obamacare is still the law of the land despite republicans having control of Congress and the presidency. Trump was already checked on the travel ban. You really need to get control of your anger and hate. Four years will be a long time otherwise.
Alan, if somebody has bloodshot eyes, it's not me. I am quite calm, although often shocked, but I didn't even mention any of Trumps traits, body features or mannerisms. I am commenting only on the state of Republic. Poisoned in many ways by the current administration. In contrast to you, I grew up in a dictatorial regime, where the loyalty of an aparatchik is more important than his qualifications, judgment and expertise. Let me tell you, nothing good can grow in such an environment.
When it comes to Musk or Igers, they are fortunate that they can get out of Trump's sphere and devote their energy, intellect and expertise to something else where there qualities will be valued, appreciated and acted upon. I have such a feeling that there will be more exits like theirs. Ireland, France, UK, and Germany are rolling out the red carpets to attract smart minds who want to save the planet and work on innovative ideas. And if they happen to make profit along the way, that's money that could have stayed in USA.
-
Alan, if somebody has bloodshot eyes, it's not me. I am quite calm, although often shocked, but I didn't even mention any of Trumps traits, body features or mannerisms. I am commenting only on the state of Republic. Poisoned in many ways by the current administration. In contrast to you, I grew up in a dictatorial regime, where the loyalty of an aparatchik is more important than his qualifications, judgment and expertise. Let me tell you, nothing good can grow in such an environment.
When it comes to Musk or Igers, they are fortunate that they can get out of Trump's sphere and devote their energy, intellect and expertise to something else where there qualities will be valued, appreciated and acted upon. I have such a feeling that there will be more exits like theirs. Ireland, France, UK, and Germany are rolling out the red carpets to attract smart minds who want to save the planet and work on innovative ideas. And if they happen to make profit along the way, that's money that could have stayed in USA.
The American Republic is fine and will remain fine.
Regarding Igers and Musk, they are not leaving America. They're just leaving a Trump advisory board. Musk of course is tied in heavily with renewable and clean energy due to his Tesla electric cars. So he sees Trump as a threat and is pissed off at him. I don't know about Igers who runs Disney. Maybe Mickey Mouse whispered in his ear and told him to do it. In any case, no one is stopping them or any other American from the entrepreneurial spirit here in America. In or out of the climate accord, individual and corporation American companies will produce products where the free market induces them to produce it. If it makes sense, it will be done. That includes energy, renewables, etc.
May I remind you that it is American ingenuity that perfected fracking causing oil to drop by 50% and sending OPEC into a panic. It also has let gas energy become equal to coal in electric production. American ingenuity has also cleaned up coal pollutants at least if not the CO2. American ingenuity and production will not be impeded in clean energy and other climate and pollution enterprises with or without Paris. We don't need Paris to do the right thing as well as to do it so our country is better off economically as well. But, thanks for the concern. It's better that we keep the Paris money and spend it on Americans who might need some health or other social care. Heck, we'll even have more for NATO.
-
During one of the Republican leadership debates, Trump told an anecdote about a doctor who used a horse needle to give a baby a vaccine, and that the baby developed autism. He said he saw this himself.
So why hasn't Trump signed an executive order banning vaccines?
-
During one of the Republican leadership debates, Trump told an anecdote about a doctor who used a horse needle to give a baby a vaccine, and that the baby developed autism. He said he saw this himself.
So why hasn't Trump signed an executive order banning vaccines?
Is this a trick question?
-
No trick question. As a matter of fact, it used to be quite high on Trump's agenda.
Trump's most notable comments on vaccine safety came during a 2015 Republican primary debate, in which he connected vaccines to the autism “epidemic.”
“You take this little beautiful baby, and you pump — I mean, it looks like just it's meant for a horse and not for a child,” Trump said in September 2015. “We had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, 2 years old, a beautiful child, went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick. Now is autistic.”
Before the campaign, Trump accused doctors of lying about vaccinations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/10/donald-trump-is-rekindling-one-of-his-favorite-conspiracy-theories-vaccine-safety/?utm_term=.ed24b9abf343
-
A lot of people agree with him. Why is it that the autism rate has exploded? It's doubled since 2000. 1 in 68 births. It's a serious situation. https://spectrumnews.org/news/u-s-stats-show-autism-rate-reaching-possible-plateau/
Have they determine the reason?
-
A lot of people agree with him. Why is it that the autism rate has exploded? It's doubled since 2000. 1 in 68 births. It's a serious situation. https://spectrumnews.org/news/u-s-stats-show-autism-rate-reaching-possible-plateau/
Have they determine the reason?
1 in 68 is quite high. Since 2000, lot of food and many basic food ingredients have been changed. So did many environmental factors.
The scientists and doctors still don't know the causes.
-
A lot of people agree with him. Why is it that the autism rate has exploded? It's doubled since 2000. 1 in 68 births. It's a serious situation. https://spectrumnews.org/news/u-s-stats-show-autism-rate-reaching-possible-plateau/
Have they determine the reason?
Two things:
Data is not the plural of anecdote.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
-
You don't understand VAT at all, do you. It's a sale tax. It's broad-based. It applies to imports and locally produced items equally.
Sadly, many/most Trump supporters as well as Trump himself doesn't seem to understand VAT. This seems to cover it pretty well:
European Commission > Taxation and Customs Union > Business > VAT > What is VAT? (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/what-is-vat_en)
What is VAT?
The Value Added Tax, or VAT, in the European Union is a general, broadly based consumption tax assessed on the value added to goods and services. It applies more or less to all goods and services that are bought and sold for use or consumption in the European Union. Thus, goods which are sold for export or services which are sold to customers abroad are normally not subject to VAT. Conversely imports are taxed to keep the system fair for EU producers so that they can compete on equal terms on the European market with suppliers situated outside the Union.
Within the EU the VAT varies a bit by country but in general most goods and services are taxed at the general rate of about 20% with some goods & services at a reduced rate depending on the category. For example, in Germany, the VAT is %19 for general rate but only 7% for the reduced rate. Ironically, books are only taxed at the reduced 7% rate.
Alan was trying to explain that the EU has such high tax rates but in fact that is simply not true. So, I don't know what Trump thinks he's gonna be able to do about what he thinks is unfair trade practices because those practices largely don't exist except for certain very specific goods and services. Inevitably for two economies of such size with such a high volume of trade, the EU and the US encounter a number of trade disputes which are handled through the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO.
Given the low average tariffs (under 3%), the key to unlocking US/EU trade potential lies in the tackling of non-tariff barriers. These consist mainly of customs procedures and behind the border regulatory restrictions.
The non-tariff barriers come from diverging regulatory systems (standards definitions notably), but also other non-tariff measures, such as those related to certain aspects of security or consumer protection. That requires additional negotiating...
The EU and US has had formal trade relations called the Transatlantic Economic Council since 2007. The US and EU have agreed since 2013 to work on a new trade agreement called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) (https://ustr.gov/ttip). The most recent report (https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/january/us-eu-joint-report-t-tip-progress-0) was released 1/1/2017 just 20 days before Trump took office. Sadly, I suspect Trump recent behavior and attitudes will not bode well for an enhanced US/EO trade agreement.
Trump talks like he knows what he's talking about but it's very clear he has no clue about the complexity involved with negotiating major trade agreements. He doesn't have a head for details...
I'm pretty sure he didn't really understand the Trans-Pacific Partnership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership) but he killed it because he promised he would there by giving regional control to China.
He threatened to pull out of NAFTA but his adviser smartly talked him down from the ledge. He pulled out of the Paris agreement because he said he would even if he didn't understand what the agreement really meant (giving China and the EU leading/controlling interests).
He was all set to blow out NATO until his military buddies got ahold of him but he when to Europe and pissed them off anyway. He pissed of the G7 too, heaven help us in July when the 2017 G20 summit is held in Hamburg (Germany's home court).
Yeah, I'm all for making more money...although I don't write the books for money–if I counted the hours it took vs the royalties I've earned, I'm pretty sure it would be below minimum wage :~)
At some point Trump supporters will wake up and discovered they've been lied to and that Trump is a fraud. The #FailingNYT said it pretty well...(BTW,
A Fake and a Fraud (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/opinion/a-fake-and-a-fraud.html?_r=0)
Donald Trump’s mounting reversals, failures and betrayals make it increasingly clear that he is a fake and a fraud.
For many of us, this is affirmative reinforcement; for others, it is devastating revelation.
But it is those who believed — and cast supportive ballots — who should feel most cheated and also most contrite. You placed your faith in a phony. His promises are crashing to earth like a fleet of paper airplanes.
He oversold what he could deliver because he had no idea what would be required to deliver it, nor did he care. He told you what you wanted to hear so that he could get what he wanted to have. He played you for fools.
That wall will not be paid for by Mexico, if in fact it is ever built. If it is built, it will likely look nothing like what Trump said it would look like. His repeal and replace of Obamacare flopped. That failure endangers his ability to deliver on major tax reform and massive infrastructure spending. China is no longer in danger of being labeled a currency manipulator. The administration is now sending signals that ripping up the Iran nuclear deal isn’t a sure bet.
Trump has done a complete about-face on the Federal Reserve chairwoman, Janet Yellen, and when was the last time you heard him threaten to lock up Hillary Clinton?
This is by no means an exhaustive list of the positions he took for in-the-moment advantage that have been quickly converted into in-reality abandonment.
He isn’t cunningly unpredictable; he’s tragically unprepared and dangerously unprincipled.
-
Europe is the one that has higher import taxes. Of course you want to talk about it. That's all you guys will do, talk, just like the NATO 2% issue. Trump's not stupid. The only way you'll change is it's forced upon you by us matching your import costs. He's said that he's in favor of free trade, as long as its fair trade.
Trade deals between the US and Europe that were negotiated in the past resulted in lower import duties for US exports to Europe and lower import duties for European goods in the US. At the moments these deals are negotiated they are balanced and fair. If the character of the export streams change you don't call the deals "unfair" or your trading partners "bad". That's just stupid populist blabber. You go through the process and negotiate an update to reflect the changes. That's how adults deal with this and the issue is normally not used for campaign purposes and spreading fake news to gain votes and support at home (which is how Trump is handling it)
And let me repeat here what I said in the other thread about the NATO issue you keep bringing up:
Oh, here comes the silly NATO argument again, it's just more alt-right alligator tears. The US (and the US taxpayers) didn't spend one penny more on the US defense budget because some countries are not up to the long term target of 2% which was agreed a few years ago. Harping on this issue and completely misrepresenting what it really means is only counterproductive and will not achieve anything.
-
And to re-iterate, the EU has, on a trade-weighted basis, basically the same level of tariffs as the US, but as a straight out level (unweighted), the US has a higher level (2.8% versus 2.1%) compared to the EU.
-
And to re-iterate, the EU has, on a trade-weighted basis, basically the same level of tariffs as the US, but as a straight out level (unweighted), the US has a higher level (2.8% versus 2.1%) compared to the EU.
Thanks, for me it's more proof that Trump is just a clown trying to con his supporters in accepting "the US hasn't got a fair deal", while on the other hand this is really far away from the truth.
-
And to re-iterate, the EU has, on a trade-weighted basis, basically the same level of tariffs as the US, but as a straight out level (unweighted), the US has a higher level (2.8% versus 2.1%) compared to the EU.
That's unfair to Europe, we want a better deal ;)
So it's another Fake fact by Trump. The man starts lying when he opens his mouth or starts tweeting. What's possibly worse, his followers believe him, which means that he will not be automatically corrected by the political system of checks and balances. It's a recipe for disaster, and the followers are also to blame for the outcome.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A lot of people agree with him. Why is it that the autism rate has exploded? It's doubled since 2000. 1 in 68 births. It's a serious situation. https://spectrumnews.org/news/u-s-stats-show-autism-rate-reaching-possible-plateau/
Have they determine the reason?
Has the autism rate doubled since 2000? Do we know this for a fact?
But assuming it has, and it's not just new definitions or methods of diagnosis, why point to vaccines as a cause? We started using vaccines long before 2000. Maybe it was crop circles. Maybe it was too much tin foil. The link to vaccines was debunked a while ago now.
And the fact that a lot of people "agree with him" is a statement of the problem.
Have they determined the reason, you ask? I know nothing about the field, but I don't think so. What it will require is more research by qualified scientists, not witchcraft or snake oil. To my mind, promoting the idea of a link is borderline criminal, and a cynical threat to public health.
-
Well, time to relax a bit for the upcoming week. It will be interesting, one way or the other.
Will Trump block Comey testimony? White House does not know yet
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN18T1WZ
"White House officials said on Friday they did not know yet whether President Donald Trump would seek to block former FBI Director James Comey from testifying to Congress next week, a move that could spark a political backlash.
"I have not spoken to counsel yet. I don't know how they're going to respond," White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters.
Comey was leading a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into alleged Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election and possible collusion by Trump's campaign when the president fired him last month.
Critics have charged that Trump was seeking to hinder the FBI's investigation by dismissing Comey.
The former FBI chief is due to testify on Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of its own Russia-related investigation, and his remarks could cause problems for the Republican president."
Cheers,
Bart
-
I understand that that VAT taxes for products sold in Europe are applied to both imports and to domestically produced items. However, the VAT is stripped off of exports to the US. The manufacturer gets the VAT reimbursed or credited by the government.
However, because the US does not have a VAT tax, other US taxes a corporation pays including property taxes, local taxes, etc, are still carried in the cost of the product exported to Europe. All other production costs being equal, European products shipped to America are effectively cheaper than similar products made in the US. But US products shipped to Europe not only have the European VAT tax added, but still carry the tax load from America.
It seems to make the playing field equal, the US could strip US tax costs on exported items. That would reduce the price of America products sold in Europe and make our products more competitive there. But America still faces the problem with imports since they have no taxes while American goods still carry US taxes. This puts American produced products at a disadvantage in our own country. It's costs are higher because of the US taxes. The other option would be to add a tax on imports to raise it's cost to match American taxes collected on American products. After all, Europe does basically the same thing when it applies the VAT.
I realize this is all not simple. And I understand that Europe doesn't like Trump's threats. But the American President is responsible for protecting American industry and our workers and jobs. And this imbalance hurts America. He should address it as he said he would during the campaign.
Here's an article from the Huffington Post, not exactly a conservative media outlet, that agrees there's a disadvantage to America. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/sorry-but-the-us-does-ind_b_12242314.html
-
I understand that that VAT taxes for products sold in Europe are applied to both imports and to domestically produced items. However, the VAT is stripped off of exports to the US. The manufacturer gets the VAT reimbursed or credited by the government.
However, because the US does not have a VAT tax, other US taxes a corporation pays including property taxes, local taxes, etc, are still carried in the cost of the product exported to Europe. All other production costs being equal, European products shipped to America are effectively cheaper than similar products made in the US. But US products shipped to Europe not only have the European VAT tax added, but still carry the tax load from America.
It seems to make the playing field equal, the US could strip US tax costs on exported items. That would reduce the price of America products sold in Europe and make our products more competitive there. But America still faces the problem with imports since they have no taxes while American goods still carry US taxes. This puts American produced products at a disadvantage in our own country. It's costs are higher because of the US taxes. The other option would be to add a tax on imports to raise it's cost to match American taxes collected on American products. After all, Europe does basically the same thing when it applies the VAT.
I realize this is all not simple. And I understand that Europe doesn't like Trump's threats. But the American President is responsible for protecting American industry and our workers and jobs. And this imbalance hurts America. He should address it as he said he would during the campaign.
Here's an article from the Huffington Post, not exactly a conservative media outlet, that agrees there's a disadvantage to America. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/sorry-but-the-us-does-ind_b_12242314.html
Alan, European companies also have corporate, property and all the other taxes American companies have and probably even at a higher rate, since tax rates are typically higher over here. Only the VAT is stripped off at the border, so the European companies are still managing to sell their goods in the US given this disadvantage. And the US has on average higher import duties then Europe. So there's a double wammy hit for European products sold in the US. Who is getting the unfair deal here?
The Huffington Post article is interesting, but they are only looking at one small aspect, not the big picture.
-
I understand that that VAT taxes for products sold in Europe are applied to both imports and to domestically produced items. However, the VAT is stripped off of exports to the US. The manufacturer gets the VAT reimbursed or credited by the government.
Yes, VAT only applies to items purchased in the country charging VAT.
However, because the US does not have a VAT tax, other US taxes a corporation pays including property taxes, local taxes, etc, are still carried in the cost of the product exported to Europe.
Firstly, the US DOES have a VAT equivalent. 45 states collect statewide sales taxes and 38 states collect local sales taxes. These taxes are the same as a VAT. They are not charged when a US company exports (i.e. I don't pay sales tax when I buy something from the US, just as many in the US don't pay sales taxes if they buy from interstate). The only real difference is that VAT is nationwide.
You're also assuming that EU countries don't impose any other sorts of taxes that are not removed for export. You're wrong in that assumption. All those taxes are carried in the same way as they are by US companies.
All other production costs being equal, European products shipped to America are effectively cheaper than similar products made in the US.
Nope.
But US products shipped to Europe not only have the European VAT tax added, but still carry the tax load from America.
Just as EU products shipped to the US have taxes other than VAT still carried. You still demonstrate that you don't understand what a VAT is. It's a sales tax.
On top of that, the EU has an average tax/GDP percentage that is about 9% higher than the US, so the EU generally pays more tax, so it is likely that their underlying taxes which burden the cost of sale are on average higher than the US.
It seems to make the playing field equal, the US could strip US tax costs on exported items.
Only if you don't understand that VAT and sales tax are essentially the same thing and that both EU and US firms face other taxes that add to their costs and which are not removed for either. Also, it's the US that adds those other taxes to US exports, not the EU, so how has the EU got anything to do with that? If you're not competitive because of your internal tax system, that's your problem and nothing to do with the EU.
That would reduce the price of America products sold in Europe and make our products more competitive there. But America still faces the problem with imports since they have no taxes while American goods still carry US taxes.
Complete false. EU produced items still carry tax costs from an economic zone with higher overall taxation than the US. You have a natural competitive advantage, not to mention that imported items to the US may face tariffs and they definitely carry shipping and handling costs that are higher than domestically produced items. If you can't compete against that, it's your fault, nothing to do with the EU.
This puts American produced products at a disadvantage in our own country. It's costs are higher because of the US taxes.
Nope, see above.
The other option would be to add a tax on imports to raise it's cost to match American taxes collected on American products. After all, Europe does basically the same thing when it applies the VAT.
Ummm, no. In the US, if some company imports from the EU (let's say it's a BMW dealer since Trump had a go at them), the US states collect sales tax just as they would on a locally produced car. Adding a tax on imports is called a tariff and as I've pointed out several times, on a straight number basis the US has a higher tariff rate than the EU already, but on a fairer trade-weighted basis they're the same to 1 decimal point.
Plus, as I've mentioned, the EU products already have other taxes that are not VAT carried on them, the same as US ones, plus additional freight and handling.
Now, if an individual imports and item bought, say, online, then they may not pay state sales taxes. The same thing happens here in Australia - anything under $1,000- as a personal import is not subject to GST (our VAT). Over that, and you have to pay it. It probably varies a little by country, but the EU members will be similar and have a threshold over which VAT is due. If the US states don't do the same, that's their problem but it's not going to make a big difference in whether someone buys a BMW or a Chevy.
I realize this is all not simple.
Actually, it is. But you need to understand some basic concepts first, and you don't, which means your entire premise is wrong.
And I understand that Europe doesn't like Trump's threats.
Most of the US doesn't like Trump, let alone the rest of the world.
But the American President is responsible for protecting American industry and our workers and jobs. And this imbalance hurts America. He should address it as he said he would during the campaign.
Except there is no imbalance in terms of fairness. The EU is just better at some things than the US, or China can make them cheaper, or whatever the particular item is. Trump doesn't understand how simple this is or what's really happening. He is fixated that a trade deficit for the US is a bad thing, not realising that the US long ago stopped being a manufacturing base and moved into services and capital. The whole world can't run at a trade surplus. The global economy is a closed loop. It has to balance. Some people export more some import more, some have more capital coming in and some have more going out. None of any of it is particularly bad or good - just different parts of the same process.
Here's an article from the Huffington Post, not exactly a conservative media outlet, that agrees there's a disadvantage to America. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/sorry-but-the-us-does-ind_b_12242314.html
The author also misses the point that you DO collect VAT (sales taxes) in the US. The difference is only that you don't do it at the national level and instead do it at the state level. If that prevents you from collecting it on imports then you do indeed need to fix that, but that's your problem, and nothing to do with the EU.
We went through the switch to GST (VAT) nearly 20 years ago - quite new compared to a lot of EU members. It meant the states had to forgo a lot of their tax collection so the federal government would collect GST on their behalf and then fund it back to them (the federal government does not use a single cent of GST in its funding - it all goes back to the states). There's some argument from the states about the allocation, but the reality is they all get a say on it along with federal guidelines (so the states can't be silly about it and have to base it on a common process agreed when it was setup) and it all works.
The states do have a few other tax income streams, and the federal government relies mostly on income tax and a few duties and tariffs.
So, yeah, maybe you need to change the way you do taxes to catch taxes on some imports, but only those that are directly imported by consumers. Those that come in and are resold do have local US state taxes applied and contrary to the author's assertions it doesn't just "zero out" - it's no different than what happens when the EU imports US products.
It is a level playing field, but the US may be hobbling itself slightly if the states haven't worked out how to collect tax from people importing items directly.
Again, not an EU problem and nothing that Trump has said or done addresses the actual issue.
Oh, and that author you felt couldn't be right wing because he's on Huff? https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/01/in-response-to-ian-fletcher/#589be4b71637
Fletcher is an isolationist with unsupported economic theories who basically thinks that building a big wall (economically speaking) will help the US. No wonder he appeals to Trumpeters.
-
I agree that America economic house is in disorder. But some of that is because we continue to spend internationally when we can no longer afford it. Europe spends the 2% it's not spending on it's military on health care for it's people. Meanwhile, America is struggling to figure out where our health money is coming from while our military spends far too much overseas. And Trump is raising military spending. I'm not in favor of a fortress America. But something's gotta give. We can't afford things anymore. We've got too many commitments to Europe, Asia, etc.
Regarding trade, the VAT may be an area that cannot be directly adjusted. But we'll see. I'm curious how the rest of Europe though feels about Germany. Because of the common Euro, the cost of German production is artificially low. It would be much higher if all of Europe still had their own money. German use of the Euro is hurting other European countries as well as America, maybe more. What's their feeling on trade imbalances between Germany and these other EU countries?
-
If all 50 states in the USA had their own currency, do you think that the Californian dollar would have the same value as that of, for example, the Utah or Indiana 'dollar' ?
California is the sixth biggest economy in the world. If it was a free trading nation with it's own currency demand for it would be strong, and its exchange value would certainly be greater than most of the other states. As it stands now, they all have the same currency, the same PPP.
Likewise within the EU.
Regarding trade, the VAT may be an area that cannot be directly adjusted. But we'll see. I'm curious how the rest of Europe though feels about Germany. Because of the common Euro, the cost of German production is artificially low. It would be much higher if all of Europe still had their own money. German use of the Euro is hurting other European countries as well as America, maybe more. What's their feeling on trade imbalances between Germany and these other EU countries?
-
If all 50 states in the USA had their own currency, do you think that the Californian dollar would have the same value as that of, for example, the Utah or Indiana 'dollar' ?
California is the sixth biggest economy in the world. If it was a free trading nation with it's own currency demand for it would be strong, and its exchange value would certainly be greater than most of the other states. As it stands now, they all have the same currency, the same PPP.
Likewise within the EU.
We're all Americans. Greeks and Spaniards aren't German. In any case, you didn't answer my question. How do the other countries feel about German monetary advantages when it comes to trade.
-
We're all Americans. Greeks and Spaniards aren't German.
No, they're Europeans. That's the EU.
You have the Federal Reserve, they have the ECB.
-
Around 4:45 NYC time, it's that Champions League final : Juventus v Real Madrid at the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff, Wales ( you know that funny country with a language no-one else speaks, just across the water from Ireland). I know it's not American Football nor, in the words of the great Bill Shankly, is it 'a matter of life and death - it's far more important than that'.
Try it, you might just enjoy it.
-
But they don't like each other. Isn't their hanging together mainly because it's so advantageous to them they bailed out the Greeks? Even the Brits couldn't take it anymore. You still haven't answered my question.
-
But they don't like each other.
Says who ?
Alan - it's not the right thread, and it's not a simple question.
Trump was/is the only free-world leader that actively sought, and celebrated, the (incorrectly perceived) break-up of the EU. Landing in Scotland, Last June he tweeted what a great day it was that Scotland had voted to 'Leave'. Only problem was that Scotland had voted to 'Remain' 62:38 .
Kinda sets a bad tone when your Prezzy actively wishes the break-up and economic penury on its Allies. One year on, and the Euro is pushing 14-month highs , economic data is improving (slowly), and what a few months ago what many thought likely - now seems less so.
Both Holland and France rejected the far right and embraced a centrist, pro-European agenda. England faces a General Election next Thursday where the the ruling Conservatives, leading by 28 points in the polls and anticipating a landslide, now lead by only 4 points. German elections will soon follow and judging by her success, Merkel will almost certainly prevail.
The Brits voted to Leave, just. Not the Scots , not the Irish and the Welsh may have changed their mind. London was almost 80% 'Remain'. Now they're starting to understand the economic consequences of leaving - increased deficits, higher taxation and debatable policy on immigration. Economically it made no sense. You're leaving the biggest trading block to trade with who ? India ? Modi wasn't having anything of it, and next he's on a plane to Berlin looking to cement EU ties.
The dynamics you refer to exist not just within the EU, but within countries also. Same within Italy, same within the UK (who support Scotland) and the same in Spain where the Catalans (aka Barcelona) who have a massive trade surplus sought and continue to seek Independence from Spain - so much so that at the '92 Olympics in Barcelona , the King of Spain made his speech in both Catalan (first) and Spanish (second).
Get the picture ? Complicated. But the bottom line is EU is in it for the long haul. Think of it as a fledgling nation, plenty of crises and reforms to come. As there were with America back in the early 1800's.
But really all this is for another thread.
Try the football - you'll enjoy it ( just don't support the wrong team https://instagram.com/p/BU4ttedjUhv/ ...)
-
Manoli: I think Trump is thinking about what's good for America. Maybe he feels he can negotiate better with independent countries. That's why he likes the fact the Brits are leaving the EU. They'll need us and he can negotiate a better deal on trade and other things.
As an aside, Europe isn't like the American States were back in the 1800's. The States were all American and they spoke a common language. Except for our civil war, we fought with each other not against. Maybe it's good there's an EU and NATO. Less chance they'll start shooting at each other again and drag us in to another European war. Maybe that's what Mattis told him so he'd warmed up to NATO. It's cheaper keeping the peace than fighting a war.
-
Maybe it's good there's an EU and NATO. Less chance they'll start shooting at each other again and drag us in to another European war.
Alan , very quickly ('cos there's only 30 minutes 'till kick off) - this bruhah about NATO - Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states that 'an attack on one is an attack on all'.
The only time that it's been invoked is when America sought, and received, NATO support for the Gulf wars. Both Bushes , both wars. So who supported whom?
America and Europe are interlinked, we're allies and when the shit hits the fan, no matter how much we dislike it, we'll be by each others side. That's what America did for the Brits in the Falklands war, that's what'll happen again - if necessary.
Let's make it 'not necessary' and hope your President chills on the inflammatory & divisive rhetoric.
I'm off to watch the final ...
-
I agree that America economic house is in disorder. But some of that is because we continue to spend internationally when we can no longer afford it. Europe spends the 2% it's not spending on it's military on health care for it's people.
What? From "not spending as much as 2%" to "apparently spending zero so that they're now saving that whole 2%"? What nonsense. The EU, on average, has about 9% more tax as a percentage of GDP than does the US. They have different expenditures and different economies of scale than the US, but overall, they have more revenue to start with.
Now let's consider health expenditure. In 2015 (latest figures I can quickly find), the US spent $9,451- per capita on health in PPP USD. That's the highest in the OECD. I don't have a quick EU figure, but the second highest OECD is Luxembourg on $7,765-. Germany was 6th with $5,267- and France was on $4,407- in 14th spot (just behind Australia, as a reference, on $4,420- in 13th spot). The UK was down at 17 with $4,003-. Anyway, taking an EU average would definitely come in LOWER than the US. That's right. The US spends MORE per capita on health than does the EU. So where is your complaint that the EU is using money that the US can't afford? The US already has more money - it's just not using it very well.
Let's look at some health outcomes. Colorectal cancer 5-year survival rate - the US does well in 5th position but Australia (did you see we spend about half as much as the US) is in 4th. The US does beat out the EU but 4th to 15th are all within a few percent of each other.
What about cardiovascular? That's a good one to look at. Heart attack mortality rate. Low is better. Denmark on top at 2.9 per 100 hospital discharges after a 30-day in-hospital stay. Australia number 2 at 4.4 the US number 7 at 5.5. Hemorrhagic stroke? Finland at number 2 at 13.1 and Austria at number 3 equal with Norway (and South Korea). Australia comes in at 14 at 21.8 and the US at 16 with 22.3. Ischemic stroke? The US does very well here at number 4 at 4.3, with only Denmark as a Euro above them at 3.5.
Let's look at overall life expectancy. The US comes in at number 31 with a "both sexes health-adjust life expectancy (HALE)" of 69.7 years. Euro countries above that? 21 of them. Australia, comes in at number 15.
So, the US spends at least 50% more than the EU on average (and probably closer to 75%), and more than double Australia, but that's not reflected in the health outcomes.
So where is the problem? The US. Tort reform and health insurance reform. That's what will fix your health care costs. It has nothing to do with NATO spending half or one (or even 2 - not that that's true) percent less on defence than the US. The US already spends more. That's the truth of it, not the nonsense from Trump.
Meanwhile, America is struggling to figure out where our health money is coming from while our military spends far too much overseas. And Trump is raising military spending. I'm not in favor of a fortress America. But something's gotta give. We can't afford things anymore. We've got too many commitments to Europe, Asia, etc.
What you need to do is demand better value for your expenditure in health care. You're wasting vast amounts because you're spending more without getting a return on it. You should be able to reduce health care expenditure AND get better results without needing to change any other part of your expenditure. The EU does it. Australia does it. Why not the US? It's not an external problem for you, that's for sure. If you can't figure out where to get the money, stop looking overseas and start looking at home. Someone's taking it from the coffers and not giving you anything for it.
Regarding trade, the VAT may be an area that cannot be directly adjusted. But we'll see. I'm curious how the rest of Europe though feels about Germany. Because of the common Euro, the cost of German production is artificially low. It would be much higher if all of Europe still had their own money. German use of the Euro is hurting other European countries as well as America, maybe more. What's their feeling on trade imbalances between Germany and these other EU countries?
Germany is the powerhouse of the EU. Around 20% of EU GDP is Germany. The UK on 17% is leaving which will just make Germany even more significant. France is third (will be second) at 14%.
The other EU countries have purchasing power due to the Euro that they would never have without it and because of free movement, trade, and employment, citizens can move and work and live anywhere in the EU. There are countries still applying for membership - so I don't think they have any issue with Germany.
You keep wanting to see the EU fail, but when we look into it, it's the US at home that has issues they need to fix - it's nothing to do with the EU except that as a trading block they are able to negotiate better deals than if they were individuals and you (and Trump) don't seem to like that. To use your terminology, they're good negotiators and they're looking after the EU, not the US. Get used to it.
-
So where is the problem? The US. Tort reform and health insurance reform. That's what will fix your health care costs. It has nothing to do with NATO spending half or one (or even 2 - not that that's true) percent less on defence than the US. The US already spends more. That's the truth of it, not the nonsense from Trump.
Hit the nail on the head!
-
Phil: All those statistics don't matter. Trump and his voters want Europe to pick up more of the costs to defend Europe. It's your continent and countries mainly that are being defended. We want to reduce our costs. You're admitting Germany is a "powerhouse". Yet their military expenditure is less now (around 1.2%, way under the promised 2%) than it was ten years ago, It's a joke. They can certainly contribute more money as can other countries. You're right that we can't force countries to meet any 2% but neither do we have to commit to station in Europe the amount of troops we do. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11
Let's put aside the statistics and let me tell you how many Americans personally feel about it. Not what you read in the anti-Trump press.
First there is an admiration of Europe, one of comradeship. We are connected at the hip traditionally, economically, militarily. Many Americans have ancestors from Europe. Americans have a feeling of pride that we were able to help free Europe from the Nazis and from further encroachment by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Marshall economic assistance plan and military defense kept the Soviet bear at bay without a major conflict. Unfortunately we weren't as successful holding back the Communists and dictators in Korea and Vietnam. Currently, Korea is more of a worrisome hot spot than Europe.
In any case, since the Soviet Union failed in 1990, Americans have wondered more and more why we have to keep paying so much to defend your continent. Especially because Europe is now very rich. America's economy is much depressed from where it was 50 years ago. People are worried about their jobs and health care and other issues. We have huge debt and deficits. American think Europeans are just passing the defense costs to us as usual and we're idiots to allow them to do that. When push comes to shove, there could well be a clamor to pull out of NATO entirely and let Europe defend itself, all by itself. If Europe still desires America to be there in a strong way, they should show that they care about defending themselves and paying for it instead of making up silly excuses like the 2% was only an aim to be met in 2024. Americans won't wait. Then want to see progress now or they're going to demand the President pull out and Congress stop funding it.
A word to the wise.
-
I don't live in Europe - it's not my continent.
The statistics DO matter because Trump is using them as a basis for his comments, attacks, rhetoric, etc.
If the US wants to spend less on NATO defence, then go right ahead. It already spends more than the 2% target, so why not drop down to that level as a start? That would be within the agreement. Then ask the other members if they are still committed to meeting 2% by 2024 and if they are, good and well. If Europe decides they want more defence than that being offered by NATO at those levels, they can spend more. There's nothing wrong with that. But saying that the EU owes the US or that the EU is what causes the US to not be able to deliver cheaper and better healthcare is just nonsense. Time and time when we examine the reasons the US is growing in debt and not turning it around, it's because of domestic US issues and very little to do with anyone else. If you become as isolated as Trump wants, you'll quickly run out of countries to blame!
Own your own problems and fix them, stop blaming others. Americans can think Europeans are passing costs of defence on to them as much as they want, it doesn't make it true as has been demonstrated. Not a single extra cent has been required from the US as a result of any NATO nation not meeting the 2% target for 2024. There is no single budget which the US has to chip in to make up because someone else hasn't paid enough. Each country commits what it decides to commit under the various guidelines and then NATO works with that.
Again, if the US wants to spend less, then do it. Don't whinge and whine about the EU states, just spend less. It will be a tiny blip in the ocean but it might make you feel better. You'll still have overpriced, under-performing healthcare, and you'll still lack a coherent national tax policy to deal with imports by private citizens (because, you know, states' rights are more important than working as a nation). Oh, and you still won't get Mexico to fund the wall.
Oh, and to add to my previous comments about fixing things which Les quoted. You also need to fix things like tax deductions for health insurance and lack of portability between employers. Remove it from being linked to employment and remove the tax breaks and you'll go a long way to pulling an immense amount of pork out of the industry that just pushes up costs by lining the pockets of insurance shareholders (and executives) and healthcare in general.
Now, I have 3,500 words to write for a paper on strategic choice and implementation - so that's the rest of my day allocated. I'll leave you with a word to the wise that headlines my paper:
"Do nothing that is of no use."
- Miyamoto Musashi, translated from Go Rin No Sho
Trump's doing a lot, but it's not achieving much. He should listen to Musashi.
-
It's America's business if it isn't running it's economy or health care right. If a bank is in financial straight because they haven't manage it properly, you don't tell them that they should get their own situation straitened out when they ask for your late loan payment. Germany and the other countries should increase their expenditures to meet their commitments. We also want them to pay more in any case because we can't carry the load any longer. We can certainly reduce our commitment there. I'm in favor of that. But Trump and Mattis is willing to wait the give Europe a chance. Frankly, I think we should pull out some of our forces in any case.
-
One last thing before I dive into the paper. You keep saying they're not meeting their commitments, but then you complain when those commitments are shown as actual facts (i.e a 2024 target). There is no current requirement for them to be at 2%. That was just made up by Trump based on his either misunderstanding or blatant lies,
If the US wants to change those commitments, then by all means table it or reduce your own, but stop saying the EU isn't meeting a commitment that doesn't exist and then blaming them for all your woes.
As I said, you're wasting at least $500B on healthcare compared to the most expensive Euro nation and double that compared to Australia, on a per capita basis. That ranges from about the same to nearly double what you spend on defence IN TOTAL (not the small slice that is NATO).
-
... Americans can think Europeans are passing costs of defence on to them as much as they want, it doesn't make it true as has been demonstrated. Not a single extra cent has been required from the US as a result of any NATO nation not meeting the 2% target for 2024. There is no single budget which the US has to chip in to make up because someone else hasn't paid enough. Each country commits what it decides to commit under the various guidelines and then NATO works with that.
Again, if the US wants to spend less, then do it. Don't whinge and whine about the EU states, just spend less. It will be a tiny blip in the ocean but it might make you feel better...
I wanted to comment separately on this point you made. If war breaks out in Europe, let's say against the Russians, and Europe's military is not of sufficient size because they've been lax in meeting their military expenditures, then more American troops will have to be used to defend Europe at our expense in American blood and American treasure. Who are you or Europeans to demand that Americans die defending Europe? It's their nations and continent , not ours. This is the problem that Europe and a lot of other places have taken America for granted. We won't accept that any longer. We shouldn't spend less as you suggested, so casually passing the buck. We shouldn't spend anything.
-
Then don't spend anything. Go for it. Remove all your bases from everywhere around the world (and remove your shared intelligence stations, communications stations, and so on - you don't get to keep those but remove everything else). Remove it all. Stop visiting foreign ports, stop using foreign airfields or flying over other countries to achieve your political and military goals. Go for it.
-
... We won't accept that any longer. We shouldn't spend less as you suggested, so casually passing the buck. We shouldn't spend anything.
WE? - are you the spokesmen of the majority of the US Citizen?
It is just Alan Klein who is talking. Don't make your self bigger than you are.
and then even Trump did not get more votes than Clinton. Your country is deeply divided.
It is the choice of the US Government to spend so much money on defense as already stated.
Trump just withdraw from a climate treaty signed only one year ago by the United States. A treaty that has been worked on for more than a decade and was signed by almost all states in the world.
These kind of actions makes the US less trustworthy. Mr Trump breaks down in a few months that other presidents took years to built.
He grabbs not only women but all Americans by the pussy.
-
Then don't spend anything. Go for it. Remove all your bases from everywhere around the world (and remove your shared intelligence stations, communications stations, and so on - you don't get to keep those but remove everything else). Remove it all. Stop visiting foreign ports, stop using foreign airfields or flying over other countries to achieve your political and military goals. Go for it.
Yeah.. this is the thing that a portion of my countrymen don't seem to get. We aren't in Europe just because we're awesome guys that like to blow money helping our European friends out. We actually get something out of it too.
-
Yeah.. this is the thing that a portion of my countrymen don't seem to get. We aren't in Europe just because we're awesome guys that like to blow money helping our European friends out. We actually get something out of it too.
To be fair, whilst you do get something out of it, it's also because you're good guys (as a nation) who like to help friends. I don't think the US has historically been completely mercenary about it all, but, yeah, there's a cost to everything (like my procrastination here seems like a waste of time instead of discussing the value of Porter's generic strategies and Treacy and Wiersema's value disciplines, but actually it gives me some head space for a few minutes to really focus how their points are relevant to what I'm saying and to consider whether they are actually right in the first instance and how can I support or refute that. At least that's what I'm telling myself!).
-
But they don't like each other. Isn't their hanging together mainly because it's so advantageous to them they bailed out the Greeks? Even the Brits couldn't take it anymore.
Is that what Trump says?. I'm Spanish, I used to be Dutch. I like all European countries and I always feel at home when I visit them. They are far more familiar to me than any Spanish speaking country in America for instance, despite the fact of sharing our mother language. I can travel and work freely in any EU country, and in most of them I can pay and get paid in euros.
Brexit was a big mistake, specially for the UK citizens themselves. The oldest and more affected by the crisis part of the British society decided to leave by a narrow margin (seeking to make UK big again I guess), something most Londoners and new generations regret. Luckily local separatists (Le Pen) are not succeeding.
VAT is not a tax designed to make other countries less competitive vs EU, it's an internal tax on goods and services to make an entire continent work. When you drink a beer at the corner's bar you are paying VAT, and with that you are paying European infraestructures, health,... As a non EU citizen you can ask for a VAT refund if one day you decide to leave the 'safe' America and visit us.
Regards
-
An old joke which really should go in the Humor thread, but then most posts in this thread could go there, too.
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is".
Alan, you are constantly circling around the inadequate European NATO contributions, instead of looking at the areas where one could save real money, such as US health system. Yes, it's easier to ask for more NATO contributions than to reform a bad health system, but that's where the priorities should be.
I don't think, anyone is disputing that all countries should contribute to the NATO expenses and to keep it, but as Phil suggests, no one is forcing USA to spend more than 2%. A prudent course of action would to review all defense expenses and reduce some in not so essential areas. Regrettably, Trump just recently wasted bunch of perfectly good rockets on a questionable bombing mission in Syria, and the current US administration just increased the military budgets in many of their departments.
-
Yeah.. this is the thing that a portion of my countrymen don't seem to get. We aren't in Europe just because we're awesome guys that like to blow money helping our European friends out. We actually get something out of it too.
We're paying more than what we're getting out of it. We need the Europeans to contribute more to their defense, something they could certainly afford and which they agreed too.
-
There you go claiming they agreed to something, but then changing what they actually agreed to. It's 3 years into a 10 year period over which spending is to increase.
Stop making up BS and then complaining when someone doesn't do the BS you made up.
-
There you go claiming they agreed to something, but then changing what they actually agreed to. It's 3 years into a 10 year period over which spending is to increase.
Stop making up BS and then complaining when someone doesn't do the BS you made up.
But spending did not increase. In fact, for rich Germany it's been going down for ten years. The intent of the agreement was that regular increases were to be made so that by the end of ten years (2024) they'd at least reach the 2%. The payments were to be reviewed on a regular basis. They're not suppose to wait until the end of the ten years before any increase would be made. That argument is just weaseling out of their commitments. We should just start reducing troops until they get the point.
-
But spending did not increase. In fact, for rich Germany it's been going down for ten years. The intent of the agreement was that regular increases were to be made so that by the end of ten years (2024) they'd at least reach the 2%. The payments were to be reviewed on a regular basis. They're not suppose to wait until the end of the ten years before any increase would be made. That argument is just weaseling out of their commitments. We should just start reducing troops until they get the point.
You just made up details of the agreement that don't exist.
http://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
Nothing about "regular", just that in general they would reverse the decline in spending and either sustain (for those already there) or move to (for those below) a 2% target (among other things).
Significant changes in expenditure often take many years to occur and come to fruition. You don't just go down to Walmart and buy some more guns and say "hey, we spent more, aren't we cool?".
So, again, stop making up BS just to fit your narrative.
You do realise that today is a bad day to just make stuff up when discussing this with me? Whenever I'm writing a paper I'm in ultra-check-the-facts-and-find-real-sources mode. I can normally smell BS a fair way off, when I'm in academia mode, it is even more heightened.
So I recommend using facts, properly sourced, read, understood, and presented instead of just trying to spin everything as being someone else's fault. There are valid complaints to be made, and they have been, but the sensationalist approach isn't going to pass.
Oh, and how lovely your Trump is. London is attacked and he first tweets how his travel ban needs to be lifted by the courts, then after that he expresses sympathy and support. If he wants a ban (even though so far there's no evidence that it has been immigrants or recent arrivals, who are targeted by the bans, or from any of the targeted countries), he should draft one that is going to be considered legal and constitutional and if he thinks the current ones are then he ought to refer them to the SCotUS. Funny how he hasn't done that after telling judges originally that he'd see them in court.
-
I think Trump is thinking about what's good for America.
I don't doubt you honestly believe that but I think you really should reevaluate that position. Your belief in Trump is irrational and unfounded by facts and evidence. Trump has spent 70 years putting himself and his family before everybody else. There is no way he would or could spontaneously grow a conscience and suddenly decide to help others over his own self interest...he simply doesn't know how.
Look at everything that has happened...I know it's a lot to take in and understand. Trump won an election he didn't think he was gong to win. He ran to make money and expand his brand (he even admited (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-family-business-money-20161117-story.html) that he could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it).
The conflicts of interest are staggering and monumental (and yet the GOP are covering for him). It doesn't stop there...Ivanka's and Jarad's conflicts of interest continue to mount as well as the Kushners. (selling visas to wealthy Chinese for their investments). Heck, Jarad even met with a Russian banker to talk business (according to the Russians, the WH say he didn't). The conflicts of interest filter down to the rest of Trump's WH with 12 ethics waivers last week and upwards of 2 dozen next week. Yeah, Trump wanted to drain the swamp so he could fill it with his people...it's more of the same only far worse than ever before.
You think Trump is for the little guy, the forgotten voters who have been left behind. How could you possibly believe that. Trump is the ultimate liar-in-chief. Even you have admitted be's full of bullshyte right?
You believed him when he said that Europe had unfair trade practices with the US. We just proved to you it was a lie...
You honestly think he left the Paris agreement because he thought it was best for the US? Lies...Picking Apart Trump's Climate Lies Is Unsurprisingly Easy. Here Are 9 Examples. (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/trump-doesnt-understand-paris-agreement)
Why are so many US business leaders upset? Because pulling out is bad for America. He only pulled out because certain people convinced him while he was a candidate to promise he would pull out (and because Bannon had it on his bucket list on his whiteboard). Myron Ebell was likely instrumental. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/myron-ebell-paris-agreement/index.html)
Trump lies as a matter of course...he lies so much I honestly think he believes his own lies as truth. NEIL BUCHANAN: THE THOUSAND AND ONE LIES OF DONALD TRUMP (http://www.newsweek.com/neil-buchanan-thousand-and-one-lies-donald-trump-611858).
Donald Trump lies. He lies all the time.
He lies effortlessly. He lies shamelessly.
He lies garishly and promiscuously.
Before, during, and after the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has lied repeatedly.
Trump is unfazed that he has no facts to back up his lies, and he seems not to care about the fact-checks that repeatedly expose his statements to be lies. (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/).
But even if you ignore all that, wake up and look around...America is even more divided than ever before. But Trump does zero to try to bring people together, he constantly drives wedges between groups and foster distrust and even hatred. Has Trump don'e ANYTHING to actually help bring people together?
Then look at what will happen to people if Trump and the GOP get what they want for healthcare and taxes and spending. Unless you are white and wealthy you're gonna be screwed. Tax cuts for the 1%? Ask Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg among others what they think of Trump and the GOP? You know what they think right? Thanks Trump and the GOP are not acting in the best interest of America on healthcare, taxes and the environment.
Now, you can pooh pooh the mainstream media for being biased and negative, but all you need to do is look at the facts...
Trump is not really acting rationally. He's mean and small minded, obsessed by meaningless things and I think seriously compromised by scandals, ethics and even his own mental health. Consider this...Trump used to be a witty and entertaining speaker but now talks like a 3 yr old. It's easy to see this for yourself...look back (lot on YouTube) if interviews of Trump over the years...he could hold an intelligent and coherent conversation...listen to him speak now and it's incomprehensible. It's been noticed by many even some of his friends. Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change? (https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/)
It was the kind of utterance that makes professional transcribers question their career choice:
“ … there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself — and the Russians, zero.”
When President Trump offered that response to a question at a press conference last week, it was the latest example of his tortured syntax, mid-thought changes of subject, and apparent trouble formulating complete sentences, let alone a coherent paragraph, in unscripted speech.
He was not always so linguistically challenged.
STAT reviewed decades of Trump’s on-air interviews and compared them to Q&A sessions since his inauguration. The differences are striking and unmistakable.
Research has shown that changes in speaking style can result from cognitive decline. STAT therefore asked experts in neurolinguistics and cognitive assessment, as well as psychologists and psychiatrists, to compare Trump’s speech from decades ago to that in 2017; they all agreed there had been a deterioration, and some said it could reflect changes in the health of Trump’s brain.
So many of his supporters think Trump is really smart...even Trump will tell you he's smart, right? Trump to CIA: ‘Trust me, I'm like a smart person’ (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-cia-trust-smart-person-article-1.2952569) But I for one don't think he's very smart now (if he ever was). I think he's sneaky, I think he will say or do anything to get what he wants, I think he will blame all others for his own failures and I honestly think he's rather uneducated and unsophisticated. I actually think he's a bit dim and so does Jennifer Rubin from WaPo: Trump might be the dimmest president ever (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/31/trump-might-be-the-dimmest-president-ever/?tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.b6f5b8ccab58). Ok it's only one person's opinion from a conservative perspective but she does make a good case...
President Trump does not read — except in small doses and when his own name appears prominently. Prior to the presidency, his only activities were work and golf. He does not mingle with intellectuals, cultural trend-setters or artists. It should come as no surprise — and it has not — that he is sorely lacking in sophistication, knowledge of the world, understanding of government and a rudimentary grasp of economics. Sitting atop arguably the great resource on the planet — the body of knowledge retained by American government experts on everything from economics to medicine to military history — he remains blissfully ignorant on a range of subjects. He surrounds himself with dim yes men who know little more than he and, in any event, tremble at the prospect of correcting their “Dear Leader.” But sometimes you wonder whether Trump is just, well, dumb.
Trump asked when the world will start laughing at the US. It already is (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/02/trump-world-laughing-at-us-paris-climate-deal)
“At what point does America get demeaned?” he asked his rapt audience in the Rose Garden on Thursday, as his unusually golden comb-over glinted in the afternoon sun. “At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? … We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. And they won’t be. They won’t be.”
No they won’t. They won’t dare to laugh at an American president who takes a motorized golf cart through the streets of Sicily while his fellow leaders walk like pedestrians. They won’t laugh at a president whose handshake is a form of mortal combat where only one hand survives with its dignity intact. They won’t laugh at a president who thinks that saving the world is just another way to destroy the US.
The whole world would be laughing if it wasn't such a terrible period of time for America and the rest of the world.
It's time for Trump supporters to wake up and honestly evaluate what is happening and quit rooting for this disaster.
-
America is even more divided than ever before. But Trump does zero to try to bring people together, he constantly drives wedges between groups and foster distrust and even hatred.
That pretty much nails it for me, and I would add tha he serves special and dangerous interests only. Yes he is a 24x7 Liar, and his trip and 100 billion USD sale of arms to Saudi Arabia is remarkable evidence for the warmongering of special interest groups.
While at the same time assuring Israel to have the military edge in the midle east, supplying arms to the Wahhabi autocrats is the most cynical statement possible, allowing US arms makers to supply all sides.
Out of my guts I would say that I am hopeful that this presidency will not last the full first term, it would be better for all of us.
Best
G
-
We're paying more than what we're getting out of it.
How's that? Do you want to cut the wages of your military personnel in Europe or are you suggesting we pay for them without control over their activities? Is the fee for stationing your nuclear arms in Europe too high? Do your advanced intelligence positions have to pay extra high rent for housing?
We need the Europeans to contribute more to their defense, something they could certainly afford and which they agreed too.
Yes, and it was agreed (in 2014) to be achieved by 2024. Admitted, a lot needs to be done, but we first had to deal with a financial crisis (where the USA played a prominent role in triggering/creating the banks failing due to the type of 'Goldman Sachs' mortgage-backed deals dumped on them).
And, as said, it takes time for military investments to develop. For example, my country has been waiting for a long time for the first F-35 Lightning planes (AKA Joint Strike Fighter) to become available as replacement (https://www.houseofrepresentatives.nl/dossiers/replacement-f-16) of our aging F16s. Last year (June 7th, 2016) the first two F-35s made a number of test flights over our country before returning to the USA. The government plans to eventually buy 37 (the exact number is depending on uncertain costs) of these jets to replace the F-16s. They will be permanently stationed in the Netherlands starting in 2019.
Cheers,
Bart
-
You just made up details of the agreement that don't exist.
http://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
Nothing about "regular", just that in general they would reverse the decline in spending and either sustain (for those already there) or move to (for those below) a 2% target (among other things).
Significant changes in expenditure often take many years to occur and come to fruition. You don't just go down to Walmart and buy some more guns and say "hey, we spent more, aren't we cool?".
So, again, stop making up BS just to fit your narrative.
You do realise that today is a bad day to just make stuff up when discussing this with me? Whenever I'm writing a paper I'm in ultra-check-the-facts-and-find-real-sources mode. I can normally smell BS a fair way off, when I'm in academia mode, it is even more heightened.
So I recommend using facts, properly sourced, read, understood, and presented instead of just trying to spin everything as being someone else's fault. There are valid complaints to be made, and they have been, but the sensationalist approach isn't going to pass.
Oh, and how lovely your Trump is. London is attacked and he first tweets how his travel ban needs to be lifted by the courts, then after that he expresses sympathy and support. If he wants a ban (even though so far there's no evidence that it has been immigrants or recent arrivals, who are targeted by the bans, or from any of the targeted countries), he should draft one that is going to be considered legal and constitutional and if he thinks the current ones are then he ought to refer them to the SCotUS. Funny how he hasn't done that after telling judges originally that he'd see them in court.
+1
Fully agree with Phil's observations.
Cheers,
Bart
-
While you are busy attacking Trump and America, somebody else (wink, wink) is busy attacking the West.
Theresa May:
...time to say enough is enough... too much tolerance of extremism in our country...
Guess who peddles that tolerance? Spoiler: it ain't Trump.
-
Lifted from the "Climate Change Thread"
Forget all agreements then. America is telling Europe we need you to spend more on your own defense. We need to cut our expenditures. We can't afford it any more. I'm sorry if you don't like it. But that's the way it is. It's like telling your wife who you promised that real fox fur coat that sales have gone down. Now, she'll have to accept faux fur instead. :)
So first Trump (and you as one of his supporters) keep harping, bullying and postering we're not living up to an agreement. Once you understand there's no truth to what you thought was in the agreement you want to change the agreement. That's fine, but don't you think there is a better way to go about making these wishes known? The cerdibility of Trump in this matter is below zero, but I don't think he cares, because he's not really interested in a better result, only in more face time in the US media and more support from people who buy all the bullshit he spews out. If he was really interested in a "better" outcome he'd go about it much differently.
-
While you are busy attacking Trump and America, somebody else (wink, wink) is busy attacking the West.
Theresa May:
Guess who peddles that tolerance? Spoiler: it ain't Trump.
Yup, she was talking about cyberspace - the likes of facebook, twitter, and social media giving these creatures a 'free' platform. Nothing like grasping at straws, Slobodan.
Meantime back on the right-wing pro-trump Takimag :
What an irony that Trump said, while in Saudi, that “terrorists and extremists and THOSE WHO GIVE THEM AID AND COMFORT must be driven out.” That asshole Salman, posing as a king, should have taken a bow. After the Orlando massacre in a gay nightclub, where 49 men were killed, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a black American, never once mentioned the word “Islam.” “His motives may never be known,” was as far as she went. Ditto Obama after the San Bernardino killings: He urged Congress to pass stricter gun laws, never mentioning the fact that the killings were committed by husband-and-wife scumbags who had been radicalized in Saudi and the Middle East.
Abedi was known to the fuzz, but what good did it do those innocent young girls who lost their lives so cruelly after the concert? Had he been thrown in jail once he had taken to reciting Islamic prayers loudly in the streets, after having just returned from Libya, all those poor kids would still be alive.
See what I mean by political correctness being the main culprit? Our leaders are such hypocrites that I, for one, have given up. I thought Trump might do something, but then he goes and genuflects to the Saudis and then tells the Israelis—who started the whole mess by grabbing other people’s lands fifty years ago this week, the longest occupation of modern times—how well they’re doing, and yes, do start a peace process with those you’ve stolen land from \...
http://takimag.com/article/scum_life_taki/print#ixzz4j2pH1zhG
-
Guess who peddles that tolerance? Spoiler: it ain't Trump.
In his selective ban of muslim countries Trump forgot Saoudi Arabia;
Almost al 911 terrorists came from there...as i recall.
Instead Trump sells enormous amount of arms to that country...
-
While you are busy attacking Trump and America, somebody else (wink, wink) is busy attacking the West.
Theresa May:
Guess who peddles that tolerance? Spoiler: it ain't Trump.
And it ain't the mayor of London either:
Trump criticized for tweet on London mayor after bridge attacks
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-trump-idUSKBN18U0YC
U.S. President Donald Trump came under fire on Sunday for criticizing London's mayor in the aftermath of attacks in the city that killed seven people and injured at least 48 others.
"In a tweet, Trump seized on comments by London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who said Britons should not be alarmed to see more police in the streets after three men drove a van into pedestrians on London Bridge before stabbing others nearby.
"At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is 'no reason to be alarmed!'" Trump tweeted.
"We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse," Trump said.
In response, a spokesperson for the London mayor said Khan "is busy working with the police, emergency services and the government to coordinate the response to this horrific and cowardly terrorist attack."
"He has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump's ill-informed tweet that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more police - including armed officers - on the streets," the spokesperson said."
Despicable, Trumps reaction as well. First he promoted his controversial travel ban as an extra level of security for Americans, where it has the opposite effect, because it only feeds those who are radicalizing and plays into the cards of those recruiting for violent Jihad ...
Now quoting the Mayor of London out of context, trying to incite feelings of insecurity and more intolerance. Despicable.
Cheers,
Bart
-
@realDonaldTrump tweets:
At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is "no reason to be alarmed!"
What the Mayor of London actually said:
"There aren’t words to describe the grief and anger that our city will be facing today. I’m appalled and furious that these cowardly terrorists would deliberately target innocent Londoners.
There can be no justification for the acts of these terrorists and I am quite clear that we will never let them win.
My message to Londoners and visitors to our great city is to be calm and vigilant today. You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world. You saw last night as a consequence of our planning, our preparation, the rehearsals that take place, the swift response from the emergency services tackling the terrorists and also helping the injured."
So, Mayor Sadiq Khan (a muslim) made a critical mistake, he actually used too many words for Trump to understand so Trump only heard the words he wanted to hear and then took to Twitter to make a fool of himself...so, what else is new?
My sympathies to my English friends and my apologies for our stupid President...
-
...
-
.. and then there was Sir Christopher Meyer, ex British Ambassador to the United States of America :
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4226/35057387326_89ab3f5416_o.jpg)
-
.. and then there was Sir Christopher Meyer, ex British Ambassador to the United States of America :
Well, as Trump said "We must stop being politically correct", and the former British Ambassador to the USA picked up on that with a typically British understatement: "Trump makes me puke".
Bravo!
Cheers,
Bart
-
Russians Think Trump Might Be a Russian Asset, and They Might Be Right
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/russians-think-trump-might-be-a-russian-asset.html?mid=twitter-share-di
"Over the last several days, the Russia scandal has taken a darker turn. Friday night, the Washington Post reported that Jared Kushner tried during the presidential transition period to set up a secret communications channel with Moscow. Tuesday morning, CNN reported that, during the 2016 campaign, Russian officials discussed having leverage of a financial nature over Trump, which could be used to manipulate the Republican nominee. The exact nature of this relationship remains as yet unknown, but its parameters have shifted. The most innocent explanations of Donald Trump’s shadowy relationship with Russia have grown increasingly fanciful, while the most paranoid interpretations have grown increasingly more plausible."
A bit speculative for the moment, but not impossible ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Interesting observation I saw this morning. For all of Trump's attempts to say his Muslim ban wasn't a ban (just a "pause"), his tweet yesterday literally called it a ban.
-
\..
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4199/34967501241_25fd6d9941_o.jpg)
-
Well, as Trump said "We must stop being politically correct", and the former British Ambassador to the USA picked up on that with a typically British understatement: "Trump makes me puke".
Bravo!
Cheers,
Bart
One wonders for how long folks like Mattis and Tillerson are going to put up with this buffoonery. They surely know the result will be - in fact, already is - most of the world shutting out the Trump administration until he's gone and with that goes their jobs and their prestige. His reign so far seems like one long act of narcissism and self-destruction but perhaps that's all he's really capable of. My understanding is that scores of senior US departmental posts are still unfilled. The whole thing seems like a kind of sham government which will eventually just implode.
I can't imagine him Trump visiting the UK officially now. The public wouldn't wear it, not after all his crass remarks about London. Apart from the bastions of the kind of violent dictators he seems to admire, he is fast running out of places where he would be even slightly welcome.
-
Yup, she was talking about cyberspace - the likes of facebook, twitter, and social media giving these creatures a 'free' platform...
You sure about that? How about tolerance toward imams who radicalize in mosques? Tolerance for the flood of Muslims into the country, allowing them to reach a critical mass, after which it is the sheer number of radicalized ones that overwhelms the security services and makes it impossible to control?
As for "controlling" Facebook... it is like parents trying to do so. The moment they (parents) learned how, kids abandoned Facebook in droves and moved to new platforms, yet to be discovered by parents. They same thing with terrorists.
-
... Now quoting the Mayor of London out of context, trying to incite feelings of insecurity and more intolerance. Despicable.
Is that the same mayor who said in the past that Londoners better get used to terrorism, as, you know, London is a metropolis, and it goes with the territory?
-
So, Londoners have a Muslim mayor, Londoners are fiercely against Trump, Londoners are fully politically correct and embrace multiculturalism, and yet... it is Trump's fault that Muslims are attacking London?
-
Yup, she was talking about cyberspace - the likes of facebook, twitter, and social media giving these creatures a 'free' platform.
I didn't get the impression that she was talking about cyberspace only.
“Enough is enough,” Theresa May said Sunday of the London Bridge Attack. In the Prime Minister’s speech Sunday, she said, “There is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/theresa-mays-terrorism-strategy/529101/
-
..America is even more divided than ever before. But Trump does zero to try to bring people together, he constantly drives wedges between groups and foster distrust and even hatred. Has Trump don'e ANYTHING to actually help bring people together?...
Have you? You think this thread and your constant attacks on the President of the United States help bring people together?
-
...yet... it is Trump's fault that Muslims are attacking London?
No, but it's Trump's fault he got into a Twitter rant against the London mayor for zero net benefit other than make people more pissed and embarrassed by him. So tell me what has Trump done that was useful since the attack other than getting in some golf this weekend and tweeting? Anything?
-
Have you? You think this thread and your constant attacks on the President of the United States help bring people together?
Yeah well, I wasn't elected the leader of the free world ya know? So it's a bit above my pay grade...it's his friggin' job and he doesnt have a clue how to do that does he?
-
Is that the same mayor who said in the past that Londoners better get used to terrorism, as, you know, London is a metropolis, and it goes with the territory?
And now you're taking him out of context. Find the original, full, quote.
-
And now you're taking him out of context. Find the original, full, quote.
I probably did (take him out of context). But just trying to blend in with the crowd here, on this thread. I thought that taking Trump out of context and too literally is de rigueur here, no? ;)
-
I probably did (take him out of context)....
Thank again, it looks like I didn't:
Sadiq Khan: London mayor says being prepared for terror attacks 'part and parcel' of living in a major city
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html
You see, I actually agree with the mayor. It has become a fact of life. However, coming from a Muslim mayor, it MIGHT have a different meaning, like: "Hey, my bros are coming to get you, get used to it." And I am pretty sure he didn't mean it that way, however, it is all about optics these days.
Just like the leftist, aging-hippies, "march-through-institutions" US judges said that the Trump's Travel ban would be confirmed by them had it been drafted, verbatim, by anyone else but Trump.
-
I didn't get the impression that she was talking about cyberspace only.
I didn't say 'only'
Latest reports indicate that the 3 perps communicated and plotted this latest attack via YouTube.
Here are excerpts from her speech of today:
As terrorism breeds terrorism and perpetrators are inspired to attack, not only on the basis of carefully constructed plots after years of planning and training, and not even as lone attackers radicalised online, but by copying one another and often using the crudest of means of attack. [...]
First, while the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism.
It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth. [...]
Second, we cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide. We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risks of extremism online. [...]
Third, while we need to deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online, we must not forget about the safe spaces that continue to exist in the real world. Yes, that means taking military action to destroy Isis in Iraq and Syria. But it also means taking action here at home.
Fourth, we have a robust counter-terrorism strategy, that has proved successful over many years.But as the nature of the threat we face becomes more complex, more fragmented, more hidden, especially online, the strategy needs to keep up.
Edit;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-terror-attack-theresa-mays-statement-full-london-bridge-borough-market-a7771891.html
-
I didn't say 'only'
And yet, you selected only one of the four factors she mentioned. Grasping at straws? ;)
The latest lame excuse: "YouTube made me do it, your Honour"
I was, however, referring to her points 1 and 3, especially the part "here at home."
-
I didn't say 'only'
Latest reports indicate that the 3 perps communicated and plotted this latest attack via YouTube.
we have a robust counter-terrorism strategy, that has proved successful over many years.But as the nature of the threat we face becomes more complex, more fragmented, more hidden, especially online, the strategy needs to keep up.
True! This will be a protracted war which has to be waged on all fronts. And the strategy needs to keep up.
To police the Internet communications is only one area in this fight, and also it is only one of the channels for the bad guys to communicate.
The most serious adversaries, like Osama bin Ladin, went out of their way to bypass telephones and Internet.
-
The latest lame excuse: "YouTube made me do it, your Honour"
And that's meant to be what ... funny, humorous, witty ?
-
I was, however, referring to her points 1 and 3, especially the part "here at home."
Well, if you're referring to the 'here at home' part - first reports indicate that, alledgedly, one of the perps was of Pakistani origin, British born, married father, radicalised within the last year and already known to the security services , having been reported on several occasions by members of his own community for trying to radicalise children.
Of the 12 people arrested so far, one is released without charge, 7 are women aged between 19 and 60, 5 are male aged between 23 and 55. ( ages from memory - all given without guarantee ..)
A different threat to the one you're so keen on depicting.
-
... A different threat to the one you're so keen on depicting.
Exactly what is different? They are all Muslim.
Another question... the guy was reported twice ("see something, say something" apparently worked). The question is, why didn't authorities do something about it? Political correctness? Overwhelmed by the sheer number of "married fathers"?
-
Thank again, it looks like I didn't:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-terrorism-attacks-part-and-parcel-major-cities-new-york-bombing-a7322846.html
You see, I actually agree with the mayor. It has become a fact of life. However, coming from a Muslim mayor, it MIGHT have a different meaning, like: "Hey, my bros are coming to get you, get used to it." And I am pretty sure he didn't mean it that way, however, it is all about optics these days.
Read your own link. There was a lot more said, a lot more context than your original comment.
-
I thought that taking Trump out of context and too literally is de rigueur here, no? ;)
Pretty sure people here are not taking Trump out of context, all we need to is quote him which of course YOU don't like because then we're talking him literally. Well, words really do matter ya know?
And speaking of Trump "speaking", there's this...
WHAT DONALD TRUMP CAN DO TO HELP STOP TERRORISM: TALK LESS (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-donald-trump-can-do-to-help-stop-terrorism-talk-less)
In the hours after the London terrorist attack, President Trump took to his favored platform, Twitter, to deliver a stream-of-consciousness response. He repeated his call for a “travel ban” on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries. And he warned against political correctness. “If we don’t get smart it will only get worse,” he said. “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now?” he added, in a puzzling non sequitur. “That’s because they used knives and a truck.”
For critics of Trump, his tweets betray a buffoonish approach to national security that will only make terrorism worse. His proposed travel restrictions will only aid recruitment for the Islamic State, they say. His demand, during a speech in Saudi Arabia, two weeks ago, for Muslim heads of state to do more ignores the reality that, since the September 11th attacks, vastly more Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and police than American service members have died battling extremists. And Trump’s loosening of Pentagon rules surrounding the use of air strikes and commando raids against the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups will only lead to more civilian deaths, fuelling resentment and reprisals.
Yet several counterterrorism experts, including some who worked under President Obama, admitted to me, in private conversations recently, that new approaches to combat extremism are badly needed, and that Trump has a chance to take steps that could prove effective. The problem is that, just as in other policy areas, Trump threatens to undermine his own counterterrorism strategy with his bellicose mode of communication. “His rhetoric belies a fundamental lack of understanding of the greater nuances of the issue, and in particular the root causes that have allowed isis to prey on the vulnerable and disaffected in our communities,” a former senior counterterrorism official told me on Sunday. “His immediate call for a ban on Muslims in the wake of the most recent attack and throughout his short time as President is arguably more likely to alienate Muslim Americans, and thus potentially inspire further acts of homegrown terrorism, than it is to prevent terrorists from entering the country and perpetrating terrorist acts.”
-
...new approaches to combat extremism are badly needed...
Oh, please, do tell! What exactly are they?
Apparently, the previous president had a great talent to understand those "greater nuances" and "root causes" ... so much so, that it allowed ISIS to...flourish.
-
...Despicable, Trumps reaction as well. First he promoted his controversial travel ban as an extra level of security for Americans, where it has the opposite effect, because it only feeds those who are radicalizing and plays into the cards of those recruiting for violent Jihad ...
So why then are they attacking London's citizens? Is the Muslim mayor of London doing anything to radicalize the Muslims there to attack their own fellow citizens. Since the mayor is Muslim, who in London are radicalizing and playing into the cards of those recruiting for violent Jihad? Maybe it was Trump's American travel ban that got these people upset and violent. "Let's run over some of our fellow Londoners for what Trump said in America. We'll show Trump!"
Maybe, just maybe, these attacks have nothing to do what anyone says but how they want to establish universal Islam a world caliphate. After all, they've been attacking and blowing up and killing people long before Trump became President. Maybe you should wake up to the fact we're at war.
-
Another question... the guy was reported twice ("see something, say something" apparently worked). The question is, why didn't authorities do something about it? Political correctness? Overwhelmed by the sheer number of "married fathers"?
Your witticisms have me rolling on the floor, Slobodan. So humorous.
The short answer is 'man-power' but that's an argument brewing and will be thrashed out before (and after) the General Election on Thursday. ITM, this thread is about Trump ...
-
Exactly what is different? They are all Muslim.
Bingo, straight out - The mantra of an alt-right, racist, ultra nationalist xenophobe. Is that your belief ?
-
Exactly what is different? They are all Muslim.
Muhammad Ali's stinging response to Trump, at the tail end of 2015, under the title of 'Presidential Candidates Proposing to Ban Muslim Immigration to the United States’.
I am a Muslim and there is nothing Islamic about killing innocent people in Paris, San Bernardino, or anywhere else in the world. True Muslims know that the ruthless violence of so called Islamic jihadists goes against the very tenets of our religion.
We as Muslims have to stand up to those who use Islam to advance their own personal agenda. They have alienated many from learning about Islam. True Muslims know or should know that it goes against our religion to try and force Islam on anybody.
Speaking as someone who has never been accused of political correctness, I believe that our political leaders should use their position to bring understanding about the religion of Islam and clarify that these misguided murderers have perverted people's views on what Islam really is.
-
So why then are they attacking London's citizens? Is the Muslim mayor of London doing anything to radicalize the Muslims there to attack their own fellow citizens. Since the mayor is Muslim, who in London are radicalizing and playing into the cards of those recruiting for violent Jihad? Maybe it was Trump's American travel ban that got these people upset and violent. "Let's run over some of our fellow Londoners for what Trump said in America. We'll show Trump!"
Maybe, just maybe, these attacks have nothing to do what anyone says but how they want to establish universal Islam a world caliphate. After all, they've been attacking and blowing up and killing people long before Trump became President. Maybe you should wake up to the fact we're at war.
Not sure if you are suggesting that being a Muslim is itself an act of treason? But anyway if "we're at war", please explain why your president is boasting about the quantities of weaponry he's just sold to Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabism, the strain of Islam behind its current extreme manifestations? Surely if "we're at war" as you say this is akin to Nikon announcing sales of fleets of fighter jets to Brezhnev in around 1970.
-
Not sure if you are suggesting that being a Muslim is itself an act of treason? But anyway if "we're at war", please explain why your president is boasting about the quantities of weaponry he's just sold to Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabism, the strain of Islam behind its current extreme manifestations? Surely if "we're at war" as you say this is akin to Nikon announcing sales of fleets of fighter jets to Brezhnev in around 1970.
I know we are here on a photography forum, but Nikon and Brezhnev somehow don't mesh together.
-
I know we are here on a photography forum, but Nikon and Brezhnev somehow don't mesh together.
Lol, that's brilliantly silly!! I am so sorry, I wrote it without my reading glasses on. But I think I'll let it stand ...
-
These days you just never know. Hasselblad teams up with a drone maker, so Nikon's expansion to make high precision fighter jets is not so farfetched. ;)
-
Bingo, straight out - The mantra of an alt-right, racist, ultra nationalist xenophobe. Is that your belief ?
So, pointing out a simple, glaringly obvious, single common thread to all Islamist terrorist acts somehow makes one an alt-right etc.?
Than again, maybe i got it wrong, maybe the simple, glaringly obvious, single common thread is that they all watched YouTube?
-
... of Wahhabism, the strain of Islam behind its current extreme manifestations?...
I think you and Cassius Clay have a lot to talk about ;)
-
Exactly what is different? They are all Muslim.
I don't see the logic behind that statement, because if the perpetrators might call themselves Muslims (QED), are all Muslims therefore terrorists? As an analogy, just because all birds lay eggs doesn't make the Platypus a bird. Yet that's your strain of 'logic' or rather a mantra.
It's the same mistake to not distinguish between Islamism and a fundamentalist (Islamist) ideology.
Deliberately not making the distinction is purposely hurtful and discriminating. Despicable and counterproductive.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bloomberg - Ray Dalio Is Changing His Mind About Donald Trump (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-05/dalio-concerned-by-consequences-of-trump-s-pursuit-of-conflict)
Billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio, who was initially bullish on Donald Trump’s ability to stimulate the economy, is growing increasingly concerned about the potential consequences of his presidency.
“When faced with the choices between what’s good for the whole and what’s good for the part, and between harmony and conflict, he has a strong tendency to choose the part and conflict,” Dalio said in a LinkedIn post Monday. “The more I see Donald Trump moving toward conflict rather than cooperation, the more I worry about him harming his presidency and its effects on most of us.”
Dalio appears to be gaining more clarity on Trump. In March, he said that he had more questions than answers about the president’s brand of populism -- and that the most important thing to watch was how conflict is handled. The founder of the $160 billion Bridgewater Associates said Trump’s decision last week to exit the Paris climate accord, a landmark pact reached by almost 200 countries to curb fossil-fuel production, is the latest example of the president’s approach to conflict.
-
David Brooks says it clearly:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/opinion/donald-trump-poisons-the-world.html?src=me
This week, two of Donald Trump’s top advisers, H. R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, wrote the following passage in The Wall Street Journal: “The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a cleareyed outlook that the world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage.”
That sentence is the epitome of the Trump project. It asserts that selfishness is the sole driver of human affairs. It grows out of a worldview that life is a competitive struggle for gain. It implies that cooperative communities are hypocritical...
In the essay, McMaster and Cohn make explicit the great act of moral decoupling woven through this presidency. In this worldview, morality has nothing to do with anything. Altruism, trust, cooperation and virtue are unaffordable luxuries in the struggle of all against all. Everything is about self-interest...
... By behaving with naked selfishness toward others, they poison the common realm and they force others to behave with naked selfishness toward them.
By treating the world simply as an arena for competitive advantage, Trump, McMaster and Cohn sever relationships, destroy reciprocity, erode trust and eviscerate the sense of sympathy, friendship and loyalty that all nations need when times get tough.
-
Very worrying. It makes you think how he would react in a case of real emergency such as a natural catastrophe or a war.
-
Another day, another insult by Trump.
Trump accuses London Mayor Khan of 'pathetic excuse' over attack statement
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-trump-tweet-idUSKBN18W1U2
"U.S. President Donald Trump accused London Mayor Sadiq Khan on Monday of making a "pathetic excuse" over one of his comments following the attack that killed seven people in London on Saturday night.
Khan had said on Sunday morning that people would see an increased police presence on the streets of the capital and should not be alarmed by that.
"Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his 'no reason to be alarmed' statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!", Trump said in a Tweet. MSM referred to mainstream media.
Trump had faced a barrage of criticism on Sunday over an earlier Tweet that said: "At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is 'no reason to be alarmed!'"."
"There was no immediate response from Khan to Trump's latest Tweet.
On Sunday, a spokesman for the London mayor said he was working with the police, emergency services and government to coordinate the response to the attack, and had "more important things to do" than to respond to Trump."
Indeed. To put it mildly, Trump is a waste of time, let's hope it doesn't last 4 years. The longer the GOP keeps covering his ass, the more they are responsible for the devastation that follows.
Cheers,
Bart
-
To Be Great, America Must Be Good (Susan Rice in the NYT)
WASHINGTON — Four and a half months is not long, but President Trump has accomplished an extraordinary amount in a short time. With shocking speed, he has wreaked havoc: hobbling our core alliances, jettisoning American values and abdicating United States leadership of the world. That’s a whole lot of winning — for Russia and China.
[..]
At NATO, the president’s reckless refusal to reaffirm our commitment to the defense of our allies under Article 5, while hectoring them publicly about their military spending, made our allies conclude they must go it alone. Nothing could have thrilled President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia more, or done more damage to the strength and unity of the Western world. And now the president has pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, putting us at odds with virtually the entire world. Europe and China stand together on the Paris accord, while the United States is isolated.
This last, disastrous decision is the coup de grâce for America’s postwar global leadership for the foreseeable future. It was not taken from us by any adversary, nor lost as a result of economic crisis or collapse of empire. America voluntarily gave up that leadership — because we quit the field.
How consequential is this choice? The network of alliances that distinguishes America from other powers and has kept our nation safe and strong for decades is now in jeopardy. We will see the cost when next we need the world to rally to our side.
When the United States called after the Sept. 11 attacks, NATO answered, and for nearly 16 years the alliance has fought alongside us to defeat Al Qaeda and strengthen the Afghan government. Over 65 countries joined the fight against the Islamic State, and we rely on their enduring commitment to roll back terrorist havens. And when Russia illegally annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine, the United States led the effort to impose sanctions on Russia.
-
... and now going it alone ?
When President Donald Trump addressed NATO leaders during his debut overseas trip little more than a week ago, he surprised and disappointed European allies who hoped—and expected—he would use his speech to explicitly reaffirm America’s commitment to mutual defense of the alliance’s members, a one-for-all, all-for-one provision. That part of the Trump visit is known.
What’s not is that the president also disappointed—and surprised—his own top national security officials by failing to include the language reaffirming the so-called Article 5 provision in his speech. National security adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all supported Trump doing so and had worked in the weeks leading up to the trip to make sure it was included in the speech, according to five sources familiar with the episode. They thought it was, and a White House aide even told The New York Times the day before the line was definitely included.
It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATO’s new Brussels headquarters, that the president’s national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences—without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.
“They had the right speech and it was cleared through McMaster,” said a source briefed by National Security Council officials in the immediate aftermath of the NATO meeting. “As late as that same morning, it was the right one.” Added a senior White House official, “There was a fully coordinated other speech everybody else had worked on”—and it wasn’t the one Trump gave. “They didn’t know it had been removed,” said a third source of the Trump national security officials on hand for the ceremony. “It was only upon delivery.”
The president appears to have deleted it himself, according to one version making the rounds inside the government, reflecting his personal skepticism about NATO and insistence on lecturing NATO allies about spending more on defense rather than offering reassurances of any sort; another version relayed to others by several White House aides is that Trump’s nationalist chief strategist Steve Bannon and policy aide Stephen Miller played a role in the deletion.
-
Trump’s latest tweets will likely hurt effort to restore travel ban
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-latest-tweets-could-hurt-effort-to-restore-travel-ban/2017/06/05/c8eb5940-49e8-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.e3fae1fe9d77
"President Trump on Monday derided the revised travel ban as a “watered down” version of the first and criticized his own Justice Department’s handling of the case — potentially hurting the administration’s defense of the ban as the legal battle over it reaches a critical new stage.
Trump in a tweet called the new ban “politically correct,” ignoring that he himself signed the executive order replacing the first ban with a revised version that targeted only six, rather than seven, Muslim-majority countries and blocked the issuance of new visas, rather than revoking current ones.
Trump said the Justice Department should seek a “much tougher version” and made clear — despite his own press secretary’s past remarks to the contrary — that the executive order is a “ban,” not a pause on some sources of immigration or an enhanced vetting system.
“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump wrote. "
And his insults he hurled at the Mayor of London will certainly not help either.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. And from a different source:
In tweets, Trump appears to undercut his own travel ban case
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-usa-trump-idUSKBN18W1BR
-
Trump urges tougher U.S. travel ban, expedited court review
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-usa-trump-idUSKBN18W1BR
"U.S. President Donald Trump urged his administration to seek a tougher version of his controversial travel ban proposal on Monday following a weekend attack in London, and pressed for an expedited judicial review by the nation's top court.
Trump's comments, made in early tweets on Monday, could weigh on his administration's emergency request last week asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate his travel ban on people entering the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries.
"The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.," tweeted Trump, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!" Trump, who as president oversees the department, said in another tweet.
Late Thursday, Trump's legal team asked the court to allow his controversial March 6 executive order for the travel ban to take effect immediately, despite being blocked by lower courts. The Supreme Court rarely grants emergency requests."
Does Trump think that the London terrorists came from the countries he wants to ban travel from? How does the link between the events in London and his travel ban even come to his mind? Is it discrimination based on religion? Is that why he targeted the Mayor of London, or is it that he made a foolish remark, and his ego doesn't allow to admit a mistake?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump should start reducing American forces until Europe increases they're monetary payments to NATO.
(Changed commitments to payments. Their commitments aren't worth anything.)
-
Trump should start reducing American forces until Europe increases they're monetary payments to NATO.
(Changed commitments to payments. Their commitments aren't worth anything.)
Nobody is making payments to NATO, not even the US ;)
Or to be fully correct, the very small direct payments for NATO (administration etc.) that are paid by the member states is by an agreed formula that all memberstates meet. Currently (as far as I know) nobody is behind on these payments.
-
Nobody is making payments to NATO, not even the US ;)
Or to be fully correct, the very small direct payments for NATO (administration etc.) that are paid by the member states is by an agreed formula that all memberstates meet. Currently (as far as I know) nobody is behind on these payments.
You did a "gotcha" to me as everyone does to Trump. It's like people pointing out spelling errors when they post things here so they don't have to address the real point of the post. It gets tiring. It's like when Trump accused Obama of tapping when he meant of course that the Obama administration was surveilling the Trump campaign using his intelligence agencies.
You know what I'm talking about. It's the 2% for military expenses. We should start pulling out American troops until the deadbeat countries start paying more for their militaries.
-
Trump should start reducing American forces until Europe increases they're monetary payments to NATO.
(Changed commitments to payments. Their commitments aren't worth anything.)
you mean till they actually start paying USA for the services provided... aggression in Libya was the prime example how NATO sans USA can't even do anything against a decrepit military force w/o USA spending money to do the job ...
-
Trump should start reducing American forces until Europe increases they're monetary payments to NATO.
(Changed commitments to payments. Their commitments aren't worth anything.)
Ya really should know what you are talking about regarding funding...read this and get back to us.
Funding NATO (http://www.nato.int/cps/ro/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
Study questions to to answer;
What is the difference between indirect and direct funding of NATO?
What is the principle of common funding?
What is the civil budget?
What is the military budget?
What is the NATO Security Investment Programme?
Who is responsible for the financial management of the civil and military budgets?
Who is responsible for financial management of the NATO Security Investment Programme?
--------
Once you understand the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and how it's funded maybe then we can all have an informed discussion about why what you said above is, uh, based on faulty assumptions and understandings of how NATA operates...
-
Ya really should know what you are talking about regarding funding...read this and get back to us.
Funding NATO (http://www.nato.int/cps/ro/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
Study questions to to answer;
What is the difference between indirect and direct funding of NATO?
What is the principle of common funding?
What is the civil budget?
What is the military budget?
What is the NATO Security Investment Programme?
Who is responsible for the financial management of the civil and military budgets?
Who is responsible for financial management of the NATO Security Investment Programme?
--------
Once you understand the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and how it's funded maybe then we can all have an informed discussion about why what you said above is, uh, based on faulty assumptions and understandings of how NATA operates...
Same response.
-------------------------------
You did a "gotcha" to me as everyone does to Trump. It's like people pointing out spelling errors when they post things here so they don't have to address the real point of the post. It gets tiring. It's like when Trump accused Obama of tapping when he meant of course that the Obama administration was surveilling the Trump campaign using his intelligence agencies.
You know what I'm talking about. It's the 2% for military expenses. We should start pulling out American troops until the deadbeat countries start paying more for their militaries.
-------------------------------
Since you're an American, I'll add another point. You should be angry that we are subsidizing European nations, rich nations, who could afford to pay more that centers on mainly defending them.
-
you mean till they actually start paying USA for the services provided... aggression in Libya was the prime example how NATO sans USA can't even do anything against a decrepit military force w/o USA spending money to do the job ...
Exactly the purpose of meeting the 2%. Because Europe is not meeting these commitments, their military is weak. The Russians would roll over them in three days without America. You think they'd have more pride. Maybe it's the EU. They each have lost their sense of patriotism although the Brits seem to have come to their senses. This is what happens when you depend on others for decades. You get weak and dependent, insignificant, girlie, frankly, a joke.
-
You did a "gotcha" to me as everyone does to Trump.
And fully deserved, if you can't make your arguments correctly and blabber out nonsence on agreements that only exist in your mind you call it all off on yourself.
You know what I'm talking about. It's the 2% for military expenses. We should start pulling out American troops until the deadbeat countries start paying more for their militaries.
Of course I know what you're talking about, I'm not stupid. There's no deadbeat countries, that's one of those imaginary agreements that only exist in your mind because it's put in there by fake alt-right news. If Trump wants to reduce military expenditure over here that's fine by me, but he's not really interested in that. The US is getting out as much or more then they put in. If he really was worried about this he would behave completely differently.
-
you mean till they actually start paying USA for the services provided... aggression in Libya was the prime example how NATO sans USA can't even do anything against a decrepit military force w/o USA spending money to do the job ...
And look at the mess created there (and in Iraq). The collective Western World should have stayed out there. That money was not spent wisely and created ISIS.
-
Since you're an American, I'll add another point. You should be angry that we are subsidizing European nations, rich nations, who could afford to pay more that centers on mainly defending them.
Since I'm an American I'm sick and tired of the US government and the military industrial complex wasting so much money build weapons for wars we'll really never fight and have ignored the greatest battlefield where we are already losing and that's cyber warfare.
As it relates to getting more money for NATO and spending less by the US, yes, lets...but let's do it in a way that doesn't try to shame and humiliate but enter into serious and diplomatic discussions.
Trump isn't running for president anymore. When he gives speeches at NATO designed to denigrate NATO and make him look like a hard ass to impress his followers, he's doing a piss poor job of leading America and getting the rest of NATO to the negotiating table. He ain't trying to sell a luxury condo or golf course...he's supposed to be trying to get our allies to do more not laugh behind his back at his inept and feeble attempts at diplomacy.
But my point still stand, you would do better to argue your points about NATO from a position of knowledge instead of ignorance. Otherwise you run the risk of sounding and acting like Trump (and that's not a good thing).
-
... If Trump wants to reduce military expenditure over here that's fine by me, but he's not really interested in that. The US is getting out as much or more then they put in. If he really was worried about this he would behave completely differently.
I think Secretary of War Mattis doesn't care what it costs. He an old military man, brilliant, tough, but as a long time government official, he cares less what it costs. Not his department. Trump, on the other hand, being a businessman, and cheap as well, is always looking at the bottom line. That might be the only place he looks. He's a guy who takes advantage and does not like being taken advantage of in return. I think his mother was Scottish so he's got that frugal blood in him.
-
#NotFakeNews (too bad huh?)
President Trump Just Held a Signing. He Had Nothing to Sign (http://time.com/4805726/donald-trump-air-traffic-privatization-document-signing/)
After announcing his goal to privatize the nation's Air Traffic Control System, President Donald Trump sat down at a desk on Monday and signed two documents. There was only one problem: He wasn't actually signing something that would have any tangible impact on what he had just proposed.
A White House aide told reporters Trump had signed a "a decision memo and letter transmitting legislative principles to Congress," surrounding the privatization of the Air Traffic Control system, which he had just spent the last few minutes advocating for. But in order for his goal to come to fruition, Congress would need to pass pass legislation implementing it. Before Trump gave remarks Monday, White House officials had told reporters that the President is only dictating his legislative goals of separating air traffic controls from the FAA. Congress is not required to follow through on these goals.
Ah, so it's like telling a 3yr old to write a letter to Santa knowing full well that the kid ain't gonna get squat...makes the kid feel better but won't amount to much...
-
And look at the mess created there (and in Iraq). The collective Western World should have stayed out there. That money was not spent wisely and created ISIS.
That was Hillary's and Obama's fault. Of course they're American so I have to accept responsibility for the screw-ups in Libya. You know many conservatives and Republicans are tired of every president committing "war" without Congress approving it as required by the Constitution. It's caused us all kinds of problems through the years. General and President Washington was right all those years ago that we should avoid foreign entanglements. Maybe we should pull out of NATO entirely. Then Europe could build up their own forces and join together in the EU in a common defense without us. What do you think about that idea?
-
He's a guy who takes advantage and does not like being taken advantage of in return. I think his mother was Scottish so he's got that frugal blood in him.
Here I agree with you Alan, and that's exactly where my problem lies. He's such a narcissist that he grossly overestimates his own contribution while on the other hand undervalues what others do for him that he's a plain disaster in international relations and he will have to work pretty hard (if he's even interested) to gain back some credibility and achieve some of the goals he set.
-
Same response.
-------------------------------
You did a "gotcha" to me as everyone does to Trump.
Precisely. And the same as they did to Ms Palin, who used the term extensively. And the same as they will continue to do to all people spew erroneous crap.
In other words, "gotchas" are perfectly valid forms of pointing out errors. Get used to it.
-
That was Hillary's and Obama's fault.
More blame games, but since we're at it, Iraq was Bush's (and Blair's) fault.
-
More blame games, but since we're at it, Iraq was Bush's (and Blair's) fault.
Beat me to it. Blaming Obama for Iraq is beyond comprehension.
-
What do you think about that idea?
It will wreck the US defense industry and therefore never happen.
-
Yep...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!!
KELLYANNE CONWAY SAYS MEDIA SHOULD STOP COVERING DONALD TRUMP’S TWEETS (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-twitter-london-mayor-620823)
President Donald Trump went on one of his infamous early-morning Twitter rants on Monday, but Kellyanne Conway doesn't want you to read all about it.
Conway, the pollster turned counselor to the president, told anchors on the Today show that the media has an "obsession with covering everything he says on Twitter and very little of what he does as president."
Maybe Twitter SHOULD delete his friggin' account!
At least he's not polluting the POTUS (https://twitter.com/POTUS) Twitter feed.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/859982100904148992/hv5soju7_400x400.jpg)
(hum, if I were him I would be praying too)
-
So, pointing out a simple, glaringly obvious, single common thread to all Islamist terrorist acts somehow makes one an alt-right etc.?
Than again, maybe i got it wrong, maybe the simple, glaringly obvious, single common thread is that they all watched YouTube?
...and fired employees sometimes take out their agressions by going back to their place of work and shooting people. Does this mean that all employees who are fired should be automatically considered a risk?
-
Since I'm an American I'm sick and tired of the US government and the military industrial complex wasting so much money build weapons for wars we'll really never fight and have ignored the greatest battlefield where we are already losing and that's cyber warfare.
As it relates to getting more money for NATO and spending less by the US, yes, lets...but let's do it in a way that doesn't try to shame and humiliate but enter into serious and diplomatic discussions.
Trump isn't running for president anymore. When he gives speeches at NATO designed to denigrate NATO and make him look like a hard ass to impress his followers, he's doing a piss poor job of leading America and getting the rest of NATO to the negotiating table. He ain't trying to sell a luxury condo or golf course...he's supposed to be trying to get our allies to do more not laugh behind his back at his inept and feeble attempts at diplomacy.
But my point still stand, you would do better to argue your points about NATO from a position of knowledge instead of ignorance. Otherwise you run the risk of sounding and acting like Trump (and that's not a good thing).
Jeff, I agree with a lot of your points. That's good. I think we've done a terrible job with cyber security. The Chinese have stole all of our important commercial and military secrets, things that took us decades to develop. It's all very dangerous security wise and economically as well. We've been asleep at the switch. Even today, Mattis has agreed to let the Chinese navy have observers at our carrier operations with our allies. It's bad enough they have all the blueprints for our ships and fighters. Do we have to teach them how to operate them in war as well. We're so stupid.
Regarding Trump, yes he's ham-fisted. He doesn't understand government niceties and has always been boorish. But frankly, for American government, being nice hasn't worked. Everyone's taken advantage of us for decades. We're like the guy you have dinner with in the restaurant who always wants to pick up the tab to prove what a great guy he is. Meanwhile everyone else smiles, pats him on the shoulder, and then laughs behind his back. We got to put our pride in our back pocket and start doing the right thing for ourselves. No one else is going too. And Trump understands this. And he's calling everyone out on it. Sure they don't like. They would have preferred Clinton who would have operated in the same way as previous administrations. At the end of the day, no one is going to care how Trump acted. If things work out better for America, then he's done his job.
-
Uh ho
SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT IS NOW HIGHER THAN HIS APPROVAL RATING (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-support-odds-removal-approval-rating-white-house-620913)
Approval @Gallup: 36%
Impeachment @Politico: 43%
Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jun5) are indicating dips in support for the president's job performance, reporting that as of Monday, 54 percent of the nation disapproves of Trump’s tenure as commander in chief.
#NotMyPresident
-
And Trump understands this.
Trump understands nothing...prior to becoming President he did his day job of selling his brand, hosting a reality TV show, being an asshole and playing golf. Nothing in his 70 years of living has prepared him for this and he's flailing worse and worse every day.
Wake up and smell to rotted roses...it's time to throw them out!
-
Jeff, I agree with a lot of your points. That's good. I think we've done a terrible job with cyber security. The Chinese have stole all of our important commercial and military secrets, things that took us decades to develop. It's all very dangerous security wise and economically as well. We've been asleep at the switch. Even today, Mattis has agreed to let the Chinese navy have observers at our carrier operations with our allies. It's bad enough they have all the blueprints for our ships and fighters. Do we have to teach them how to operate them in war as well. We're so stupid.
Regarding Trump, yes he's ham-fisted. He doesn't understand government niceties and has always been boorish. But frankly, for American government, being nice hasn't worked. Everyone's taken advantage of us for decades. We're like the guy you have dinner with in the restaurant who always wants to pick up the tab to prove what a great guy he is. Meanwhile everyone else smiles, pats him on the shoulder, and then laughs behind his back. We got to put our pride in our back pocket and start doing the right thing for ourselves. No one else is going too. And Trump understands this. And he's calling everyone out on it. Sure they don't like. They would have preferred Clinton who would have operated in the same way as previous administrations. At the end of the day, no one is going to care how Trump acted. If things work out better for America, then he's done his job.
Can you give some examples please of "Everyone's taken advantage of us for decades", how and why, aside from NATO whose funding system has already been pointed out to you.
-
Trump understands nothing...prior to becoming President he did his day job of selling his brand, hosting a reality TV show, being an asshole and playing golf. Nothing in his 70 years of living has prepared him for this and he's flailing worse and worse every day.
Wake up and smell to rotted roses...it's time to throw them out!
Polls don't mean anything. They were wrong in the election. But that's all beside the point. You don't impeach a president because you don't like him, his way of doing things, or his policies. You can vote him out of office in 4 years. That's how it works.
-
Can you give some examples please of "Everyone's taken advantage of us for decades", how and why, aside from NATO whose funding system has already been pointed out to you.
Wake up and read all my posts. You're asleep at the switch regarding my comments about NATO.
-
Wake up and read all my posts. You're asleep at the switch regarding my comments about NATO.
Sorry, most of the points you make are a figment of the imagination of alt-right's fake news. Stop playing the poor victim and behave with the dignity that one of the largest nations in the world should have.
-
What Trump Really Fears (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/what-trump-really-fears/528846/)
After decades of giving his top aides autonomy and encouraging them to compete, the president faces an open-ended investigation that may uncover their excesses.
As the blast radius of the Russia investigation continues to expand, Donald Trump is facing an unnerving new reality: The fate of his presidency may now hinge on the motley, freewheeling crew of lieutenants and loyalists who have long populated his entourage.
Last week, a subpoena for Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was approved as part of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russia’s interference with the presidential election. With that, Cohen was added to a range of Trump allies who are reportedly entangled in the investigation—from outer-orbit figures like Roger Stone and Carter Page, to more visible senior advisers like Michael Flynn and Boris Epshteyn.
Sources close to the president say there is growing concern in the White House about what skeletons may emerge as investigators comb through a coterie of aides, past and present, who would have done virtually anything to win favor with Trump.
There needs to be an investigation to find out if anybody in the Trump administration actually has ties to America...
-
Not sure if you are suggesting that being a Muslim is itself an act of treason? But anyway if "we're at war", please explain why your president is boasting about the quantities of weaponry he's just sold to Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabism, the strain of Islam behind its current extreme manifestations? Surely if "we're at war" as you say this is akin to Nikon announcing sales of fleets of fighter jets to Brezhnev in around 1970.
While it's true the 911 terrorists mostly came from Saudi Arabia, the government there has more to fear from Islamists than we do. They'd love to overthrow the Saudi King. But the government there still seems to be on our side. The Saudis as well as Bahrain, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and the Maldives just broke off diplomatic relations with Qatar who has been supporting terrorists. I think Trump going there and re-establishing strong relations with the Sunni nations after Obama's cold response to them and his support and pacts with their Shiite enemy Iran played a strong hand in this action. Of course, you won't read about Trump having a hand in this in the liberal biased press.
-
Wake up and read all my posts. You're asleep at the switch regarding my comments about NATO.
I'm afraid I can't find examples you've given of "Everyone's taken advantage of us for decades" apart from your unsubstantiated opinion that this is in fact the case, but no more than that. There was a discussion about unfair US-EU trade tariffs, but it appears this was based on your misunderstanding of how taxes are applied and how international treaties are negotiated and updated. That was pointed out to you at some length. And it seems you haven't taken on board the NATO funding system, or in fact the way states fund the military more generally, even though that has been pointed out to you too. So, aside from the NATO question, here is your chance to come up with some real, actual examples of "Everyone's taken advantage of us for decades", how and why. There may be plenty of examples, in fact, but I think you should let us know.
-
You don't impeach a president because you don't like him, his way of doing things, or his policies.
How about obstruction of justice? That work?
We wouldn't be able to get the votes to impeach now because of the spineless GOP but we might after the midterms elections :~)
But the numbers still tell a story of a president that is favored by a seriously small minority.
-
Sorry, most of the points you make are a figment of the imagination of alt-right's fake news. Stop playing the poor victim and behave with the dignity that one of the largest nations in the world should have.
Busht!t walks. Money talks. Let Europe pay up.
-
I'm afraid I can't find examples you've given of "Everyone's taken advantage of us for decades" apart from your unsubstantiated opinion that this is in fact the case, but no more than that. There was a discussion about unfair US-EU trade tariffs, but it appears this was based on your misunderstanding of how taxes are applied and how international treaties are negotiated and updated. That was pointed out to you at some length. And it seems you haven't taken on board the NATO funding system, or in fact the way states fund the military more generally, even though that has been pointed out to you too. So, aside from the NATO question, here is your chance to come up with some real, actual examples of "Everyone's taken advantage of us for decades", how and why. There may be plenty of examples, in fact, but I think you should let us know.
Busht!t walks. Money talks. Let Europe pay up.
-
Busht!t walks. Money talks. Let Europe pay up.
Do you really need to resort to stupid and obscene talk when you can't win an argument? I'm not impressed or intimidated by it, but it really shows your weakness.
-
How about obstruction of justice? That work?
We wouldn't be able to get the votes to impeach now because of the spineless GOP but we might after the midterms elections :~)
But the numbers still tell a story of a president that is favored by a seriously small minority.
The midterms is what this is all about - politics. Who's going to have the Power. This is all about the Democrats posturing so they can hopefully take back the House and/or Senate in 2018 and position themselves to take the presidency in 2020.. It's not about so-called collusion. After a year, there's no evidence presented showing Trump colluded with the Russians. But it plays wells in the media and sells newspapers to boot.
-
Do you really need to resort to stupid and obscene talk when you can't win an argument? I'm not impressed or intimidated by it, but it really shows your weakness.
Talk, talk, jaw, jaw. It's tiring. I made all my points and so have you. Now it comes down to doing something. We'll see who's got the ace in the hole.
-
We'll see who's got the ace in the hole.
Yup, and I bet it ain't Trump :P
-
Yup, and I bet it ain't Trump :P
I'll take that bet.
-
How Different—and Dangerous—Is Terrorism Today?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-different-and-dangerous-is-terrorism-today
Useful article to read.
-
Busht!t walks.
Oh, if only that were true for the Bullsh$ter-in-Chief Donald J Trump.
Oh, about those "Obstructionists"...
Trump Calls Democrats 'Obstructionists,' But He's Only Nominated 11 Ambassadors (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/05/531602029/trump-calls-democrats-obstructionists-but-hes-only-nominated-11-ambassadors)
President Trump took to Twitter on Monday to complain about Democratic "OBSTRUCTIONISTS," blaming the Senate for being slow to approve his nominees, including his ambassadors.
-------
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
.@foxandfriends Dems are taking forever to approve my people, including Ambassadors. They are nothing but OBSTRUCTIONISTS! Want approvals.
-------
A spokesman for the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee threw it right back, saying Trump should be spending less time on Twitter and more time actually filling those positions.
So far, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his deputy John Sullivan are the only Senate-approved top officials in Trump's State Department. The White House hasn't nominated any undersecretaries or assistant secretaries — those jobs are being filled on an acting basis by career foreign service officers.
Overseas, the picture is similar. Trump has nominated only 11 ambassadors, including Nikki Haley to the United Nations, Terry Branstad for China and David Friedman for Israel. Those three have been confirmed, as have two career Foreign Service officers for postings in Africa. There are nearly 190 ambassadorships.
-
Plus this...
Trump's sluggish hiring could hamper anti-terror plans (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/04/trump-london-terror-hiring-239120)
Perhaps most crucially, Trump has not yet decided on a permanent leader of the FBI.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that the United States needs to be "smart, vigilant and tough" after a terrorist attack rocked London. But the president's counter-terrorism strategy could be hindered by dozens of vacancies across the government, not least a permanent FBI director.
Top ranks at the State Department remain largely unfilled, as are some key ambassadorships. Trump has not named anyone to lead the Transportation Security Administration, which screens people at airports, or to run the Homeland Security office charged with protecting the country's physical and cyber infrastructure. His choice to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency is awaiting Senate confirmation, but Trump has not named a deputy.
At the Justice Department, Trump has not nominated an assistant attorney general for the national security division.
And, perhaps most crucially, Trump has not yet named a permanent leader of the FBI, which plays a central role in combating domestic terrorism. The president has continued to interview candidates for the job nearly a month after he fired James Comey.
"This is a team sport," said Max Stier, the head of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, which advised Trump's presidential transition on hiring. "It's critical to have a full team."
The White House did not provide any comment Sunday.
"The White House did not provide any comment Sunday."
Uh, that's because the WH runs and hides when the media asks questions (the visual of Spicy hiding in the bushes comes to mind)
-
Do they not roll over from the previous administration if new ones are not appointed? I honestly do not know.
Normally, they would but don't you remember just after the inauguration Trump asked all of the appointed ambassadors to resign...
Donald Trump 'orders Barack Obama's ambassadors to resign posts' in unprecedented move (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-barack-obama-ambassador-orders-resign-inauguration-day-20-january-president-elect-leave-a7512631.html)
The move risks leaving the US without envoys in key countries like Britain, Germany and Canada
Donald Trump has yet again proved that he is intent on ripping up the diplomatic rule book.
In an unprecedented move, the President-elect’s team are reported to have demanded ambassadors appointed by Barack Obama to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day on 20 January. The decision to provide no grace period for politically appointed ambassadors marks a significant break with decades of tradition.
So, yeah...it's a problem of his making.
-
How Different—and Dangerous—Is Terrorism Today?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-different-and-dangerous-is-terrorism-today
Useful article to read.
Well, I suppose terrorism could also go back to Spartacus against the Romans. One side seeing a terrorist when the other side see a patriot.
But I think we make a mistake when we call every act terrorism as if the whole purpose of terror is to blow things up for its own sake. My point is that terror are acts of war. And war has a political purpose. I'm sure if ISIS had long range rockets, they shoot one to land on that London bridge rather then depending on some mole to act as a saboteur. Many people think that ISIS, who have captured territory to create a caliphate, really a nation or religious state, are criminals when they are the enemy. Their people aren't sent to jail; they are soldiers, enemy combatants who have to be fought militarily, not in a court of law like some bank robbers. But so many people in Europe and in America think in these terms because of political expediency rather than survival. In our effort to be nice to Muslims, and we should be nice to them if they're peaceful, we missed the forest through the trees. That there are people who are at war with us and we have to defend ourselves militarily. Accusing Trump and other of aggravating them and causing their actions, we have to admit that these people are at war. Nothing we say or don't say will change their objectives.
-
Do they not roll over from the previous administration if new ones are not appointed? I honestly do not know.
Apparently they do roll over from previous administrations. It appears that if the ambassador left, the Chargé d'Affaires takes over. The existing ambassadors and Chargé d'Affaires all seem pretty experienced, speaking the local languages and having been involved in foreign affairs for many years. Excepting the political appointments. I notice that ambassador position to The Netherlands has been vacant since February, 2016. I wonder what the Dutch did to tick off Obama? And we're still not at war with them. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassadors_of_the_United_States
-
That is common USA saying, and not something to be offended about. Its means if you are really sincere, you'll pay up for something (like defense), but if you don't put up the money, you're really not doing anything.
Joe, it's not the words or expression that I find obscene, it's the type of reaction that I qualify as such. Several people have pointed out many times in this thread that Alan's ideas of "not paying up" is fake news and not based on any existing agreement. He's fully entitled to his beliefs that the agreements are crap but don't blame the other countries for that (like Trump and the Trump suppporters are doing). That is childish and counterproductive and turns friends into people who don't care for you anymore. Just cut the silly victim-playing "everybody is taking advantage of us", it's not true and not helping you, but instead face up to challanges with dignity instead of a populist blame game.
-
Apparently they do roll over from previous administrations. It appears that if the ambassador left, the Chargé d'Affaires takes over. The existing ambassadors and Chargé d'Affaires all seem pretty experienced, speaking the local languages and having been involved in foreign affairs for many years. Excepting the political appointments.
The majority of US Ambassadors are career foreign service people and are commonly found in the less important countries (a college classmate of mine was Ambassador to Yemen during a particularly troubling time about 18 years ago). Trump has 50 slots to fill and those are mainly the big Euro and South American countries and these tend to be patronage appointments. Those are the countries where the existing ambassadors resigned when the administration changed in January.
-
Apparently they do roll over from previous administrations. It appears that if the ambassador left, the Chargé d'Affaires takes over. The existing ambassadors and Chargé d'Affaires all seem pretty experienced, speaking the local languages and having been involved in foreign affairs for many years. Excepting the political appointments. I notice that ambassador position to The Netherlands has been vacant since February, 2016. I wonder what the Dutch did to tick off Obama? And we're still not at war with them. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassadors_of_the_United_States
That may well be true, but why does Trump blame the senate for "obstruction" if there is nothing to obstruct because he doesn't nominate candidates. It's just another example of trying to gain popularity among supporters by a blame game vs. rollling up your sleeves and start governing the country
-
It looks like the travel ban is going to the Supreme Court. Leaving aside whether you think the ban is appropriate or not, the constitutional question is very interesting. I believe the constitutional issue here has nothing to do with the ban itself. The main question is whether the President and the Congress as well have the right to free speech and open debate? Shutting it down, as would a decision against his executive order if it is constitutional how it is written, would hurt the legislative process and decision making by any president. Things should be discussed in all areas even in areas that would or could be unconstitutional if ordered. However, as long as the final bill meets constitutional standards, it should be OK. If the president than executes it illegally beyond what it allows, he then should be challenged in court and the court should stop him.
It's really the same issue in congress. Someone could challenge a new law they wrote on the basis that some of the senators advocated unconstitutional ideas during the debate prior to writing the law. A ruling against the ban order would silence debate, free speech and the whole democratic process in Congress as well.
What are your thoughts?
-
That may well be true, but why does Trump blame the senate for "obstruction" if there is nothing to obstruct because he doesn't nominate candidates. It's just another example of trying to gain popularity among supporters by a blame game vs. rollling up your sleeves and start governing the country
Why? Because Trumpt is a lying sack of excriment (is that better than shyte?)!!!
Then there's this...
Media war amps up: AP fact-check says Trump can't be trusted (https://www.google.com/amp/origin-nyi.thehill.com/homenews/administration/336341-media-war-amps-up-ap-fact-check-says-trump-cant-be-trusted%3Famp)
Seems Trump is the sourse of #FakeNews!
-
Top U.S. diplomat in China quits over Trump climate policy
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-diplomacy-idUSKBN18W2NT
"David Rank, the chargé d'affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, has left the State Department over the Trump administration's decision to quit the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change, a senior U.S. official said on Monday.
A State Department spokeswoman confirmed Rank's departure, but said she was unable to verify Twitter posts that said he resigned as he felt unable to deliver a formal notification to China of the U.S. decision last week to quit the agreement.
"He has retired from the foreign service," said Anna Richey-Allen, a spokeswoman for the department's East Asia Bureau. "Mr Rank has made a personal decision. We appreciate his years of dedicated service to the State Department."
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, President Donald Trump's pick as the next U.S. ambassador to Beijing, is expected to take up the post later this month.
A tweet from China expert John Pomfret quoted unnamed sources as saying that Rank had resigned as he could not support Trump's decision last week to withdraw from the Paris agreement."
Cheers,
Bart
-
The majority of US Ambassadors are career foreign service people and are commonly found in the less important countries (a college classmate of mine was Ambassador to Yemen during a particularly troubling time about 18 years ago). Trump has 50 slots to fill and those are mainly the big Euro and South American countries and these tend to be patronage appointments. Those are the countries where the existing ambassadors resigned when the administration changed in January.
Then maybe it's better that the ambassadors are not replace with patronage people. The Chargé d'Affaires are better at the job and know the country better. Plus, there may not be enough patronage people around. Trump ran pretty much on his own with little help from the Republican Party. He never had been in elected office before either. So, other presidents in the past owed a lot of favors and rewarded the people providing them with ambassadorships. Trump doesn't owe as many favors.
Obama gave the ambassadorship to Japan to Caroline Kennedy, President Kennedy's daughter. I nice lady, I'm sure. Cute when she was a little girl. But what did she know about the country? How about me. I'm retired. I have some spare time. I'm available for Japan too. I did spend two years there as an Air Force airman. That should count for something. Plus I'm a fellow New Yorker. I hope Trump is reading. :)
-
Joe, it's not the words or expression that I find obscene, it's the type of reaction that I qualify as such. Several people have pointed out many times in this thread that Alan's ideas of "not paying up" is fake news and not based on any existing agreement. He's fully entitled to his beliefs that the agreements are crap but don't blame the other countries for that (like Trump and the Trump suppporters are doing). That is childish and counterproductive and turns friends into people who don't care for you anymore. Just cut the silly victim-playing "everybody is taking advantage of us", it's not true and not helping you, but instead face up to challanges with dignity instead of a populist blame game.
Fake news is in the eye of the beholder. It depends who's ox is being gored. It's also like when we critique a photo. To some, it's better than sliced bread. To others, it's plain crap.
-
Fake news is in the eye of the beholder.
Absolutely 100% dead wrong. Lies are lies.
And we all know who's doing the lying.
-
... if the perpetrators might call themselves Muslims (QED), are all Muslims therefore terrorists?...
Since you are apparently so fond of logic, what you just did above is known as a non-sequitur fallacy. Shame, I was hoping you would know better.
-
Top U.S. diplomat in China quits over Trump climate policy
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-diplomacy-idUSKBN18W2NT
"David Rank, the chargé d'affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, has left the State Department over the Trump administration's decision to quit the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change, a senior U.S. official said on Monday.
A State Department spokeswoman confirmed Rank's departure, but said she was unable to verify Twitter posts that said he resigned as he felt unable to deliver a formal notification to China of the U.S. decision last week to quit the agreement.
"He has retired from the foreign service," said Anna Richey-Allen, a spokeswoman for the department's East Asia Bureau. "Mr Rank has made a personal decision. We appreciate his years of dedicated service to the State Department."
Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, President Donald Trump's pick as the next U.S. ambassador to Beijing, is expected to take up the post later this month.
A tweet from China expert John Pomfret quoted unnamed sources as saying that Rank had resigned as he could not support Trump's decision last week to withdraw from the Paris agreement."
Cheers,
Bart
So he quit. Certainly he's entitled to do that. But what's your point? He doesn't make policy. He's just a bureaucrat. He wasn't elected.
-
Since you are apparently so fond of logic, what you just did above is known as a non-sequitur fallacy. Shame, I was hoping you would know better.
I thought it had something to do with Venn diagrams.
-
So, about that speech Trump gave to NATO...
Trump National Security Team Blindsided by NATO Speech (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/05/trump-nato-speech-national-security-team-215227)
They thought the president would commit to the principle of collective defense. They were wrong.
When President Donald Trump addressed NATO leaders during his debut overseas trip little more than a week ago, he surprised and disappointed European allies who hoped—and expected—he would use his speech to explicitly reaffirm America’s commitment to mutual defense of the alliance’s members, a one-for-all, all-for-one provision that looks increasingly urgent as Eastern European members worry about the threat from a resurgent Russia on their borders.
That part of the Trump visit is known.
What’s not is that the president also disappointed—and surprised—his own top national security officials by failing to include the language reaffirming the so-called Article 5 provision in his speech. National security adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all supported Trump doing so and had worked in the weeks leading up to the trip to make sure it was included in the speech, according to five sources familiar with the episode. They thought it was, and a White House aide even told The New York Times the day before the line was definitely included.
It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATO’s new Brussels headquarters, that the president’s national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences—without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.
“They had the right speech and it was cleared through McMaster,” said a source briefed by National Security Council officials in the immediate aftermath of the NATO meeting. “As late as that same morning, it was the right one.”
Added a senior White House official, “There was a fully coordinated other speech everybody else had worked on”—and it wasn’t the one Trump gave. “They didn’t know it had been removed,” said a third source of the Trump national security officials on hand for the ceremony. “It was only upon delivery.”
The president appears to have deleted it himself, according to one version making the rounds inside the government, reflecting his personal skepticism about NATO and insistence on lecturing NATO allies about spending more on defense rather than offering reassurances of any sort; another version relayed to others by several White House aides is that Trump’s nationalist chief strategist Steve Bannon and policy aide Stephen Miller played a role in the deletion.
So, Mattis, McMaster and Tillerson thought Trump was going to deliver one speech and without warning or deliberation Trump decides to deliver a different one. Was it Trump or Miller or Bannon or all 3 that decided to stick a finger in the eye of NATO?
So, the Defense, the NSC and the State department heads were just chopped off at the knees...
-
...
-
So, about that speech Trump gave to NATO...
Trump National Security Team Blindsided by NATO Speech (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/05/trump-nato-speech-national-security-team-215227)
So, Mattis, McMaster and Tillerson thought Trump was going to deliver one speech and without warning or deliberation Trump decides to deliver a different one. Was it Trump or Miller or Bannon or all 3 that decided to stick a finger in the eye of NATO?
So, the Defense, the NSC and the State department heads were just chopped off at the knees...
How could Trump get the Europeans to pay the 2% if he promised the NATO countries he would support Article 5 before they paid or agreed to a firm payment schedule? The countries would never raise their defense expenditures. It would be like trying to raise the price of your product after the buyer agree to your original selling price. Mattis and McMaster should load the guns and let Trump deal with the money. Tillerson, the ex-CEO of Exxon, should have known better you don't agree to a deal if the terms aren't settled yet.
-
Hysteria seems to be modus operandi of the loony left these days. For instance, about NATO collective defense:
Article 5 says that the response may include armed force, but it does not mandate it. All that NATO actually promises is to take “such action as it deems necessary” to restore and maintain security. That could be anything from nuclear war to a stiff diplomatic protest.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-6
-
Sorry, didn't see this when it came out...typical Trump :~(
The headline is delicious irony don't ya think?
The Coat of Arms Said ‘Integrity.’ Now It Says ‘Trump.’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/business/trump-coat-of-arms.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/29TRUMPCREST-COMBO-superJumbo.jpg)
The crest, right, that President Trump displays at his American properties is a coat of arms, left, that British authorities granted to another family.
LONDON — At the Trump National Golf Club outside Washington, which hosted the Senior P.G.A. Championship this weekend, the president’s coat of arms is everywhere — the sign out front, the pro shop, even the exercise room.
The regal emblem, used at President Trump’s golf courses across the United States, sports three lions and two chevrons on a shield, below a gloved hand gripping an arrow.
A different coat of arms flies over Mr. Trump’s two golf resorts in Scotland. The lions on the shield have been replaced by a two-headed eagle, an image the company has said represents the “dual nature and nationality” of Mr. Trump’s Scottish and German roots.
(http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TRUMP_ARMS_DN01.jpg)
But this emblem was not just about honoring his heritage.
The British are known to matters of heraldry seriously (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/donald-trump-faces-investigation-over-969006), and Mr. Trump’s American coat of arms belongs to another family. It was granted by British authorities in 1939 to Joseph Edward Davies, the third husband of Marjorie Merriweather Post, the socialite who built the Mar-a-Lago resort that is now Mr. Trump’s cherished getaway.
In the United States, the Trump Organization took Mr. Davies’s coat of arms for its own, making one small adjustment — replacing the word “Integritas,” Latin for integrity, with “Trump.”
--snip--
Mr. Trump tried to bring the American version to Scotland a decade ago.
He used the emblem on promotional materials when he started marketing a new golf course development in Aberdeenshire, on Scotland’s east coast. But the materials ran afoul (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/donald-trump-faces-investigation-over-969006) of the coat-of-arms authorities in Scotland — a uniquely British problem.
Mr. Trump hadn’t registered the emblem under the Lyon King of Arms Act passed by the Scottish Parliament in 1672. The Court of the Lord Lyon has jurisdiction over the use and misuse of coats of arms.
Back then, Mr. Trump also tried to trademark the emblem in Britain. But the application was rejected by the trademark office.
So typically Trump...but you know, ya just can't substitute integrity with Trump :~)
-
Hysteria seems to be modus operandi of the loony left these days. For instance, about NATO collective defense:
AFTER THE ATTACKS: THE ALLIANCE; For First Time, NATO Invokes Joint Defense Pact With U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-attacks-alliance-for-first-time-nato-invokes-joint-defense-pact-with-us.html)
By SUZANNE DALEY SEPT. 13, 2001
NATO invoked a mutual defense clause in its founding treaty for the first time today, strongly suggesting that the United States would have the support of the allies if it takes military action against those responsible for attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
A NATO statement issued after a meeting of ambassadors to the 19-member alliance said, ''If it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.''
Article 5, the cornerstone of the alliance, says ''an armed attack'' against any of the allies in Europe or North America ''shall be considered an attack against them all.''
It commits NATO members to take the necessary measures, including the use of force, to restore security.
The statement amounted to a powerful expression of European solidarity with the United States after a period in which trans-Atlantic relations have been strained by tensions over the Bush administration's policies in areas ranging from missile defense to the environment.
You remember 9/11?
This is what NATO said on 9/11:
Statement by the North Atlantic Council (http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-122e.htm)
The North Atlantic Council met tonight to express its solidarity with the United States of America at this moment of great tragedy and mourning. Our deepest sympathy lies with the victims, their families and all Americans. The NATO nations unanimously condemn these barbaric acts committed against a NATO member state. The mindless slaughter of so many innocent civilians is an unacceptable act of violence without precedent in the modern era. It underscores the urgency of intensifying the battle against terrorism, a battle that the NATO countries - indeed all civilised nations - must win. All Allies stand united in their determination to combat this scourge.
At this critical moment, the United States can rely on its 18 Allies in North America and Europe for assistance and support. NATO solidarity remains the essence of our Alliance. Our message to the people of the United States is that we are with you. Our message to those who perpetrated these unspeakable crimes is equally clear: you will not get away with it.
What did Trump first Tweet about the attack in London?
Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump
We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!
RETWEETS 53,443 LIKES 175,740
4:17 PM - 3 Jun 2017
-
Fake news is in the eye of the beholder. It depends who's ox is being gored. It's also like when we critique a photo. To some, it's better than sliced bread. To others, it's plain crap.
Ridiculous, lies are lies.
It has nothing to do with opinions on photographs or other art.
-
...You remember 9/11? ...
Who are you and what did you do to Rudy Giuliani? ;)
-
Bridges Not Walls.
Pathetic, appalling, sophmoric and ugly. You are a small man, Slobodan.
-
Ridiculous, lies are lies.
It has nothing to do with opinions on photographs or other art.
I was commenting on liberal bias in the news that is fake news. Liberals think it's the truth, but it isn't. It's opinion and often just plain lies.
-
I was commenting on liberal bias in the news that is fake news. Liberals think it's the truth, but it isn't. It's opinion and often just plain lies.
And I was commenting on the conservative fake news. Conservatives think it's the truth, but it isn't. It's mostly plain lies.
-
Pathetic, appalling, sophmoric and ugly...
+1
Slobodan,
Remember, you have your smiling face next to every post.
-
What did Trump first Tweet about the attack in London?
tell me what NATO (organization) said about that (and others) attack in London ? or for that matter when IRA killed Mountbatten dude ...
-
tell me what NATO (organization) said about that (and others) attack in London ? or for that matter when IRA killed Mountbatten dude ...
Irrelevant, I think, even if NATO had a brief to comment on matters of public order which it hasn't. It's not about organizations but heads of state - people. Any head of state (so not only Trump of course) using social media to make partisan comments on a tragedy of this kind is engaging in extremely distasteful behaviour and unfortunately brings his/her whole country into disrepute since speaking as its official representative. Trump's comments on Twitter about the incident in London on Saturday have angered and upset a great number of people here in the UK. An apology would be good but a long period of silence from this gentleman would be better. My impression from the overall media is that Londoners now simply don't want him anywhere near their city so the most likely effect of his inability to speak appropriately, as befits the great office of President of the USA, is the cancellation of his planned visit here later this year. Another own goal from his administration, alas.
-
I'd like to share an actual image of the location of that terrible incident near Parliament a few months ago.
When people ask, "Where are the Muslims speaking against terror, and why don't they speak out?" my answer is, on March 29, 2017 they were in the spot of the attack, engaging with other Londoners and tourists, mostly wearing shirts that said, "Talk to me about Islam," while decrying the recent attacks.
Edit: sorry it's sideways. If you click it's upright.
-
tell me what NATO (organization) said about that (and others) attack in London ? or for that matter when IRA killed Mountbatten dude ...
It's not the role of NATO to comment on such events.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's not the role of NATO to comment on such events.
and where (@ how many lives) lies the difference ?
-
And I was commenting on the conservative fake news. Conservatives think it's the truth, but it isn't. It's mostly plain lies.
We're even. 😀
-
and where (@ how many lives) lies the difference ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
"NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. "
The UK has not asked fellow NATO members to intervene in their handling of domestic crime events.
Cheers,
Bart
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
"NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. "
The UK has not asked fellow NATO members to intervene in their handling of domestic crime events.
Cheers,
Bart
you missed the point of the question - NATO did comment (see Schewe above) on 9/11 and that was put as an example and not on a lot of other incidents... you said "It's not the role of NATO to comment on such events" ... so where lies the difference between 9/11 and other events... how many people warrant the comment ?
if UK did not ask fellow members then it is clearly not a significant matter for UK and so why issue with Trump not respecting some non significant matter ?
-
you missed the point of the question - NATO did comment (see Schewe above) on 9/11 and that was put as an example and not on a lot of other incidents...
From the provided link (http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2001/p01-122e.htm):
"The North Atlantic Council met tonight ..."
So after a meeting, and we don't know what the USA said/asked in that meeting, a statement was issued.
I could imagine that international air traffic had something to do with it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
you missed the point of the question - NATO did comment (see Schewe above) on 9/11 and that was put as an example and not on a lot of other incidents... you said "It's not the role of NATO to comment on such events" ... so where lies the difference between 9/11 and other events... how many people warrant the comment ?
if UK did not ask fellow members then it is clearly not a significant matter for UK and so why issue with Trump not respecting some non significant matter ?
As already said, a head of state engaging in social media scuttlebutt and petty point-scoring in the face of a tragedy is embarrassing himself, his office and his whole country. Simple as that and nothing more to say. It's very sad and unnecessary but that's it.
-
Irrelevant, I think, even if NATO had a brief to comment on matters of public order which it hasn't. It's not about organizations but heads of state - people. Any head of state (so not only Trump of course) using social media to make partisan comments on a tragedy of this kind is engaging in extremely distasteful behaviour and unfortunately brings his/her whole country into disrepute since speaking as its official representative. Trump's comments on Twitter about the incident in London on Saturday have angered and upset a great number of people here in the UK. An apology would be good but a long period of silence from this gentleman would be better. My impression from the overall media is that Londoners now simply don't want him anywhere near their city so the most likely effect of his inability to speak appropriately, as befits the great office of President of the USA, is the cancellation of his planned visit here later this year. Another own goal from his administration, alas.
If you recall, the London mayor attacked Donald Trump during the election campaign. What do you expect him to do in return? Nothing? Trump.attacks back. That's who he is. If the mayor can't handle the heat, he shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
Trump is sending a message to all our enemies as well. He's not someone to play with. He's not like the weak Obama. If you mess with him, he's going to strike back. Our Allies should be thankful. Because now the Russians know he'll do the same thing if they mess with him. That'll keep peace in Europe. Remember Trump and America is on our Allies side notwithstanding what you guys think of us. So a strong American president helps keep the peace and protects you as well.
-
If you recall, the London mayor attacked Donald Trump during the election campaign. What do you expect him to do in return? Nothing? Trump.attacks back. That's who he is. If the mayor can't handle the heat, he shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
Trump is sending a message to all our enemies as well. He's not someone to play with. He's not like the weak Obama. If you mess with him, he's going to strike back. Our Allies should be thankful. Because now the Russians know he'll do the same thing if they mess with him. That'll keep peace in Europe. Remember Trump and America is on our Allies side notwithstanding what you guys think of us. So a strong American president helps keep the peace and protects you as well.
I expect him to behave with dignity. That simple little word. Instead he is embarrassing himself, you and all your fellow countrymen. As a lifelong friend of the USA I find this dismaying. BTW, the Mayor of London is a tough and patriotic cookie who may easily become prime minister one day - and who would probably make a very good one.
-
Slobodan,
Remember, you have your smiling face next to every post.
Meaning? Is that a threat?
-
If you recall, the London mayor attacked Donald Trump during the election campaign. What do you expect him to do in return? Nothing? Trump.attacks back. That's who he is.
Yes, we know, he's a cry baby. He has yet to learn empathy for the victims, and put his personal grievances (and emerging Islamophobia) aside.
He's even stupid enough to think that the diplomatic situation with Qatar is helping to curtail Islamist terrorism. He's being played by the Abab infighting amongst themselves. Qatar is too friendly with Iran, so the other Arab countries have a score to settle and knew that Trump is gullible enough to think it all revolves around him.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you recall, the London mayor attacked Donald Trump during the election campaign. What do you expect him to do in return? Nothing? Trump.attacks back. That's who he is. If the mayor can't handle the heat, he shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
Trump is sending a message to all our enemies as well. He's not someone to play with. He's not like the weak Obama. If you mess with him, he's going to strike back. Our Allies should be thankful. Because now the Russians know he'll do the same thing if they mess with him. That'll keep peace in Europe. Remember Trump and America is on our Allies side notwithstanding what you guys think of us. So a strong American president helps keep the peace and protects you as well.
I haven't seen any sign of a strong president yet. So far, we've seen some temper tantrums, a lot of confusion, stupid decisions, flip-flops, undiplomatic behavior and total lack of strategy.
-
Trump is sending a message to all our enemies as well. He's not someone to play with. He's not like the weak Obama. If you mess with him, he's going to strike back. Our Allies should be thankful. Because now the Russians know he'll do the same thing if they mess with him. That'll keep peace in Europe. Remember Trump and America is on our Allies side notwithstanding what you guys think of us. So a strong American president helps keep the peace and protects you as well.
In what way has he struck back?
-
If you recall, the London mayor attacked Donald Trump during the election campaign. What do you expect him to do in return? Nothing? Trump.attacks back. That's who he is. If the mayor can't handle the heat, he shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
In the unlikely event you want to actually know what you are talking about I offer this article:
A Brief History of Trump's Feud With Sadiq Khan (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/khan-trump/529191/)
It spans 18 months, an op-ed, several interviews and, of course, Twitter.
If it seemed strange for the president of the United States to engage in a Twitter spat with the mayor of London—a city that on Saturday night experienced the U.K.’s third terrorist attack this year—the feud did at least have a historical context. In fact, President Trump and London Mayor Sadiq Khan have been bickering in public since about a year and a half ago. Their feud can be traced to Trump’s call as a presidential candidate, following the attacks in Paris in November 2015, for a ban on Muslims from entering the U.S. A month later, following the attack in San Bernardino, California, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the country.
In May 2016, Sadiq Khan became London’s first Muslim mayor. Writing in the Observer that same month, Khan, the son of Pakistani immigrants to the U.K., accused David Cameron, then the prime minister, and Zac Goldsmith, Khan’s Conservative rival in the often-nasty mayoral race, of employing tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook”—a reference to his rival’s attempt to paint him as an extremist.
When asked by Time on May 9 after winning the mayoral race, “What’s your view on a potential Trump presidency given his remarks on Muslims?” Khan replied:
Clearly [I’ll visit] before January in case Donald Trump wins ... I want to go to America to meet with and engage with American mayors. If Donald Trump becomes the President, I’ll be stopped from going there by virtue of my faith, which means I can’t engage with American mayors and swap ideas.
That same day, The New York Times asked Trump, at the time still a presidential candidate, what he thought of Khan’s victory. Trump said he was “happy” that London had elected its first Muslim mayor, and said “there will always be exceptions” to his proposed travel ban on Muslims. Trump also said Khan’s victory was a “very good thing … because I think if he does a great job, it will really—you lead by example, always lead by example. If he does a good job and frankly if he does a great job, that would be a terrific thing.”
On May 10, the BBC asked Khan what he thought Trump’s remarks that he would be an “exception” to the proposed ban. He replied: “I think Donald Trump has ignorant views about Islam. It’s not just about me. … It’s about my friends, family, and others, from all around the world … and my concern is he’s playing into the hands of extremists who say it’s not compatible to be Western and mainstream Muslim.”
And, as if to reinforce his rejection of Trump, Khan added he was supporting Hillary Clinton. “I hope that she trounces him,” he said. (Trump ultimately defeated her in last November’s presidential election.) But when asked whether he would do business with Trump, Khan replied: “I’m the mayor of London. … As the mayor of London, I’ll speak, within reason, to anybody if it’s in the best interests of our country.”
Six days later, Trump attacked Khan, saying it was the London mayor who was “ignorant,” and challenged Khan to an “IQ test.”
Personally, I would bet on London Mayor Sadiq Khan to win that battle...small hands=small mind :~)
Actually, it was Donny Jr that stepped in it more recently:
Fast-forward to March of this year, and it was Donald Trump, Jr., the president’s son, who criticized Khan in the aftermath of the deadly terrorist attack in the British capital. Trump, Jr., tweeted “You have to be kidding me?!” linking to an article in the Independent that quoted remarks Khan made to the Evening Standard. In those remarks, the London mayor said the threat of terrorism had become “part and parcel of living in a great global city. You’ve got to be prepared for these things. We’ve got to be vigilant. We’ve got to support the police. They’re doing an incredibly hard job. You’ve got to support the security services.” Trump, Jr., appeared not to have read the remarks completely.
So, I'm still waiting to see that "strong leader" you keep referring to...I just keep seeing a big bumbling orange idiot that keeps getting in his own way and flailing about like a person who finds himself terrified because he's in way, WAY over his head.
He doesn't have a clue how to be president and apparently refuses to listen to anybody who might. The two Steve's? all they want to do is wreck havoc and destroy our democracy. And that's not me just saying that:
Steve Bannon wants to destroy the Washington 'establishment' — and that could be Trump's undoing (http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannons-agenda-could-be-trumps-undoing-2017-2)
The result has been chaotic and often disorganized, prompting satiric television sketches and accusations from veteran Washington hands that the administration is amateurish and inept. Trump's approval ratings fall by the day.
But what by conventional measures looks like a string of setbacks and misfires could to an ideologue like Bannon be proof that the administration is on the right track to achieving its goal — destroying what he calls the Washington "establishment." What's less clear is what might take its place.
"I'm a Leninist," Bannon once told the Daily Beast. "Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today's establishment."
"I'm a Leninist"? Really? That's somebody you want whispering in Trump's ear?
Trump is not a strong leader, he's a baffoon. And now the whole world knows it...particularly the citizens of the UK and London. Pretty sure Trump shouldn't plan on visiting any time soon, ya know?
The Guardian view on Trump’s state visit to the UK: his invitation should be rescinded (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/05/the-guardian-view-on-trumps-state-visit-to-the-uk-his-invitation-should-be-rescinded)
Keep sticking your head in the sand Allan, all you're gonna get is sand in your eyes.
-
In what way has he struck back?
Well, he Tweeted at them!
8)
-
Another own goal by Trump - meddling in the Gulf and alienating the hosts of the US biggest military base there. Is there no end to his stupidity?
-
Another own goal by Trump - meddling in the Gulf and alienating the hosts of the US biggest military base there. Is there no end to his stupidity?
Yes, and the worst thing is that he really thinks that the Saudi Arabia visit is paying off. Naive and stupid, a dangerous combination in the geopolitical minefield.
Trump wades into Arab rift, suggests support for isolation of Qatar
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-idUSKBN18X0KF
""So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!" Trump wrote on Twitter.
"So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!" Trump wrote on Twitter.
U.S. officials were blindsided by Saudi Arabia's decision to sever diplomatic ties with Qatar in a coordinated move with Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), current and former officials in Washington told Reuters.
Even as Trump applauded the Arab countries' decision, the Pentagon on Tuesday renewed praise of Qatar for hosting U.S. forces and its "enduring commitment to regional security."
Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis declined to answer a question about whether Qatar supported terrorism, saying: "I’m not the right person to ask that. I consider them a host to our very important base at al Udeid.""
Cheers,
Bart
-
Obama gave the ambassadorship to Japan to Caroline Kennedy, President Kennedy's daughter. I nice lady, I'm sure. Cute when she was a little girl. But what did she know about the country? How about me. I'm retired. I have some spare time. I'm available for Japan too. I did spend two years there as an Air Force airman. That should count for something. Plus I'm a fellow New Yorker. I hope Trump is reading. :)
Trump has nominated the owner of the New York Jets to be ambassador to the UK. AFAIK, this is because he was a big donor to the campaign and a friend of Trump. I would sooner see you in the position!!
-
He's even stupid enough to think that the diplomatic situation with Qatar is helping to curtail Islamist terrorism. He's being played by the Abab infighting amongst themselves. Qatar is too friendly with Iran, so the other Arab countries have a score to settle and knew that Trump is gullible enough to think it all revolves around him.
Cheers,
Bart
Also Qatar is using slave labor to build all the arenas for the 2022 World Cup which they won by bribing FIFA officials.
-
The Lawless Presidency.
The consistent application of laws requires a consistent set of facts on which a society can agree. The Trump administration is trying to undermine the very idea of facts.
The attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is part of the problem. He is supposed to be the nation’s head law-enforcement official, but acts as a Trump loyalist. He recently held a briefing in the White House press room — “a jaw-dropping violation of norms,” as Slate’s Leon Neyfakh wrote. Sessions has proclaimed, “This is the Trump era.”
Like Trump, he sees little distinction between the enforcement of the law and the interests of the president.
COURTS, UNDERMINED. Past administrations have respected the judiciary as having the final word on the law. Trump has tried to delegitimize almost any judge who disagrees with him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/opinion/the-lawless-presidency.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
-
Stealing (my word) money from kids? Are you f$&king kidding me?
And this is from that bastion of the far left Forbes magazine. (actually it's RIGHT-CENTER BIAS)
How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/06/06/how-donald-trump-shifted-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/#228a7e9b6b4a)
LIKE AUTUMN LEAVES, sponsored Cadillacs, Ferraris and Maseratis descend on the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, New York, in September for the Eric Trump Foundation golf invitational. Year after year, the formula is consistent: 18 holes of perfectly trimmed fairways with a dose of Trumpian tackiness, including Hooters waitresses and cigar spreads, followed by a clubhouse dinner, dates encouraged. The crowd leans toward real estate insiders, family friends and C-list celebrities, such as former baseball slugger Darryl Strawberry and reality housewife (and bankruptcy-fraud felon) Teresa Giudice.
The real star of the day is Eric Trump, the president's second son and now the co-head of the Trump Organization, who has hosted this event for ten years on behalf of the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. He's done a ton of good: To date, he's directed more than $11 million there, the vast majority of it via this annual golf event. He has also helped raise another $5 million through events with other organizations.
The best part about all this, according to Eric Trump, is the charity's efficiency: Because he can get his family's golf course for free and have most of the other costs donated, virtually all the money contributed will go toward helping kids with cancer. "We get to use our assets 100% free of charge," Trump tells Forbes.
That's not the case. In reviewing filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, it's clear that the course wasn't free--that the Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament.
Additionally, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which has come under previous scrutiny for self-dealing and advancing the interests of its namesake rather than those of charity, apparently used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization.
And while donors to the Eric Trump Foundation were told their money was going to help sick kids, more than $500,000 was re-donated to other charities, many of which were connected to Trump family members or interests, including at least four groups that subsequently paid to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses.
All of this seems to defy federal tax rules and state laws that ban self-dealing and misleading donors. It also raises larger questions about the Trump family dynamics and whether Eric and his brother, Don Jr., can be truly independent of their father.
#MAGA on the backs of sick kids?
-
Trump has nominated the owner of the New York Jets to be ambassador to the UK. AFAIK, this is because he was a big donor to the campaign and a friend of Trump. I would sooner see you in the position!!
Thanks for the props. I hope it's OK to use you as a reference when I put in my resume for the ambassadorship job. Bob Kraft, the NY Jets owner, is close friends with the Donald, for years. Actually that's a smart pick for Trump. While he's in the UK, he can keep an eye on Trumps golf courses for him.
-
I haven't seen any sign of a strong president yet. So far, we've seen some temper tantrums, a lot of confusion, stupid decisions, flip-flops, undiplomatic behavior and total lack of strategy.
You haven't been paying attention. American's enemies around the world realize the days of the weak Obama are over.
Trump's bombing of the Syrian airfield and MOAB in Iraq made his bones. He sent our carrier task forces back into the China Sea to stop China from militarizing any more islands. Japan, the Philippines, Australia, who had been talking to China because they were beginning to think Obama was abandoning the Pacific, now feel confident again America is back. I think we've had two carrier task forces there and have started heavy training exercises with our Allies there.
It's similar with Iran. and with Sunni allies in the Middle East. His visit there recently re-established our strong ties. The Saudis were also beginning to doubt Americas commitment and starting to talk to other major powers for comfort. Because of Trump, we're pals again. Even in NATO, despite Trump playing hard ball with the 2% and Article 5, he still added more troops to Eastern Europe. Putin got the message. The only main holdout is North Korea who continues thumbing their noses at the world. You have to give that little bastard credit standing up to China and the US and South Korea.
Mattis the Defense Secretary of Defense is creating a war counsel with our Middle East friends to destroy ISIS. When that's done, they'll be less London Bridges happening. Even PM May is getting into the stream of it and actually proposing to stop terrorism. Really getting tough. Pretty soon she might be to the right of Trump. The London mayor will have to stop her from entering London along with Trump. Now won't that be sumthin'?
Like I said, you're not paying attention.
-
You haven't been paying attention. American's enemies around the world realize the days of the weak Obama are over.
Trump's bombing of the Syrian airfield and MOAB in Iraq made his bones. He sent our carrier task forces back into the China Sea to stop China from militarizing any more islands. Japan, the Philippines, Australia, who had been talking to China because they were beginning to think Obama was abandoning the Pacific, now feel confident again America is back. I think we've had two carrier task forces there and have started heavy training exercises with our Allies there.
It's similar with Iran. and with Sunni allies in the Middle East. His visit there recently re-established our strong ties. The Saudis were also beginning to doubt Americas commitment and starting to talk to other major powers for comfort. Because of Trump, we're pals again. Even in NATO, despite Trump playing hard ball with the 2% and Article 5, he still added more troops to Eastern Europe. Putin got the message. The only main holdout is North Korea who continues thumbing their noses at the world. You have to give that little bastard credit standing up to China and the US and South Korea.
Mattis the Defense Secretary of Defense is creating a war counsel with our Middle East friends to destroy ISIS. When that's done, they'll be less London Bridges happening. Even PM May is getting into the stream of it and actually proposing to stop terrorism. Really getting tough. Pretty soon she might be to the right of Trump. The London mayor will have to stop her from entering London along with Trump. Now won't that be sumthin'?
Like I said, you're not paying attention.
Who is not paying attention? AFAIK, the MOAB bomb was dropped in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. And the bombing in Syria was completely ineffective. 59 Tomahawks wasted, and the airfield was operational next day. Unfortunately, many Syrian lives (non ISIS) were also needlessly lost in that adventure.
You must be watching a different channel.
-
Yes, we know, he's a cry baby. He has yet to learn empathy for the victims, and put his personal grievances (and emerging Islamophobia) aside.
He's even stupid enough to think that the diplomatic situation with Qatar is helping to curtail Islamist terrorism. He's being played by the Abab infighting amongst themselves. Qatar is too friendly with Iran, so the other Arab countries have a score to settle and knew that Trump is gullible enough to think it all revolves around him.
Cheers,
Bart
Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood, a nationalistic but terror organization. If you're going to rid yourself of terrorism, putting a lid on them is important. Considering Qatar is a little country at odds with all their neighbors, it's more important to support the Saudis and their allies, especially if you want to rid the world of Islamic terrorism. Of course, we have a big base there which we want to maintain. But Qatar wants us there as well to keep the Saudis at bay. I think Trump is hoping that Qatar will change its position, get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood, and fall into line. You can't expect him to take Qatar's side against the major players there.
-
Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood, a nationalistic but terror organization. If you're going to rid yourself of terrorism, putting a lid on them is important.
And Saudi Arabia doesn't sponsor terrorists? Oh, wait, they wanted to buy planes/leverage. That makes them friends?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Who is not paying attention? AFAIK, the MOAB bomb was dropped in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. And the bombing in Syria was completely ineffective. 59 Tomahawks wasted, and the airfield was operational next day. Unfortunately, many Syrian lives (non ISIS) were also needlessly lost in that adventure.
You must be watching a different channel.
There you go correcting an insignificant error. Just like on Trump. "Gotcha." It's not important which country he dropped MOAB. He dropped it and sent a message. And Syria shut down that airfield moving all its remaining planes to the another airfield where the Russian kept their planes, for protection. Assad also stopped dropping chemical bombs. But all that is beside the point. The main message he sent was a "don't tick me off" message to the rest of our world's enemies. The days of Obama leading from behind are over.
By the way, what has your country done lately to stop Assad from dropping chemical bombs on civilians?
-
And Saudi Arabia doesn't sponsor terrorists? Oh, wait, they wanted to buy planes/leverage. That makes them friends?
Cheers,
Bart
That is a good question. It's tricky. The Saudis do support strong Muslim beliefs, Wahhabism. And I'm sure some of their followers wind up becoming terrorists. Bin Laden may be the prime example. But the Saudi king and government have a lot to fear from the terrorists. They would like nothing better than to overthrow the Saudi dynasty. So the government treads a fine line of appearing very Muslim yet enforces cruel and determined attacks on anyone in their country who they feel is a threat. They are also a bulwark against Iran. So if you are the American government, you find that as unappetizing Saudi Arabia may be, you have to pick sides. So they wind up staying your allies. It is an unappetizing buffet, but what other choice is there?
Also, may I remind you that it was the English, French and others who helped create this mess in the Middle East after WWI. It's easy for you now to complain and throw brickbats from the sidelines while America is trying to keep the lid on everything over there. Also, do you think Bush and Obama did such a wonderful job? Frankly, they were embarrassing. I think Trump will surprise you and the rest of the world. Keep tuned.
-
There you go correcting an insignificant error. Just like on Trump. "Gotcha." It's not important which country he dropped MOAB. He dropped it and sent a message. And Syria shut down that airfield moving all its remaining planes to the another airfield where the Russian kept their planes, for protection. Assad also stopped dropping chemical bombs. But all that is beside the point. The main message he sent was a "don't tick me off" message to the rest of our world's enemies. The days of Obama leading from behind are over.
By the way, what has your country done lately to stop Assad from dropping chemical bombs on civilians?
Again, AFAIK, the chemical bomb by Assad has been alleged, but never proven. Even our friend Putin says so.
As to our prime minister, he expressed horror over the suspected sarin attack, which killed more than 80 people. He strongly condemed these heinous attacks against civilians, children, by chemical weapons and promised Canada would be involved in the United Nations process to investigate and punish the perpetrators of the chemical attack that killed civilians. To me that seems a very mature, compassionate, and responsible position with which I fully identify. Contrary to the Trump administration that very quickly and without any substantial evidence assigned the blame.
There is also a big difference whether you drop MOAB in Iraq or Afghanistan. BTW, that was the only good hit. Good thing that the pilot didn't mix up the countries.
I agree that Trump has been very effective in communicating to the rest of the world "don't tick me off". Unfortunately, that includes also all our allies. But I'm not sure whether that will lead to any constructive development in these turbulent times.
-
.. It's not important which country he dropped MOAB.
fortunately he did not drop it here ;)
I am afraid with all the weapons Saoudi Arabia gets, combined with the weapons of Israel and the common hatred against Iran and Qatar, Trump may contribute to new conflicts in the middle east and maybe even a war against Iran.
Obama and the EU wanted a diplomatic solution with Iran and they managed to do so. A very wise decision. In the country itself the people are turning to a less islamic conservative direction by choosing Rohani. Iran itself never started a war before, it only defended itself against Irak that got the weapons from the EU and the US.
It would be wise not to put so much arms in that region; as happened before in Irak, Afghanistan and now Syria; Total chaos and devastation will be the result and in the end these weapons may be used against you.
-
It's not important which country he dropped MOAB. He dropped it and sent a message.
Yeah, what's the difference? Just drop it somewhere and send a message. Tomorrow, we may come up with another message.
Alan, in hindsight you can consider yourself very lucky, that he didn't drop it in New Jersey.
-
American's enemies around the world realize the days of the weak Obama are over.
Yah, right.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4235/34336709813_b48596c107_c.jpg)
Like I said, you're not paying attention.
Will you PLEASE stop saying that? You've said it many times and it's insulting.
We ARE paying attention and we are NOT stupid. We just see different things than what you keep telling us to see.
-
Yeah, what's the difference? Just drop it somewhere and send a message. Tomorrow, we may come up with another message.
Alan, in hindsight you can consider yourself very lucky, that he didn't drop it in New Jersey.
Actually, there are some places in New Jersey that dropping MOAB would help improve the area. :) Regarding my comment that it didn't matter where he dropped it was because he went after ISIS. It could have been in Afghanistan or Iraq as they're in both places.
But my main point was that it along with the missiles attack on the Syrian airbase sent a message to potential enemies. You notice you haven't seen any Iranian speedboats making runs at American ships since Obama retired. That's not a coincidence. The Iranians have to think hard about such folly against Trump. My feeling is that there are new rules of engagement and those have been also sent to the Iranian Navy. The next run you make you will be fired upon and then have to deal with further attacks on the staging areas for those runs. If you're Iranian, you have to take Trump seriously after the missiles and MOAB.
Europeans should be supporting us. The quicker we get rid of ISIS the quicker the bombs and trucks and knives and hammers will end in Europe. Isn't that what you want? We should be together in that mission.
-
Yes, it will take an all-out, coordinated effort. That's why Trump should play nice with US allies.
-
Yes, it will take an all-out, coordinated effort. That's why Trump should play nice with US allies.
In order to defeat ISIS, I believe Mattis and Trump are going to use our Arab, Turkish (maybe) and Kurdish friends as the troops on the ground. Europe is out or will be given minor roles to play. America will provide the air power, strategy, coordination and command structure, etc. Using Christian Europeans and Americans on the ground might make the work harder. Plus Americans won't go for the idea. I think that's the secret deal Trump made with the Saudi king when he visited a couple of weeks ago. I think that's why Qatar happened. If you're in the Middle East, you now have to take sides. The lines are being drawn. You either get with the program of defeating Islamic terrorism, or you'll go down along with the terrorists. The Saudis just made that known with Trump's approval by making Qatar an example. The message has now been sent to all the players. I'm sure the Russian, Syrians and Iranians are thinking hard how this all effects them.
Regarding Europe, he's more concerned about the 2%.
-
... When people ask, "Where are the Muslims speaking against terror, and why don't they speak out?" my answer is, on March 29, 2017 they were in the spot of the attack, engaging with other Londoners and tourists, mostly wearing shirts that said, "Talk to me about Islam," while decrying the recent attacks....
Right... and then there is this:
CNN Caught Being Fake News - Staging A Backdrop Of Muslim Protesters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22FYY1IJV2A&feature=youtu.be
-
I just learned that the attack on Raqqa has started with Syrian Kurdish and Arab forces under the command of US who is also providing air and artillery cover. America forces have attacked Iranian forces who ventured too close to American troops.
-
I don't want to get ahead of myself. But after ISIS is defeated, Trump's next step is to push Russia and Iran out of Syria and further minimize Iranian influence in the Middle East. Then he'll see if he can work an arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians. Meanwhile the liberal press and the Democrats will still be talking about collusion.
-
Germans just came up with a new word - Trumpisierung Of World Politics.
According to their definition, Trumpisierung is the obvious and unreserved willingness to escalate any situation, that characterizes Donald Trumps foreign policy.
-
Right... and then there is this:
CNN Caught Being Fake News - Staging A Backdrop Of Muslim Protesters
Oh wow...so you're saying CNN bussed these people in, printed their signs talked the bobbies into letting them cross the police tape, wrote their scripts for what they wanted to say, bought them flowers and "staged" their peaceful protest just for CNN? Just wanna be sure what YOU think is fake...
----------
Meanwhile DailyMail had a bit of a different slant, they actually reported the story and the "Fakeness" of the video is, uh, maybe not so real.
CNN reporter is caught up in 'fake news' row after being accused of 'setting up' a Muslim counter-terror protest (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4573882/Fake-news-row-Muslim-protesters-TV-crews.html)
(note the headline has changed from Caught Being Fake News to caught up in 'fake news' row)
CNN has denied online claims that it 'set up' a counter-extremism demonstration behind one of its reporters.
A group from the London Fatwa Council came to the police cordon near the London Bridge terror attacks with banners proclaiming 'ISIS will lose' yesterday afternoon. But a video which emerged of the group apparently being positioned by TV reporters led to claims online that the channel was 'creating a narrative'. The video shows the group being ushered past the media and positioned so that cameras can see them.
(the video mentioned is the same video Slobodan linked to)
CNN has denied claims it positioned anti-extremism demonstrators behind its cameras to 'create a narrative', insisting the group arrived to be seen by TV cameras. Reporter Becky Anderson mentioned the protesters' signs in her news report on the terror attack.
She said: 'Behind me you can see a sign here, hashtag 'turn to love'', hashtag 'for London', hashtag 'ISIS will lose', and flowers left in remembrance of those who left their lives.' She called the demonstrators a 'poignant scene' and urged the camera to pause on them to viewers 'how people feel here on the streets of London'.
The man who filmed the footage, a Twitter user called @markantro, tweeted: 'CNN creating the narrative #FakeNews' His video was shared more than 14,000 times on the social network and liked more than 16,000 times.
The man who filmed the footage, who describes himself as an 'AnarchoCapitalist', claimed white police officers left the protest scene around the time news crews were filming, leaving minority officers visible - another example, he claimed, of the footage being staged.
Both CNN and the demonstrators vehemently deny that anything was staged.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/05/16/4119E66600000578-4573882-image-a-33_1496675549109.jpg)
The protesters insist they went to the site on their own initiative and were not manipulated.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/05/16/4119DFF600000578-4573882-image-a-34_1496677190135.jpg)
Chairman of the London Fatwa Council, Mohammad Raza, said the protesters went to police cordon
themselves to show that they opposed religious extremism
They insisted the same scene was filmed by other broadcasters, including the BBC and ITV, who had positioned themselves at the police cordon.
A CNN spokesman said: 'This story is nonsense. The group of demonstrators that was at the police cordon was being allowed through by officers so they could show their signs to the gathered media.
'The CNN crew along with other media present simply filmed them doing so.'
Mohammad Raza of the London Fatwa Council, who took part in the demonstration, told MailOnline suggestions the event was staged were 'completely false'. He said: 'Nothing was set up. We all decided to go down there. We are members of a faith foundation which includes Jewish, Christian and Muslim members.
'We went down there on our own initiative to lay flowers at the scene.'
He insisted any actions by TV crews was their own concern and his group had not been told what to do.
The row over the news channel came as US President Donald Trump launched an online attack on Sadiq Khan.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/06/06/04/411F7B2D00000578-4573882-The_protesters_also_appeared_at_the_side_of_the_BBC_s_coverage_o-a-59_1496719820338.jpg)
The protesters also appeared at the side of the BBC's coverage of the terror attack aftermath
Or did a producer just tell them where to stand in order to be on camera and other press people were around to also shoot the protest while some wing nut released a video claiming CNN was faking the news? And maybe you fell for it because it fit your pro Trump narrative? Or maybe you'll say you were sure that video was fake and the muslim peace protesters were real?
-
Uh oh...
Trump may have gone further than we knew in his bid to get the FBI off Michael Flynn's back (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-obstruction-of-justice-fbi-russia-michael-flynn-2017-6)
President Donald Trump's apparent attempts to get federal investigators to stop looking into his former national security adviser may have gone further than initial reports indicated.
Trump in March asked the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, for his help to convince then-FBI Director James Comey to back off of Michael Flynn, The Washington Post reported Tuesday night.
The Post's Adam Entous wrote that Trump and several government officials met for a briefing at the White House on March 22. After the meeting, Trump asked everyone to leave the room, except for Coats and Mike Pompeo, who heads the CIA.
"The president then started complaining about the FBI investigation and Comey’s handling of it," The Post reported.
Trump's complaints came just days after Comey confirmed in a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI is looking into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
So, Thurs will be interesting. Wait, Actually tomorrow will be interesting–the hearings kick off Wednesday when some of America’s top national security officials — Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence; Adm. Michael S. Rogers, director of the National Security Agency; Andrew McCabe, acting FBI director; and Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general — will testify.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/140AD/production/_91739028_035543237-1.jpg)
Then Jim Comey on Thurs which, by the way, will be telecast on all broadcast networks including ABC, NBS and CBS. So, all those daytime TV show addicts will be getting some different fare...
-
This will piss off the Trumpsters...
Donald Trump is the best 2020 recruiter Democrats could hope for (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/2020-democrats-trump/)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170527122846-joe-biden-screengrab-0527-exlarge-169.jpg)
CNN)Democrats were distraught in the wake of the 2016 election.
Hillary Clinton's defeat was stunning enough. But the fact that she lost to Donald Trump led Democrats to question whether they had fundamentally misread the American public, and whether their party and its message needed a total overhaul.
Then Trump actually became president.
Suddenly Democrats' gloom lifted -- even as Trump's poll numbers sagged. And candidates willing to take Trump on began to emerge -- more like pour -- out of the woodwork.
As Karen Tumulty writes in a piece in the Washington Post today:
"Presidential buzz seems to be building around an unusually large and varied group of Democrats and famous names from outside of politics -- a parlor game that includes pretty much every current Democratic senator and governor, mayors and House members, barons of the business world and, of course, the occasional wild-card celebrity. The Hill newspaper recently tallied 43 people who might run against Donald Trump."
43 people!
-
This can't be good...
President Trump Says Jared Kushner 'Has Become More Famous' Than Him. He Said the Same Thing About James Comey Before Firing Him (http://time.com/4808098/donald-trump-jared-kushner-famous-comey/)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/01/31/National-Politics/Images/Botsford170131Trump11057.JPG?uuid=w91iUOgDEeaQPZsR7X2NKg)
President Trump joked that his son-in-law Jared Kushner has become "much more famous than me" while meeting with Congressional leaders on Tuesday.
"Jared's actually become much more famous than me," he said. "I'm a little bit upset about that."
Kushner came under scrutiny in the probe into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia after it was reported in May that he told Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak that he wanted to open a private communications channel with Moscow.
Trump comments are similar to what he said about former FBI Director James Comey during a law enforcement ceremony in January.
"He's become more famous than me," Trump said, inviting Comey for a hug.Trump fired Comey on May 9.
-
Oh wow...so you're saying CNN bussed these people in, printed their signs talked the bobbies into letting them cross the police tape, wrote their scripts for what they wanted to say, bought them flowers and "staged" their peaceful protest just for CNN? Just wanna be sure what YOU think is fake...
They don't have to buss them in, maybe the organizer just called CNN - "be there at 3:30 to get some authentically looking shots".
----------
Meanwhile DailyMail had a bit of a different slant, they actually reported the story and the "Fakeness" of the video is, uh, maybe not so real.
CNN reporter is caught up in 'fake news' row after being accused of 'setting up' a Muslim counter-terror protest (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4573882/Fake-news-row-Muslim-protesters-TV-crews.html)
(note the headline has changed from Caught Being Fake News to caught up in 'fake news' row)
Or did a producer just tell them where to stand in order to be on camera and other press people were around to also shoot the protest while some wing nut released a video claiming CNN was faking the news? And maybe you fell for it because it fit your pro Trump narrative? Or maybe you'll say you were sure that video was fake and the muslim peace protesters were real?
To me, both setups look staged. Bigger group, different models, but not very authentic. They may as well use a green screen or studio. If a casual browser has only one second to look at the picture, he would fall for it, but if you have more time to look at the whole scene, it looks quite artificial. You would expect better from a news agency such as CNN.
-
Does anybody else think the irony is getting deep and thick in Washington?
Trump, who has been SCREAMING about all the leaks coming out of the government, finally has somebody to point at as a real-life leaker (who is facing up to 10 yrs in prison). So, here's the irony, the "leak" is areport (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/05/reality-winner-russia-us-election-hack-nsa-leak) about Russian hackers attacking the US voting system (it's those darn Russians again >:(
...and, it's a Reality Winner that did it...
(http://occupydemocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/putin-internet-cia-russia.jpg)
"Don't worry...be happy!"
(he actually said that over the weekend)
Trump just can't get a break ;D
-
Trump's bombing of the Syrian airfield and MOAB in Iraq made his bones.
---snip---
Like I said, you're not paying attention.
Technically, Trump goofed up in the interview when asked about sending the Cruise missiles somewhere :~)
Iraq or Syria? Trump recalls dessert perfectly, forgets who he bombed & internet erupts (VIDEO) (https://www.rt.com/usa/384610-trump-syria-iraq-missile/)
“We had finished dinner, we’re now having dessert,” Trump began. “And we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen and President Xi was enjoying it.”
“We’ve just fired 59 missiles, all of which hit by the way, unbelievable, from hundreds of miles away, it’s brilliant, it’s genius, what we have in terms of technology no-one can come close to competing,” he continued.
“So I said, we’ve just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq,” said the President, seemingly oblivious to his mistake.
“Heading to Syria,” host Maria Bartiromo interjected. “Yes,” Trump replied, “heading toward Syria.”
So, who wasn't paying attention?
As for the MOAB...there's some confusion about who approved what...
Trump, Spicer won't say if president specifically authorized "mother of all bombs" (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spicer-wont-say-if-trump-authorized-mother-of-all-bombs-in-afghanistan/)
President Trump didn’t say Thursday whether he specifically authorized the use of the “mother of all bombs” in Afghanistan hours earlier, simply remarking his White House has given the military “total authorization.”
“What I do is I authorize my military,” Mr. Trump said in response to reporters’ questions about the bomb drop during a White House meeting with first responders from the recent Atlanta bridge fire.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer also refused to say during Thursday’s press briefing whether Mr. Trump specifically authorized the bomb dropped on an ISIS cave complex in Afghanistan, or whether Mr. Trump was briefed ahead of time, referring all questions to the Pentagon.
--snip--
Pentagon officials said the strike had been in the works for months and that the bomb was moved into Afghanistan during the Obama administration, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports. Authority to use it had been delegated to Gen. John Nicholson, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, although he notified Washington in advance.
So, I suppose if Trump authorized his generals to do what it takes, then ok, I suppose Trump was involved even if he didn't specifically authorize the bomb. Neither Trump nor Spicy mentioned it was Obama who ordered the MOAB into the theater or war.
You said:
He sent our carrier task forces back into the China Sea to stop China from militarizing any more islands.
You mean that very powerful armada that Trump deployed to North Korea (that stopped to play with Australia first)?
Donald Trump's 'very powerful armada' he claimed to be sending to North Korea was actually heading to AUSTRALIA (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trumps-very-powerful-armada-10252760)
The aircraft carrier strike group the President warned Kim Jong-un with was still far from the Korean peninsula, and headed in the OPPOSITE direction
(http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10209197.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/This-US-Navy-photo-obtained-March-31-20.jpg)
When Donald Trump warned North Korea he was sending a "very powerful armada" to the region, it was actually heading to AUSTRALIA, it has emerged.
The aircraft carrier strike group the President boasted of was still far from the Korean peninsula, and headed in the opposite direction. It was even further away over the weekend, moving through the Sunda Strait and then into the Indian Ocean, as North Korea displayed what appeared to be new missiles at a parade and staged a failed missile test.
He later added: "We are sending an armada. Very powerful. We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier. That I can tell you.
"And we have the best military people on earth. And I will say this: He is doing the wrong thing."
The US military's Pacific Command explained on Tuesday that the strike group first had to complete a shorter-than-initially planned period of training with Australia.
Was Trump paying attention?
-
Putin must be laughing himself senseless - playing chess with an opponent who hasn't even mastered tiddly winks
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/qatar-fbi-says-russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-story-that-led-to-crisis-report?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
In order to defeat ISIS, I believe Mattis and Trump are going to use our Arab, Turkish (maybe) and Kurdish friends as the troops on the ground. Europe is out or will be given minor roles to play. America will provide the air power, strategy, coordination and command structure, etc. Using Christian Europeans and Americans on the ground might make the work harder. Plus Americans won't go for the idea. I think that's the secret deal Trump made with the Saudi king when he visited a couple of weeks ago. I think that's why Qatar happened. If you're in the Middle East, you now have to take sides. The lines are being drawn. You either get with the program of defeating Islamic terrorism, or you'll go down along with the terrorists. The Saudis just made that known with Trump's approval by making Qatar an example. The message has now been sent to all the players. I'm sure the Russian, Syrians and Iranians are thinking hard how this all effects them.
Regarding Europe, he's more concerned about the 2%.
The main aim of Western policy in the Gulf is and always has been to keep the oil flowing by propping up the rotten regime in Saudi Arabia. The real power in the region is Iran but for as long as they were designated our mortal enemies this could never be admitted. And likely it still can't be because of the extent to which Khomeini humiliated the USA. In this sense, Iran has already won. All Iran has to do is sit back and wait while the rest of the region tears itself apart under the influence of a long succession of Western adventurers and their entourage of laughing arms salesmen. Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated militarily because it is primarily a cultural and religious phenomenon that's been largely funded by our new "friends", the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. And all this before the meddling of Russia and others. Honestly, don't expect a result from this dreadful mess. Selling them yet more guns may keep the oil flowing a bit longer and the Saudi princes in more slaves and prostitutes but it won't solve anything. In the end, the West or what's left of it will have to settle with Iran and stop taking sides in the centuries-old enmity between Sunni and Shia.
-
We have a US president "challenging" someone to an IQ test? Really? Well, that's a new one in the American Presidency. I wonder what's next? Arm wrestling? Is this the new state of presidency? Are we now in the playground during elementary school recess?
As a US Citizen, I want other nations to respect the US. This is with the understanding that this respect must be earned and maintained... and reciprocated by the US.
I don't want other nations to fear the US. Fear is not the same as leadership. Fear leads to bullying. Leaders do not bully. Leaders don't challenge people to IQ tests.
I honestly don't think of Trump as any type of leader; certainly not in a foreign policy context.
-
To me, both setups look staged. Bigger group, different models, but not very authentic. They may as well use a green screen or studio. If a casual browser has only one second to look at the picture, he would fall for it, but if you have more time to look at the whole scene, it looks quite artificial. You would expect better from a news agency such as CNN.
More fake news from CNN and the liberal press. What else do you expect? Reminds me of Brady, the famous photographer during America's civil war. He moved the dead bodies around before he snapped his pictures. I suppose he wad just trying to follow the Rule of thirds. Maybe that's what CNN wad doing. :)
-
The main aim of Western policy in the Gulf is and always has been to keep the oil flowing by propping up the rotten regime in Saudi Arabia. The real power in the region is Iran but for as long as they were designated our mortal enemies this could never be admitted. And likely it still can't be because of the extent to which Khomeini humiliated the USA. In this sense, Iran has already won. All Iran has to do is sit back and wait while the rest of the region tears itself apart under the influence of a long succession of Western adventurers and their entourage of laughing arms salesmen. Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated militarily because it is primarily a cultural and religious phenomenon that's been largely funded by our new "friends", the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. And all this before the meddling of Russia and others. Honestly, don't expect a result from this dreadful mess. Selling them yet more guns may keep the oil flowing a bit longer and the Saudi princes in more slaves and prostitutes but it won't solve anything. In the end, the West or what's left of it will have to settle with Iran and stop taking sides in the centuries-old enmity between Sunni and Shia.
I agree with a lot of what you said. But the immediate concern is Islamist terrorism and their bombs going off around the world. Hopefully the incentive for terror will fade when ISIS is destroyed. What other choice is there? Also, the Saudis and Other allies there will take over the role of checking Iran's influence since Iraq has become a quasi Shia state since America's unfortunate decision to take out Saddam who we used to check the Iranians before. But i agree that the middle East is a cesspool that we would be better off staying out of, if we could.
-
To me, both setups look staged. Bigger group, different models, but not very authentic. They may as well use a green screen or studio. If a casual browser has only one second to look at the picture, he would fall for it, but if you have more time to look at the whole scene, it looks quite artificial. You would expect better from a news agency such as CNN.
Amen, brither!
A photojournalist friend told me that, about twenty years ago, when news organizations were still trying to preserve a modicum of integrity, his photographs of protests would be rejected if someone would even be looking directly into camera, in fear that it would be seen as staged, or, worse, that the subject acted for the camera.
-
.... Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated militarily because it is primarily a cultural and religious phenomenon...
Oh, no! How can you say that!?
-
Amen, brither!
A photojournalist friend told me that, about twenty years ago, when news organizations were still trying to preserve a modicum of integrity, his photographs of protests would be rejected if someone would even be looking directly into camera, in fear that it would be seen as staged, or, worse, that the subject acted for the camera.
Europeans should be supporting us. The quicker we get rid of ISIS the quicker the bombs and trucks and knives and hammers will end in Europe. Isn't that what you want? We should be together in that mission.
Europeans are supporting the effort.
Even my small country (17 million inhabitants) has been joining for years and is still joining in multiple missions. We stopped our Syrian mission with F-16 air-recon and strikes in July 2016 to be succeeded by the Belgian airforce.
Current (as per this moment) international operations by Dutch military are taking place in Mali (Minusma), Irak (military trainers), Afghanistan (Resolute Support), Somalia (Atalanta, VPD, EUTMS), South-Sudan (Unmiss), Bahrein (CMF), Baltic States (BAP), Lithuania (eFP), Gaza Strip (EU BAM and USSC), Israël, Syria (UNDOF), Kosovo - EULEX, Libanon, Syria en Israël (UNTSO), United Arab Emirates (FSE Mirage), Libia (EUBAM), Mali (EUTM and UNMAS), Uganda (ACOTA).
In addition, we provide Humanitarian aid to various countries.
So stop whining that the USA has to do it all alone.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Trump's embarrassing performance at the NATO summit, and the G7 meeting, and by pulling out of the Pris accord on climate, doesn't help with motivating to continue our efforts in support of the USA.
BTW, Turkey has denied German politicians access to the forward airforce base near the Syrian border, which in turn forced the Germans to pull out their troops from Turkey. The lack of action by the USA in response to Erdogan's bodyguards, abusing peaceful protesters may have emboldened Turkey in their stance (in an effort to get Fettulah Gulen extradited from the USA, because they consider the USA administration as weak, and increasingly in need of recognition from just about anybody left).
-
But my main point was that it along with the missiles attack on the Syrian airbase sent a message to potential enemies. You notice you haven't seen any Iranian speedboats making runs at American ships since Obama retired. That's not a coincidence. The Iranians have to think hard about such folly against Trump. My feeling is that there are new rules of engagement and those have been also sent to the Iranian Navy.
I think your main point is wrong:
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/06/u-s-navy-surveillance-ship-harassed-iranian-attack-boat
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4446274/US-destroyer-close-encounter-Iranian-boat-sea.html
Andy
-
Bob Kraft, the NY Jets owner, is close friends with the Donald, for years. Actually that's a smart pick for Trump. While he's in the UK, he can keep an eye on Trumps golf courses for him.
Kraft owns the NE Patriots. It's Woody Johnson who has been nominated.
-
Europeans are supporting the effort.
Even my small country (17 million inhabitants) has been joining for years and is still joining in multiple missions. We stopped our Syrian mission with F-16 air-recon and strikes in July 2016 to be succeeded by the Belgian airforce.
Current (as per this moment) international operations by Dutch military are taking place in Mali (Minusma), Irak (military trainers), Afghanistan (Resolute Support), Somalia (Atalanta, VPD, EUTMS), South-Sudan (Unmiss), Bahrein (CMF), Baltic States (BAP), Lithuania (eFP), Gaza Strip (EU BAM and USSC), Israël, Syria (UNDOF), Kosovo - EULEX, Libanon, Syria en Israël (UNTSO), United Arab Emirates (FSE Mirage), Libia (EUBAM), Mali (EUTM and UNMAS), Uganda (ACOTA).
In addition, we provide Humanitarian aid to various countries.
So stop whining that the USA has to do it all alone.
Cheers,
Bart
I was wrong in my observations. I apologize. Thanks for your support.
-
Kraft owns the NE Patriots. It's Woody Johnson who has been nominated.
Oops. I'm not much of a football fan. Got the teams mixed up. Does Woody Johnson play golf too?
-
I know this thread is about Trump, but what about Mike Pence...
For it is well possible he will be in charge sooner or later.
A man know to be a supporter of 'gay conversion therapy'...
-
A photojournalist friend told me that, about twenty years ago, when news organizations were still trying to preserve a modicum of integrity, his photographs of protests would be rejected if someone would even be looking directly into camera, in fear that it would be seen as staged, or, worse, that the subject acted for the camera.
That's a noble principle, but do not think for one moment that in the Middle East and under other dictatorial regimes, demonstrations are not staged. People get paid to attend (driven in with government hired busses), and are handed picket signs and huge pictures of their 'beloved leaders', and flags from countries they have never visited themselves for burning.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I agree with a lot of what you said. But the immediate concern is Islamist terrorism and their bombs going off around the world. Hopefully the incentive for terror will fade when ISIS is destroyed. What other choice is there? Also, the Saudis and Other allies there will take over the role of checking Iran's influence since Iraq has become a quasi Shia state since America's unfortunate decision to take out Saddam who we used to check the Iranians before. But i agree that the middle East is a cesspool that we would be better off staying out of, if we could.
Yup, and with the ISIS ie Sunni attack today on the Shia heartland in Iran they are back at it already. The only lesson is that whichever side you back will soon hate you even worse than the side you don't. Hope the USA tones down the pro-Sunni and Saudi rhetoric and so far as possible keeps a low profile. Talk softly and carry a big stick. All the main players there have a vested interest in the chaos continuing, unfortunately. If it did not, the money tree would not shed nearly so many dollars and they'd have to answer some searching questions about their own legitimacy.
-
You notice you haven't seen any Iranian speedboats making runs at American ships since Obama retired. That's not a coincidence.
Actually that is the very definition of a coincidence. Two incidents occurring where a causality relationship as not been demonstrated is called a coincidence.
-
Watergate 'pales' compared with Trump-Russia probe: Clapper
http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/06/07/watergate-pales-compared-with-trump-russ?videoId=371827392&videoChannel=1003
"ROUGH CUT (NO REPORTER NARRATION) The Watergate scandal "pales" in comparison to events in Washington surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump and alleged links between his campaign and Russia, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Wednesday (June 7). The break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate Hotel in Washington in 1972, and subsequent cover-up, brought down former Republican U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1974. Clapper's comments, made while speaking to reporters in Canberra, Australia's capital, comes before a highly anticipated testimony by sacked FBI director James Comey before the Senate intelligence committee on Thursday (June 8). The committee is examining whether Trump's campaign colluded with Russian officials to interfere in the U.S. presidential election. Trump in May removed Comey as director of FBI, despite a U.S. Justice Department probe into contacts between presidential aides and Russia, raising the spectre of political interference in the investigation. Trump has called the probe a "witch hunt" and said there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia. Clapper said he will be an interested observer for any "smoking gun" evidence."
This one day before the interviewing of James Comey ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
And also one day before his hearing James Comey says this:
Ex-FBI head Comey says Trump pressured him on Russia probe
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN18Y0BJ
"Former FBI director James Comey accused U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday of trying to get him to water down the bureau's investigation into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Trump asked Comey to drop an investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn as part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into whether Moscow meddled in the election, according to testimony from Comey posted on the Senate Intelligence Committee's website.
Comey said Trump told him at a dinner on Jan. 27, a week after the president took office, that: "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty."
Comey, who Trump fired last month, is to deliver his testimony in person at a much-anticipated hearing at the intelligence committee on Thursday.
During the dinner, the president asked him if he wanted to stay on as FBI director, Comey said. The former FBI head said he became concerned that Trump was trying to create "some sort of patronage relationship." "
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wow...just wow!
James Comey's Opening Statement on Trump, Annotated (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/james-comeys-opening-statement-on-trump-annotated/529521/)
The prepared and submitted opening statement by Jim Comey is pretty damning...more will come out Thursday under questioning in front of the Intelligence Committee. Maybe Trump will lash out and attack, but in a "he said he said" war who's gonna believe a pathalogical liar?
Maybe Trump did tape the meetings...I wonder if Trump burned them? (If they ever existed)
-
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-approval-rating-better-bill-clintons-first-term-621853
-
That report came out yesterday before the you know what hit the fan today...pretty sure Comey's testimony prolly won't help Donny's rating. Don't ya think?
BTW, how's that infrastructure initiative Trump was working on this week being received?
What infrastructure initiative?
-
Only slightly off-topic is this podcast of a guy who wrote Fake News for profit: Fake News King. (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king)
It's both a funny and sad story. They find him by tracking down a story about Hilary and the FBI and a murder, which turns out to be completely made up.
My favourite bit is when they state that it almost a complete waste of time to debunk the stories because no matter what you do, people will believe them. I guess it's like those crop circles, which some people still think are unexplained.
It's a bit less than 30 minutes in length.
-
Another interesting podcast about a reporter embedded with Iraqi forces fighting ISIS in Mosul: http://www.npr.org/2017/03/14/520057038/a-front-line-view-of-isis-at-war-theyre-not-backing-down (http://www.npr.org/2017/03/14/520057038/a-front-line-view-of-isis-at-war-theyre-not-backing-down)
There were a few interesting comments in it, but they all point to a multi-layered complex problem, so naturally they won't be heeded. According to the reports, some of Trump's statements have been used in ISIS propaganda. Trump and others seem to think that randomly dropping bombs accomplishes something other than to help recruit more ISIS fighters. I'd love to hear a military analysis of the effectiveness of those cruise missile and MOAB bombings. Did it cause anything other than laughter?
At one point in this discussion, someone claimed that it was Obama who created the mess in Iraq, when it was Bush who got the USA into that one. That's where fake news leads, you see, you can't even remember last decade's history correctly.
-
Things that make you go hummmmm.
Bars are opening early on Thursday so people can drink Russian vodka while watching ex-FBI Director Comey testify (http://www.businessinsider.com/bars-open-early-for-comey-testimony-2017-6?utm_content=buffer37062&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi)
If you want to have a drink while watching former FBI director James Comey testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, you're in luck.
Bars in Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Houston, Texas, are opening early on Thursday to screen Comey's testimony, which is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. EST.
"Come on... you know you want to watch the drama unfold this Thursday," Shaw's Tavern, which will be serving $5 Stoli vodka and "FBI" sandwiches, wrote on Facebook. "Grab your friends, grab a drink and let's COVFEFE!"
(https://americafirstpatriots.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/James-Comey.jpg)
I'll take a Scotch on the rocks...
-
Typical...sure would hate to work for this guy...
Staff Found Out About Trump's FBI Director Pick Via Twitter (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/staff-trump-FBI-director-twitter/2017/06/07/id/794763/)
Some members of Donald Trump's administration didn't know the president was picking a new FBI director until they saw his tweet, The Daily Beast reports.
Trump announced Christopher Wray as James Comey's replacement early Wednesday morning, and one senior administration official told the Daily Beast that White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders were not informed of the president's decision.
"Of course not," said the official.
"We woke up to this," another official said. "[Everyone in the White House] should all be used to this by now ... This is how [Trump] operates."
So, I guess we can quit listening to Kellyanne Conway?
KELLYANNE CONWAY SAYS MEDIA SHOULD STOP COVERING DONALD TRUMP’S TWEETS (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-twitter-london-mayor-620823)
Or to Sebastian Gorka?
Donald Trump’s Advisers: Don’t Take His Tweets So Seriously (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-advisers-tweets_us_59354d76e4b0c242ca259bda)
Meanwhile maybe Spicy does know something?
TRUMP’S TWEETS ARE ‘OFFICIAL STATEMENTS,’ SEAN SPICER SAYS, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTING WHITE HOUSE AIDES (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-tweets-spicer-official-statements-621919)
Oh, wait...Trump actually did something by announcing Christopher Wray as James Comey's replacement as head of the FBI. Hum, wonder who the heck he is?
Who is Christopher Wray? (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/christopher-wray-who-is-next-fbi-director/)
(CNN)In nominating Christopher Wray to be the next FBI chief, President Donald Trump immediately thrust a low-profile white collar defense lawyer into the public spotlight.
Wray's credentials are classic establishment: a Yale Law School graduate and executive editor of the law review, law clerk to a conservative federal judge, longtime federal prosecutor for decades and top official in the Justice Department under President George W. Bush.
He currently works at King & Spalding as a litigation partner, specializing in the defense of individuals and corporations in white-collar criminal cases -- and even represented New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie during the "Bridgegate" investigation into lane closures at the George Washington Bridge.
Well, there ya go, a classic swamp pedigree. Represented Chris Christie...yep, that fits.
-
... the you know what hit the fan today...
From sizzle to fizzle? ;)
-
From sizzle to fizzle? ;)
Looking forward till tomorrow?
Looking forward to the Presidential Twitter live tweeting?
I'm still trying to figure out what Trump meant when he said to Comey
“Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing you know.”
Wonder what "that thing" was...really kinda creepy...and I'm not the only one:
'I literally wanted to rinse myself off,' ex-FBI agent says of Comey statement (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/james-gagliano-fbi-james-comey-statement-erin-burnett-outfront-cnntv/index.html)
(CNN)When James Comey released seven pages of written testimony on Wednesday, many in Washington -- and beyond -- went searching for precedent, analysis or context. James Gagliano was looking for a shower.
"I read this and I literally wanted to rinse myself off afterwards," said the former FBI agent. "I felt completely disgusted."
(http://thepoliticus.com/sites/default/files/styles/img_blog/public/Trump-Getty-1_1.jpg?itok=GvROvvY0)
-
Back to serious stuff...
Column: Donald Trump is a profoundly incompetent president (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-donald-trump-incompetent-president-chapman-perspec-20201010-column.html)
What do the directors of the Transportation Security Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the FBI have in common?
Easy question, you may think: They are all important law enforcement officials with roles in combating terrorism. But at the moment, they have nothing in common. Why? Because they don't exist.
The jobs, you see, are vacant. Each has to be filled by presidential appointment, and Donald Trump has felt no urgency in filling them. Only this week did he even offer names for the TSA and FBI.
That is not his only lapse when it comes to protecting Americans from danger. In January, 47 U.S. attorneys resigned, and in March, he fired the remaining 46 federal prosecutors. So far, the president has yet to submit a nomination for any of the vacancies.
The people who voted for Trump knew they would be getting a disrupter, a critic of business-as-usual and an enemy of political correctness. Many also realized they were electing a bully and a braggart. But they may not have known what they were getting above all else: an incompetent.
--snip--
Trump's incompetence is self-perpetuating. A clueless executive is forced to rely on aides who are mediocre — or worse — because better people are repelled. Vacant jobs and poor staff work, aggravated by bad management, lead to more failure, which makes it even harder to attract strong hires — and easier for opponents to get their way.
Expect more of the same. Trump came to office uninformed, unprepared and oblivious to his shortcomings, with no capacity to recognize or overcome them. He is in way over his head, and not waving but drowning.
-
For those people who are under the impression that Trump and his administration have a clue how to make America Great again, it's not looking too good.
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/06/RTX39IES/lead_large.jpg?1496860479)
The Potemkin Policies of Donald Trump (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/donald-trump-economic-policies/529554/)
The simplest summary of White House economic policy to date is four words long: There is no policy.
It’s “Infrastructure Week” at the White House. Theoretically.
On Monday, the administration announced a plan to spend $200 billion on infrastructure and overhaul U.S. air traffic control. There was a high-profile signing in the East Wing before dozens of cheering lawmakers and industry titans. It was supposed to be the beginning of a weeklong push to fix America’s roads, bridges, and airports.
But in the next two days, Trump spent more energy burning metaphorical bridges than trying to build literal ones. He could have stayed on message for several hours, gathered Democrats and Republicans to discuss a bipartisan agreement, and announced a timeframe. Instead he quickly turned his attention to Twitter to accuse media companies of “Fake News” while undermining an alliance with Qatar based on what may be, fittingly, a fake news story.
It’s a microcosm of this administration’s approach to public policy. A high-profile announcement, coupled with an ambitious promise, subsumed by an unrelated, self-inflicted public-relations crisis, followed by … nothing.
The secret of the Trump infrastructure plan is: There is no infrastructure plan. Just like there is no White House tax plan. Just like there was no White House health care plan. More than 120 days into Trump’s term in a unified Republican government, Trump’s policy accomplishments have been more in the subtraction category (e.g., stripping away environmental regulations) than addition. The president has signed no major legislation and left significant portions of federal agencies unstaffed, as U.S. courts have blocked what would be his most significant policy achievement, the legally dubious immigration ban.
The simplest summary of White House economic policy to date is four words long: There is no policy.
Trump is great at promising stuff...often in just two weeks...
In Trump’s White House, Everything’s Coming in ‘Two Weeks’ (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-06/in-trump-s-white-house-everything-s-coming-in-two-weeks)
President Donald Trump has a plan. It’ll be ready in two weeks.
From overhauling the tax code to releasing an infrastructure package to making decisions on Nafta and the Paris climate agreement, Trump has a common refrain: A big announcement is coming in just “two weeks.” It rarely does.
On Feb. 9, Trump boasted that his administration was “way ahead of schedule” on a tax overhaul.
“We’re going to be announcing something I would say over the next two or three weeks that will be phenomenal in terms of tax and developing our aviation infrastructure,” Trump said while meeting with airline executives.
Eleven weeks elapsed before the White House released a one-page outline of the tax plan.
In an April 29 interview on “CBS This Morning” Trump said of his promised $1 trillion infrastructure construction program: “We’ve got the plan largely completed and we’ll be filing over the next two or three weeks -- maybe sooner,” Trump said.
No legislation has been filed. The White House has yet to outline the plan, beyond broad principles described in Trump’s proposed budget.
-
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-approval-rating-better-bill-clintons-first-term-621853
Then this happened...
Poll: Trump's approval rating dips to 34% (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating-quinnipiac/index.html)
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's approval rating is at 34%, a new Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday finds, a slight dip from the last time the university surveyed the President's popularity.
Fifty-seven percent of surveyed voters said they do not approve of the job the President is doing in office. When Quinnipiac University polled Trump's popularity in mid-May, 37% approved compared to 55% who disapproved.
Wednesday's survey marks a new low for Trump's approval rating in Quinnipiac's polling -- his previous low was 35% in an April 4 edition of the poll.
So, I think that means Trump beat Clinton again...
:~)
-
Well, something not having to do with Flynn or Comey or Russia (but it does include the Trumpster)
Democrats to sue Trump over conflicts of interest (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/07/democrats-donald-trump-sue-conflict-of-interest-239262)
Dozens of House and Senate Democrats plan to sue President Donald Trump in the coming weeks, claiming he is breaking the law by refusing to relinquish ownership of his sprawling real-estate empire while it continues to profit from business with foreign governments.
The lawsuit follows months of threats from Democratic lawmakers that Trump, by refusing to sell off his companies or place them in a blind trust, is in ongoing violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause — which prohibits the president from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments — and might face consequences.
“We’ll be suing to stop his violations of the emoluments clause,” senior House Judiciary member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) confirmed in an interview. The lawsuit won’t be filed until next week at the earliest but dozens of Democrats on both sides of the Capitol have already signed on in support, Nadler said.
The legal case is just the latest volley in an ongoing war between the White House and lawmakers — mostly Democrats — over potential conflicts of interests related to the Trump corporation’s overseas business deals and foreign governments looking to curry favor with the administration.
-
Time for a chuckle : From here (http://b3ta.com/blog/who-knew-that-if-you-turned-donald-duck-upside-down-you-get-the-other-donald/)
-
The people who voted for Trump knew they would be getting a disrupter, a critic of business-as-usual and an enemy of political correctness. Many also realized they were electing a bully and a braggart. But they may not have known what they were getting above all else: an incompetent.
I can agree with that.
Trump's incompetence is self-perpetuating. A clueless executive is forced to rely on aides who are mediocre — or worse — because better people are repelled. Vacant jobs and poor staff work, aggravated by bad management, lead to more failure, which makes it even harder to attract strong hires — and easier for opponents to get their way
And that.
That's why I said that those who resigned in protest, or refused appointments, are not just hurting Trump, but the nation.
-
That's an odd way to look at it. I'd have thought that it was Trump who was harming the nation.
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnuJcdVz8nM
-
So, now there's scientific evidence that Trump is hazardous to your health!
Could the Stress of a Trump Presidency Make Americans Sick? (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/could-stress-trump-presidency-make-americans-sick-n769441)
(https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_23/2029481/170607-govt-protest-ac-542p_c5457b22aa348f6ffa5459cbc6d1d678.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg)
Donald Trump’s presidency could make Americans sicker — and not just from the stress of his polarizing politics, a pair of Harvard experts argued Wednesday. His administration’s proposed cuts to health and well-being programs could also hurt the population's health, if history is anything to go by, they said.
The bad effects could last well into the next generation, because some of the most strongly documented fallout hits pregnant women, whose babies go on to suffer lifetime consequences when mothers suffer physical and psychological stress, the two experts said.
Their commentary, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms1702111), points to study after study documenting health effects that occur after landmark elections. “We have enough evidence to say this is a cautionary tale,” David Williams, a Harvard expert on social influences on health, told NBC News. Many studies have shown stress levels on the rise since Trump’s election, both among his opponents and supporters.
“Events came together to create an unprecedented moment with the levels of hostility being reported,” Williams said.
“I do think we are in a moment of stress.”
#Don'tWorryBeHappy
-
So, now there's scientific evidence that Trump is hazardous to your health!
Could the Stress of a Trump Presidency Make Americans Sick? (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/could-stress-trump-presidency-make-americans-sick-n769441)
(https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_23/2029481/170607-govt-protest-ac-542p_c5457b22aa348f6ffa5459cbc6d1d678.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg)
#Don'tWorryBeHappy
Only from Harvard professors could such silliness emerge. I wonder how much the taxpayers paid for their research? Maybe we should become a dictatorship and eliminate voting totally so everyone could be healthier by avoiding the stressful campaign and decision making processes of an democratic election.
-
Only from Harvard professors could such silliness emerge. I wonder how much the taxpayers paid for their research? Maybe we should become a dictatorship and eliminate voting totally so everyone could be healthier by avoiding the stressful campaign and decision making processes of an democratic election.
So, are Harvard "professors" (actually they're Ph.D., M.P.H. & M.D., M.Div.) #FakeDoctors?
Did you even bother to click on the url and see what they're talking about?
A small but growing body of evidence suggests that election campaigns can have both positive and negative effects on health. Campaigns that give voice to the disenfranchised have been shown to have positive but short-term effects on health. Such associations have been observed among black South Africans at the time of Nelson Mandela’s 1994 election, among black Americans during Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign, and among Hispanic and black Americans when Barack Obama was nominated for President in 2008. Thus, increases in psychological well-being, pride, and hope for the future are likely to be evident among Donald Trump supporters.
At the same time, events linked to the recent presidential campaign and election have given rise to fear and anxiety in many Americans. Research suggests that these events can have negative health effects on people who have been direct targets of what they perceive as hostility or discrimination and on individuals and communities who feel vulnerable because they belong to a stigmatized, marginalized, or targeted group. It is worth exploring the scientific research in this area and considering its implications for health care providers.
So, what, are you against medical/scientific research in general or only such research done at Harvard?
Pardon me if I don't think people with small minds should be in charge of research in medicine and science. Maybe it's best to leave that to people with Ph.D. and/or M.D. after their names.
-
So, who do YOU believe?
WHITE HOUSE: Trump is 'not a liar' (http://www.businessinsider.com/huckabee-sanders-liar-trump-lies-comey-testimony)
President Donald Trump's deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, told reporters at an off-camera press briefing on Thursday that Trump is "not a liar."
"I can definitively say the president is not a liar and I think it's frankly insulting that question would be asked," Sanders said, according to CNN.
Or...
Comey: White House Lied ‘Plain and Simple’ About Firing (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/comey-testifying-senators-trump-russia-n769701)
WASHINGTON — Fired FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday that he was "confused" and "concerned" when President Donald Trump told the public he was firing him for undermining the morale of the agency he had led since 2013.
"Those were lies, plain and simple," Comey said.
The Trump administration, he said, "chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader."
Remember, Comey was under oath...neither Trump, his attorney nor Sarah Huckabee Sanders were under oath. Just thought I would point that out :~)
Lying under oath is a crime, lying in front of cameras at a press conference isn't.
So, who's telling the truth?
-
Here's a brief aside from the Spelling Nazis. Just for Alan. :)
I cnduo’t bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg, Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltter be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istelf, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aazming huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt!
-
An LGBT group says it was denied a float at a gay pride parade in Charlotte, North Carolina, because it supports Donald Trump.
“Gays for Trump” had submitted an application to display a float during this year’s Charlotte Pride parade. “We wanted to have a couple of drag queens on the float dancing in ‘Make America Great Again’ dresses. "For a group of people to claim to want tolerance, acceptance, and give it to every single person you can imagine to give it to, for them to sit back and judge me for exercising my right as an American to choose my leader without judgment is hypocritical," Gays for Trump organizer Brian Talbert said.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/us/pride-float-trump-trnd/index.html
-
So, are Harvard "professors" (actually they're Ph.D., M.P.H. & M.D., M.Div.) #FakeDoctors?
Did you even bother to click on the url and see what they're talking about?
So, what, are you against medical/scientific research in general or only such research done at Harvard?
Pardon me if I don't think people with small minds should be in charge of research in medicine and science. Maybe it's best to leave that to people with Ph.D. and/or M.D. after their names.
These forums are stressing people out. :)
-
So, who do YOU believe?
WHITE HOUSE: Trump is 'not a liar' (http://www.businessinsider.com/huckabee-sanders-liar-trump-lies-comey-testimony)
Or...
Comey: White House Lied ‘Plain and Simple’ About Firing (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/comey-testifying-senators-trump-russia-n769701)
Remember, Comey was under oath...neither Trump, his attorney nor Sarah Huckabee Sanders were under oath. Just thought I would point that out :~)
Lying under oath is a crime, lying in front of cameras at a press conference isn't.
So, who's telling the truth?
For the FBI director you and other Hillary supporters blame for losing her the election, and who also said he 's a terrible director and should be fired because of it, you now are supporting the same guy with a lot of excuses for all his screw-ups and mismanagement. Trump didn't defame him as he said, he defamed himself. One thing he did publically admit, finally at the hearing, was that Trump didn't collude with the Russians. That's what Trump wanted him to say for months after he told Trump privately that he wasn't under investigation. He publicly revealed investigation status about Hillary. He should have done it with Trump, who was president. The Director was holding the president hostage to doing America's business with Russia because he would clear the cloud over the President regarding accusation of collusion.
The cloud that you and the Democrats constant implying he was colluding did not let Trump act with the Russians without having to be accused he's was being nice to them because of it. Now with that cleared up, Trump can move ahead with American interests as they relate to the Russians. I think that's why Trump fired him. Because he was screwing up how Trump would be able to deal with the Russians by allowing that belief to just lie out there. He didn't fired him because of the mismanagement of Hillary's email server even though the Assistant Attorney General stated that was mismanagement. Trump wasn't concerned about Hillary but rather dealing with the Russians.
Let me add too, that Trump also asked for everyone to leave Hillary alone regarding her servers. It was time to move on. So one could expect him to hope people would do the same thing with his friend Flynn for not filing form as a lobbyist for a foreign country before operating as such.
-
Les - that's a bit like the KKK complaining they can't join a protest march in favour of free speech. You can be tolerant of anyone/everyone, but it doesn't mean you have to actually spend time with them or invite them to your parade (literally).
-
Les - that's a bit like the KKK complaining they can't join a protest march in favour of free speech. You can be tolerant of anyone/everyone, but it doesn't mean you have to actually spend time with them or invite them to your parade (literally).
Certainly they have the right to invite who they want. But they're being pretty stupid. First off, Ivanka and Jarad support their community whole hardily. Trump, as Cruz mentioned during the campaign, is a New York liberal. He doesn't harbor any ill will toward them. Could care less. Would love for them to buy his condos. Most important, by including a "Trump" contingent, it shows the world they are truly open to freedom of self expression and political beliefs. They would gain a lot of support from Trumpers. They're cutting the noses off to spite their faces. This is what's happening with a lot of Trump haters. Their anger and resentment is so deep and irrational, they can't see straight.
-
Their anger and resentment is so deep and irrational, they can't see straight.
It's not anger and resentment they feel. It's astonishment and dismay.
-
Les - that's a bit like the KKK complaining they can't join a protest march in favour of free speech. You can be tolerant of anyone/everyone, but it doesn't mean you have to actually spend time with them or invite them to your parade (literally).
Phil, I'm only reporting.
Personally, I wouldn't go there. The traffic into and around Charlotte is terrible. I was caught up there twice on my drives to Florida. both on #77 and #277, it's not a pleasant experience.
Speaking about banning some groups in Pride parades - The Toronto Pride Committe bans all policemen taking part in the parade (in their uniforms).
-
Les - I know, I was more just putting my reply in context by mentioning you as I hadn't hit "quote" :-)
Alan - Trump is not an inclusive or tolerant person - he makes exceptions, though, if you pay him (cf. wants a Muslim ban but happy to get an award from and sell to Saudi Arabia).
-
Les - I know, I was more just putting my reply in context by mentioning you as I hadn't hit "quote" :-)
Alan - Trump is not an inclusive or tolerant person - he makes exceptions, though, if you pay him (cf. wants a Muslim ban but happy to get an award from and sell to Saudi Arabia).
Tolerance is a two way street. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Trump doesn't like people who oppose him. If they would show him some respect and support as the pro-Trump LGBT group wanted to do by joining the LGBT parade, they may find they'll get his support in return. You can't bash him and expect him to reward you in return.
-
No, Trump doesn't respect anyone but himself. He tolerates people who make him look good or give him money. He isn't respected because he hasn't earned any respect.
-
The cloud that you and the Democrats constant implying he was colluding did not let Trump act with the Russians without having to be accused he's was being nice to them because of it. Now with that cleared up, Trump can move ahead with American interests as they relate to the Russians. I think that's why Trump fired him.
I don't know if Trump was personally involved in colluding with the Russians. As it stands all we actually know based on Comey's testimony is that he did indeed tell Trump he was not being personally investigated. But that does not clear the Trump Presidential Campaign of collusion–that's being investigated. So, the only thing "cleared up" is Trump himself isn't under investigated...the investigation into Russian interference and potential collusion by Trump "satellites" (Trump's word according to Comey) and that investigation is on going and is being conducted by Special Council Robert Mueller. So, in no way has Trump's "Russian Problem" gone away...
But, you dodged the question, who is lying; Trump or Comey?
A career huckster who is a pathological bullshiter or a career law enforcement professional?
Somebody is telling the truth and somebody is lying...
-
Not to beat a dead horse (well, ok, I'm beating a dead horse because we all already know that Trump is a liar) but, we've been down this road since, well, forever. The "Birther Movement" comes to mind :~(
A Nation Bursts Into Laughter As White House Responds To Comey By Declaring Trump Isn’t A Liar (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/08/white-house-trump-liar.html)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/huckabee-sanders-1.jpg)
The country burst out laughing as the White House Deputy Press Secretary hid off camera for the press briefing while announcing that she can say "definitively" that Trump "is not a liar."
After James Comey had called President Trump a liar While testifying before the Senate, Trump White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in an off-camera briefing, “I can definitively say the President is not a liar.”
The White House’s claim that Trump isn’t a liar is itself a lie. Trump is the biggest liar in presidential history. PolitiFact found that only 17% of Trump’s statements are true. There has never been a president with a more extensively proven track record of lying than Donald Trump. For the White House to stand in front of the country and defend Trump’s honesty, it demonstrates that no one working at the White House has a single shred of credibility.
And, in case you've forgotten so many of Trump's lies, Politifact (http://www.politifact.com) has a running list of Trump's lies (currently up to June 4th 2017).
(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-false.png)
All False statements involving Donald Trump (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/?page=1)
-
So, who do YOU believe?
I believe Comey.
Trump tweets and White House statements provided several (sometimes conflicting) statements on why Comey was fired. My analysis is that if you need so many reasons to exlpain why you did it you're seeking excuses and not telling the truth. And Alan, this is not coming from biased liberal media, these different statements and tweets all came directly from the horse's mouth.
-
I believe Comey.
Trump tweets and White House statements provided several (sometimes conflicting) statements on why Comey was fired. My analysis is that if you need so many reasons to exlpain why you did it you're seeking excuses and not telling the truth. And Alan, this is not coming from biased liberal media, these different statements and tweets all came directly from the horse's mouth.
Are you sure they came from the mouth end, Pieter?
-
Are you sure they came from the mouth end, Pieter?
Haha, with his tweets you're indeed never sure. Maybe that's why the official White House spokespersons say we shouldn't pay attention to them :)
-
I feel so out of time. People are discussing what Trump says in his tweets, how truth or crazy or not they are, but I'm still a little annoyed that he tweets at all. It's so undignified. I said it the first time I saw him speak, he's just one of those used car salesman that make those lame pitches on late night local cable channels.
-
Out of all of the articles on CNN there was only really one I was concerned enough about to read yesterday, and the only one that would actually have an effect on the country, the one about the repeal of Dodd-Frank, which should be repealed.
Maybe the rest of America doesn't care about that either?
Cheers,
Bart
-
The Dow is up 100 points today despite Britain and Comey. The stock market, jobs, etc are what got Trump elected. If the economy does well, the Republicans will keep Congress in 2018 and Trump will get re-elected in 2020.
-
The Dow is up 100 points today despite Britain and Comey. The stock market, jobs, etc are what got Trump elected. If the economy does well, the Republicans will keep Congress in 2018 and Trump will get re-elected in 2020.
One wonders, who is trying to fool who?
Trump's 'infrastructure week' goes off the rails
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/337046-trumps-infrastructure-week-goes-off-the-rails
"The White House's self-proclaimed "infrastructure week" has generated a flurry of headlines on nearly everything else.
Part of the reason the initiative was overshadowed was ex-FBI Director James Comey's gripping testimony on Capitol Hill, which commanded the attention of Washington and major cable news networks all week.
But much of the derailment on the infrastructure rollout has been of President Trump's own making. He repeatedly veered off message in tweets and during infrastructure-themed speeches, flouting some of White House staffers’ carefully laid plans.
“They tried really hard, and certainly several people inside care deeply about this,” said Marcia Hale, president of Building America’s Future, who worked under the Clinton administration.
“But inside the White House, you have to have incredible discipline to stay on message, regardless of what else happens. Everyone inside has to be on the same page, and that just didn’t happen.”
The White House launched a weeklong infrastructure initiative designed to ramp up support for Trump’s $1 trillion rebuilding proposal, which has yet to be fully released but remains a top priority for the president."
Oh well, another week lost. No, wait, there was this important signing:
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/06/06/us/06dc-air2/06dc-air2-master768.jpg)
President Trump signed a memo on Monday outlining the principles of his plan to privatize the nation’s air traffic control system. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Trump Just Held a Signing. He Had Nothing to Sign
http://time.com/4805726/donald-trump-air-traffic-privatization-document-signing/
"After announcing his goal to privatize the nation's Air Traffic Control System, President Donald Trump sat down at a desk on Monday and signed two documents. There was only one problem: He wasn't actually signing something that would have any tangible impact on what he had just proposed.
A White House aide told reporters Trump had signed a "a decision memo and letter transmitting legislative principles to Congress," surrounding the privatization of the Air Traffic Control system, which he had just spent the last few minutes advocating for. But in order for his goal to come to fruition, Congress would need to pass legislation implementing it. Before Trump gave remarks Monday, White House officials had told reporters that the President is only dictating his legislative goals of separating air traffic controls from the FAA. Congress is not required to follow through on these goals."
Cheers,
Bart
-
If the economy does well, the Republicans will keep Congress in 2018 and Trump will get re-elected in 2020.
Right.
Because that's more important than anything else.
-
So what's the overall feeling in the USA with Trump? That his administration will last the course OK or that it is too compromised and chaotic to work and that eventually he'll be forced to hand over to Mr Pence if only to ensure competent government (and thus competent stewardship of the economy)? I had the feeling from a few snippets on TV here that Comey probably marked by beginning of the end even if no charges are ever brought. I suspect it may be a simple thing really. Too many people at home and abroad don't like the guy and don't want to work with him - that's my impression, anyway - for his administration to succeed.
-
Right.
Because that's more important than anything else.
-
So what's the overall feeling in the USA with Trump?
It depends on where one is at, but many are still very bitter about it (e.g., just browse the previous thread that was locked by admin).
I, for example, am in a blue (democrat/socialist) county surrounded by red (republican/conservative) counties (http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/illinois/). If I were to walk down the street saying, "I love Trump!" I would be angrily confronted by one or more democrat/socialist citizen. If I were to go 50 miles in any direction and do the same thing, I would be given the thumbs-up sign with a smile.
How do I know? I tried it, and it was sadly disappointing.
As an aside, that election map of Illinois (11 counties out of 102 voting democrat/blue and carrying the state) was very similar to the overall map of the USA. Blue/democrat counties are clustered in metro/urban areas and red/republican counties are spread throughout the rest of the country.
-
I believe Comey.
Trump tweets and White House statements provided several (sometimes conflicting) statements on why Comey was fired. My analysis is that if you need so many reasons to exlpain why you did it you're seeking excuses and not telling the truth. And Alan, this is not coming from biased liberal media, these different statements and tweets all came directly from the horse's mouth.
Trump stated he fired Comey because of Russia, that he refused to acknowledge publicly that Trump was not under investigation regarding any collusion. Just re-read all the posts in this thread by Jeff and others accusing Trump of collusion. This tied the presidents hands in dealing with Russia.
So you have a subordinate controlling his boss's action to do America's business with a foreign power. If Comey could revel publicly that Hillary was no longer under investigation regarding her email server, certainly Comey should have removed the false cloud over Trump a lot earlier than at his hearing yesterday. If he didn't want to make the decision to take the cloud away, he should have provided the information to the Department of Justice who he works for to make the decision. He deserved to be fired so Trump can now do America's business with a free hand.
As an aside, you can add to that his total mismanagement of the Hillary email server issue that even Democrats wanted him fired. As Director of the FBI, he had no authority to decide what should happen to Hillary. His job was to investigate. The department of Justice (Attorney general or her associate) should have made the decision whether to indict or not.
Now that the cloud has been lifted, expect to see more American discussions and meetings with Russia. We have to be discussing things with them. Creating a better atmosphere between America and Russia will benefit Europe as well. Two nuclear superpowers having tanks aimed at each other in Eastern Zeurope is too threatening to the world to have the American president's hands tied with limiting ability to negotiate. Don't you want to see things quieted down there?
-
Right.
Because that's more important than anything else.
The economy including trade and jobs is the main reason he got elected. So, yes. It's more important than anything else.
-
Sorry Slobodan. I didn't notice your cartoon post before I posted.
-
So what's the overall feeling in the USA with Trump? That his administration will last the course OK or that it is too compromised and chaotic to work and that eventually he'll be forced to hand over to Mr Pence if only to ensure competent government (and thus competent stewardship of the economy)? I had the feeling from a few snippets on TV here that Comey probably marked by beginning of the end even if no charges are ever brought. I suspect it may be a simple thing really. Too many people at home and abroad don't like the guy and don't want to work with him - that's my impression, anyway - for his administration to succeed.
You really have to stop watching liberal media only. I realize 95% of the world's media is biased liberal, but you need to get some balance.
Comey helped Trump today because he removed the cloud of collusion over him. Now Trump can deal with the Russians. (see my previous post on this). The President still has a Republican controlled congress. So all the wheels of Washington power are Republican. You've been so caught up in the liberal press's "let's destroy Trump" campaign, you haven't been paying attention to what Trump has been doing domestically and internationally to reverse Obama's lackluster administrations and liberal direction.
Regarding Pence becoming President, there's no way Trump will get impeached, much less convicted by the 2/3 vote of the Senate. The only way Pence will become President if Trump dies in office. If the democrats want to regain power, they have to come up with a real plan of how they intend to help Americans rather than relying on calling the President obscene names. Anyway, Trump, as you saw in the campaign, is better at that then anyone else.
-
The economy including trade and jobs is the main reason he got elected. So, yes. It's more important than anything else.
Of course it is. To Trump supporters.
To the rest of us? Perhaps not.
-
Sorry Slobodan. I didn't notice your cartoon post before I posted.
Which, I have to add, was meaningless. I can use Photoshop, too.
-
Of course it is. To Trump supporters.
To the rest of us? Perhaps not.
If the economy isn't important, what is?
-
If the economy isn't important, what is?
"When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that we cannot eat money." -- unknown.
-
"When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that we cannot eat money." -- unknown.
I don't think people want to hurt the environment. We've cleaned up our waterways an air, not perfect but a lot better than it use to be. Not to sure about the fishing. I've stopped by a couple of lakes recently where I live, and I haven't caught a damn thing yet. Must be the bait I'm using.
But people want a good economy too. If you're out of work or have a job that's paying less than you use to earn, it's more difficult to feed your family. Trump appealed to those people and got elected. It's hard to get votes from these people arguing that their great great great grandchildren will have to contend with ocean levels 8 inches higher than today when everyone today will be long dead. That's too abstract. Not urgent enough. Democrats have to do better than that.
-
I don't think people want to hurt the environment. We've cleaned up our waterways an air, not perfect but a lot better than it use to be. Not to sure about the fishing. I've stopped by a couple of lakes recently where I live, and I haven't caught a damn thing yet. Must be the bait I'm using.
But people want a good economy too. If you're out of work or have a job that's paying less than you use to earn, it's more difficult to feed your family. Trump appealed to those people and got elected. It's hard to get votes from these people arguing that their great great great grandchildren will have to contend with ocean levels 8 inches higher than today when everyone today will be long dead. That's too abstract. Not urgent enough. Democrats have to do better than that.
Never mind the fish.
A much bigger problem is the declining bee population. When all the bees die, we'll lose flowers, plants and many fruits and vegetables. All we'll have left will be Monsanto corn, heavily fortified with Roundup.
-
Which, I have to add, was meaningless. I can use Photoshop, too.
Nothing to do with Photoshop. It is Clinton's 1992 campaign catch phrase.
-
Trump stated he fired Comey because of Russia, that he refused to acknowledge publicly that Trump was not under investigation regarding any collusion. Just re-read all the posts in this thread by Jeff and others accusing Trump of collusion.
First off, you would do well not to put words in my mouth. I'm pretty darn sure you won't find a post by me accusing Trump of collusion. I'm pretty sure I've been careful of stating facts as I've read and understood them and being incredulous that Trump STILL refuses to accept that Russia meddled on our election with the purpose of helping Trump and hurting Hillary. I speculate that the investigation into the Russian meddling may indeed find some collusion or coordination between members of Trumps campaign and Wikileaks and Russians. I also think it will be tough proving it.
I also think that people who have been involved with Trump and his campaign–his "satellites" as it were have engaged in what are likely to be illegal activities and are likely facing prosecution and possible jail time. That's why Flynn is asking for immunity and why I suspect Paul Manafort is working with the FBI investigations...
As far as why Trump said he fired Comey, uh, well, it seems now you're putting words in Trump's mouth as well. This is what Trump said to Lest Holt about why he fired Comey:
TRUMP: Look, he's a showboat. He's a grandstander.
The FBI has been in turmoil. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that.
You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil -- less than a year ago. It hasn't recovered from that.
HOLT: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
TRUMP: Right.
HOLT: Did you ask for a recommendation?
TRUMP: What I did is I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not...
HOLT: You had made the decision before they came into your office (ph).
TRUMP: I -- I was going to fire Comey. I -- there's no good time to do it, by the way.
They...
HOLT: Because in your letter, you said...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: They -- they were...
HOLT: ...I -- I accepted -- accepted their recommendations.
TRUMP: Yeah, well, they also...
HOLT: So, you had already made the decision.
TRUMP: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.
HOLT: So, there was...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: They -- he made a recommendation. He's highly respected. Very good guy, very smart guy.
And the Democrats like him. The Republicans like him.
He had made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it
And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won.
And the reason they should've won it is the electoral college is almost impossible for a Republican to win. It's very hard because you start off at such a disadvantage. So, everybody was thinking they should've won the election. This was an excuse for having lost an election.
HOLT: But were -- are you angry...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: ...angry with Mr. Comey because of his Russia investigation?
TRUMP: I just want somebody that's competent. I am a big fan of the FBI. I love the FBI.
HOLT: But were you a fan of...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: ...people of the FBI.
HOLT: him taking up that investigation?
TRUMP: I think that -- about the Hillary Clinton investigation?
HOLT: No, about -- about the Russian investigation and possible...
TRUMP: No, I don't care...
HOLT: ...links between...
TRUMP: Look -- look, let me tell you. As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly.
When I did this now, I said I probably maybe will confuse people. Maybe I'll expand that -- you know, I'll lengthen the time because it should be over with. It should -- in my opinion, should've been over with a long time ago because it -- all it is an excuse.
But I said to myself I might even lengthen out the investigation. But I have to do the right thing for the American people.
He's the wrong man for that position.
Huh? So, tell me why Trump fired Comey again? Does what Trump said make any sense?
Now we do have notes of what Trump said to the Russians about firing Comey: “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off. I’m not under investigation." Ok, Comey agrees that he's not under investigation for collusion.
What Trump STILL doesn't get is that at least up till now, he, Trump wasn't under investigation but the Trump campaign sure was–since July 2016 and THAT investigation is far from over...and while Trump STILL doesn't believe Russia meddled in our election, the FBI and two congressional committees are investigating Russia's involvement and additionally, whether there was any collusion between the Russians and anybody from the Trump campaign.
So, while Trump himself may not be under investigation, the other investigations are going full speed ahead and now there's a new investigator on the scene by the name of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Who announced the hiring of top criminal law expert Michael Dreeben (which is really bad news for anybody who has anything to hide).
Top criminal law expert joins special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-criminal-law-expert-joins-special-counsel-robert-muellers-russia-probe/2017/06/09/daafb86e-4d45-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.772d1e8b1cd5)
One of the federal government’s top criminal law specialists is joining the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III centered on possible coordination between President Trump’s associates and Russian officials.
Justice Department deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, is the department’s go-to lawyer on criminal justice cases and is highly respected by Democrats and Republicans because of his encyclopedic knowledge of criminal law.
Dreeben will work part time for Mueller, according to Justice officials, while he continues to oversee the department’s criminal appellate cases.
Former and current Justice Department officials say that Mueller’s recruitment of Dreeben shows how serious he is about the investigation and signals complexities in the probe.
“Michael is the most brilliant and most knowledgeable federal criminal lawyer in America — period,” said Walter Dellinger, a law professor at Duke University School of Law and acting solicitor general for the 1996-1997 term of the Supreme Court.
So, there's President Trump who decided to fire Comey because of that Russian stuff and low and behold now the investigation is being done by a special council, the FBI and two intelligence committees in congress.
Naw, I don't think Trump's "Russian Problem" is going away any time soon...sorry Alan :~(
-
Ooops, with all the Comey drama I missed this one...
Fox News’ Neil Cavuto Calls Out Donald Trump: Stop Scapegoating. You Are The Problem. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-news-neil-cavuto-host-calls-out-trump-you-are-the-problem_us_593791b2e4b0ce1e7408e7f6)
Video link to Cavuto's rant (https://youtu.be/pQK-Z50f5QI)
“Mr. President, it is not the fake news media that’s your problem. It’s you.”
Fox News host Neil Cavuto devoted a segment on his Tuesday show to giving some “common sense” advice to President Donald Trump.
Following days of Twitter outbursts about “fake news” and London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s handling of the weekend’s deadly terrorist attack, Cavuto spoke directly to Trump. “Mr. President, it is not the fake news media that’s your problem. It’s you,” he said.
The host continued to call out the president for “scapegoating,” “feeding [his own] beast,” and “acting beastly with [his] own guys.” Cavuto criticized Trump for alienating members of his own party and creating the very distractions he blames for derailing his presidential agenda. He then urged the president to listen to his once-friendly allies.
“Use these critiques you’re now hearing from usually friendly and supportive allies as sort of like an intervention,” Cavuto suggested. “Because firing off these angry missives and tweets risk your political destruction.”
-
A nice send off for the nite...I heard what Ryan said about Trump. Somehow, not knowing what he's doing isn't really a good answer ya know?
Pleading ignorance (https://news.vice.com/story/the-gops-defense-trump-just-doesnt-know-what-hes-doing)
GOP defends Trump: He just doesn't know what he's doing
Republicans have a novel way of defending the president: Trump just has no idea what he’s doing.
That strategy was on display during and after ex-FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday detailing President Trump’s attempts to influence the FBI’s Russia probe, which included a meeting in the Oval Office where Trump asked everyone else to leave the room before he pressured Comey to drop the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The president’s defenders on Capitol Hill chalked it up to the fact that Trump isn’t a politician or a lawyer and has no background in how to interact with law enforcement.
“The president’s new at this,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said at a press conference during the hearing. “He’s new at government.”
Ryan added that Trump wasn’t “steeped in the long-running protocols” of how presidents should interact with the FBI. Presidents are generally advised against talking to the FBI about pending investigations — especially ones that involve former members of their administration — in order to avoid even the appearance of obstructing justice.
Ya know, learning on the job isn't a great idea when you have somebody in office that has zero experience doing anything other that real estate and playing golf. He hasn't done well when he's stepped out of his wheel house.
Think Atlantic City and his casino–I mean, how can you go bankrupt running a casino? I think his presidency will end in a similar manner–disaster.
-
Trump stated he fired Comey because of Russia, that he refused to acknowledge publicly that Trump was not under investigation regarding any collusion.
Yes, this was one of the reasons he communicated, but he also stated he fired Comey because he mishandles the Clinton investigation and a bunch of other unrelated reasons. That was my point, among these reasons there's bound to be several things that were not true.
I don't disagree with the other points you made, better relations between the US and Russia would be beneficial, primarily in the Middle East but also for Europe. As for Comey not publicly saying Trump was personally not under investigation I read from his statement that he referred this to the justice department and that he told Trump he did so. I think there's a difference between communicating an investigation is closed (the Clinton server investigation) and saying a specific person is not under investigation in an ongoing investigation in which several of his close relations still are under active investigation. So I can see why Comey handled it the way he did.
-
Nothing to do with Photoshop. It is Clinton's 1992 campaign catch phrase.
Which seems like a bit of a distortion of the truth to me. It was intended for an internal audience of campaign workers, and was one of the three main subjects to focus the campaign workers on. The fact that the Bush campaign for some reason apparently happened to ignore the economy in their messages was a lucky coincidence for the Clinton campaign.
By the way, I'm not sure if Clinton ever said those exact words during a speech, as the doctored image suggests.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which seems like a bit of a distortion of the truth to me. It was intended for an internal audience of campaign workers, and was one of the three main subjects to focus the campaign workers on. The fact that the Bush campaign for some reason apparently happened to ignore the economy in their messages was a lucky coincidence for the Clinton campaign.
By the way, I'm not sure if Clinton ever said those exact words during a speech, as the doctored image suggests.
Cheers,
Bart
Oh yeah, these were the exact words by Clinton. And they were repeated thousand times by the press.
-
Oh yeah, these were the exact words by Clinton. And they were repeated thousand times by the press.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid
I'm not sure if one can blame Clinton for the media making a big deal out of one of the campaign workers focus points, that was repeatedly stressed by James Carville, an aide to candidate Bill Clinton. I've searched and found little evidence of Clinton himself saying those words over and over again, as the doctored image suggests (by using a speech balloon instead of a title).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE
But anyway, this is all meant as a distraction from the thread's topic, unless we're talking about laying the blame at others for the deeds one does oneself. Blaming others seems to be the Trump mantra, even contradicting or blaming his staff and other workers.
Saudi and Bahrain welcome Trump's scolding of Qatar
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-idUSKBN1910B6
"Saudi Arabia and Bahrain welcomed on Saturday U.S. President Donald Trump's demand for Qatar to stop supporting terrorism, but did not respond to a U.S. Department of State call for them to ease pressure on the Gulf state."
Yes, the Arabs are playing Trump, and now Tillerson has to do the damage control:
"A separate SPA report on Saturday acknowledged Tillerson's call for Qatar to curtail support for terrorism, but did not mention his remarks that the crisis was hurting ordinary Qataris, impairing business dealings and harming the U.S. fight against the Islamic State militant group."
Trump scolds Qatar as Tillerson seeks to ease crisis
Trump scolds Qatar as Tillerson seeks to ease crisis
Cheers,
Bart
-
If Comey publicly said months ago what he said in Congress two days ago, that Trump was not under investigation for collusion, he'd still be Director.
-
...By the way, I'm not sure if Clinton ever said those exact words during a speech, as the doctored image suggests.
Does it come as a surprise that anti-Trumpers, otherwise known to appear reasonably intelligent prior to his election, now take everything literally?
-
Does it come as a surprise that anti-Trumpers, otherwise known to appear reasonably intelligent prior to his election, now take everything literally?
Since when did innuendo and fake news become the norm?
Cheers,
Bart
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid
I'm not sure if one can blame Clinton for the media making a big deal out of one of the campaign workers focus points, that was repeatedly stressed by James Carville, an aide to candidate Bill Clinton. I've searched and found little evidence of Clinton himself saying those words over and over again, as the doctored image suggests (by using a speech balloon instead of a title).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE
But anyway, this is all meant as a distraction from the thread's topic, unless we're talking about laying the blame at others for the deeds one does oneself. Blaming others seems to be the Trump mantra, even contradicting or blaming his staff and other workers.
Saudi and Bahrain welcome Trump's scolding of Qatar
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-idUSKBN1910B6
"Saudi Arabia and Bahrain welcomed on Saturday U.S. President Donald Trump's demand for Qatar to stop supporting terrorism, but did not respond to a U.S. Department of State call for them to ease pressure on the Gulf state."
Yes, the Arabs are playing Trump, and now Tillerson has to do the damage control:
"A separate SPA report on Saturday acknowledged Tillerson's call for Qatar to curtail support for terrorism, but did not mention his remarks that the crisis was hurting ordinary Qataris, impairing business dealings and harming the U.S. fight against the Islamic State militant group."
Trump scolds Qatar as Tillerson seeks to ease crisis
Trump scolds Qatar as Tillerson seeks to ease crisis
Cheers,
Bart
He's playing "good cop, bad cop". It Trump's modus operandi. (M.O.) NATO, Taiwan, Qatar. He does it all the time. The Qataris, who are losing billions, will be begging Tillerson to help them with his boss, only to happy to comply. "Well," says Tillerson to his distraught Qataris. "I think I can get the President to back off and make things good again with the Saudis and you and us. But you really got to stop helping the terrorists and others who want to hurt us. Should I tell the President you're in his corner?"
Look it up. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/play-good-cop-bad-cop
-
Oh, if it's not clear. Trump is the bad cop and Tillerson is the good cop.
-
The problem with anti-Trump people is that they have so much invested in their beliefs, that they can't see Trump's strategies. They're looking to see the worse out of him so they can denigrate him. The message Trump is sending to the Qataris (and by extension all other countries who think they can support those who are America's enemies), isn't even chess. It's checkers. Yet, anti-Trumpers miss the simplicity in his strategies. You think Trump is stupid, but he's way over your heads. Trust me. The Qataris and the rest of the world, especially those supporting terrorists, get it even if you don't.
-
You think Trump is stupid, but he's way over your heads. Trust me. The Qataris and the rest of the world, especially those supporting terrorists, get it even if you don't.
It is my experience tells me when somebody says "trust me", that is the exact thing not to do. Based on the fact that Trump seems unable to form coherent sentances and string them into meaningful thoughts without reading from a teleprompter, I admit to believing Trump is dim bulb that doesn't have a clue how to govern and that is baced up by the leaders of the GOP saying Trump is new at this being a political operative. Wow when your friends admit you don't know what you are doing, that's not a ringing endorsement...
"Trust me" on that...
:-)
-
If the economy isn't important, what is?
Please stop twisting my (and others') words. I did not say that the economy isn't important.
My dispute was with your original statement which was "Because that's more important than anything else"
-
Please stop twisting my (and others') words. I did not say that the economy isn't important.
My dispute was with your original statement which was "Because that's more important than anything else"
To the voters it was, especially in states that have been under economic pressure and a dearth in jobs. If Trump makes good on his promises about the economy, the republican will do OK in 2018 and Trump will be re-elected in 2020.
-
BTW Alan, I notice you have not responded to my challenge to point to a post where I claimed Trump was guilty of collusion...
You are welcome to quote me when you can but don't put words into people's mouths.
-
It is my experience tells me when somebody says "trust me", that is the exact thing not to do. Based on the fact that Trump seems unable to form coherent sentances and string them into meaningful thoughts without reading from a teleprompter, I admit to believing Trump is dim bulb that doesn't have a clue how to govern and that is baced up by the leaders of the GOP saying Trump is new at this being a political operative. Wow when your friends admit you don't know what you are doing, that's not a ringing endorsement...
"Trust me" on that...
:-)
I agree, Jeff, that he does have problems with public speaking. He confuses words, leaves words out, even gets things wrong often. Well, he's not a lawyer or politician who know how to talk out of both sides of their mouths, who when they're done, you don't know really where they stand. So we're going to have to put up with his malapropisms. (I'm not sure that's the right word.)
I think we all give each other the right to misspell words here in our posts and get the grammar wrong. But, we mainly respond to the points being made in them. We should do the same with Trump. Playing "gotcha" games politically will eventually come back to bite you on the you know what. People eventually "get it" and will sympathize with him because of that kind of game playing.
-
...
-
BTW Alan, I notice you have not responded to my challenge to point to a post where I claimed Trump was guilty of collusion...
You are welcome to quote me when you can but don't put words into people's mouths.
You and the main stream media have continuously hinted that Trump colluded with the Russians. You still did it in that post you referred too. Well, Comey finally put it to bed by confirming under oath before Congress as he told Trump privately months before that there was no investigation of Trump regarding collusion.
So I'm confused by your question. Do you still claim Trump colluded? A simple Yes or No will do. Not some long wordy exclamation that attempts to hide your belief.
-
So I'm confused by your question. Do you still claim Trump colluded? A simple Yes or No will do. Not some long wordy exclamation that attempts to hide your belief.
I don't know if Trump colluded with Russia...neither do you. All I know is that when Comey was director Trump was not personally under investigation. Bet he's under investigation now for obstruction :-)
Feinstein has called for one...
I'm thinking Trump jumped out of the fire and into the frying pan now that there's a special council.
-
Come on, Slobo, I think you are deliberately misleading this forum with that post. Show me an example of a dead man's skeleton saying those words.
Meet Achmed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvfiCdk-jc
He may not have said those words, but then "what does it mean when he speaks words?".
Cheers,
Bart
-
You really have to stop watching liberal media only. I realize 95% of the world's media is biased liberal, but you need to get some balance.
Comey helped Trump today because he removed the cloud of collusion over him. Now Trump can deal with the Russians. (see my previous post on this). The President still has a Republican controlled congress. So all the wheels of Washington power are Republican. You've been so caught up in the liberal press's "let's destroy Trump" campaign, you haven't been paying attention to what Trump has been doing domestically and internationally to reverse Obama's lackluster administrations and liberal direction.
Regarding Pence becoming President, there's no way Trump will get impeached, much less convicted by the 2/3 vote of the Senate. The only way Pence will become President if Trump dies in office. If the democrats want to regain power, they have to come up with a real plan of how they intend to help Americans rather than relying on calling the President obscene names. Anyway, Trump, as you saw in the campaign, is better at that then anyone else.
Thanks. I wasn't really thinking of the usual ding-dong but about the level of competence in government without which a modern state cannot function effectively. It's become a hugely complex business involving countless thousands of people. If enough of them won't play ball, government jobs go unfilled and everything takes a turn for the worse, things just stop working and in the end voters will drop the hammer for all that on a party not just on a leader. I'd have thought that's a potential problem for the Trump administration. If enough people simply won't deal with it, the consequences will land on the Republican Party with Mr Pence smiling in the wings like the Cheshire Cat. It looks to me as if that is the big risk for Trump and entourage, the feeling that they're just not up to the task. Every Congressional hearing, foreign policy cock-up etc. simply weakens him and feeds the perception of incompetence. So I guess the question is for how long will the politicians wear it.
-
I don't know if Trump colluded with Russia...neither do you. All I know is that when Comey was director Trump was not personally under investigation. Bet he's under investigation now for obstruction :-)
Well, I don't know if you robbed a bank or not. But if the FBI director swore under oath that you weren't under investigation, I would give you the benefit of the doubt.
-
I think we all give each other the right to misspell words here in our posts and get the grammar wrong.
OK, fair enough. I'll stop. But understand, please, that with good spelling and grammar comes credibility. With poor spelling and grammar, the opposite. Typos are one thing, crap spelling and grammar another.
The same rules apply to our photography. Most of us can determine a photographer's credibility by viewing his or her images, right?
But, we mainly respond to the points being made in them. We should do the same with Trump.
We would if only we could understand what he's saying. The Mexican president following a meeting with Trump described him as "unintelligible". I agree.
I guess we're supposed to follow Conway's instructions to listen to what he means, not what he says.
-
Does it come as a surprise that anti-Trumpers, otherwise known to appear reasonably intelligent prior to his election, now take everything literally?
How else should we take "everything"?
-
Well, I wouldn't judge your photography by the way you spoke either. I have a good friend who stutters. But he's got a great heart and is a wonderful person. I have to be patient and allow him to get through his sentences to understand what he's trying to say. So let's see what Trump does as president rather than the way he says it. Then we can judge how good or bad a president he is.
-
Well, I don't know if you robbed a bank or not. But if the FBI director swore under oath that you weren't under investigation, I would give you the benefit of the doubt.
Do you understand the difference between "not being under investigation" from "not suspected of collusion"? Comey said Trump wasn't under investigation not that Trump was not suspected of colluding...
Comey said he told Trump he wasn't currently under investigation and declined to make that public because then he would be FORCED to publicly state he WAS under investigation if that changed and the investigation was expanded to include Trump personally.
Just be clear, Trump and his campaign are not out of the woods...the Russian investigation is STILL being conducted to determine what role Russia had in the meddling in the election and whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the people responsible with the meddling.
Flynn and Manafort are people of interest. Flynn wants immunity and his lawyer says he has stories to tell in exchange. Hum wonder what he might say and I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that Trump went way out on a limb to have the FBI quite investigating Flynn? What about Kushner? Think he's under investigation? We know that Federal prosecutors have subpoenas issued by a grand jury issued and a FISA warrant as part of the Russian/Trump Camp investigation...
While the administration has sent out their surrogates with their talking points the fact remains the ONLY thing we now know for a fact is that Comey wasn't investigating Trump personally. We also know Comey says Trump has lied and we know Trump is claiming Comey lied. So, who do you believe?
Either Trump or Comey is lying. Who might it be? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/09/trump-or-comey-lying-guess-who)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170509184450-0509-comey-trump-split-large-169.jpg)
To believe the president’s statement, we must conclude not only that Comey perjured himself but that he is a liar of exceptional premeditation
In emphatically contradicting Comey’s sworn testimony, the president has placed front and center the question that Risch tactically sidestepped. Who is lying – Trump or Comey? What is clear is that the members of the Senate intelligence committee appear unanimous in their agreement that it must be Trump.
Not one senator hazarded as much as a single question challenging Comey’s veracity – not James Lankford, not Tom Cotton, not John Cornyn, three of the Senate’s most reliably conservative members. In a fractious political universe that has worked to destabilize appeals to any shared truths, a bipartisan group of senators made clear their belief that the president was lying.
The conclusion follows not simply from Trump’s long and durable history of mendacity. To believe the president’s statement, we must conclude not only that Comey perjured himself on Thursday but that the former director is a liar of exceptional premeditation and forethought. We must conclude that Comey dashed out of a meeting with the president to fabricate a false contemporaneous account of that meeting which he then maliciously shared with other senior officials.
It's pretty telling that none of the Senators questioned Comey's credibility which pretty much says they believe Comey and not Trump.
-
Do you understand the difference between "not being under investigation" from "not suspected of collusion"? Comey said Trump wasn't under investigation not that Trump was not suspected of colluding...
Comey said he told Trump he wasn't currently under investigation and declined to make that public because then he would be FORCED to publicly state he WAS under investigation if that changed and the investigation was expanded to include Trump personally.
Just be clear, Trump and his campaign are not out of the woods...the Russian investigation is STILL being conducted to determine what role Russia had in the meddling in the election and whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the people responsible with the meddling.
Flynn and Manafort are people of interest. Flynn wants immunity and his lawyer says he has stories to tell in exchange. Hum wonder what he might say and I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that Trump went way out on a limb to have the FBI quite investigating Flynn? What about Kushner? Think he's under investigation? We know that Federal prosecutors have subpoenas issued by a grand jury issued and a FISA warrant as part of the Russian/Trump Camp investigation...
While the administration has sent out their surrogates with their talking points the fact remains the ONLY thing we now know for a fact is that Comey wasn't investigating Trump personally. We also know Comey says Trump has lied and we know Trump is claiming Comey lied. So, who do you believe?
Either Trump or Comey is lying. Who might it be? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/09/trump-or-comey-lying-guess-who)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170509184450-0509-comey-trump-split-large-169.jpg)
It's pretty telling that none of the Senators questioned Comey's credibility which pretty much says they believe Comey and not Trump.
Thanks for answering my question in the affirmative that you believe Trump colluded with the Russians. You have a long and convoluted way of answering, but there it is.
-
Come on, Slobo, I think you are deliberately misleading this forum with that post. Show me an example of a dead man's skeleton saying those words.
;D
-
Thanks for answering my question in the affirmative that you believe Trump colluded with the Russians. You have a long and convoluted way of answering, but there it is.
Again I really don't know...but I sure wouldn't be surprised to find out that there's no proof he himself colluded with the Russians. But I'm convinced Russia sure did try and succeeded in interfering with our election and that Trump would not have won if they didn't. I wonder why Trump clings to his claim it's fake news and thinks it's a conspiracy by the democrats to explain why they lost.
I also believe that there is something very weird about his love of Putin...it defies logic. Everybody else in the weatern world knows they are our enemy.
-
So who's lying, Comey or Trump?
-
Hillary ran an absolutely horrible campaign!
Yep, no question and in spite of that, but I seriously think she still would have squeaked out a win if the DNC wasn't hacked and the drip drip drip of Podesta's emails didn't steal the media's attention. Oh, and that last Comey cockup...
Heck, everybody including the Russians and Trump himself thought she was going to win.
:~)
-
In case we forget about Russia...it ain't a Republican or Democratic things, it's an American thing.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/06/10/us/10dc-assess/10dc-assess-master768.jpg)
An image of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was projected on a screen during an economic forum in St. Petersburg
this month. There is no evidence that Russia has stopped trying to meddle in the American electoral system.
Trump-Comey Feud Eclipses a Warning on Russia: ‘They Will Be Back’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/us/politics/trump-comey-russia-fbi.html?_r=0)
WASHINGTON — Lost in the showdown between President Trump and James B. Comey that played out this past week was a chilling threat to the United States. Mr. Comey, the former director of the F.B.I., testified that the Russians had not only intervened in last year’s election, but would try to do it again.
“It’s not a Republican thing or Democratic thing — it really is an American thing,” Mr. Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee. “They’re going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work on behalf of. And they’re not devoted to either, in my experience. They’re just about their own advantage. And they will be back.”
What started out as a counterintelligence investigation to guard the United States against a hostile foreign power has morphed into a political scandal about what Mr. Trump did, what he said and what he meant by it. Lawmakers have focused mainly on the gripping conflict between the president and the F.B.I. director he fired with cascading requests for documents, recordings and hearings.
But from the headquarters of the National Security Agency to state capitals that have discovered that the Russians were inside their voter-registration systems, the worry is that attention will be diverted from figuring out how Russia disrupted American democracy last year and how to prevent it from happening again. Russian hackers did not just breach Democratic email accounts; according to Mr. Comey, they orchestrated a “massive effort” targeting hundreds of — and possibly more than 1,000 — American government and private organizations since 2015.
“It’s important for us in the West to understand that we’re facing an adversary who wishes for his own reasons to do us harm,” said Daniel Fried, a career diplomat who oversaw sanctions imposed on Russia before retiring this year. “Whatever the domestic politics of this, Comey was spot-on right that Russia is coming after us, but not just the U.S., but the free world in general. And we need to take this seriously.”
I thought a telling part of Comey's testimony was the fact that with all the meetings and phone calls Trump never once asked him about how that investigation into Russian meddling was going...
-
...
-
How long did it take for evidence to be found on Nixon?
Well, the DNC was broken into June 17, 1972.
March 17, 1973: Watergate burglar McCord writes a letter to Judge John Sirica, claiming that some of his testimony was perjured under pressure and that the burglary was not a CIA operation, but had involved other government officials, thereby leading the investigation to the White House.
May 19, 1973: Independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox appointed to oversee investigation into possible presidential impropriety.
July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over presidential tapes to Senate Watergate Committee or the special prosecutor.
October 20, 1973: "Saturday Night Massacre" - Nixon orders Elliot Richardson and Ruckleshouse to fire special prosecutor Cox. They both refuse to comply and resign. Robert Bork considers resigning but carries out the order.
November 17, 1973: Nixon delivers "I am not a crook" speech at a televised press conference at Disney World (Florida).
April 16, 1974: Special Prosecutor Jaworski issues a subpoena for 64 White House tapes.
June 15, 1974: Woodward and Bernstein's book All the President's Men is published by Simon & Schuster (ISBN 0-671-21781-X).
July 24, 1974: United States v. Nixon decided: Nixon is ordered to give up tapes to investigators.
May 9, 1974: Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.
July 27 to July 30, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes Articles of Impeachment.
August 9, 1974 Nixon resigned the presidency.
In case you don't remember the time line, Timeline of the Watergate scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Watergate_scandal).
So, it didn't happen over nite.
-
Again I really don't know...but I sure wouldn't be surprised to find out that there's no proof he himself colluded with the Russians. But I'm convinced Russia sure did try and succeeded in interfering with our election and that Trump would not have won if they didn't. I wonder why Trump clings to his claim it's fake news and thinks it's a conspiracy by the democrats to explain why they lost.
I also believe that there is something very weird about his love of Putin...it defies logic. Everybody else in the weatern world knows they are our enemy.
I think the Democrats should stick with their point that Russia stole the election rather than facing the real reasons that they ignored the hurting working class. It will make it easier for Republicans.
-
Well, the DNC was broken into June 17, 1972.
March 17, 1973: Watergate burglar McCord writes a letter to Judge John Sirica, claiming that some of his testimony was perjured under pressure and that the burglary was not a CIA operation, but had involved other government officials, thereby leading the investigation to the White House.
May 19, 1973: Independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox appointed to oversee investigation into possible presidential impropriety.
July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over presidential tapes to Senate Watergate Committee or the special prosecutor.
October 20, 1973: "Saturday Night Massacre" - Nixon orders Elliot Richardson and Ruckleshouse to fire special prosecutor Cox. They both refuse to comply and resign. Robert Bork considers resigning but carries out the order.
November 17, 1973: Nixon delivers "I am not a crook" speech at a televised press conference at Disney World (Florida).
April 16, 1974: Special Prosecutor Jaworski issues a subpoena for 64 White House tapes.
June 15, 1974: Woodward and Bernstein's book All the President's Men is published by Simon & Schuster (ISBN 0-671-21781-X).
July 24, 1974: United States v. Nixon decided: Nixon is ordered to give up tapes to investigators.
May 9, 1974: Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.
July 27 to July 30, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes Articles of Impeachment.
August 9, 1974 Nixon resigned the presidency.
In case you don't remember the time line, Timeline of the Watergate scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Watergate_scandal).
So, it didn't happen over nite.
Although Nixon was a Republican like Trump, at the time of Watergate, both the House of Representatives and the Senate were both Democrat controlled. Today, Congress is controlled by Republicans. Of course, if the Dems take over the House and Senate, there still requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict after the House impeaches.
In any case, this talk of impeachment isn't good for the country. Everything that's going on is a lot of accusations and political theatre. A reach for power. Meanwhile we have major international and domestic issues that will go unaddressed. We have to get back to important matters. Health care, terrorism, jobs, trade, debt, war, etc. I think half the noise and juice by the media or more is just to keep their ratings up with more viewership. They could give a crap about the rest of us.
-
...
My wife loved that. She really despises Hillary.
-
Thanks Jeff, thanks for the history. I'm being sincere; I really did not know the timeline of the Nixon impeachment.
Now can you address the other points I made.
What other points? Are you suggesting that Comey's last minute revelations had zero effect on the electorate? That some number of individuals didn't view HRC's competencies differently because of her sex? That the asymmetric release of private documents via Wikileaks didn't sway a single vote?
Help me out, please, because while most reasonable people agree she ran a horrid campaign, I'm quite certain that you can't be making an argument on the relative merits of the two candidates actual qualifications for the office. :)
-
Trump confirms he supports Article 5 NATO defense of all agreement. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to-natos-article-5/index.html
Did he get everyone to pay the 2% or agree to pay or what?
-
What other points? Are you suggesting that Comey's last minute revelations had zero effect on the electorate? That some number of individuals didn't view HRC's competencies differently because of her sex? That the asymmetric release of private documents via Wikileaks didn't sway a single vote?
Help me out, please, because while most reasonable people agree she ran a horrid campaign, I'm quite certain that you can't be making an argument on the relative merits of the two candidates actual qualifications for the office. :)
I don't understand this constant pointing at Comey as the reason. every campaign has moments that could change the electorate view of things. One could say that when the bias news release of the tape about what Trump said ten years earlier about grabbing women could have hurt him. If he lost, couldn't he have a similar complaint? Could he have blamed the biased media. (I think it was NBC) There are dozens of things that happen on both sides that you can point too that are brought out during the election that effect people's votes. This is all just an excuse to blame someone else for her own failings.
-
It's similar about blaming the Russians. If they had released damaging information about Trump, the Democrats would have said, yeah, the Russians shouldn't have done it. But knowing the truth about a candidate is more important and what he did should be what counts. Of course, the liberal biased press is against Trump, so Russia becomes the issue, not Hillary's miserable performance, lies and corruption in dealing with the DNC.
-
every campaign has moments that could change the electorate view of things. One could say that when the bias news release of the tape about what Trump said ten years earlier about grabbing women could have hurt him.
Well, let's see, the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording was released about 4:30 pm on Oct 7, 2016 (just about a month before the election) and that should have had a chilling effect on Trump's chances but guess what? WikiLeaks dumped Podesta emails about an hour after the Trump video surfaced.
An hour after Trump's recording hit the media WikiLeaks starts dumping emails? What are the odds? Seriously, what are the odds that WikiLeaks just sat on the Podesta emails and happened to time their release to coincide to an hour after the Trump recordings?
Pretty lucky that the Podesta emails surfaced to help take the attention off of the Trump recordings...
Don't believe me?
It's True: WikiLeaks dumped Podesta emails hour after Trump video surfaced (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/)
-
It's similar about blaming the Russians. If they had released damaging information about Trump, the Democrats would have said, yeah, the Russians shouldn't have done it.
Funny about that, it seems that the GOP was indeed hacked but stuff wasn't released. At least that's what Comey said back in Jan, 2017 (Lyin' Comey?)
FBI's Comey: Republicans also hacked by Russia (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html)
Washington (CNN)Top intelligence officials indicated on Tuesday that the GOP was also a Russian hacking target but that none of the information obtained was leaked.
FBI director James Comey told a Senate panel that there was "penetration on the Republican side of the aisle and old Republican National Committee domains" no longer in use. Republicans have previously denied their organizations were hacked.
The testimony came in a Senate intelligence committee hearing that examined Russia's intrusions in the 2016 election campaign and its intentions, with America's top intelligence officials testifying just days after they released an unclassified report blaming Moscow for the hacks.
Comey later added that "there was evidence of hacking directed at state-level organizations, state-level campaigns, and the RNC, but old domains of the RNC, meaning old emails they weren't using. None of that was released."
Comey said there was no sign "that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked."
Asked by Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, whether the hacker had the ability to selectively leak that old information, Comey indicated that they did.
Comey also said that the Russians "got far deeper and wider into the (Democratic National Committee) than the RNC," adding that "similar techniques were used in both cases."
I guess Trump supporters didn't bother to read the full unclassified intelligence report? Well, here's your chance to catch up...
Read the full, unclassified intelligence report on Russian hacking here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/russian-president-vladimir-putin-ordered-campaign-influence-u-s-election-report-finds/)
January 6, 2017 at 3:58 PM EDT | Updated: Jan 6, 2017 at 6:49 PM
WASHINGTON — Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a hidden campaign to influence America’s presidential election in favor of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, U.S. intelligence agencies declared Friday in the government’s first formal allegation supporting sensational claims that Trump and his supporters have staunchly resisted.
The intelligence report, an unclassified version of a more-detailed classified account given earlier to Trump, the White House and congressional leaders, withheld any evidence to back up its assertions. The president-elect said after his own meeting with the nation’s top intelligence officials that it was clear Russian email hacking did not deliver him the presidency.
The unclassified version was the most detailed public account to date of Russian efforts to interfere with the U.S. political process, with actions that included hacking into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and individual Democrats like Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. Russia also used state-funded propaganda and paid “trolls” to make nasty comments on social media services, the report said. There was no suggestion that Russia affected actual vote counting or tampered with ballot machines.
The report, for the first time, explicitly tied Putin to the hackings, called it the “boldest effort yet” to influence a U.S. election, and said the Russian government provided emails to WikiLeaks — something the website’s founder, Julian Assange, has repeatedly denied. The intelligence agencies also said Russia will continue to try to influence future events in the U.S. and worldwide, particularly among U.S. allies.
Read the full report below:
Unclassified version of intelligence report on Russian hacking during the 2016 election (https://www.scribd.com/document/335885580/Unclassified-version-of-intelligence-report-on-Russian-hacking-during-the-2016-election#from_embed) on Scribd
(I'll betcha Trump hasn't read it :~)
-
Did anybody remember this? I know that a lot of stuff has come down the pipe but if you are dubious about the Russians being involved, why are so many Russians dead?
"Follow the trail of dead Russians": Senate hears testimony on "cyber invasion" (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-meddling-investigation-misinformation-tactics-senate-intelligence-committee/)
(http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1464308090i/19225510._SX540_.jpg)
WASHINGTON -- Under the great dome where Congress has debated matters of war and peace, the Senate Intelligence Committee heard testimony Thursday about a 21st-century cyber invasion by Russia that is still under way.
Senators opened the first day of hearings on Russian meddling in the U.S. election by an army of hackers, and delved deeper into what the Russians have been hiding.
Former FBI special agent Clint Watts was part of the committee’s investigation. He told the committee that the Russians may now be trying to cover their tracks.
“Follow the trail of dead Russians,” Watts said. “There’s been more dead Russians in the past three months that are tied to this investigation who have assets in banks all over the world.”
There have been a series of arrests of Russian cyber security officials and a number of mysterious deaths of Russian dissidents around the world, including the recent murder of exiled Russian lawmaker Denis Voronenkov outside a hotel in Kiev.
“This Russian propaganda on steroids was designed to poison the national conversation in America,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said Thursday.
Warner and his colleagues heard details about Russia’s vast information warfare campaign, which involves at least 15,000 operatives worldwide writing and spreading false news stories and conspiracy theories online. Witnesses said the effort goes back years and often starts with Russian-backed media.
The campaign has targeted President Trump himself.
“I can tell you right now, accounts tweet at President Trump during high volumes when they know he’s online and they push conspiracy theories,” Watts, the former FBI agent, told CBS News.
Hum, is it just me but does Putin's tie look a bit long?
Coincidence?
-
Hum, I don't get Showtime and I doubt Oliver Stone got Putin to reveal his true colors but it would be interesting to see...
‘I challenged Putin the best I could’: Oliver Stone on upcoming documentary (https://www.rt.com/news/391764-oliver-stone-challenged-putin/)
(https://cdn.rt.com/files/2017.06/original/593b2235c36188097f8b4603.jpg)
During his 19 hours of face-to-face conversations with Vladimir Putin, Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone posed some challenging questions that enabled the Russian president to reveal his often misinterpreted character to the public.
“I’m here to get Putin to talk. Let him talk, If I can encourage him to talk by having an empathetic ear, that is the reporter’s way. I’m also a dramatist. I’m encouraging my actors to be better. To say more. To give me a performance,” Stone, the maker of the 'The Putin Interviews' documentary, told (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/arts/television/oliver-stone-lets-putin-talk-showtime.html?_r=1) the New York Times.
The most recent interview, recorded in February after President Trump assumed office, touched on allegations of Russian interference in the American presidential election and the hysteria that exploded in the Western media over these unproven claims.
‘The Putin Interviews’ will air on premium cable and satellite television network Showtime on four consecutive nights starting Monday.
-
Trump confirms he supports Article 5 NATO defense of all agreement. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to-natos-article-5/index.html
Did he get everyone to pay the 2% or agree to pay or what?
No sign of that. In the same speech he still calls for countries who didn't spend 2% to "repay" their underpayment. So he still doesn't understand the existing agreement and how NATO works. But he finally understood article 5 is also in the best interest of the US (he probably listened for once to his wise advisors like Tillerson or Mattis) so he decided to make the point. Since some people here claim he is a fast learner he might one day understand the 2% agreement and how NATO works, but I think it's taking an awful long time :)
-
US President Trump despises the EU, withdraws from the climate treaty, has damaged trust in NATO - how should the Europeans deal with this partner?
Juncker has warned US President Donald Trump not to abort the Paris Climate Agreement. "I am a Transatlanticer, but if the American president says in the next few hours or days he wants to get out of the Paris deal, then it is the duty of Europe to say: You can't do this," said Juncker in Berlin. In the US, there have been signs that Trump is about to abolish the climate protection agreement.
"It's not just about the future of Europe, it's about the future of people elsewhere," he said. 83 countries are in danger of disappearing from the earth's surface if the fight against climate change will not being carried out resolutely, the President of the EU Commission said.
http://www.politico.eu/article/trump-climate-juncker-you-cant-leave-paris-deal-overnight/
-
My wife loved that. She really despises Hillary.
Why? What has she done to your wife? And more to the point, what has Trump done for your wife?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump confirms he supports Article 5 NATO defense of all agreement. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to-natos-article-5/index.html
Probably another lie. As the saying goes, “Trust comes on foot, but leaves on horseback”
Did he get everyone to pay the 2% or agree to pay or what?
He didn't achieve anything that wasn't already being implemented, as agreed in 2014.
Russia loves it when Western solidarity is broken.
Cheers,
Bart
-
'Trump is an idiot, but don’t underestimate how good he is at that’ (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/11/naomi-klein-donald-trump-no-is-not-enough-interview)
" ... Trump’s novelty was to take the shock doctrine and make it a personal superpower. “He keeps everyone all the time in a reactive state, it's not like he is taking advantage of an external shock, he is the shock. And every 10 minutes he creates a new one. It is like he has these lasers coming out of his belt.”
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/8f484a0bbac630dae6249e70a08ce5b81d0f93fd/0_12_1275_764/master/1275.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=6e2986053a47da0fb4255e5072ddfd7b)
Naomi Klein
One of the questions that Klein’s book does not reach a conclusion about is how conscious Trump is of his shock doctrine tactics. Is he a demagogue in the scheming manner of Putin and Erdoğan, or just a useful idiot for the forces around him?
“I think he is a showman and that he is aware of the way that shows can distract people,” she says. “That is the story of his business. He has always understood that he could distract his investors and bankers, his tenants, his clients from the underlying unsoundness of his business, just by putting on the Trump show. That is the core of Trump. He is undoubtedly an idiot, but do not underestimate how good he is at that.”
-
Why? What has she done to your wife? And more to the point, what has Trump done for your wife?
Cheers,
Bart
It's a woman thing. Hillary wanted to be president all her life. So she put up with Bill's cheating on her all the time because she needed his coat tails. She also went out of her way to protect his political career when his "bimbo" girlfriends got him in trouble by trying to destroy them, not exactly showing support for woman when it counts. She went out to hurt them. It really turned my wife off that Hillary went along with Bill's lack of moral scruples when it came to their marriage. Arguing that she just wanted to keep it intact was BS. It was all done for political expediency. She sold her soul for politics.
-
No sign of that. In the same speech he still calls for countries who didn't spend 2% to "repay" their underpayment. So he still doesn't understand the existing agreement and how NATO works. But he finally understood article 5 is also in the best interest of the US (he probably listened for once to his wise advisors like Tillerson or Mattis) so he decided to make the point. Since some people here claim he is a fast learner he might one day understand the 2% agreement and how NATO works, but I think it's taking an awful long time :)
Mattis is a government bureaucrat all his life so cares little about money and costs. Tillerson who ran Exxon, a commercial company, should know better. NATO countries agreed to the 2% ten years ago. Some of the richest European countries like Germany and France have actually been paying less and less as the years roll by. Waiting until 2024 to meet the 2%, 17 years after the agreement was signed, is not meeting the spirit of it. If they're not increasing it slowly now, how could anyone expect such a big jump in one year anyway? It's just being passed on to the American taxpayer. Trump is letting Europe slide again like his predecessors. Very disappointing. Maybe he'll re-visit it next year if they don't increase their percentages as they said they would. But I'm not holding my breath.
-
13:43
Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.
Note to Donald: It's gonna be a long wait ...
Who cares?
-
13:43
Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.
Note to Donald: It's gonna be a long wait ...
-
Who cares?
Obviously he does! [/rotflmao]
-
Well, let's see, the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording was released about 4:30 pm on Oct 7, 2016 (just about a month before the election) and that should have had a chilling effect on Trump's chances but guess what? WikiLeaks dumped Podesta emails about an hour after the Trump video surfaced.
An hour after Trump's recording hit the media WikiLeaks starts dumping emails? What are the odds? Seriously, what are the odds that WikiLeaks just sat on the Podesta emails and happened to time their release to coincide to an hour after the Trump recordings?
Pretty lucky that the Podesta emails surfaced to help take the attention off of the Trump recordings...
Don't believe me?
It's True: WikiLeaks dumped Podesta emails hour after Trump video surfaced (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/18/john-podesta/its-true-wikileaks-dumped-podesta-emails-hour-afte/)
Nobody cared at that point. Everyone knew who Trump and Hillary were about and already made their decision. Both were flawed candidates and people had to decide if they wanted more of the same politics or try something new.
-
Obviously he does! [/rotflmao]
You're probably right. But the average American could care less. Just something different to watch on afternoon TV. Of course the British are always very good at putting on a royal showing and parade. All that armor, horse-drawn carriages and feathered helmets and all. And it certainly beats listening to all those talking heads on CNN, MSNBC and Fox. Maybe its time for America to get a real Queen. Hillary didn't seem to work out. :)
-
Mattis is a government bureaucrat all his life so cares little about money and costs. Tillerson who ran Exxon, a commercial company, should know better. NATO countries agreed to the 2% ten years ago. Some of the richest European countries like Germany and France have actually been paying less and less as the years roll by. Waiting until 2024 to meet the 2%, 17 years after the agreement was signed, is not meeting the spirit of it. If they're not increasing it slowly now, how could anyone expect such a big jump in one year anyway? It's just being passed on to the American taxpayer. Trump is letting Europe slide again like his predecessors. Very disappointing. Maybe he'll re-visit it next year if they don't increase their percentages as they said they would. But I'm not holding my breath.
Why are you always presenting "fake facts"? The agreement is from 2014 so only 3 years old. Many NATO countries are supporting US troups with multiple missions despite not meeting this "sacred" 2% that Trump and you seem so hung up about, but for which there is no obligation to meet today. So Trump should stop whining and pissing off his allies since it's counterproductive and won't achieve anything usefull.
-
...That some number of individuals didn't view HRC's competencies differently because of her sex?...
Absolutely, correct!
The Witch (a.k.a. Madeleine Albright) "“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” (at a Clinton rally) ;)
-
Why are you always presenting "fake facts"? The agreement is from 2014 so only 3 years old. Many NATO countries are supporting US troups with multiple missions despite not meeting this "sacred" 2% that Trump and you seem so hung up about, but for which there is no obligation to meet today. So Trump should stop whining and pissing off his allies since it's counterproductive and won't achieve anything usefull.
You're right that the agreement was signed in 2014. But the problem predates the agreement by 10 years. Even Obama and Bush before him complained about European spending on defense. The main issue that even Europeans should be concerned about is military readiness. That's the purpose of the 2%. Many Europeans who know about these things agree that Europe has let it's military readiness slide to the point many countries are just not prepared should a conflict break out. You won't be able to defend yourself. Maybe a conflict won't break out. But you seem to be very concerned about the Russians expansion into Crimea and the Ukraine. Are the Baltic next? Or maybe everyone will depend on Uncle Sam, as usual. But it looks like Europe got a reprieve from Trump. That will last until a conflict happens or there's another recession. Then, American taxpayers will insist we reduce our forces and let Europe make up the difference on their own.
-
Absolutely, correct!
The Witch (a.k.a. Madeleine Albright) "“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” (at a Clinton rally) ;)
All part of identity politics the Democrats are very good at playing to get votes. Rich vs. poor. Male vs. female. Black vs. white. Unfortunately, it divides America into too many groups at odds with each other. The Republicans do it too somewhat. But their amateurs at it. It's a Democrat specialty.
-
You're right that the agreement was signed in 2014. But the problem predates the agreement by 10 years. Even Obama and Bush before him complained about European spending on defense. The main issue that even Europeans should be concerned about is military readiness. That's the purpose of the 2%. Many Europeans who know about these things agree that Europe has let it's military readiness slide to the point many countries are just not prepared should a conflict break out. You won't be able to defend yourself. Maybe a conflict won't break out. But you seem to be very concerned about the Russians expansion into Crimea and the Ukraine. Are the Baltic next? Or maybe everyone will depend on Uncle Sam, as usual. But it looks like Europe got a reprieve from Trump. That will last until a conflict happens or there's another recession. Then, American taxpayers will insist we reduce our forces and let Europe make up the difference on their own.
Alan, you have a very convoluted way of agreeing with me that you're using fake facts to support your arguments. Whining and complaining about non-existing agreements won't get the US any further, to the contrary. Don't assume the NATO countries won't live up to their commitments, every time I hear you complaining about that my thought is "people suffer most from the suffering they fear, and not the actual suffering". The best way for Trump to ensure the NATO countries live up to the 2% is indeed reducing US presence here and reduce overall US military spending. But he's doing the opposite, probably encouraged by the defense industry lobby.
-
Alan, you have a very convoluted way of agreeing with me that you're using fake facts to support your arguments. Whining and complaining about non-existing agreements won't get the US any further, to the contrary. Don't assume the NATO countries won't live up to their commitments, every time I hear you complaining about that my thought is "people suffer most from the suffering they fear, and not the actual suffering". The best way for Trump to ensure the NATO countries live up to the 2% is indeed reducing US presence here and reduce overall US military spending. But he's doing the opposite, probably encouraged by the defense industry lobby.
Reducing US troops, which is not prohibited by the Agreement, would induce Europe to spend more on their own defense. That would be a good thing for Europe. They should take pride in their own nations and want to defend them. Laying it off on America is frankly embarrassing. Maybe it's the EU. It's taken away citizens' pride in their own nations.
-
13:43
Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.
Note to Donald: It's gonna be a long wait ...
On the other hand, it may be better for his ego not having to endure protests instead of a hearty welcome.
Britain denies that Trump state visit delayed
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-idUSKBN1920OC
"Prime Minister Theresa May's office said on Sunday there had been no change to plans for U.S. President Donald Trump's to come to Britain on a state visit, after the Guardian newspaper reported the trip had been postponed.
The paper, citing an unnamed adviser at May's Downing Street office who was in the room at the time, reported Trump had told May by telephone in recent weeks that he did not want to come if there were likely to be large-scale protests"
Oh my. No protests, please ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
...fake facts...
No "fake facts" here. Just you and others taking things too literally.
The very fact that the agreement (to reach 2% at some point) was necessary indicates that NATO countries' contribution was not enough.
-
Why would Russia invade Europe!? They have plenty of their own Muslims ;)
-
So who's lying, Comey or Trump?
The whole thing about what Trump said is silly. Why would Trump care about Flynn, the guy he fired, enough to obstruct justice? For Flynn not filing a form? It's more serious to fix a parking ticket in NYC than that. Flynn will pay a small fine for not filing, maybe prohibited from acting as a foreign lobbyist in the future. Big deal. No jail time. He broke an administrative requirement, that's all.
Also, Trump asked that Hillary be left alone too. This was him just acting like a normal guy. And 6'8" (203cm) Comey acting as a blushing virgin like he just came to Washington from the sticks. "Lordy", give me a break.
Notice, Democrats are talking less about collusion, less about Russian interference. Now the subject is obstruction and impeachment. It's all about 2018 and 2020 American politics. Democrats don't give a hoot about Putin.
-
On the other hand, it may be better for his ego not having to endure protests instead of a hearty welcome.
Britain denies that Trump state visit delayed
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-idUSKBN1920OC
"Prime Minister Theresa May's office said on Sunday there had been no change to plans for U.S. President Donald Trump's to come to Britain on a state visit, after the Guardian newspaper reported the trip had been postponed.
The paper, citing an unnamed adviser at May's Downing Street office who was in the room at the time, reported Trump had told May by telephone in recent weeks that he did not want to come if there were likely to be large-scale protests"
Oh my. No protests, please ...
Cheers,
Bart
The more interesting question is whether May will be there to greet him. :)
-
The more interesting question is whether May will be there to greet him. :)
Nobody knows, but the Queen will probably there.
PMs and Presidents are just temps.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The more interesting question is whether May will be there to greet him. :)
Lol, probably not. She could easily be gone in days. The impression is of someone in denial and total shock at the election results, and she is surrounded by "trusted colleagues" and "senior ministers" all of whom have now equipped themselves with large carving knives. And in fact it's probably pointless for any foreign leader to visit while the turmoil here continues. There will have to be another election quite soon and I doubt the Conservatives want a Trump visit hanging round their neck. It would be a gift to the other side. Chances are the visit is off.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/7c0255e0397eea770ab45b6372ba7674/tumblr_or1agh9xrB1tr7vtjo1_1280.gif)
-
No "fake facts" here. Just you and others taking things too literally.
The very fact that the agreement (to reach 2% at some point) was necessary indicates that NATO countries' contribution was not enough.
I disagree, the fake fact is that Donald (and several here) are demanding it here and now as well as that the agreement to get there wasn't made 10 years ago but 3.
This has nothing to do with taking things too literally or this agreement being necessary or not.
-
This sums it up for the past week.
Trump opens 'infrastructure week' without a plan, and calls for privatizing air traffic control
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-20170605-story.html
"resident Trump employed all the trappings traditionally reserved for signing major bills into law as he kicked off “infrastructure week” on Monday: the stately East Room full of dignitaries, a four-piece military band to serenade, celebratory handshakes and souvenir presidential pens for lawmakers, promises of “a great new era” and a “revolution” in technology.
Yet the documents Trump signed amid all the pomp were not new laws or even an executive order. They were routine letters to Congress, relaying support for a minimally detailed plan in Trump’s budget to transfer control of the nation’s air traffic control system to a private nonprofit group.
This was the ceremonial opening to Trump’s full week of infrastructure promotion, which is scheduled to include a speech along the Ohio River on Wednesday and a White House meeting with mayors and governors on Thursday.
But it was also the latest example of a pattern of the administration claiming to have sent Congress fully constructed policies when it has provided only facades — creating the appearance of substantive heft and legislative action even in cases where there is next to none."
So much ado about nothing and it didn't even deflect attention away from the Comey hearings.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And I doubt that next week will be any better.
U.S. attorney general to face questions on Comey firing, Russia
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-sessions-idUSKBN1920QO
"Attorney General Jeff Sessions will face questions about the firing of FBI Director James Comey and any undeclared meetings with Russian officials when he goes before a U.S. Senate hearing on Tuesday, becoming the highest-ranking member of President Donald Trump's Cabinet to testify in the affair.
Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Jack Reed questioned on Sunday why Sessions was involved in Trump's May 9 dismissal of Comey after he had recused himself from investigations of whether Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 presidential election with possible help from Trump associates."
"Sessions' testimony comes amid a reported riff with Trump. Media reports last week said Sessions offered to resign because of tensions with the president over his decision to recuse himself from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Russia probe.
Comey accused the Republican president of trying to get him to drop the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and fired him to undermine the Russia probe.
Trump himself attributed his dismissal of Comey to the Russia investigation.
Comey's testimony on Thursday also raised new questions about the attorney general's relationship with Russian officials with ties to President Vladimir Putin. One is whether Sessions had any undisclosed meetings with Ambassador Sergei Kislyak or other Russians during the campaign or after Trump took office."
Cheers,
Bart
-
The whole thing about what Trump said is silly. Why would Trump care about Flynn, the guy he fired, enough to obstruct justice? For Flynn not filing a form?
Lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Guess you weren't paying attention when Sally Yates testified that Flynn told investigators he had no Russian contacts but wire tapps had him talking to the Russian Ambassador about sanctions...
You can refuse to answer FBI questions but if they catch you in a lie you go to jail.
And yes...it IS curious why Trump would go out on a limb for Flynn. Wonder what Flynn has to say that he hopes is worth immunity? Got anyy guesses?
-
Ex-U.S. Attorney Bharara tells of 'unusual' calls he received from Trump
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bharara-idUSKBN19211S
"Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara revealed on Sunday that he received a handful of "unusual" phone calls from Donald Trump after the November election that made him feel uncomfortable, and said he was fired after declining to take the third call.
Speaking on ABC News' "This Week" in his first televised interview since Trump fired him in March as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, Bharara said he believed Trump's calls to him violated the usual boundaries between the executive branch and independent criminal investigators.
"It's a very weird and peculiar thing for a one-on-one conversation without the attorney general, without warning between the president and me or any United States attorney who has been asked to investigate various things and is in a position hypothetically to investigate business interests and associates of the president," Bharara said.
He added that during President Barack Obama's tenure, Obama never called him directly."
[...]
"The third call, however, came two days after Trump's inauguration. That time, he said, he refused to call back.
"The call came in. I got a message. We deliberated over it, thought it was inappropriate to return the call. And 22 hours later I was asked to resign along with 45 other people," he said.
Bharara stopped short of saying whether he thought Trump had obstructed justice in his conversations and subsequent firing of Comey.
However, he said he thought there was "absolutely evidence to begin a case" into the matter."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ex-U.S. Attorney Bharara tells of 'unusual' calls he received from Trump
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bharara-idUSKBN19211S
"Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara revealed on Sunday that he received a handful of "unusual" phone calls from Donald Trump after the November election that made him feel uncomfortable, and said he was fired after declining to take the third call.
Speaking on ABC News' "This Week" in his first televised interview since Trump fired him in March as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, Bharara said he believed Trump's calls to him violated the usual boundaries between the executive branch and independent criminal investigators.
"It's a very weird and peculiar thing for a one-on-one conversation without the attorney general, without warning between the president and me or any United States attorney who has been asked to investigate various things and is in a position hypothetically to investigate business interests and associates of the president," Bharara said.
He added that during President Barack Obama's tenure, Obama never called him directly."
[...]
"The third call, however, came two days after Trump's inauguration. That time, he said, he refused to call back.
"The call came in. I got a message. We deliberated over it, thought it was inappropriate to return the call. And 22 hours later I was asked to resign along with 45 other people," he said.
Bharara stopped short of saying whether he thought Trump had obstructed justice in his conversations and subsequent firing of Comey.
However, he said he thought there was "absolutely evidence to begin a case" into the matter."
Cheers,
Bart
Preet was a good US Attorney in New York that Trump wanted to keep on initially. You said Preet complained that it's normal practice for the President to meet with US Attorneys like Preet with the Attorney General being present. Preet knows that there was no Attorney General until Sessions became AJ in February, long after the inauguration and the third call that Preet didn't take. There was only a fill-in from the previous Democrat adminsitration that didn't do her job and Trump had to fire also. Trump is good at firing people. These people should have watched his TV show and learned how to keep their jobs.
The President wanted to speak to the US Attorneys that he hires. That's his right. The people elected him not Preet and not the Attorney General. He's the boss who hires and fires them all, just like the FBI Director. Preet should have taken the call. Let me add that your post states Preet indicated no intent by Trump to do anything wrong. Apparently, he's just pissed off he got fired and is unloading to the media. Now he'll have to wait for a Democrat president to get his job back. I'm sure by that time, he won't want it as he'll be working for some law firm defending crooked politicians making millions like the rest of the swamp.
-
Lol, probably not. She could easily be gone in days. The impression is of someone in denial and total shock at the election results, and she is surrounded by "trusted colleagues" and "senior ministers" all of whom have now equipped themselves with large carving knives. And in fact it's probably pointless for any foreign leader to visit while the turmoil here continues. There will have to be another election quite soon and I doubt the Conservatives want a Trump visit hanging round their neck. It would be a gift to the other side. Chances are the visit is off.
May should get together with Hillary. They could commiserate and discuss how it wasn't suppose to go so wrong.
-
One doesn't take a call from the President of the United States!? What!?
-
Lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Guess you weren't paying attention when Sally Yates testified that Flynn told investigators he had no Russian contacts but wire tapps had him talking to the Russian Ambassador about sanctions...
You can refuse to answer FBI questions but if they catch you in a lie you go to jail.
And yes...it IS curious why Trump would go out on a limb for Flynn. Wonder what Flynn has to say that he hopes is worth immunity? Got anyy guesses?
Well, he may get a bigger fine or something worse. But Trump didn't tell him to lie to the FBI. Plus Flynn was fired for lying to the VP. So I don't see how any of this makes Trump guilty of anything. You're still hoping for Trump and Russia collusion even though Clapper and Comey said there's nothing there.
Now they're trying to say Sessions must have colluded with the Russians because he had tea with them like Hillary and half the Senate. Jeff, Hillary lost because she was a lousy candidate, worse then Trump, which is pretty bad. The Russians must be yuking up the whole thing and getting drunk on some good vodka for how things are turning out for them. Stop helping them feel even better carrying on with all this political nonsense. It's hurting the country.
-
One doesn't take a call from the President of the United States!? What!?
It is not appropriate to speak with the President alone, without the Attorney General present as well.
He did take the calls when Trump was President-elect.
Look at what happened with Comey, with the Attorney General sent out of the room. It's becoming a pattern that will be investigated.
Cheers,
Bart
-
One doesn't take a call from the President of the United States!? What!?
"Honey, it's the President calling."
"What, again? He's called me twice since the election. Doesn't he know I'm busy indicting all those politicians up in Albany and down in Trenton? I've got more important things to do than chat. Why doesn't he just go get a haircut if he's got nothing else to do?"
"Well, he said it's about him telling everyone he's keeping you on, unlike what former Presidents do when they fire all the US Attorneys."
"Well, of course he's going to keep me on. There's no one in the world who could take my place."
"Well, honey, that's how I feel about you too."
-
It is not appropriate to speak with the President alone, without the Attorney General present as well.
He did take the calls when Trump was President-elect.
Look at what happened with Comey, with the Attorney General sent out of the room. It's becoming a pattern that will be investigated.
Cheers,
Bart
Trump, never before a politician, does things the way he wants too. Anyway, I didn't know there was a rule. The president seems to get on the phone at a moments notice to talk to world leaders too and lots of CEO's. There's probably a rule against that too. But, that's who he is and why his supporters voted for him. To shake things up, be a disrupter. People don't want another guy who goes along to get along. Of course that has created problems for his administration. I suspect he going to follow the "rules" more in the future and maybe become just like most of our previous presidents. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him.
-
Well, he may get a bigger fine or something worse.
Punishable by up to 5 years in jail...not sure where you think he's gonna get off with a fine or something. 5 years is not nothing...
But Trump didn't tell him to lie to the FBI.
How do you know? How do we know Trump didn't tell Flynn to talk to the Russians?
So I don't see how any of this makes Trump guilty of anything.
Don't know...but if as Comey testified under oath, Trump made it clear that he wanted the FBI investigation of Flynn to go away. It's also reported that he asked other to talk to Comey about backing off of Flynn. Remember Coates and Rogers in from to the Intelligence Committee? They refused to answer whether or not Trump asked them to do something–they said they didn't feel "pressured" but they refused to answer the question whether or not Trump asked them to talk to Comey.
So, is Trump guilty of anything? We'll see...while Comey said he was not part of an FBI counter intelligence investigation I think now he may indeed be under investigation for obstruction of justice. And I think Trump will get his chance to testify under oath...he may well rue the day he declared he is “100%” willing to testify under oath about his interactions with James Comey, insisting the former FBI director was untruthful during his testimony on Capitol Hill. I'm pretty sure Marc E. Kasowitz must have slapped himself in the forehead when he heard Trump agree to testify under oath...Trump really needs to keep his mouth shut about all this but he's incapable of doing so.
So what does he do?
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
I believe the James Comey leaks will be far more prevalent than anyone ever thought possible. Totally illegal? Very 'cowardly!'
"prevalent"? Huh?
"Totally illegal?"
Not even close (on a number of levels).
You're still hoping for Trump and Russia collusion even though Clapper and Comey said there's nothing there.
Are you talking Trump and Russia personally or Trump Team & Russia? Comey never said there was no evidence of collusion between Trump "satellites" and Russia just that Trump wasn't under investigation...and you might want to get off using Clapper because he came back and said don't quote him on the no collusion stuff because he wasn't even aware that the FBI had been investigating since last July.
Read this if you need convincing...
Donald Trump’s Mostly False claim that James Clapper said no collusion found in Russia probe (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/12/donald-trump/trumps-mostly-false-claim-clapper-said-no-collusio/)
Our ruling
Trump said, "When James Clapper himself, and virtually everyone else with knowledge of the witch hunt, says there is no collusion, when does it end?"
Some of the public statements by those with knowledge of the FBI investigation do not support Trump’s claim that "virtually everyone" privy to the probe says there’s no evidence of collusion. While Comey has not described specific evidence, he has confirmed that sufficient credible information exists for the FBI to consider the Russia probe a high enough priority to warrant an investigation.
As for Clapper’s statement, it’s apparent Trump has twisted the former DNI’s words to make it appear as if he’s ruled out the possibility that evidence exists showing the Trump campaign colluded with Russian interlopers during the 2016 election. But Clapper’s statement was that he had no knowledge of collusion -- not that collusion didn’t occur. Clapper has since stated that his capacity as DNI would not necessarily give him the kind of access to the FBI investigation that one would need in order to determine whether or not evidence of collusion exists.
We rate Trump’s statement Mostly False.
-
Preet was a good US Attorney in New York that Trump wanted to keep on initially. You said Preet complained that it's normal practice for the President to meet with US Attorneys like Preet with the Attorney General being present. Preet knows that there was no Attorney General until Sessions became AJ in February, long after the inauguration and the third call that Preet didn't take. There was only a fill-in from the previous Democrat adminsitration that didn't do her job and Trump had to fire also. Trump is good at firing people. These people should have watched his TV show and learned how to keep their jobs.
That's the problem with Trump, well one of them anyway, he thinks he's running a TV-show.
On March 11th it was already reported: Defiant U.S. prosecutor fired by Trump administration
"The Washington Post, citing two people close to Trump, said the president's adviser Stephen Bannon and Attorney General Jeff Sessions wanted a clean slate of federal prosecutors to assert the administration's power.
But the decision to replace so many sitting attorneys at once has raised questions about whether the Trump administration's ability to enforce the nation's laws would be hindered. "
So, why was Trump (as Steve Bannon's sockpuppet) trying to cripple the ability to enforce the nation's laws by firing all federal prosecutors before replacements had been selected? Was there something that needed covering up? Or was is just a way of dismantling the legal system, and if so why?
Cheers,
Bart
-
100% willing to testify? Uh, no...and wait, Trump may fire Mueller (at least his attorney declined to rule it out)
Trump attorney signals a firm stance in dealing with special prosecutor (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-comey-20170611-story.html)
President Trump will not unconditionally cooperate with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s recently opened investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and any possible coordination with the Trump campaign, a defense lawyer for Trump signaled on Sunday.
The lawyer, Jay Sekulow, also questioned the appropriateness of Mueller’s advance review of the prepared testimony that former FBI Director James B. Comey delivered last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
While noting that Trump said Friday he would answer Mueller’s questions under oath, Sekulow declined to rule out ordering at some later date the firing of the widely praised Mueller, who preceded Comey as FBI director.
“The president is going to seek the advice of his counsel and inside the government as well as outside,’’ Sekulow told ABC’s “This Week,’’ adding, “I’m not going to speculate on what he will or will not do.’’
Hum...I suspect Trump wouldn't be stupid enough to fire Mueller but I was surprised when he fired Comey...
But...
(http://www.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/89/2017/05/09/195309_600.jpg)
-
No wonder he was fired...
Fired U.S. Attorney Bharara: There’s “Absolutely Evidence” to Launch Obstruction of Justice Case Against Trump (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/11/preet_bharara_says_there_s_absolutely_evidence_to_launch_obstruction_of.html)
Former New York U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who led several high-profile corruption cases until President Donald Trump fired him in March, said there is “absolutely” enough evidence to launch an obstruction of justice case against President Trump for his firing of FBI chief James Comey. “No one knows right now whether there is a provable case of obstruction," Bharara said. “[But] there's no basis to say there's no obstruction.”
In his first televised interview since his firing, Bharara acknowledged that while it is true that Trump could fire Comey at any time for any reason doesn’t automatically absolve the president of any obstruction of justice questions. “This argument that you keep hearing on TV shows—that the mere fact that the President can fire an official at will—doesn’t solve the problem,” he said.
Bharara also said that when he heard Comey talk about the one-on-one conversations with Trump that made him uncomfortable, there was a familiar ring to it. Trump also made a series of “unusual phone calls” to Bharara shortly after being elected president. “It's a very weird and peculiar thing for a one-on-one conversation without the attorney general, without warning between the president and me or any United States attorney who has been asked to investigate various things and is in a position hypothetically to investigate business interests and associates of the president,” Bharara said.
-
Who would you believe?
(http://media.salon.com/2017/02/comey-trump-620x412.jpg)
The guy who has served 3 presidents from 2 parties, has taught Sunday School, is a University of Chicago Law School grad, was a former District Attorney, was a Senior Law Fellow–Columbia, has 1 wife and 5 children, has had no bankruptcies, has had no fraud lawsuits, was the former Director of the FBI who made copious contemporaneous notes about their meetings and phone calls or...
...the guy who said Obama was from Kenya?
Just asking'
(it's a rhetorical question, no need to answer if you don't want to)
:~)
-
Hum...this is gonna piss off the big orange one...
(yes, I know McCain & Trump aren't in a bromance like Trump & Putin but still)
McCain says American leadership was better under Obama: report (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/337340-mccain-says-american-leadership-was-better-under-obama-report)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said American leadership was stronger under President Trump's predecessor, President Barack Obama, according to a Guardian report (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/11/donald-trump-foreign-policy-approach-qatar) published Sunday.
Asked if the country stood on sturdier ground under Obama's leadership, McCain said "yes," according to the report.
“As far as American leadership is concerned, yes," said McCain, who also vocally criticized many of the Obama administration's foreign policy decisions.
-
Hum...this is gonna piss off the big orange one...
(yes, I know McCain & Trump aren't in a bromance like Trump & Putin but still)
McCain says American leadership was better under Obama: report (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/337340-mccain-says-american-leadership-was-better-under-obama-report)
McCain is a war hawk against Russia so he considers Trump weak for trying to work things out with Putin. So naturally he criticizes Trump. Meanwhile, McCain lost his bid for the presidency in 2008 and now has to salute President Trump in 2017. It must really piss him off.
-
That's the problem with Trump, well one of them anyway, he thinks he's running a TV-show.
On March 11th it was already reported: Defiant U.S. prosecutor fired by Trump administration
"The Washington Post, citing two people close to Trump, said the president's adviser Stephen Bannon and Attorney General Jeff Sessions wanted a clean slate of federal prosecutors to assert the administration's power.
But the decision to replace so many sitting attorneys at once has raised questions about whether the Trump administration's ability to enforce the nation's laws would be hindered. "
So, why was Trump (as Steve Bannon's sockpuppet) trying to cripple the ability to enforce the nation's laws by firing all federal prosecutors before replacements had been selected? Was there something that needed covering up? Or was is just a way of dismantling the legal system, and if so why?
Cheers,
Bart
Obama fired the US Attorneys as did Bush before him. It happens with every new President when the party changes. Each president wants US Attorneys to enforce laws that they find important and what they campaigned on, not what a previous president thought important. As Obama said, "Elections have consequences."
Preet knew this and should have turned in his resignation when the administration ask all US Attorneys to do that. It's normal procedure and customary. But Preet, Mr. Primadonna, thought he was better than all the other US Attorneys in the country and would not resign. So Trump fired him. Like I said, he should have taken that phone call. Maybe Trump would have re-hired him. But then Preet would have owed his job to Trump not some former president. A president has a right to make sure his hirelings know who they work for.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2009/05/obama-to-replace-us-attorneys-018390
-
Obama fired the US Attorneys as did Bush before him.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2009/05/obama-to-replace-us-attorneys-018390
Uh huh...look at the date of that article.
Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys
By JOSH GERSTEIN 05/15/2009 08:34 AM EDT
President Barack Obama plans to replace a "batch" of U.S. Attorneys in the next few weeks and more prosecutors thereafter, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.
"I expect that we’ll have an announcement in the next couple of weeks with regard to our first batch of U.S attorneys," Holder said Thursday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing which stretched out over most of the day due to breaks for members' votes. "One of the things that we didn’t want to do was to disrupt the continuity of the offices and pull people out of positions where we thought there might be a danger that that might have on the continuity--the effectiveness of the offices.But...elections matter--it is our intention to have the U.S. Attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as they can."
So, in the middle of May, Obama was going to replace a "batch" of the U.S. Attorneys. Meanwhile, Trump didn't wait and didn't seem to worry about disrupting the continuity of the offices on March 10th. With no replacements in place...
Trump Abruptly Orders 46 Obama-Era Prosecutors to Resign (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/us-attorney-justice-department-trump.html)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration moved on Friday to sweep away most of the remaining vestiges of Obama administration prosecutors at the Justice Department, ordering 46 holdover United States attorneys to tender their resignations immediately — including Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan.
The firings were a surprise — especially for Mr. Bharara, who has a reputation for prosecuting public corruption cases and for investigating insider trading. In November, Mr. Bharara met with then President-elect Donald J. Trump at Trump Tower in Manhattan and told reporters afterward that both Mr. Trump and Jeff Sessions, who is now the attorney general, had asked him about staying on, which the prosecutor said he expected to do.
But on Friday, Mr. Bharara was among federal prosecutors who received a call from Dana Boente, the acting deputy attorney general, instructing him to resign, according to a person familiar with the matter. As of Friday evening, though some of the prosecutors had publicly announced their resignations, Mr. Bharara had not. A spokesman for Mr. Bharara declined to comment.
Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an email that all remaining holdover United States attorneys had been asked to resign, leaving their deputy United States attorneys, who are career officials, in place in an acting capacity.
Seems Trump abruptly decided to fire the U.S. Attorneys because Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator who is a strong supporter of President Trump, said on his evening show that Mr. Trump needed to “purge” Obama holdovers from the federal government. Mr. Hannity portrayed them as “saboteurs” from the “deep state” who were leaking secrets to hurt Mr. Trump.
So on one hand you have Obama waiting till May to ease out a "batch" of previous U.S. Attorneys to avoid the disruption of the continuity of the offices and Trump who decided to fire the remaining U.S. Attorneys without much consideration of continuity but at the suggestion of Sean Hannity.
Trump supporters, keep telling yourself everything is ok...everything is normal (it isn't but maybe you can fool yourself).
-
Voters for Trump wanted someone in command and decisive, who takes charge and doesn't put up with BS. They were tired of Obama's feckless ways like drawing a red line in Syria then erasing it, etc. Trump makes decisions and let's the chips fall where they may. It gets him into trouble at times, but a president who wants to lead should be decisive. He can't have a checklist every time he has to make a decision. He needs to go with his gut often.
-
Voters for Trump wanted someone in command and decisive, who takes charge and doesn't put up with BS. They were tired of Obama's feckless ways like drawing a red line in Syria then erasing it, etc. Trump makes decisions and let's the chips fall where they may. It gets him into trouble at times, but a president who wants to lead should be decisive. He can't have a checklist every time he has to make a decision. He needs to go with his gut often.
wisdom and competency would help, too
-
wisdom and competency would help, too
Obama had zero experience and wisdom in running anything. He was a community organizer in Chicago and was Senator for around two years before starting to run for president. He had no executive experience. Your hatred of Trump doesn't allow you to see any of his experience as if creating a $3.5 billion empire is the work of a dummy. Sure he can be at times brash, nasty, grumpy, argumentative, a bull-in-a-China shop. But to argue he doesn't have wisdom and competency is just silly. How do you think he became president? To think that you're dealing with an incompetent fool is, well, foolhardy of you and similar thinking opponents.
-
He didn't win because he was smart, he won because his opponent wasn't popular
-
He didn't win because he was smart, he won because his opponent wasn't popular
Les, long before Hillary, he first beat the entire Republican line-up during the nomination process. Experienced politicians some with lots more money spent. He had the entire Republican establishment against him. When it came to Hillary, she should have won by a mile. But he figured out the jobs issue in the rust belt while all the political savants on both sides of the aisle were out-to-lunch. They were busy reading tea leaves. laughing at him (like now) and watching the phony polls. Come on. Give credit where's it's due even if you don't like him.
-
You are right, Alan, he outsmarted all his opponents.
He was smart enough to win the elections, but not to lead the most advanced and most powerful country.
Great accomplishment for Trump, but poor outlook for USA and the rest of the world.
-
The irony is Trump is the most "unpresidential" president we have ever had.
No class, no dignity, no moral compass.
If we hold The Founding Fathers as our compass (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin) ... how do you think these gentlemen would suffer such a boor as Trump?
Jefferson was a scientist at heart. Franklin was also.
How does anyone think Lincoln would view Trump? :o
Two Lincoln quotes provide the answer this question:
- "As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before even in the midst of war.."
- "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Make no mistake: Donald Trump is not a friend of our country. He serves only himself: his ego, his prejudices, self-interests.
If ever there was an amoral man, who could NOT be trusted to uphold even the most basic precept of loyalty or human dignity, if there was a financial incentive in the way, it is Trump.
Patriots who hold the original ideal of this country as a reference point cannot support Trump: he represents the antithesis of the American ideal.
-
He is leading. Just not the way you like.
-
Uh, oh... Jack entered the fray! This thread won't last much longer :D
P.S. Hi Jack :)
-
Les, long before Hillary, he first beat the entire Republican line-up during the nomination process.
Which also said something about what the Republican party had to offer, apparently not much.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Attorneys general to sue over foreign payments to Trump hotels: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lawsuit-idUSKBN1930AL
"The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia plan to file a lawsuit on Monday alleging that foreign payments to President Donald Trump's businesses violated the U.S. Constitution, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Trump already faces a similar lawsuit brought in January by plaintiffs including an ethics nonprofit group.
However, the case from two Democratic attorneys general could stand a better chance in court as the first government action over allegations that Trump, a Republican, violated the Constitution's so-called emoluments clause.
Democratic attorneys general have taken a lead role in challenging Trump policies, successfully blocking executive orders restricting travel from some Muslim-majority countries. They are also resisting efforts to roll back environmental regulations and insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act".
And this could all have been easily avoided had Trump properly disentangled his function from his business endeavors. It's just another self-inflicted distraction from more important tasks still on the table.
The same goes for this, a charity for sick children paid the Trump Organization to use its properties, and the payments were also higher than usual, instead of a free charity:
New York attorney general looking at Eric Trump charity's payouts
"New York's attorney general is looking into a report that the Eric Trump Foundation funneled more than $1 million from charity golf tournaments into President Donald Trump's business, a spokesman for the attorney general said on Friday.
Forbes magazine reported this week that the charity run by Eric Trump, the president's second-oldest son, paid the Trump Organization to use its properties for charity events in recent years even though Eric Trump had told donors that the golf course and other assets were being used for free, so that just about all the money donated would help sick children.
Forbes reported that based on filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, more than $1.2 million "has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization." "
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which also said something about what the Republican party had to offer, apparently not much.
Cheers,
Bart
It was the Democrat party that didn't offer much - just Hillary and Bernie. There may have been two others, but I don't recall. And Hillary had the fix in with the Democratic National Party as the Russians revealed.
The Republican Party list was very substantial and included many political heavyweights. 9 current or former governors (one of them, Bush, who was also the son and brother of two former presidents), a woman CEO, 6 current and former US Senators, a black neurosurgeon, and of course Trump, a businessman who never held political office. Trump also had the entire Republican establishment against him not only during the nomination but during the general election against Hillary. He won with a small staff and 1/3 of the money spent. It made Brexit look like a walk in the park. Frankly, I had other favorites early in the process. But he won the day.
Here's the list: Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Former Governor Jeb Bush of Florida (brother and son of former Presidents), neurosurgeon Ben Carson of Florida, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, businesswoman Carly Fiorina of Virginia, Former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Governor John Kasich of Ohio, Former Governor George Pataki of New York, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Former Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, businessman Donald Trump of New York, and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
-
Attorneys general to sue over foreign payments to Trump hotels: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lawsuit-idUSKBN1930AL
"The attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia plan to file a lawsuit on Monday alleging that foreign payments to President Donald Trump's businesses violated the U.S. Constitution, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Trump already faces a similar lawsuit brought in January by plaintiffs including an ethics nonprofit group.
However, the case from two Democratic attorneys general could stand a better chance in court as the first government action over allegations that Trump, a Republican, violated the Constitution's so-called emoluments clause.
Democratic attorneys general have taken a lead role in challenging Trump policies, successfully blocking executive orders restricting travel from some Muslim-majority countries. They are also resisting efforts to roll back environmental regulations and insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act".
And this could all have been easily avoided had Trump properly disentangled his function from his business endeavors. It's just another self-inflicted distraction from more important tasks still on the table.
The same goes for this, a charity for sick children paid the Trump Organization to use its properties, and the payments were also higher than usual, instead of a free charity:
New York attorney general looking at Eric Trump charity's payouts
"New York's attorney general is looking into a report that the Eric Trump Foundation funneled more than $1 million from charity golf tournaments into President Donald Trump's business, a spokesman for the attorney general said on Friday.
Forbes magazine reported this week that the charity run by Eric Trump, the president's second-oldest son, paid the Trump Organization to use its properties for charity events in recent years even though Eric Trump had told donors that the golf course and other assets were being used for free, so that just about all the money donated would help sick children.
Forbes reported that based on filings from the Eric Trump Foundation and other charities, more than $1.2 million "has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization." "
Cheers,
Bart
The Constitution and US law does not prevent a President from making money from his businesses or having to sell them to be president or even recuse himself from controlling them during his presidency. Therefore, I don't see how earnings from those businesses could be considered an emolument. Basically, payments are to purchase goods or services. An emolument is more of a gift that could be considered a bribe.
If the Supreme rules against Trump, then in the future, any businessman who has a company doing business overseas would not be eligible to be president. He have to sell his companies. The Constitution does not say that. I can't imagine the Court ruling that way. But it's going to be an interesting case regardless.
-
Congress can make this all go away simply by acknowledging and approving these transactions.
The "Emoluments Clause" of our constitution states:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
There is nothing preventing any person holding office from accepting these types of stuff. They are just prohibited from accepting them without the consent of the Congress. Since the GOP has a majority in both houses, and there is nothing that states that this consent requires a super majority, both houses can just vote on it and approve it. Problem solved the constitutional way.
We could bypass any complicated argument whether what Trump is accepting is or ain't an Emolument. If congress consents to it, it ain't no problem. They should do this prior to any lawsuit.
This does raise an interesting question: Why is a GOP controlled congress reluctant to do this?
-
This does raise an interesting question: Why is a GOP controlled congress reluctant to do this?
Maybe because it stinks to high heaven. If I were a US voter and saw the president line his pockets and my congressman approve, I know how I'd be voting next time round.
The spirit of that clause seems clear enough to me. They probably left in an "out" for unusual circumstances, which I would not have a problem with in general. But if starts to be used to regularly excuse profiteering, and people actually approve of this trend, well the term "banana republic" comes to mind. If this is not nipped in the bud, then the USA should stop preaching "freedom" and "democracy" to the rest of the world, unless the speeches come with laugh tracks.
Saying that Trump is "smart" for doing this is not an acceptable response to my way of thinking. The governance structures in our democratic cultures do not exist for the purpose of enriching the already powerful.
-
Why would congress approve something that doesn't have to be approved. You're assuming these are emoluments.
Let the courts decide first what the legal standing is.
But it still raises a fundamental problem. If overseas and domestic businesses can be interpreted as an emolument, because foreign government can buy from them, then a whole class of American citizens would be excluded from being president, something I don't think the founders or we want. How could a citizen run for president having to hope that congress would ok his businesses especially if the majority in Congress was from the opposite party? It would throw a wet blanket on American participation in their government.
The argument they're emoluments is silly anyway. If prime Minister May decided to play a round of golf at Trump's Scottish golf course, would the green fees be considered an emolument?
Heck, Jeff Schewe couldn't run until he sold his photo book business. Someone could sue him claiming that a foreign government would buy them to influence his presidential decisions. Where would the lawsuits end?
Of course ttys only has to do with politics. I didn't hear to many complaints when the Clintons were paid for speeches by foreign governments as a way for than to buy political influences.
-
Maybe because it stinks to high heaven. If I were a US voter and saw the president line his pockets and my congressman approve, I know how I'd be voting next time round.
I would agree with you on this. I think the GOP is walking a very fine line, on egg shells, on top of a minefield, covered with thin ice (Did I miss any cliches?). ;D
-
Maybe because it stinks to high heaven. If I were a US voter and saw the president line his pockets and my congressman approve, I know how I'd be voting next time round.
The spirit of that clause seems clear enough to me. They probably left in an "out" for unusual circumstances, which I would not have a problem with in general. But if starts to be used to regularly excuse profiteering, and people actually approve of this trend, well the term "banana republic" comes to mind. If this is not nipped in the bud, then the USA should stop preaching "freedom" and "democracy" to the rest of the world, unless the speeches come with laugh tracks.
Saying that Trump is "smart" for doing this is not an acceptable response to my way of thinking. The governance structures in our democratic cultures do not exist for the purpose of enriching the already powerful.
The voters knew when they voted for Trump that he had these businesses. In fact, that's why most voted for him. They are hoping he can transfer his personal business experience to help all of America.
If Trump or his family use the presidents position to profit, they can vote him out of office in 2020. Remember, the constitution also prevents him from taking a bribe. So impeachment is viable in that case.
-
I didn't hear to many complaints when the Clintons were paid for speeches by foreign governments as a way for than to buy political influences.
Who are you kidding? As much time as you evidently spend on Right Wing sites? And you did not read of any complaints??? That's all they did was complain.
-
Heck, Jeff Schewe couldn't run until he sold his photo book business. Someone could sue him claiming that a foreign government would buy them to influence his presidential decisions.
I don't want the job but if I did I would put my company and assets in a blind trust which is what other presidents have done and something Trump promised to do a could of years ago (I think it was about the time that Romney was running). But Trump has said a LOT of things which are proven to be untrue like he said he would release his tax returns and Obama was born in Kenya...
In case you are wondering about how much Trump lies, this article is scathing...
TRUMP: A TRUE STORY (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/trump-lies/?utm_term=.1b380a82335e)
The mogul, in a 2007 deposition, had to face up to a series of falsehoods and exaggerations. And he did. Sort of.
The lawyer gave Donald Trump a note, written in Trump’s own handwriting. He asked Trump to read it aloud.
Trump may not have realized it yet, but he had walked into a trap.
“Peter, you’re a real loser,” Trump began reading.
The mogul had sent the note to a reporter, objecting to a story that said Trump owned a “small minority stake” in a Manhattan real estate project. Trump insisted that the word “small” was incorrect. Trump continued reading: “I wrote, ‘Is 50 percent small?’ ”
“This [note] was intended to indicate that you had a 50 percent stake in the project, correct?” said the lawyer.
“That’s correct,” Trump said.
For the first of many times that day, Trump was about to be caught saying something that wasn’t true.
Liars lie even when they don't have to...in Trump's case, he simply can't help himself...which sucks for him when he's caught in a lie.
-
Another U.S. appeals court rules against Trump's revised travel ban
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ruling-court-idUSKBN19321K
"A second U.S. appeals court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, largely upholding a lower court's decision.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was reviewed a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of Trump's order. The ruling came after a separate court, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge's ruling blocking parts of the order.
The Trump administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Richmond rulings and revive the ban.
Hawaii federal Judge Derrick Watson blocked a March 6 executive order barring travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening. Watson also blocked a directive that suspended entry of refugee applicants for 120 days, as well as other instructions for the government to study tougher vetting procedures.
The 9th Circuit on Monday upheld the block on Trump's travel ban and a cap on refugees. However, the appeals court vacated part of the injunction in order to allow the government to conduct internal reviews on vetting."
-
The voters knew when they voted for Trump that he had these businesses. In fact, that's why most voted for him. They are hoping he can transfer his personal business experience to help all of America.
If Trump or his family use the presidents position to profit, they can vote him out of office in 2020. Remember, the constitution also prevents him from taking a bribe. So impeachment is viable in that case.
I doubt that they voted for him because of his so-called business acumen. Anyway, the connection between any so-called business talent and national politics is tenuous. The ability to make money from a TV reality show is not much of a real measure of anything. I mean, I acknowledge that he did that better than I could, but that's no reason to vote him into any public service, at least not for me.
I don't believe that voting him out AFTER profiting from the position is credible behaviour for the president of the USA, especially given that he is already supposed to be really wealthy. I mean, that's setting the bar pretty low.
Also, I didn't quite understand the comment about the Clinton speaking fees mentioned above (not sure now who wrote it). They weren't in office at the time, were they? What they did might not have been squeaky clean, I know nothing about it, but it seems to be in a different category.
-
They are hoping he can transfer his personal business experience to help all of America.
Which business experience would that be?
DONALD TRUMP'S MANY BUSINESS FAILURES, EXPLAINED (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html)
Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. Call it the art of the bad deal, one created by the arrogance and recklessness of a businessman whose main talent is self-promotion.
He is also pretty good at self-deception, and plain old deception. Trump is willing to claim success even when it is not there, according to his own statements. “I’m just telling you, you wouldn’t say that you're failing,” he said in a 2007 deposition when asked to explain why he would give an upbeat assessment of his business even if it was in trouble. “If somebody said, ‘How you doing?’ you're going to say you're doing good.” Perhaps such dissembling is fine in polite cocktail party conversation, but in the business world it’s called lying.
And while Trump is quick to boast that his purported billions prove his business acumen, his net worth is almost unknowable given the loose standards and numerous outright misrepresentations he has made over the years. In that 2007 deposition, Trump said he based estimates of his net worth at times on “psychology” and “my own feelings.” But those feelings are often wrong—in 2004, he presented unaudited financials to Deutsche Bank while seeking a loan, claiming he was worth $3.5 billion. The bank concluded Trump was, to say the least, puffing; it put his net worth at $788 million, records show. (Trump personally guaranteed $40 million of the loan to his company, so Deutsche coughed up the money. He later defaulted on that commitment.)
Trump’s many misrepresentations of his successes and his failures matter—a lot. As a man who has never held so much as a city council seat, there is little voters can examine to determine if he is competent to hold office. He has no voting record and presents few details about specific policies. Instead, he sells himself as qualified to run the country because he is a businessman who knows how to get things done, and his financial dealings are the only part of his background available to assess his competence to lead the country. And while Trump has had a few successes in business, most of his ventures have been disasters.
See, this is the problem with somebody who is a pathological liar, huckster and outright fraud. If you believe even a fraction of his lies you may think Trump MUST be really successful? Claimed he was worth $3.5 billion, the bank put his net worth at $788 million. Well, you might say, wow, he's worth $788 million so he's really wealthy...yes, but not REALLY wealthy...he claimed to be a billionaire but is only a millionaire. Does that make a difference? It would if you were going to do business with him don't ya think? It would matter a lot.
Assume most everything Trumps says is a lie (Politifact put his lies at about 69% during the campaign). You simply can't know the truth about what he says and why he does what he does. If he says he's for the little guy, ya gotta figure that's not true (or at least 70% false). When you here him say "trust me", don't.
Now imagine you are an ally of America, can you trust what Trump says? Nope...
What about America's enemies, can you believe what Trump says? Nope...
(http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.784719!/image/2627416076.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_609x343/2627416076.jpg)
So, pardon me if I assume 70% of what comes out of his foul orange mouth is a lie...the odds are in my favor, sad!
-
Trump and his Russian Problem becomes a useful ad campaign (might not get too many Trump voters though).
SMIRNOFF TAKES SWIPE AT DONALD TRUMP, OFFERING RUSSIA TESTIMONY IN BILLBOARD (http://www.newsweek.com/smirnoff-takes-swipe-donald-trump-offering-russia-testimony-report-624372)
Renowned vodka maker Smirnoff appeared to take a cheeky swipe at U.S. President Donald Trump and the Russia scandal that has enveloped his campaign and administration.
An ad featuring the brand poked fun at the special counsel’s investigation into the Trump campaign team’s contact with the Russian establishment, over which former FBI Director James Comey testified on Thursday.
“Made in America,” declares a new Smirnoff billboard spotted by U.S.-based social media users, with a picture of a bottle of Smirnoff behind what appears to be a Moscow mule cocktail. "But we'd be happy to talk about our ties to Russia under oath," the ad states.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCEjRQ6W0AAmrSu.jpg)
-
In case you are curious...
Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval (http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx)
For June 11, 2017 Trump's Daily Job Approval really sucks...
(http://media.vanityfair.com/photos/592ecdc942539b38d20a65eb/1:1/w_328,c_limit/donald-trump-staffing.jpg)
59% DISAPPROVE 36% APPROVE
(I guess the other 5% didn't wanna talk about it)
-
Another U.S. appeals court rules against Trump's revised travel ban
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ruling-court-idUSKBN19321K
"A second U.S. appeals court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, largely upholding a lower court's decision.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco was reviewed a March ruling by a Hawaii-based federal judge that blocked parts of Trump's order. The ruling came after a separate court, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge's ruling blocking parts of the order.
The Trump administration on June 1 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Hawaii and Richmond rulings and revive the ban.
Hawaii federal Judge Derrick Watson blocked a March 6 executive order barring travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government put in place stricter visa screening. Watson also blocked a directive that suspended entry of refugee applicants for 120 days, as well as other instructions for the government to study tougher vetting procedures.
The 9th Circuit on Monday upheld the block on Trump's travel ban and a cap on refugees. However, the appeals court vacated part of the injunction in order to allow the government to conduct internal reviews on vetting."
The Appeals Court only affirmed part of the lower court's decision. The court reversed the lower court judges establishment ruling part based on religion and applied a statutory reason relating to congressional rules regarding immigration. In effect the appeals court threw out that it was a religious test, which was one of the major concerns of many people.
It also overruled the lower court that prevented Trump from proceeding with a study of the vetting process for 90 days. So now, they can proceed with that.
If the 90 days ends before the Supreme Court hears the case, most likely considering how slow things move, the whole executive order and issue would become moot. The 90 days would be over and a new vetting procedure put in place before the Supreme Court would hear the case. Of course, people could challenge whatever new vetting rules the government put in place. But that would become a new issue and lawsuit. Both sides will declare victory.
Now the other Appeals Court did rule on religion, I believe. But if the vetting research portion is over, I would guess that the whole issue would become moot there as well.
-
I don't want the job but if I did I would put my company and assets in a blind trust which is what other presidents have done and something Trump promised to do a could of years ago (I think it was about the time that Romney was running). But Trump has said a LOT of things which are proven to be untrue like he said he would release his tax returns and Obama was born in Kenya...
Blind trusts aren't required by the constitution. But even with that, the people opposed to him want him to sell everything. Blind trusts aren't enough they say. So a person has to sell all of his companies before running for president. If he loses, he's not only out of a job as president, he doesn't even have his businesses to go back too. There's got to be a better way. Look, nobody wants the president, any president, to get kickbacks or decide important matters based on bribes from foreign states. That's obvious. If you could just look at this generally rather than focusing on Trump, don't you agree that procedure would just stop a huge section of qualified people from running for president? I think that's an unfortunate situate for us. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot and denying the rights of citizens to be president just because they're successful in business.
Well, we can argue all day about this. We'll see what the courts determine.
-
The Appeals Court only affirmed part of the lower court's decision. The court reversed the lower court judges establishment ruling part based on religion and applied a statutory reason relating to congressional rules regarding immigration. In effect the appeals court threw out that it was a religious test, which was one of the major concerns of many people.
It also overruled the lower court that prevented Trump from proceeding with a study of the vetting process for 90 days. So now, they can proceed with that.
If the 90 days ends before the Supreme Court hears the case, most likely considering how slow things move, the whole executive order and issue would become moot. The 90 days would be over and a new vetting procedure put in place before the Supreme Court would hear the case. Of course, people could challenge whatever new vetting rules the government put in place. But that would become a new issue and lawsuit. Both sides will declare victory.
Now the other Appeals Court did rule on religion, I believe. But if the vetting research portion is over, I would guess that the whole issue would become moot there as well.
There was another important point that I was concerned with that I wrote on in past posts. That is that he Appeals Court did not use what Trump said as any basis for their ruling. Had they done that, it would have put a chill on free speech and open debate not only by the President, but by any Senator, Congressman or other government official. Everyone should have the right to discuss things. Even things that may appear to be unconstitutional if made into law. But, their ruling fortunately was based on just how the Executive Order was written. That's more constitutional than the ruling by the other Appeals Courts that applied words used in the debate before the Order was written to make their ruling. That would be terrible for our freedoms if upheld.
-
A friend of President Trump said Monday that Trump is considering firing special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the FBI investigation into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel,” Chris Ruddy told PBS’ Judy Woodruff on “PBS NewsHour.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337509-trump-considering-firing-special-counsel-mueller
“I can only imagine this is part of the effort to tear down Robert Mueller,” Schiff told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Monday night.
“You can’t exclude the possibility [of Mueller’s dismissal],” he continued, “but I think it’s just a way of raising doubts about this man who's well respected on both sides of the aisle.”
-
Nearly two dozen national monuments will face a federal review period following an executive order by President Trump.
The Department of the Interior, under new Trump appointee Secretary Ryan Zinke, released the names of 27 monuments Friday that it will put under a review, including a public comment period that will run for 60 days.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/06/27-national-monuments-under-interior-dept-review/312108001/
How will that make America great?
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337509-trump-considering-firing-special-counsel-mueller
Quote
A friend of President Trump said Monday that Trump is considering firing special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the FBI investigation into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel,” Chris Ruddy told PBS’ Judy Woodruff on “PBS NewsHour.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337509-trump-considering-firing-special-counsel-mueller
Quote
“I can only imagine this is part of the effort to tear down Robert Mueller,” Schiff told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Monday night.
“You can’t exclude the possibility [of Mueller’s dismissal],” he continued, “but I think it’s just a way of raising doubts about this man who's well respected on both sides of the aisle.”
Mueller and Comey are good friends who supported each other in a serious issue back during the Bush administration So that raises an problem. How can the chief investigator be neutral or have an appearance of neutrality when his friend is one of the two participants of his investigation regarding obstruction of justice and accusations of who is lying? Of course Schiff, a Democrat and a major opponent of Trump, is going to defend Mueller. If they're going to do this special investigation with fairness, Mueller should be replaced with someone who hasn't had a relationship with the parties. Or Trump should just fire Mueller. Let Congress do the investigation.
-
Nearly two dozen national monuments will face a federal review period following an executive order by President Trump.
The Department of the Interior, under new Trump appointee Secretary Ryan Zinke, released the names of 27 monuments Friday that it will put under a review, including a public comment period that will run for 60 days.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/06/27-national-monuments-under-interior-dept-review/312108001/
How will that make America great?
It will make America great by allowing a democratic process occur when citizens who live near the Monument have something to say about whether it should be a Monument. The President is not a King making unilateral decisions. We're not a dictatorship.
If the people feel that the Monument is a good idea, then Congress should approve it and the President can sign it into law. Otherwise, it should revert to it's non Monument status. The original antiquities law was intended for emergency situations to cover small areas and for a limited time. Now it's grown into huge areas forever. Frankly, the Antiquities law should be ended. It's not necessary. Let Congress representing the people decide.
That's how a democracy is suppose to work and what makes America great. We're not Russia.
-
hahaha - let Congress investigate?
Hahahaha.
-
hahaha - let Congress investigate?
Hahahaha.
Why do you laugh at our legislature? Do I laugh at yours? I'm sure yours is as political as mine. But legislatures eventually respond to the desires of the people because the legislators want to get elected or re-elected. That's how a democracy works. I'm sure yours does as well too.
-
Dennis Rodman, friend of both Trump and Kim Jong Un, returns to North Korea. Very interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/hfr-dennis-rodman-north-korea/index.html
-
It will make America great by allowing a democratic process occur when citizens who live near the Monument have something to say about whether it should be a Monument. The President is not a King making unilateral decisions. We're not a dictatorship.
It would be useful if you knew a bit more about the process in Utah than simply parroting the Utah GOP line. There has been 80 years of discussion and input about Bears Ears National Monument.
This is what some of the local citizens have to say about the work and effort. Oh, btw this is from indigenous newspaper/blog so I have no idea if it's democratic or republican but it is about the native lands by the natives...
Obama Designates Gold Butte and Bear Ears as National Monuments (http://www.powwows.com/obama-designates-gold-butte-bear-ears-national-monuments/)
(http://1ynsm7483ffp2lc5j5rs4bu13mm.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/gold_butte_5_of_14-600x360.jpg)
In addition to protecting this sacred landscape and the region’s wildlife habitat and natural resources, today’s action establishes a Bears Ears Commission to ensure that management decisions reflect tribal expertise as well as traditional and historical knowledge. In recognition of the importance of tribal participation to the care and management of the monument, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture will engage with the Commission, which will help to inform management decisions by sharing traditional knowledge and providing recommendations.
There have been over 80 years of various efforts to protect the Bears Ears region, beginning with former Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes in 1936 and by Members of Congress, state, local and tribal leaders, and conservation groups in recent decades. Most recently the Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Ouray, and Zuni Tribe developed a proposal to protect the area, and U.S. Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz introduced the Public Lands Initiative, legislation that included a similar protection proposal for the Bears Ears landscape. Today’s action responds to both of these recent proposals, recognizing the areas where there is broad agreement about the need for protections, tribal engagement, and allowances for historical uses such as grazing. Today’s action also establishes a process for developing a management plan that will ensure robust opportunities for all interested stakeholders to provide input about how the monument should be managed.
What YOU aren't telling people is that the people who are most strenuously complaining are extraction companies and their minions who don't want to have to deal with the monument commission and the department of the interior. But all current oil & gas and mining leases are grandfathered in. And exploration isn't banned, it must just go under greater scrutiny.
As for the locals, the real locals not just the the local politicians have some optimism supporting the monument:
Shaun Chapoose, chairman of the Ute Business Committee: "President Obama has demonstrated today that our Native American heritage cannot be ignored. This national monument is the right solution at the right time, and we are pleased that the President has taken this step to ensure Bears Ears will remain in as pristine a condition as possible for generations to come.
"Our history and our future — our Ute identity — is inextricably tied to this place. The Bear Ears scared landscape sustains our way of life and our cultural practices. The President's National Monument designation protects not only traditional activities like collecting medicine and performing ceremonies, it protects this land from looting, indiscriminate off-road use and destructive mineral development."
Eric Descheenie, former co-chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and newly elected member of Arizona's House of Representatives: "It actually brought tears to my face. ... It's so significant. It's so hard to even try to add up what this really means. At the end of the day, there's only a certain place in this entire world, on earth, where we as indigenous peoples belong. And to be able to secure that, you can't put any money value on it."
Mark Maryboy, former San Juan County commissioner and retired Navajo Nation councilman: "This monument is for everybody. It belongs to everybody. Its land will be protected for our generation, and many more generations to come."
Carleton Bowekaty, Zuni councilman and Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition co-chair: "Today's announcement honors and elevates the voices of the Tribes," said "Thirty sovereign Tribal Nations passed resolutions in support of monument protection at Bears Ears, as did the National Congress of American Indians. Support for this monument has been overwhelming in Indian Country, and we thank President Obama for hearing our call for permanent protection of this living cultural landscape."
Cynthia Ann Kent, Chairwoman of the Native American International Caucus of the United Methodist Church: "The new National Monument is a victory for tribal leadership in preserving our heritage. How can you rebuild history, culture and tradition, when it is gone? By not taking care of this site, we lose our way of live and will only see it in pictures. Is that what we want to leave to the next generation, just pictures?"
David Filfred, Navajo Nation Council Delegate representing Aneth, Teec Nos Pos, Red Mesa and Mexican Water Chapters in Utah: "We are grateful for President Obama's brave action today," said David Filfred, Navajo Nation Council Delegate representing Aneth, Teec Nos Pos, Red Mesa and Mexican Water Chapters in Utah. "For the first time in history, a president has used the Antiquities Act to honor the request of Tribal Nations to protect our sacred sites. In doing so, he has given the opportunity for all Americans to come together and heal."
Alfred Lomahquahu, Vice Chairman of Hopi Tribe and Co-Chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition: "As a coalition of five sovereign Native American Tribes in the region, we are confident that today's announcement of collaborative management will protect a cultural landscape that we have known since time immemorial. Our connection with this land is deeply tied to our identities, traditional knowledge, histories, and cultures. We look forward to working with the current and future administrations to fully and properly administer these lands for all to enjoy."
Notice a trend here? Yes, the real locals have been asking for protection for a long time and it was held up in partisan politics that had stalemated the legislation needed yo do this in Congress...and guess why? Because the Republicans on Congress while Obama was President didn't want to do anything that might possibly be a good idea that could work across party lines...Those same Utah GOP Representatives that are spearheading the attempts and overturning Bears Ears are the ones who kept any Congressional effort to get done under Obama because the GOP turned into the Party of No which ironically ill prepared them to actually govern and pass laws while the GOP heals the House, Senate AND Presidency...
So, this is what the GOP is trying to do, undo everything Obama did? That's their reason for living?
-
Dennis Rodman, friend of both Trump and Kim Jong Un, returns to North Korea. Very interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/hfr-dennis-rodman-north-korea/index.html
You can say that again! "A friend of Trump and Kim Jong Un" - that would make anybody a person of interest. Just don't mention it in your resume.
-
Why do you laugh at our legislature? Do I laugh at yours? I'm sure yours is as political as mine. But legislatures eventually respond to the desires of the people because the legislators want to get elected or re-elected. That's how a democracy works. I'm sure yours does as well too.
I'm laughing at the idea that they should be investigating in place of an FBI special investigator. I'd laugh at ours the moment they tried to do the same, too.
-
It would be useful if you knew a bit more about the process in Utah than simply parroting the Utah GOP line. There has been 80 years of discussion and input about Bears Ears National Monument.
This is what some of the local citizens have to say about the work and effort. Oh, btw this is from indigenous newspaper/blog so I have no idea if it's democratic or republican but it is about the native lands by the natives...
Obama Designates Gold Butte and Bear Ears as National Monuments (http://www.powwows.com/obama-designates-gold-butte-bear-ears-national-monuments/)
(http://1ynsm7483ffp2lc5j5rs4bu13mm.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/gold_butte_5_of_14-600x360.jpg)
What YOU aren't telling people is that the people who are most strenuously complaining are extraction companies and their minions who don't want to have to deal with the monument commission and the department of the interior. But all current oil & gas and mining leases are grandfathered in. And exploration isn't banned, it must just go under greater scrutiny.
As for the locals, the real locals not just the the local politicians have some optimism supporting the monument:
Shaun Chapoose, chairman of the Ute Business Committee: "President Obama has demonstrated today that our Native American heritage cannot be ignored. This national monument is the right solution at the right time, and we are pleased that the President has taken this step to ensure Bears Ears will remain in as pristine a condition as possible for generations to come.
"Our history and our future — our Ute identity — is inextricably tied to this place. The Bear Ears scared landscape sustains our way of life and our cultural practices. The President's National Monument designation protects not only traditional activities like collecting medicine and performing ceremonies, it protects this land from looting, indiscriminate off-road use and destructive mineral development."
Eric Descheenie, former co-chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and newly elected member of Arizona's House of Representatives: "It actually brought tears to my face. ... It's so significant. It's so hard to even try to add up what this really means. At the end of the day, there's only a certain place in this entire world, on earth, where we as indigenous peoples belong. And to be able to secure that, you can't put any money value on it."
Mark Maryboy, former San Juan County commissioner and retired Navajo Nation councilman: "This monument is for everybody. It belongs to everybody. Its land will be protected for our generation, and many more generations to come."
Carleton Bowekaty, Zuni councilman and Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition co-chair: "Today's announcement honors and elevates the voices of the Tribes," said "Thirty sovereign Tribal Nations passed resolutions in support of monument protection at Bears Ears, as did the National Congress of American Indians. Support for this monument has been overwhelming in Indian Country, and we thank President Obama for hearing our call for permanent protection of this living cultural landscape."
Cynthia Ann Kent, Chairwoman of the Native American International Caucus of the United Methodist Church: "The new National Monument is a victory for tribal leadership in preserving our heritage. How can you rebuild history, culture and tradition, when it is gone? By not taking care of this site, we lose our way of live and will only see it in pictures. Is that what we want to leave to the next generation, just pictures?"
David Filfred, Navajo Nation Council Delegate representing Aneth, Teec Nos Pos, Red Mesa and Mexican Water Chapters in Utah: "We are grateful for President Obama's brave action today," said David Filfred, Navajo Nation Council Delegate representing Aneth, Teec Nos Pos, Red Mesa and Mexican Water Chapters in Utah. "For the first time in history, a president has used the Antiquities Act to honor the request of Tribal Nations to protect our sacred sites. In doing so, he has given the opportunity for all Americans to come together and heal."
Alfred Lomahquahu, Vice Chairman of Hopi Tribe and Co-Chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition: "As a coalition of five sovereign Native American Tribes in the region, we are confident that today's announcement of collaborative management will protect a cultural landscape that we have known since time immemorial. Our connection with this land is deeply tied to our identities, traditional knowledge, histories, and cultures. We look forward to working with the current and future administrations to fully and properly administer these lands for all to enjoy."
Notice a trend here? Yes, the real locals have been asking for protection for a long time and it was held up in partisan politics that had stalemated the legislation needed yo do this in Congress...and guess why? Because the Republicans on Congress while Obama was President didn't want to do anything that might possibly be a good idea that could work across party lines...Those same Utah GOP Representatives that are spearheading the attempts and overturning Bears Ears are the ones who kept any Congressional effort to get done under Obama because the GOP turned into the Party of No which ironically ill prepared them to actually govern and pass laws while the GOP heals the House, Senate AND Presidency...
So, this is what the GOP is trying to do, undo everything Obama did? That's their reason for living?
If all those people want the Monument, then they should have no problem getting Congress to approve it. That would be great. But it will be approved by a majority of the 535 members of Congress who constitutionally represent the people, and not by one unilateral vote of some president who thinks he runs the show.
What if a president ruled that all photography at all monuments will stop because the photographers are stamping out the life forms there. How would you feel that the Congressional Representative and Senators that represent you did not get to vote on that decision?
-
If all those people want the Monument, then they should have no problem getting Congress to approve it. That would be great. But it will be approved by a majority of the 535 members of Congress who constitutionally represent the people, and not by one unilateral vote of some president who thinks he runs the show.
Obama did it at the behest of a broad coalition os concerned citizens many who are indigenous BECAUSE the Congress couldn't do it before...The Utah GOP was "close" but couldn't pull the trigger because they couldn't get enough indigenous support.
Ironically, it looks like Bears Ears is going to survive with perhaps a reduced footprint.
Trump Administration Wants To Shrink Bears Ears National Monument (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/12/532605964/trump-administration-wants-to-shrink-bears-ears-national-monument)
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is recommending that the boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah be shrunk. He also is calling on Congress to give Native American tribes more say in how the new monument is managed.
Zinke's recommendation to President Trump, announced Monday, is preliminary. But it signals that the administration does not plan to completely rescind President Obama's creation of the Bears Ears monument late last year in a proclamation. The preliminary report is the first step of a larger review of more than two dozen national monuments that protect U.S. public lands, mostly in the West.
The former Montana congressman's decision was awaited as an early test of how the administration will treat public lands issues, in this case balancing the interests of Native Americans, who consider Bears Ears sacred land, and other locals who oppose tough restrictions on other activities.
So, it seems the carrot Zinke is extending is more direct indigenous control...we'll see if that is enough.
-
That is that he Appeals Court did not use what Trump said as any basis for their ruling. Had they done that, it would have put a chill on free speech and open debate not only by the President, but by any Senator, Congressman or other government official.
Hum, I guess you didn't read the fine print huh?
Trump’s Own Tweets Help Kill His Government’s Travel Ban, Again (http://fortune.com/2017/06/12/trump-tweets-travel-ban/)
As a number of legal experts warned, Donald Trump's tweets about his "travel ban" helped convince an appeals court to block the controversial plan. It's the second time his own comments have helped the courts knock down the executive order.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on Monday, ruling that Trump's attempt to block immigration from six predominantly Muslim countries "exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress."
In their ruling, the judges cited a tweet from the president that was posted after the recent terrorist attack in London, in which Trump argued that the U.S. needed a travel ban "for certain dangerous countries."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCIya3TVwAEzMRK.jpg:large)
The Trump tweet was cited in a footnote in the decision, at a point where the court questioned the justification for the ban.
So, sorry...Trump STILL stepped on his own message by sticking his Tweets in his mouth (instead of his foot).
(they even noted that Sean Spicy Trump's tweets are "official statements")
-
I was watching this live and I couldn't believe it...I had to back it up and watch it several times. It was just so weird and creepy...
Trump Invites His Employees To Praise Him During Cabinet Meeting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-cabinet-meeting_us_593ebc52e4b0c5a35ca1acbe)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/06/12/876/493/694940094001_5468278196001_5468238151001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
President Donald Trump invited his top employees to shower him with compliments on Monday. They happily obliged, one-by-one, on live television.
During a Cabinet meeting at the White House, the president touted the “record-setting pace” of his legislative agenda and claimed “never has there been a president, with few exceptions” who has accomplished more while in office. (HORSESHYTE WARNING)
Trump then went around the table and called on each official to deliver brief remarks, beginning with Vice President Mike Pence. The bizarre scene that ensued resembled something out of North Korea, as each Cabinet official attempted to outdo one another with nice statements about their boss.
“It’s the greatest privilege of my life to serve as vice president to a president who is keeping his word to the American people, and assembling a team that’s bringing real change, real prosperity, real strength back to our nation,” Pence said.
BIG TIME ICKY!!!
But the worse butt kissing was by Reince Priebus:
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, who appears to be under constant threat of losing his job, thanked the president for “the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda.”
Pompeo got the biggest laughs...
CIA Director Mike Pompeo, however, took a pass by taking a shot at the president’s favorite punching bag: the press.
“In the finest tradition of the CIA, I’m not gonna say a damn thing in front of the media,” he said, garnering a round of laughter.
The best meme of butt kissing parody had to be Chuck Schumer's tweet (https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/874327317748883456)
Butt wait, there's more. CNN just posted a quote by quote breakdown of the Cabinet members...
Donald Trump's Cabinet members, ranked by their over-the-top praise of Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/trump-cabinet-ranked/index.html)
(CNN)President Donald Trump held a super weird Cabinet meeting Monday afternoon. In it, he sat silently as each member of his Cabinet lavished praise on him. Seriously.
I wrote about the whole thing here. But -- with the help of super intern Liz Stark, who graduated college Saturday and was at work Monday morning(!) -- I went through the transcript and ranked the Cabinet members by just how obsequious their encomiums to Trump actually were.
Before we go any further, an important note: The people on this list are those who required Senate confirmation plus Vice President Mike Pence. So, no White House chief of staff Reince Priebus who deserves honorable mention for this gem: "We thank you for the opportunity and the blessing that you've given us to serve your agenda and the American people."
To the rankings!
Spoiler alert! It was Pence who won with this full quote:
1. Vice President Mike Pence
"It is just the greatest privilege of my life is to serve as the -- as vice president to the President who's keeping his word to the American people and assembling a team that's bringing real change, real prosperity, real strength back to our nation."
-
This can happen only in America!
-
I was watching this live and I couldn't believe it...I had to back it up and watch it several times. It was just so weird and creepy...
Creepy indeed. I did not have to watch it several times, I noticed it immediately... the cameraman's dig at the President, that is - kept him out of focus the whole time! :D
-
Obama did it at the behest of a broad coalition os concerned citizens many who are indigenous BECAUSE the Congress couldn't do it before...The Utah GOP was "close" but couldn't pull the trigger because they couldn't get enough indigenous support.
Ironically, it looks like Bears Ears is going to survive with perhaps a reduced footprint.
Trump Administration Wants To Shrink Bears Ears National Monument (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/12/532605964/trump-administration-wants-to-shrink-bears-ears-national-monument)
So, it seems the carrot Zinke is extending is more direct indigenous control...we'll see if that is enough.
I hope the right thing is done eventually. But Obama or any president, by himself, can't do the "right" thing long term, regardless of who supports his ideas. He's one man. Congress should be involved. If they refuse to do it, he shouldn't override it. He's not a king. That's how he got into trouble. It'll be how Trump gets into trouble. Also, future presidents could more easily amend it as you see with what's happening with many of Obama's "laws".
-
Hum, I guess you didn't read the fine print huh?
Trump’s Own Tweets Help Kill His Government’s Travel Ban, Again (http://fortune.com/2017/06/12/trump-tweets-travel-ban/)
So, sorry...Trump STILL stepped on his own message by sticking his Tweets in his mouth (instead of his foot).
(they even noted that Sean Spicy Trump's tweets are "official statements")
I was referring to the court's not using Trump's discussion about Muslims and their religion in their decision. They based their decision on the fact his order violated congressional requirements of immigration. But your point is well taken. They appear to have used open discussion before the Order. I think that's a bad idea. Many things are discussed and said in open debate. Many things would be unconstitutional if included in a law. But if they are stripped out, and the law is constitutional as written, then the law should stand. It's the law that's implemented, not what people said beforehand in open debate. I think that kind of thing puts a chilling effect on free speech.
For example, let's say during discussion about penalties for illegal immigration, the leader of the senate or the president says, "We should kill illegals who sneak into our country." The president and the senate leader come to their senses and the law is passed giving two years in jail for illegal immigration, a reasonable penalty. So an illegal takes the law to court and claims the president and leader of the senate really were doing it because they hated illegals and wanted to kill them. Well, then the courts would overturn the law based on what was said, not what was written. People should be allowed to say what they want. Free speech and open political debate should not be restricted. Only unconstitutional law as written should be overturned. Only the effect of the law should be considered.
I didn't read the whole decision, but it seems the court decided n this case that the president has to have a reason to write this Executive Order to show it comports with previous congressional law. The arguments Trump gave in tweets and elsewhere were not valid according to the court. So there is some weight to using discussions previous to writing the law, but the action of the law itself, I believe, was seen as valid by the courts. But yes I have to agree with you that they did use facts outside of the Order itself.
-
I was watching this live and I couldn't believe it...I had to back it up and watch it several times. It was just so weird and creepy...
Trump Invites His Employees To Praise Him During Cabinet Meeting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-cabinet-meeting_us_593ebc52e4b0c5a35ca1acbe)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/06/12/876/493/694940094001_5468278196001_5468238151001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
BIG TIME ICKY!!!
But the worse butt kissing was by Reince Priebus:
Pompeo got the biggest laughs...
The best meme of butt kissing parody had to be Chuck Schumer's tweet (https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/874327317748883456)
Butt wait, there's more. CNN just posted a quote by quote breakdown of the Cabinet members...
Donald Trump's Cabinet members, ranked by their over-the-top praise of Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/trump-cabinet-ranked/index.html)
Spoiler alert! It was Pence who won with this full quote:
I didn't watch it. But if it like what you said, that's classic un-classsy, ego-driven Trump. He must have just watched a newsreel of Saddam Hussein with his minions. We all know a president's cabinet all kiss his ass, but we don't need to see a public display of it. Yeach.
-
Well, at no point Trump asked for it, at least not during the meeting.
-
Well, at no point Trump asked for it, at least not during the meeting.
Fake news?
-
...
Let Congress do the investigation.
You can't possibly believe that's viable. It will be a cold day in heck when a GOP Congress finds any wrongdoing on the part of a GOP President. That's just how it is and always has been. Do you think Clinton would have been investigated endlessly and impeached if Democrats controlled the House and Senate? If so I think you need a dose of reality.
...
Let Congress representing the people decide.
...
Congress listens to lobbyists representing corporations that donate millions to political campaigns in the form of television ads and the like. To a large extent they determine who gets elected because people are generally apathetic and uninformed. Just over half of all eligible voters even bother to vote. I'd hate to guess how many of those have reasonably unbiased information regarding the issues. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy and we absolutely do not have that today. Advertising shapes what people believe and plays a huge role in determining election outcomes. Politicians know that. This is how laws favoring certain prescription drugs over others in spite of medical opinion to the contrary get written, for instance. Ordinary citizens hold little influence until they organize in massive numbers around hot-button issues.
-
You can't possibly believe that's viable. It will be a cold day in heck when a GOP Congress finds any wrongdoing on the part of a GOP President. That's just how it is and always has been. Do you think Clinton would have been investigated endlessly and impeached if Democrats controlled the House and Senate? If so I think you need a dose of reality.
Congress listens to lobbyists representing corporations that donate millions to political campaigns in the form of television ads and the like. To a large extent they determine who gets elected because people are generally apathetic and uninformed. Just over half of all eligible voters even bother to vote. I'd hate to guess how many of those have reasonably unbiased information regarding the issues. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy and we absolutely do not have that today. Advertising shapes what people believe and plays a huge role in determining election outcomes. Politicians know that. This is how laws favoring certain prescription drugs over others in spite of medical opinion to the contrary get written, for instance. Ordinary citizens hold little influence until they organize in massive numbers around hot-button issues.
Congress investigates all sorts of things. The IRA scandal, Hillary's emails, etc. Enough information usually comes out that the voters can decide in the next election how it influenced them and vote accordingly. And it effects congressional elections as well. Look how the democrats lost the House and Senate because of Obama? But remember, the constitution provides for Congress to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. Is it political? Of course. Nixon, a Republican, would never had resigned if the Republicans were in charge of congress at the time. And Democrat Clinton would not have been impeached if the House was not Republican.
Your solution on the problems of congressional failings seems to want to throw the baby out with the bath water. What would you substitute Congress with? What would you do about voting? Eliminate it? I agree with you that the public is not informed or maybe often misinformed by a biased press. But again, what are the alternatives? I believe that in the end, the voters eventually get it and vote in a government they want.
-
Free speech and open political debate should not be restricted.
While I agree in principle, what many people do not grasp is that with freedom of speech, comes an obligation (of not abusing that right).
Only unconstitutional law as written should be overturned.
Which is what the legal system is for (execute laws that by definition are constitutional, otherwise they should not be laws), and why it is so wrong to politicize it. When I hear people talking about a Republican Judge or a Democratic Judge, I have to suppress the tendency to puke. The Law is impartial and unbiased, at least in my country. A system that appoints on the basis of political affiliation is flawed to begin with, and see the mess that it produces.
Only the effect of the law should be considered.
And discrimination (e.g. on the basis of 'country of origin' or religion) is not constitutional in a real (parliamentary) democracy.
Çheers,
Bart
-
Well, at no point Trump asked for it, at least not during the meeting.
Well, maybe not during the meeting, he only 'hopes' and otherwise one gets fired ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
No cause to fire special counsel Mueller: deputy attorney general
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-rosenstein-idUSKBN194206
"The No. 2 official at the U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday told Congress the special counsel investigating Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign is going to have "the full degree of independence" he needs.
"Director Mueller is going to have the full degree of independence that he needs to conduct that investigation appropriately," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told a Senate appropriations subcommittee, referring to special counsel Robert Mueller.
Rosenstein, who has the sole ability to fire Mueller given that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from matters relating to the investigation, told the panel he had seen no evidence of good cause for letting Mueller go and that he would not follow any theoretical order to fire him absent such evidence."
So all that can be done is to fabricate new evidence if the investigation uncovers too much bad stuff. People like Comey made sure to leave a trail of unclassified breadcrumbs to reduce the chance of that happening, as Mueller probably also does. So also expect talks to be recorded from now on (probably already happening), as evidence.
We're unlikely to hear more from Trump's recordings or 'tapes' unless the evidence was destroyed which would create a new issue.
Cheers,
Bart
-
While I agree in principle, what many people do not grasp is that with freedom of speech, comes an obligation (of not abusing that right).
Which is what the legal system is for (execute laws that by definition are constitutional, otherwise they should not be laws), and why it is so wrong to politicize it. When I hear people talking about a Republican Judge or a Democratic Judge, I have to suppress the tendency to puke. The Law is impartial and unbiased, at least in my country. A system that appoints on the basis of political affiliation is flawed to begin with, and see the mess that it produces.
And discrimination (e.g. on the basis of 'country of origin' or religion) is not constitutional in a real (parliamentary) democracy.
Çheers,
Bart
1. What is the obligation people have regarding freedom of speech that you are referring too? Is that freedom different between the regular public and members of a legislative body? I think it's stricter in Europe. In France for example, laws prevent Muslim women from wearing a hijab. That is unconstitutional in America as it denies expression and is a form of free speech. Again in France, you cannot say good things about the Nazis or support a denial position of the Holocaust. I believe you have similar rules against hate speech in the Netherlands. Those rules would be unconstitutional in America as well. The Constitution in America and the Supreme Court have consistently rules in favor of as free speech as possible other than things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire and causing a panic or an immediate incitement to riot.
2. Appointments are not made on the basis of political beliefs but rather constitutional beliefs which may or may not reflect the candidates particular party. They may not be in a party anyway. Of course, selection is often wrong because the justices turn out to change their minds. How do the Dutch assure selection is not effected by what a person believes? It seems like you're asking too much from politicians.
3. Congress has decided in law that immigration should not be based on national origin. But I don't think that limits the Presidents right to block certain immigrants in case of emergency. For example, you wouldn't expect German or Japanese Nationals to be allowed to enter or immigrate to the US during WWII. As one Supreme Court justice once stated, "The US Constitution isn't a suicide pact." We have a right to protect ourselves.
The rules for congressman and senators are even less restricted due to the constitution giving them the authority to write law. An open debate and free speech is paramount to discuss call issues and possibilities before law is drafted, on eof the reason I feel Trump's comments regaridn his Executive Order should have no effect on courts.
-
1. What is the obligation people have regarding freedom of speech that you are referring too? Is that freedom different between the regular public and members of a legislative body? I think it's stricter in Europe. In France for example, laws prevent Muslim women from wearing a hijab. That is unconstitutional in America as it denies expression and is a form of free speech. Again in France, you cannot say good things about the Nazis or support a denial position of the Holocaust. I believe you have similar rules against hate speech in the Netherlands. Those rules would be unconstitutional in America as well. The Constitution in America and the Supreme Court have consistently rules in favor of as free speech as possible other than things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire and causing a panic or an immediate incitement to riot.
2. Appointments are not made on the basis of political beliefs but rather constitutional beliefs which may or may not reflect the candidates particular party. They may not be in a party anyway. Of course, selection is often wrong because the justices turn out to change their minds. How do the Dutch assure selection is not effected by what a person believes? It seems like you're asking too much from politicians.
3. Congress has decided in law that immigration should not be based on national origin. But I don't think that limits the Presidents right to block certain immigrants in case of emergency. For example, you wouldn't expect German or Japanese Nationals to be allowed to enter or immigrate to the US during WWII. As one Supreme Court justice once stated, "The US Constitution isn't a suicide pact." We have a right to protect ourselves.
The rules for congressman and senators are even less restricted due to the constitution giving them the authority to write law. An open debate and free speech is paramount to discuss call issues and possibilities before law is drafted, on eof the reason I feel Trump's comments regaridn his Executive Order should have no effect on courts.
Firstly, there were no good Nazi things, and why would anyone in sound mind deny Holocaust?
-
Fake news?
It was a live broadcast. If it's fake, blame the "actors" (i.e. the cabinet and Trump).
-
Congress investigates all sorts of things. The IRA scandal, Hillary's emails, etc. Enough information usually comes out that the voters can decide in the next election how it influenced them and vote accordingly.
That's fine, but when you're talking about possible legal issues, you need a legal investigation, not political.
-
That's fine, but when you're talking about possible legal issues, you need a legal investigation, not political.
Don't kid yourself. It's all politics.
-
Les, in America, you can believe what you want to believe. That's why people always want to come here. It's what makes America, America.
-
...
Your solution on the problems of congressional failings seems to want to throw the baby out with the bath water. What would you substitute Congress with? What would you do about voting? Eliminate it? I agree with you that the public is not informed or maybe often misinformed by a biased press. But again, what are the alternatives? I believe that in the end, the voters eventually get it and vote in a government they want.
I didn't offer a solution and I sincerely do not think there is one. We have an ill-informed and extremely divided electorate of which barely half even bother to vote, news organizations that are only extensions of political parties, an extremist President who IMO is incompetent and also seems to want the U.S. to become an autocracy, a fan base who wouldn't mind if that happened, and a Congress that is showing zero leadership and just follows along. This seems to have disenfranchised even moderate Republicans and certainly anyone left of that. This extremist bent seemed to really take hold in the days when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, though perhaps it started earlier than that. It has only gotten progressively worse, and the only way it will get better is if the electorate magically becomes educated. That won't happen in my lifetime. America is rapidly becoming a much less desirable place.
-
Les, in America, you can believe what you want to believe. That's why people always want to come here. It's what makes America, America.
Not a good answer, Alan
But since I've been dealt this card, I concur, that some people believe what they want to believe. Even Trump's lies and BS.
-
I didn't offer a solution and I sincerely do not think there is one. We have an ill-informed and extremely divided electorate of which barely half even bother to vote, news organizations that are only extensions of political parties, an extremist President who IMO is incompetent and also seems to want the U.S. to become an autocracy, a fan base who wouldn't mind if that happened, and a Congress that is showing zero leadership and just follows along. This seems to have disenfranchised even moderate Republicans and certainly anyone left of that. This extremist bent seemed to really take hold in the days when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, though perhaps it started earlier than that. It has only gotten progressively worse, and the only way it will get better is if the electorate magically becomes educated. That won't happen in my lifetime. America is rapidly becoming a much less desirable place.
Actually, in many respects I think the public was very informed about the candidates and their positions. We had talk shows and newscasts morning until night and even in the middle of the night. Who can say they didn't understand Clinton's and Trump's positions on things and all their negatives and positives? We also knew the other candidates who also ran. Then the people voted.
I think the voters were very passionate. But I don't think most were extreme, just regular people voting who had strong beliefs about things. What's wrong with that? Of course there were extreme elements on both sides. But there were a lot more extremists in the past if you're old enough to remember what happened at the Chicago Democrat Convention in 1968 during the Vietnam War. There were bombings around the country for political reasons. It wasn't extreme back then. It was violent.
-
Not a good answer, Alan
But since I've been dealt this card, I concur, that some people believe what they want to believe. Even Trump's lies and BS.
Les, it's a great answer. It has nothing to do with Trump. That's a copout. My answer acknowledges that in America you can believe what you want in order to say what you want. Without fear of being silenced for being politically incorrect like in many countries in Europe and elsewhere. That's what freedom is all about.
-
Actually, in many respects I think the public was very informed about the candidates and their positions.
Actually, in truth, they were often misinformed due to the actions taken by Russian hackers and the Active Measure taken by FSB funded trolls and purveyors of weaponized fake news–not the "fake news" that Trump (and Trump supporters) think of as fake but the real, completely made up fake news like Podestal was involved in a child porn ring and other fake news that Trump himself helped spread...
Russian deception influenced election due to Trump's support, senators hear (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/30/trump-russia-fake-news-senate-intelligence-committee)
Donald Trump’s willingness to embrace Russian disinformation was one of the reasons Russia’s interference in the 2016 election worked, the Senate panel investigating the president’s alleged ties to the country heard on Thursday.
Decades of Russian covert attempts to undermine confidence in western institutions, including planting or promoting false news stories or spreading doubt about the integrity of elections, will accelerate in the future unless the US confronts so-called “active measures”, several experts testified to the Senate intelligence committee.
“Part of the reason active measures have worked in this US election is because the commander-in-chief has used Russian active measures at time [sic] against his opponents,” said Clint Watts of George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security.
Those active measures have migrated online with alacrity in recent years. Watts, a former FBI special agent and army officer who came under personal siege from Russian-backed hackers, told the panel’s first public hearing that social media accounts associated with spreading pro-Russian fake news were visible as far back as 2009.
The expert added that Russia possessed unreleased hacked information on thousands of Americans it could “weaponize” to discredit inconvenient sources. Those and other measures provided Russia with an inexpensive tool to check its wealthier adversaries in the US and Nato, several scholars and former US officials assessed.
So, no, I don't agree that people were well informed about the candidates and their positions they were well aware of the news stories both real and fake but not so much about the candidates let alone their positions, well other than Trump's main themes like Build a Wall, Crooked Hillary, The Election Was Rigged (which may actually be more true than we thought) and Muslim Ban. Hillary didn't have the same success at painting Trump with platitudes because well, when you call Trump a liar, he's comes back with something juvenile like "I know you are, but what am I?"
Naw, this past election and it's outcome is far, far from America's finest efforts. We suck!
-
Just in case there are doubters out there that Russia was actively engaged in not only hacking the DNC and Pedestal emails but there were attempting to hack the voting machines themselves...
Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections)
Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.
In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database. Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the U.S. investigation into the matter. In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.
The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step -- complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day “red phone.” In October, two of the people said, the White House contacted the Kremlin on the back channel to offer detailed documents of what it said was Russia’s role in election meddling and to warn that the attacks risked setting off a broader conflict.
The new details, buttressed by a classified National Security Agency document recently disclosed by the Intercept, show the scope of alleged hacking that federal investigators are scrutinizing as they look into whether Trump campaign officials may have colluded in the efforts. But they also paint a worrisome picture for future elections: The newest portrayal of potentially deep vulnerabilities in the U.S.’s patchwork of voting technologies comes less than a week after former FBI Director James Comey warned Congress that Moscow isn’t done meddling.
“They’re coming after America,” Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russian interference in the election. “They will be back.”
And for some reason Trump keeps claiming this is all a conspiracy theory by pissed of Democrats to explain why Hillary lost...uh, can somebody tell Trump he's putting the USA at risk by claiming Russia and Putin are our friends?
-
Actually, in truth, they were often misinformed due to the actions taken by Russian hackers and the Active Measure taken by FSB funded trolls and purveyors of weaponized fake news–not the "fake news" that Trump (and Trump supporters) think of as fake but the real, completely made up fake news like Podestal was involved in a child porn ring and other fake news that Trump himself helped spread...
Russian deception influenced election due to Trump's support, senators hear (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/30/trump-russia-fake-news-senate-intelligence-committee)
So, no, I don't agree that people were well informed about the candidates and their positions they were well aware of the news stories both real and fake but not so much about the candidates let alone their positions, well other than Trump's main themes like Build a Wall, Crooked Hillary, The Election Was Rigged (which may actually be more true than we thought) and Muslim Ban. Hillary didn't have the same success at painting Trump with platitudes because well, when you call Trump a liar, he's comes back with something juvenile like "I know you are, but what am I?"
Naw, this past election and it's outcome is far, far from America's finest efforts. We suck!
Well, Jeff, I think the Republicans fielded a more diverse range of candidates. 17 candidates including mostly Senators and Governors, 2 CEO's including Trump and a doctor. The Democrats in the end hurt themselves by anointing Clinton, a very damaged candidate. Sanders gave her a run for her money. But the fix was in. I suppose the Russians revealed stuff about her that hurt her. But if she didn't conspire with the DNC, there wouldn't be anything to reveal. In any case, the rust belt states were won by Trump legitimately because he fought for them. Hillary ignored them or insulted the workers there. It was those states that gave him the Presidency.
I disagree that people were not informed. There was so much coverage. Even though it was often biased on both sides, one would have had to be in a coma to not know the character and history of the candidates. And the people voted.
I wouldn't say "we suck". Let's wait and see how things turn out. This is America after all and God has a way of looking after us.
-
God, Jeff, you are like a little kid that needs to hear the same story for a hundredth time in order to fall asleep... the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming... zzzzzzzz
-
God, Jeff, you are like a little kid that needs to hear the same story for a hundredth time in order to fall asleep... the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming... zzzzzzzz
Are you disputing the Russians took an active role in meddling in the election? So, the story I mentioned was that the Russians were also attempting ago actively hack voter roles and the actual voting machines and that Obama had to threaten the Russians if they kept up the attempts to hack the voting machines...But, I guess that's ok with you huh?
You think the Russians are such good guys?
(actually I know some Russians and they are good guys but they don't work for Putin as far as I know)
You happy about what the Russians did to our election? Or do you just not believe it? That Hillary lost the election to Trump only because she was a bad candidate?
Yeah, Putin's a happy, happy guy theses days, he has the GOP actually defending the Russians saying they didn't throw the election, Hillary did...
-
And then he said this...got make Paul Ryan a happy guy, right?
President Trump Calls House Health Care Bill 'Mean' (http://time.com/4817226/donald-trump-house-health-care-ahca-mean/?xid=homepage)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump told Republican senators Tuesday that the House-passed health care bill is "mean" and urged them to craft a version that is "more generous," congressional sources said.
The president's comments, at a White House lunch with 15 GOP senators, came as Senate Republican leaders' attempts to write their own health care package have been slowed by disagreements between their party's conservative and moderates.
Trump's remarks were a surprising critique of a Republican-written House measure whose passage he lobbied for and praised. At a Rose Garden ceremony minutes after the bill's narrow House passage, Trump called it "a great plan."
His comments also seemed to undercut efforts by Senate conservatives to include restrictions in their chamber's bill, such as cutting the Medicaid health care program for the poor and limiting the services insurers must cover. Moderate GOP senators have been pushing to ease those efforts.
With friends like Trump, who needs enemies?
-
And then he said this...got make Paul Ryan a happy guy, right?
President Trump Calls House Health Care Bill 'Mean' (http://time.com/4817226/donald-trump-house-health-care-ahca-mean/?xid=homepage)
With friends like Trump, who needs enemies?
I bet that Obama called Trump to thank him for his support of health care. Trump's actually liberal when it comes to it. He's actually your friend on this matter. Remember, it was Trump who said during the campaign that he wouldn't step over someone lying sick in the street. That he's going to help that person. It would be nice to give him some credit when it's due. You know, he isn't the monster you think he is.
-
Actually, in many respects I think the public was very informed about the candidates and their positions. We had talk shows and newscasts morning until night and even in the middle of the night. Who can say they didn't understand Clinton's and Trump's positions on things and all their negatives and positives? We also knew the other candidates who also ran. Then the people voted.
...
Yes, "the people" voted, 25.6 percent of eligible voters voted Clinton while 25.5 percent voted Trump. That's a victory for Trump under our convoluted set of rules but not exactly a decisive mandate for drastic action. It is a mandate to be "a president for everyone". Because of that, and because he said he would, I thought he might try to be a little more moderate and inclusive. Instead he went to the far right with essentially everything he has done. In the bigger picture, how does one have and keep a legitimate democracy when leaders are picked by only 25% of the people?
-
Yes, "the people" voted, 25.6 percent of eligible voters voted Clinton while 25.5 percent voted Trump. That's a victory for Trump under our convoluted set of rules but not exactly a decisive mandate for drastic action. It is a mandate to be "a president for everyone". Because of that, and because he said he would, I thought he might try to be a little more moderate and inclusive. Instead he went to the far right with essentially everything he has done. In the bigger picture, how does one have and keep a legitimate democracy when leaders are picked by only 25% of the people?
Trump won the election with 58% to 42% of the electoral vote. A solid majority and more than Kennedy, Bush, and Carter and others. It's why people feel the electoral system in a federal system is better than the popular vote.
Regarding Trumps popular vote of 46%, Bill Clinton won worth 43% and amazingly, Lincoln won with 40% and incited the Civil War.
Butt in the end, a win is a win. Every president is going to try to implement his campaign promises and the losing side will complain he doesn't have a mandate. Its unfortunate that democrats and the liberal media are hell bent to try to destroy his presidency.
-
You think the Russians are such good guys?
to hear the question from a citizen of "WMD in Iraq" country (aka United Fruit of Marines) is hilarious ;D
-
1. What is the obligation people have regarding freedom of speech that you are referring too? Is that freedom different between the regular public and members of a legislative body? I think it's stricter in Europe. In France for example, laws prevent Muslim women from wearing a hijab. That is unconstitutional in America as it denies expression and is a form of free speech. Again in France, you cannot say good things about the Nazis or support a denial position of the Holocaust. I believe you have similar rules against hate speech in the Netherlands. Those rules would be unconstitutional in America as well. The Constitution in America and the Supreme Court have consistently rules in favor of as free speech as possible other than things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire and causing a panic or an immediate incitement to riot.
Hi Alan,
While it would take the thread too far off topic to fully explain, it is founded in our multi-cultural society, and in our Constitution, Article 7, sections 1, 2, and 3. which basically say the same thing (just made explicit for different types of media):
For expression of thoughts and feelings, nobody needs prior permission for its content, except for everybody's personal responsibilities according to the law. Advertisements are not covered by this article.
It means that citizens can express themselves freely, without prior required permission, but not e.g. incite violence, or discrimination, etc., or cause others to violate the laws. If people do cross the line, then there is a possibility to have a legal court pass judgment and sentence violators. Although politicians have more freedom in parliament, they can be held accountable (including sentencing in court) for what's said in public, because the law also applies to politicians.
Besides the Dutch constitution (and jurisprudence), free speech is protected by European law (human rights and fundamental freedoms act, article 10, section 1.). That act is seen as ’standards to which a State must conform if it is to deserve the name of democracy’. Note the word 'deserve', it requires an active maintenance and safeguards. Freedom of speech/expression: ’Holds a prominent place in a democratic society. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential functions of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man and woman’ .
Excesses, which are certainly not the norm in my country, like bans on wearing a hijab, niqab or burka, are not a big issue in my country, but they can lead to refusal for entry and police asking for identification (for which a sound reason must be provided, in order to prevent harassment, discrimination, or ethnic profiling) for security reasons. Personnel in Government institutions who come into contact with the general public are not allowed to visibly wear such (e.g. religious) artifacts or extreme clothing, because the government is neutral, and must remain accessible without generating hesitation or obstruction.
2. Appointments are not made on the basis of political beliefs but rather constitutional beliefs which may or may not reflect the candidates particular party. They may not be in a party anyway. Of course, selection is often wrong because the justices turn out to change their minds. How do the Dutch assure selection is not effected by what a person believes? It seems like you're asking too much from politicians.
Judges are not politicians. All Judges are elected for life (to prevent the possibility of getting fired to affect their judgment). They are elected by a commitee that's made up mostly from a broad selection of politicians (across the spectrum). And even the politicians that form the Parliament, must swear or declare that they will execute their task without any outside 'influence'. Members of parliament are installed as representatives of the people (!), all of them, not only the constituents who voted for them. Obviously, representatives have personal beliefs and preferences, so it takes more to safeguard against favoritism and personal services. There is a number of things that are done to promote that impartiality. Donations to political parties are limited, they get a budget for running campaigns, so everyone gets a fair chance. There are more than two parties (to make sure that a bi-partisan situation like in the USA is prevented). In fact, after the recent elections, there are 13 parties (with different political ideologies) that raised enough votes for one or more seats in parliament. We are currently in the process of creating a coalition government, which (given this term's results) requires at least 4 of the largest parties to agree on the agenda with priorities for the next 4 years, which automatically means a wide spectrum of views that will result in new laws that have support from a larger part of electorate.
3. Congress has decided in law that immigration should not be based on national origin. But I don't think that limits the Presidents right to block certain immigrants in case of emergency.
Trump, not by winning the majority of support by debate in Congress and the Senate, tries to force Executive orders down the throat of the legal system. This will result in Legal scrutiny taking place (which delays implementation, and provides opposition with time and tools to object), with existing law as their guidelines.
Trump himself, Tweeted that he was targeting specific countries, and the courts included that in their verdict. He also failed to show the relevance for singling out these specific countries, also given that Countries/governments with a proven terrorism track record were not included.
The Tweeting, and unjustified selection of countries, were yet again stupid moves with which he shot himself in the foot, so the appeals failed to resurrect the watered down version of his initial Muslim ban. He'll now have to go to the Supreme court to plead his case. But discrimination, by religion, or country of birth, is not allowed, so he doesn't have much chance especially because the 90 days have passed.
The only upside for Trump is that he now has ammunition to blame others (never himself but always others), so-called judges, the media, for not being able and deliver on his warped promises.
For example, you wouldn't expect German or Japanese Nationals to be allowed to enter or immigrate to the US during WWII. As one Supreme Court Justice once stated, "The US Constitution isn't a suicide pact." We have a right to protect ourselves.
Nobody objects to proper vetting, but discrimination is something totally different. You have Steve Bannon to thank for that flawed attempt to ban Muslims, and Trump's actions only made matters worse, as usual.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump won the election with 58% to 42% of the electoral vote. A solid majority and more than Kennedy, Bush, and Carter and others. It's why people feel the electoral system in a federal system is better than the popular vote.
Regarding Trumps popular vote of 46%, Bill Clinton won worth 43% and amazingly, Lincoln won with 40% and incited the Civil War.
Assuming the numbers are correct (I didn't bother to fact check them), it shows the process is flawed and does not produce a truly democratic mandate. Congress also invoking the 'nuclear option' of abandoning a stronger majority vote than 50% + 1 vote, made matters only worse and more entrenched.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Seth Abramson on Jeff Sessions charade :
Seth Abramson@SethAbramson
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/874760740753768448
(THREAD) AG Sessions just lied repeatedly—under oath—on topics that STRONGLY point toward collusion with Russia. Please read on and RETWEET.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCPF90KVYAEaoBW.jpg)
(1) NONE of the collusion allegations levelled against the Trump campaign, transition, and administration involve aiding Russia with hacking.
(2) ALL of the collusion allegations compiled by MI6-derived HUMINT—and now under investigation by the FBI and Congress—involve SANCTIONS.
(3) The allegations against Trump/his allies are simple: after knowing the Russians were hacking us, they promised Russia to drop sanctions.
(4) A promise made to a geopolitical enemy THEN WAGING CYBERWAR against America that it would be REWARDED for doing so is per se COLLUSION.
(5) Under oath, Sessions repeatedly MISIDENTIFIED the allegations against him and Trump as involving aiding the Russians in their HACKING.
(6) It was on these grounds, and no others, that Sessions was able to—and did—angrily DENOUNCE allegations of collusion against Team Trump.
(7) This is WHY the KEY issue at the hearing was Sessions' SECRET meetings with Russia. The question: did he discuss sanctions with Kislyak?
(8) On this topic—THE key topic of the hearing—every answer Sessions gave to Congress (under oath) was a lie. I'll now enumerate these lies.
(9) (i) Sessions initially said he had no "side or private meetings" with Russian Ambassador Kislyak at the Mayflower Hotel in April 2016.
(10) This is a LIE. Sessions soon *admitted it*, conceding he had an "encounter" with Kislyak at a "private" function before Trump's speech.
(11) (ii) Sessions then said he couldn't remember any of the *content* of his "encounter" with Kislyak at the Mayflower Hotel in April 2016.
(12) This is a LIE. Sessions told the Committee he didn't discuss anything improper with Kislyak—which means that he REMEMBERED the meeting.
(13) (Sessions also had *no* difficulty remembering the content of his OTHER meetings with Kislyak, in fact describing them in some detail.)
(14) (iii) Sessions—who was head of Trump's Foreign Policy team beginning in February—said he WASN'T at the Mayflower as a Trump surrogate.
(15) This is a LIE. Sessions was not, as he claims, merely an "interested party" at the Mayflower Speech—he was PART of the Trump campaign.
(16) (iv) Sessions implied that the VIP meeting at the Mayflower Hotel was a brief affair in which no more than pleasantries were exchanged.
(17) This is a LIE. The VIP cocktail hour CNI sponsored was as long as you'd expect—one hour—and had just 24 attendees (mostly Trump staff).
(18) (v) Sessions claims to have *no knowledge whatsoever* of any conversations anyone had with Kislyak at the Mayflower Hotel—or afterward.
(19) This is a LIE. As Trump's chief foreign policy guru—the head of his FP team—Sessions knew OTHERS besides HIM were meeting with Kislyak.
(20) But HERE is the smoking gun—merely a REPETITION of something Sessions has said before—which is that he DID talk sanctions with Kislyak.
The frustration of the committee turned to disbelief when Sessions said that since being sworn in as attorney general in February, he had not received a briefing on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, despite a consensus among US intelligence agencies that it represented a significant security threat.
“You never asked about it?” Angus King asked.
“No,” Sessions replied.
So, not only did Sessions not collude with the Russians but at no point did it even interest him enough to receive a briefing on Russian 'electioneering'. The highest law enforcement official in the United States.
Of course not.
-
Regarding Trumps popular vote of 46%, Bill Clinton won worth 43% and amazingly, Lincoln won with 40% and incited the Civil War.
Love the cute aside blaming the civil war on Lincoln.
-
...Excesses, which are certainly not the norm in my country, like bans on wearing a hijab, niqab or burka, are not a big issue in my country, but they can lead to refusal for entry and police asking for identification (for which a sound reason must be provided, in order to prevent harassment, discrimination, or ethnic profiling) for security reasons. Personnel in Government institutions who come into contact with the general public are not allowed to visibly wear such (e.g. religious) artifacts or extreme clothing, because the government is neutral, and must remain accessible without generating hesitation or obstruction...
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I wonder if you see the contradiction? You're quick to criticize Trump and America in our attitudes towards Muslim terrorists, yet you fail to see the discrimination in your laws regarding freedom to practice the religion of your choice. If hijab, and I assume Sikh's turbans, and Jews skullcaps, are prohibited for government employees, you're removing fundamental cultural and religious beliefs of people and the freedom to practice them. Saying they're excesses is just an excuse. I worked in a government organization in NYC that had members of many religions and sects. They wore all kinds of religious clothing. We all got along and we had no problems dealing with the public. In America, your practices are unconstitutional.
To say this is not a big issue is probably the reason you have Muslims who are Dutch citizens not feel like they live in their own country. After all, it's the Dutch government that enforces those rules not a private concern. So certain groups of your citizens are treated like outsiders. Our government is neutral too. It cannot establish a national religion. But the way the American government does as provided in our Constitution is to allow people to practice they own personal faiths. Even in government.
Of course you have the right to do what you want. It's your country. But you shouldn't be so quick to criticize my country which is actually more tolerant and open than yours.
-
Assuming the numbers are correct (I didn't bother to fact check them), it shows the process is flawed and does not produce a truly democratic mandate. Congress also invoking the 'nuclear option' of abandoning a stronger majority vote than 50% + 1 vote, made matters only worse and more entrenched.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, America isn't a democracy. It's a Federal system. (Actually we're The Federal Republic of the United States of America) We're made up of 50 states. So, sovereignty of each the states is part of the formula used to determine the president. It's not only about population although that has a major weight in the formula.
The Electoral system as mandated by our COntituition is also the reason why America had basically two parties at any one time. Since you need 50% of the vote to become President, too many parties will dilute the vote, as you see in a parliamentary system. Then no one party can get to the 50%. So it's in the interest of winning that the two party system developed - to get to the 50% more easily. It's not mandated by law or constitution. An amendment to change to only the popular vote would require a lot of smaller states to approve. They'll never agree.
The so-called "nuclear option" that removes the 60 vote majority has to do with filibustering. It was developed in the Senate only as a practice where any senator can get on the floor to speak as long as he wants. In effect, no vote can be taken on legislation until he stopped speaking or unless "cloture" was reached, meaning that 60 senators could shut him up and vote. Less than 60 meant no vote. It was a Senate rule and not mandated by the Constitution.
Over the years, the Senate got rid of the talking part, and just came up with the 60 vote requirement. So now the Senate can easily get into a situation where nothing ever happens. The minority party just holds up all legislation. So people feel they should do away with the 60 vote rule as it basically is not democratic. Majority should rule. Others feel that the 60 vote rule allows more deliberate thought to avoid emotional and "hot headed" legislation. As you are probably aware, the Democrats weakened the rule under Obama to get their laws and lower court justices approved. Under Trump, the Republicans have weakened it more with Supreme Court justices. The cloture filibuster rule can be argued either way. It has value at times, but is overly strict at other times. I suspect it will continue to be weakened.
-
Just to clarify, 60 votes is 60% since there are a total of 100 senators. A majority would be 51 votes or 51%.
-
Love the cute aside blaming the civil war on Lincoln.
You decide:
"Despite being remembered today as "The Great Emancipator," Lincoln maintained a moderate stance on the emancipation of slaves, never vowing in his campaigns to abolish slavery, as it was vital to the southern economy. He even stated in his presidential inaugural address that he would not use his executive power to interfere with the institution in any state where it existed. Still, Lincoln vehemently opposed the expansion of slavery into new western territories and served as one of the most influential advocates of "free soil." For this reason, the president posed a significant threat to the economic and political interests of the slaveholding South. Thus, in response to his 1860 election victory, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln was determined to prevent disunion by any means necessary, but his attempts at negotiation failed miserably; within the first months of his tenure, the divided nation was engaged in a full-blown Civil War."
http://www.shmoop.com/causes-of-civil-war/abraham-lincoln.html
-
Seth Abramson on Jeff Sessions charade :
Seth Abramson@SethAbramson
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/874760740753768448
(THREAD) AG Sessions just lied repeatedly—under oath—on topics that STRONGLY point toward collusion with Russia. Please read on and RETWEET.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCPF90KVYAEaoBW.jpg)
The frustration of the committee turned to disbelief when Sessions said that since being sworn in as attorney general in February, he had not received a briefing on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, despite a consensus among US intelligence agencies that it represented a significant security threat.
“You never asked about it?” Angus King asked.
“No,” Sessions replied.
So, not only did Sessions not collude with the Russians but at no point did it even interest him enough to receive a briefing on Russian 'electioneering'. The highest law enforcement official in the United States.
Of course not.
Your post would make a nice novel. Where's the evidence?
-
Bart, I wonder if you see the contradiction? You're quick to criticize Trump and America in our attitudes towards Muslim terrorists, yet you fail to see the discrimination in your laws regarding freedom to practice the religion of your choice. If hijab, and I assume Sikh's turbans, and Jews skullcaps, are prohibited for government employees, you're removing fundamental cultural and religious beliefs of people and the freedom to practice them.
No, it's not prohibited for all government employees, but it is for those who are in direct contact with the general public. The government is impartial, doesn't promote any belief system, and there is a strict separation between religion and state functions that interact with the public, similar to the separation between the legislature, executive, and judiciary parts of government.
So interactions between the government and residents will not be complicated by anything that residents might feel offended by or uncomfortable with and which might inhibit free contact between residents and the government and its public institutions.
Of course you have the right to do what you want. It's your country. But you shouldn't be so quick to criticize my country which is actually more tolerant and open than yours.
As long as you're not a black person, or of Native Indian descent, or LBGT, or Muslim, or ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, it's not prohibited for all government employees, but it is for those who are in direct contact with the general public. The government is impartial, doesn't promote any belief system, and there is a strict separation between religion and state functions that interact with the public, similar to the separation between the legislature, executive, and judiciary parts of government.
So interactions between the government and residents will not be complicated by anything that residents might feel offended by or uncomfortable with and which might inhibit free contact between residents and the government and its public institutions.
As long as you're not a black person, or of Native Indian descent, or LBGT, or Muslim, or ...
Cheers,
Bart
Think about what that means if you're a Muslim. Your official government's policy says that they don't want non-Muslims to feel offended by you because you have a different religion. You're not good enough. Can't you see how this can raise feelings of rejection in Muslim citizens, why they don't feel Dutch? It's similar in France and other countries in Europe. I understand that ISIS has presented feelings of threat. We feel that here in America as well. But I believe your Muslim problems pre-dated ISIS and Al Khaida.
While there are issues presented by our government against Islamism terrorism, there are no government policies or rules against Muslims practicing their religion in or out of the government. They can wear their hijab (or skullcap or turban, or cross) in an official government work position except when the work requirements needs a change in dress to protect the individual. We also have laws against any discrimination based on race, religion, sexual identity, etc.
-
Trump being investigated for possible obstruction of justice: Washington Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN195385
"U.S. President Donald Trump is being investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller for possible obstruction of justice, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed officials.
Mueller is investigating alleged Russia interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Former FBI Director James Comey told Congress last week he believes he was fired by Trump to undermine the agency's Russia probe. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
Don't kid yourself. It's all politics.
And so long as people want to make legal matters political, you'll have problem. Partisanship is just a form of extremism, and that's the real problem.
-
Trump being investigated for possible obstruction of justice: Washington Post
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN195385
"U.S. President Donald Trump is being investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller for possible obstruction of justice, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed officials.
Mueller is investigating alleged Russia interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Former FBI Director James Comey told Congress last week he believes he was fired by Trump to undermine the agency's Russia probe. "
Cheers,
Bart
Well they're trying to destroy him. Mueller is a friend of Comey and his first 4 lawyers he hired to help him contributed to Hillary's campaign. One of them was a counsel for her charity. How can that be a fair investigation? Trump lost his protection when Sessions wimped out and recused himself. I guess he got "nervous". That's why Trump was so upset when he did that. Obama's AJ was totally loyal and never let an inch of space ever get between him and his buddy the President. Now this thing will drag on through the 2018 elections and hurt the Republicans chance to hold Congress. That's what this whole thing is all about. Like that Shakespeare show about Caesar that's in the news, Trump's enemies are getting their knives out.
Of course, for the average American, no meaningful legislation will be passed. Congress, the President, the democrats, republicans and the media will be spending all their time with this distraction. Putin must be laughing his butt off. We accomplished for him what he couldn't accomplish by himself.
-
We accomplished for him what he couldn't accomplish by himself.
Still don't believe he did it to us? Still denying the extent and depth that Russia played in the election and the politics? To the point of making us even more polarized and hateful due to the "Real Fake News" that was generated and propagated by Russian minions.
Trump supporters really need to get off the Trump surrogate talking points and look at the real information at least what has been either leaked or released by the intelligence community. You really should read the unclassified intelligence report from last Jan...
Trump doesn't want to believe that Russia had an impact because he doesn't want to admit that his winning was anything other than "the greatest presidential campaign EVER". It wasn't and history will treat Donny poorly...
-
Of course, for the average American, no meaningful legislation will be passed. Congress, the President, the democrats, republicans and the media will be spending all their time with this distraction. Putin must be laughing his butt off. We accomplished for him what he couldn't accomplish by himself.
That will be entirely on the GOP. The Presidency and both houses. They should be passing all the legislation they want with relative ease.
-
Chalk one up for the Standing Rock Sioux of North Dakota...
The Standing Rock Sioux Claim ‘Victory and Vindication’ in Court (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/dakota-access-standing-rock-sioux-victory-court/530427/)
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/06/RTS12C5X/lead_960.jpg?1497491173)
Little Thunder, a traditional Lakota dancer and indigenous activists, protests outside the White House in March.
Kevin Lamarque / Reuters
A federal judge rules that the Dakota Access pipeline did not receive an adequate environmental vetting.
A federal judge ruled in favor of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on Wednesday, handing the tribe its first legal victory in its year-long battle against the Dakota Access pipeline.
James Boasberg, who sits on D.C. district court, said that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to perform an adequate study of the pipeline’s environmental consequences when it first approved its construction. In a 91-page decision, the judge cited the Corps’ study of “the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice” as particularly deficient, and he ordered it to prepare a new report on its risks.
The court did not, however, order the pipeline to be shut off until a new environmental study is completed—a common remedy when a federal permit is found lacking. Instead, Boasberg asked attorneys to appear before him again and make a new set of arguments about whether the pipeline should operate.
The tribe faces a mixed result: The ruling may establish some important precedents, particularly around environmental justice and treaty rights. But there’s no indication that the requirement to perform a new study will alter the outcome of the case—or even get the pipeline switched off in the interim.
“This is a a very significant victory and vindication of the tribe’s opinion,” said Jan Hasselman, the lead attorney for the case and an employee of Earthjustice, an environmental-advocacy group that represented the Standing Rock Sioux.
The pipeline will continue to move oil but that is subject to change ending the results of the new tests-which were rushed through under pressure from Trump.
-
No! She lost because she was a bad candidate and ran a very very horrible campaign. (Are you reading those interviews and articles, or do you only concern yourself with Russia nowadays?)
So, let's take this step by step...
I presume you don't doubt that somebody have the DNC and released info that was damaging to Democrats in general and Hillary in particular. You agree that happened, right?
So, do you believe Russia was involved or not?
Regardless of whether or not it was Russia, you claim it had no impact on Hillary's success/failure?
You probably accept that Podesta's emails were hacked and released cause great difficulty and embarrassment for Podesta and Hillary's campaign? Good...
So, do you think it hurt or helped Hillary's campaign? I presume you agree that it gave a lot of material for Trump to chew on but do you honestly think it didn't help Trump?
Ah, but who did it? We know Wikileaks released the emails but do you accept or reject the allegation that Russia was involved?
If you haven't read the report (and there's zero indication that Trump has) it's really pretty compelling and not in a spy thriller sort of way. It's pretty dry and you need to read the background and understand what the verbiage they use means.
Unclassified version of intelligence report on Russian hacking during the 2016 election (https://www.scribd.com/document/335885580/Unclassified-version-of-intelligence-report-on-Russian-hacking-during-the-2016-election#from_embed)on Scribd.
What about the paid internet trolls? From the report:
"Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations -- such as cyberactivity -- with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries and paid social media users or 'trolls.'"
Do you believe Putin himself ordered the effort? From the report:
"We assess that influence campaigns are approved at the highest levels of the Russian government - particularly those that would be politically sensitive."
If you understand the way Russia operates, nobody would expect anybody in Russia to be freelancing like he mentioned a few weeks ago. No, Vlad, it wasn't a bunch of patriotic hackers screwing with us...
Do you believe that Putin was crying a grudge against Hillary? Also from the report:
"Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him."
Do you believe that is was a goal of Russia to undermine the US faith in democratic process and throughout the world? Again from the report:
"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."
You're a smart guy Joe, do you honestly reject the premise that Russia tried to and successfully meddled in the 2016 election? And if you accept that it was Russia, do you honestly think it had zero impact on the two campaigns; hurting Hillary while helping Trump?
Do I think Russian meddling was the only reason Hillary lost? Nope...she was a flawed candidate who ran a poor campaign. But I'm pretty sure that it had an impact and that impact might have been the difference in the results.
Then ya gotta ask why so many people in Trump's world had ties and connections to Russia and why Trump STILL talks favorably about Putin and Russia? Do I think the campaign colluded with Russian operative? I don't know...the investigation is still going on and I'm willing to wait until it's over to make that determination.
But, the real issue isn't about collusion...that's looking backwards which does no good, the real issue is what the Russians did and how do we prevent that from EVER happening again...don't ya think that's important?
-
Jeff, have you noticed that every statement you quoted starts with "we assess..." ? Or, to translate, "we speculate...".
You claim you know "how Russia operates." Do not kid yourself, you don't. You are simply descending into an echo-chamber frenzy.
I've witnessed how the reports like the one you quated are generated. All it takes is a low-level analyst with a preconceived world view (like yours) to start the snow-ball effect.
-
I've witnessed how the reports like the one you quated are generated. All it takes is a low-level analyst with a preconceived world view (like yours) to start the snow-ball effect.
So, to be clear, are you saying that 16 intelligence agencies are wrong? That Russia didn't try to influence the election?
And I don't presume to understand how Russia works other than to say that I seriously doubt that anything done by Russian branches of government and the military does not get the approval by Putin...I also think that crossing Putin is hazardous for your health as indicated by the trail of dead Russians since the end of last year.
-
The Art Of The Deal
First, sell $110 billions worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, and then follow up with 36 F15's to Katar for 12 billions.
USA is not alone profitting from the conflict. According to preliminary figures, in 2016 Germany exported armaments to Saudi Arabia to the tune of more than half a billion euros.
-
So, let's take this step by step...
I presume you don't doubt that somebody have the DNC and released info that was damaging to Democrats in general and Hillary in particular. You agree that happened, right?
So, do you believe Russia was involved or not?
Regardless of whether or not it was Russia, you claim it had no impact on Hillary's success/failure?
You probably accept that Podesta's emails were hacked and released cause great difficulty and embarrassment for Podesta and Hillary's campaign? Good...
So, do you think it hurt or helped Hillary's campaign? I presume you agree that it gave a lot of material for Trump to chew on but do you honestly think it didn't help Trump?
Ah, but who did it? We know Wikileaks released the emails but do you accept or reject the allegation that Russia was involved?...
Jeff, most people myself included, agree the Russians hacked the Hillary campaign emails. But if she lost votes, its wans't because the Russians did that but because the hack revealed once again how corrupt she is. She colluded with Congresswomen Schultz, Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to put the fix in against Bernie Sanders, to make sure he lost the nomination. If Hillary and the DNC didn't collude, there would be no story.
In any campaign there are all sorts of stories and things that happen on both sides that effect the vote. I'm sure you're aware that Democrat operatives were paid to "salt" Trump's rallies with provocateurs who would start fights and obstruct the rallies to create a greater sense of violence in Trump's campaign. There were paid trolls on the internet against Trump. NBC deliberately conspired with Hillary to release the tape of Trump telling Bush about "grabbing" women. And how about all those phony women who suddenly appeared a couple of weeks before the vote claiming Trump a misogynist. What did happen to all those women since the election anyway? So there are all sorts of things that effect the votes. If this thing didn't happen, or that thing wasn't exposed, or whatever, sure the vote changes. But that's what happens in every campaign on both sides. You're cherry picking.
Now I'm not approving Russian interference. We should try to stop it in the future. But it was the truth it revealed about Hillary's continuing corruption that would have effected any votes.
-
I think it is important to get some terminology straight.
What exactly are we accusing the Russians of doing with respect to the 2016 elections? Interfering or influencing? While the two are related, they have some significant differences.
Interfering with an election means prohibiting/inhibiting Election Officers in their duties of running a fair running of the polls, collection of the votes, accurate reporting of the results. Interfering with an election is a violation of both Federal and State laws. I have not seen evidence of the Russians doing this. I can only speak for my precinct, but there was no interference either foreign or domestic.
Influencing an election, or more accurately, influencing a campaign is attempting to change the minds/desires of the voter to sway their voting decision either for or against a specific candidate. Influencing a campaign is not intrinsically illegal. The whole concept of a campaign, after all, is to influence the decisions of the voters. Now the methods used to influence a campaign can be legal (advertisements for example) or illegal (voter intimidation for example). Countries trying to influence campaigns is not unusual. The United States spends a lot of money trying to influence the campaigns either in favour of a candidate we approve of or against a candidate we disapprove of. The US is hardly unique in this.
While we may not like the idea of Russia trying to influence our elections (just as I am sure Russia does not like the idea of the US trying to influence their elections), we need to look at whether any action on the part of the Russians, or their agents, was legal or illegal. We have some laws that pertain to foreign influence. For example, a campaign can't accept direct funding into a campaign. But there are no laws against a foreign government sending directly to a campaign money.... just that the campaign can't legally accept it. However, there are few limitations on how a federal government can contribute funds to PACs.
If we are accusing the Russians of trying to influence our election, we first have to determine whether the Russians did anything that was in violation of our federal or state laws. We may not like the idea of the Russians influencing our elections but that does not necessarily make it illegal. Just like I am sure the Russians and other countries don't like that the US is trying to influence their elections but that does not necessarily mean that the US is doing something illegal.
Hacking into a campaign database, may indicate that Russia was trying to influence a campaign and may be illegal (probably is), but that is not the same as the Russians interfering with our election process.
The media uses/misuses the terms influencing and interfering indiscriminately. This may be due to ignorance or bias or perhaps a little bit of both. I feel that in order to have a logical discussion on this topic that terms need to be defined and used properly.
1. Is there any evidence that the Russians, or their agents tried to interfere with the election process?
2. Is there any evidence that the Russians, or their agents tried to influence one or more of the campaigns?
2a. Was this influential activity illegal?
I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps the answer is that yes, the Russians attempted to influence campaigns but their activity was not illegal.
Before we embark on an investigation, I feel it is important to know exactly what we are accusing the Russians of doing.
-
I would say we want the Russians to neither interfere or influence our elections by using sneaky methods. We reserve the right to do those things ourselves.
-
I would say we want the Russians to neither interfere or influence our elections by using sneaky methods. We reserve the right to do those things ourselves.
Nothing new under the sun:
Matthew 7:12
Luke 6:31
Geopolitics on the other hand ...
That's why in the recent elections in my country, where the number of Russian hacking attempts started increasing (as reported by the intelligence community) as the election date came nearer, preventative measures were put in place early in the process. The weakest link is usually the human factor, (spear) phishing attempts are sometimes rather sophisticated. Keeping computers off-line usually helps a lot, but there are other things that can be done as well. Proper process management should reduce the risks.
Cheers,
Bart
-
as reported by the intelligence community
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg)
I don't get your point, what Powell did was geopolitics and had little to do with foreign intelligence gathering. He knew from the CIA that their sources were unreliable, yet Bush pushed for war. The intelligence was good, the politicians not.
Our national intelligence agency and military intelligence agency are supervised by a select number of members of Parliament and the relevant government ministers, and it was that that led to countermeasures to prevent foreign interference.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Our
indeed... so they serve whatever "your" political goals are
-
The intelligence was good, the politicians not.
the same situation here - you do not know what the actual intelligence is ;D ... you only hear public statements that are serving current political goals
-
Jeff, most people myself included, agree the Russians hacked the Hillary campaign emails.
What about Podesta's emails? What about the bots and trolls being run by the FSB or Russian Military Intelligence? What about the generation and spreading of fake news?
Ya think any of that might have had an impact?
As for campaign dirty tricks, that's to be expected from domestic sources, not by forgiven powers. Big difference...
So, nothing Russia did had an actual negative impact on Hillary's campaign while giving Trump's campaign a positive impact?
NBC deliberately conspired with Hillary to release the tape of Trump telling Bush about "grabbing" women.
Wow, bombshell, got any actual proof of that allegation?
Care to share sources and url's?
(other than like Beigtbart or InfoWars)
-
After Lincoln's election, however prior to his inauguration, more then half of the South succeeded. There is nothing he could have done to prevent this since he was not in power yet.
Also, the war was not a fault of Lincoln, but more likely a fault of John Brown's failed revolt, which happened prior to Lincoln's presidency. John Brown taught the South one thing, that the North was serious, and, being such, the South massively increased their militia, which was an absolute joke beforehand. So, when it came time for succession, the South was very well prepared.
The gears started moving before Lincoln even came into the picture; civil war was inevitable.
[\quote]
Goes back much further to the compromises over the admission of new states as either free or slave. There was also the big fight led by Senator Calhoun of SC as to whether states could nullify Federal laws if they so chose.
Although the military machine of the North was far superior, the South's military leadership trumped all the north had. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest outed every singe general of the north, with significantly smaller forces, up until 1864 when Lincoln finally appointed Grant lieutenant general.
Even so, Lee was still a better general then Grant, but Grant and Sherman were good enough where the superior numbers of the North finally kicked in.
If not for John Brown and Robert E. Lee resigning from the Union Army, the war would have lasted no more then 6 months.
Lee made numerous military mistakes during the course of the war. Had McClellan been a better general the war could have ended in 1863 when he launched the peninsula campaign. The Confederate generals in the western campaigns were all horrible and made numerous strategic blunders and once Grant had captured all the key spots it was pretty much over.
Best book to read is "A Savage War" by Williamson Murray and Wayne Wei-Siang Hsieh. Covers all the battles, tactics and personalities in depth.
-
I would say we want the Russians to neither interfere or influence our elections by using sneaky methods. We reserve the right to do those things ourselves.
The bigger issue is that the Russians have successfully poisoned relations between a national leader and the intelligence agencies on which that leader relies to supply the information from which to make rational and wise decisions. This is quite a coup as well as extremely damaging. It may have been the Russian aim all along.
-
The bigger issue is that the Russians have successfully poisoned relations between a national leader and the intelligence agencies...
This above is a perfect example of the new "not-my-fault" generation of snowflakes, always a "victim" of something or somebody else.
If the relationship is indeed poisoned, either the President or the agencies should accept the blame, not somebody else.
-
This above is a perfect example of the new "not-my-fault" generation of snowflakes, always a "victim" of something or somebody else.
If the relationship is indeed poisoned, either the President or the agencies should accept the blame, not somebody else.
I don't think it has anything to do with that at all. Either the Russians have done this as part of an intentional plan or they haven't. Blame doesn't come into it. What to do about it does, if that's what the Russians have done. Just saying that looking only at the election may be missing the larger point, which is an attempt to incapacitate an opponent or rival state not just for the short time of an election and its immediate aftermath but for the years of office which follow. Nice game play, Vladimir - quite probably (imho).
-
Wow, bombshell, got any actual proof of that allegation?
Care to share sources and url's?
(other than like Beigtbart or InfoWars)
Quote
NBC deliberately conspired with Hillary to release the tape of Trump telling Bush about "grabbing" women.
The Russians confirmed it to me.
-
The bigger issue is that the Russians have successfully poisoned relations between a national leader and the intelligence agencies on which that leader relies to supply the information from which to make rational and wise decisions. This is quite a coup as well as extremely damaging. It may have been the Russian aim all along.
The problem is that anti-Trump forces are at work in the government. The Russians are coincidental. The leak about Flynn lying was only one of many and leaks will continue until they can force out Trump. The Russian hack is only an excuse, a Trojan horse. If it didn't happen, another one would be made up. Since it's pretty apparent Trump never colluded with the Russians, the anti-Trump forces are using obstruction of justice as the new avenue for attacks. It will never end until they "get" him.
-
... The Russians are coincidental....
Indeed.
Whatever the Russians did is simply business as usual and reciprocal. They spy on us, we spy on them. They try psychological warfare on us, we try that on them. Heck, we spy on our friends, let alone "enemies." And our friends spy on us (e.g., Israel). We hack their systems, they hack ours. And that's just government. Not to mention private citizens who for breakfast penetrate NASA, snack at the Dept. of Defense and have dinner at NSA. All for fun and because they can. Just like climbers clime mountains "because they are there."
We've been interfering for years in other countries' elections, more or less overtly, and if that did not work, we simply assassinate the candidate we don't like, or invade. And now we are in full display of righteous indignation. As if we just a year or so ago didn't overthrow a legitimate president of Ukraine. But of course, we are the good guys, so it doesn't' count.
Liberals whining about DNC emails is like a thief complaining about a good Samaritan who called the police after witnessing a crime.
-
All I want to know is who are the over 80K folks viewing this discussion on LuLa?
It can't be all photographers. Is it students? How can a topic on Trump among all the 100's of others online with this one buried on a photographer's site's off topic forum get this much attention?
How are folks finding this thread?
-
Alan, you need to study history more.
After Lincoln's election, however prior to his inauguration, more then half of the South succeeded. There is nothing he could have done to prevent this since he was not in power yet.
Also, the war was not a fault of Lincoln, but more likely a fault of John Brown's failed revolt, which happened prior to Lincoln's presidency. John Brown taught the South one thing, that the North was serious, and, being such, the South massively increased their militia, which was an absolute joke beforehand. So, when it came time for succession, the South was very well prepared.
The gears started moving before Lincoln even came into the picture; civil war was inevitable.
Throw on top of this, most Americans at the time thought of themselves as citizens of their state first, and country second. Remember, it was "The United States Are" before the war, and then it became "The United States Is" after. This caused Robert E. Lee, who was against succession and slavery very much so, and arguably the absolute best commanding officer in the army at the time, to fight for the South because he felt his allegiance was to his state, VA, which ended up succeeding.
Although the military machine of the North was far superior, the South's military leadership trumped all the north had. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forest outed every singe general of the north, with significantly smaller forces, up until 1864 when Lincoln finally appointed Grant lieutenant general.
Even so, Lee was still a better general then Grant, but Grant and Sherman were good enough where the superior numbers of the North finally kicked in.
If not for John Brown and Robert E. Lee resigning from the Union Army, the war would have lasted no more then 6 months.
The South left during Lincoln's interregnum because they knew what his policies would be. Regardless, Lincoln could have left the South go or at least wait and see if he could work something out with them to get them back into the foal. Instead he sent a naval force to Ft Sumter and the South attacked claiming they were defending themselves. Whatever you want to believe. The point is what was his rush?
In any case, we're getting away from my original point about mandates. Lincoln only won with 40% of the popular vote. That's the least by any president in America history. His minority Republican party only won because the majority Democrats were split between the northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. Yet, he felt his 40% was mandate enough to try to force the southern states to do what they didn't want to do and a civil war started. No one talks about his mandate today. He is proclaimed an America icon. Now I'm not comparing Trump to Lincoln. So let me make that point right away. Yet, here some are trying to say Trump's 46% popular and 57% majority electoral vote (higher than Kennedy's, Clinton's and Carter's and others) is not enough for the president to do his rather mild campaign promises. Well, he is certainly entitled to do it constitutionally, plus anything he does improperly is defended by our constitution. I just wanted to put to rest the president's right to fulfill his views and not feel obligated to fulfill his opposition's platform. She lost.
-
All I want to know is who are the over 80K folks viewing this discussion on LuLa?
It can't be all photographers. Is it students? How can a topic on Trump among all the 100's of others online with this one buried on a photographer's site's off topic forum get this much attention?
How are folks finding this thread?
The real photographers are out busily shooting pictures.
-
All I want to know is who are the over 80K folks viewing this discussion on LuLa?
It can't be all photographers. Is it students? How can a topic on Trump among all the 100's of others online with this one buried on a photographer's site's off topic forum get this much attention?
How are folks finding this thread?
Tim,
It's not 80K folks. I would guess the actual number of posters and lurkers is in low hundreds, if not less. Many of them are the same (regulars).
Here are the crude (and in some way possibly misleading*) stats for the following 4 threads:
THREAD Pages Posts Views Views/Post
Trump II 184 3670 87044 23
Climate 18 354 8234 23
Humor 25 498 51369 103
Real cost of Adobe SW 3 40 2132 53
Interestingly, Trump and Climate get about the same number of views per post (23), while Humour trumps them all.
* - some frequent viewers trigger one page view for each new post, others may read multiple posts per single page view, while others may occasionally read the same post multiple times, and thus generate additional views
-
Liberals whining about DNC emails is like a thief complaining about a good Samaritan who called the police after witnessing a crime.
You sure picked an odd way to say "Conservatives whining about leaks is like a thief complaining about a good Samaritan who called the police after witnessing a crime." (Which is a far better analogy anyway)
-
Tim,
It's not 80K folks. I would guess the actual number of posters and lurkers is in low hundreds, if not less. Many of them are the same (regulars).
Here are the crude (and in some way possibly misleading*) stats for the following 4 threads:
THREAD Pages Posts Views Views/Post
Trump II 184 3670 87044 23
Climate 18 354 8234 23
Humor 25 498 51369 103
Real cost of Adobe SW 3 40 2132 53
Interestingly, Trump and Climate get about the same number of views per post (23), while Humour trumps them all.
* - some frequent viewers trigger one page view for each new post, others may read multiple posts per single page view, while others may occasionally read the same post multiple times, and thus generate additional views
I appreciate the effort in coming up with the numbers and guesses of who they comprise, Les, but I can't agree with you on who you think they are.
From what I've gathered over the years posting in other lengthy LuLa threads (Digital Darkroom/Colour Management forums), there doesn't seem to be a lot of folks who log in going by threads with high view numbers but very low numbers viewing posted image examples that demonstrate points about the topic.
It's still a mystery to me where these high view numbers come from only on certain topics where the average view is less than 1000.
-
Alan, I agree with you on the mandate with Trump and that the Dems are just making up stuff to try and weaken his presidency, but history is history.
Fort Sumter was an offensive attacked by the South that Lincoln did not provoke. Lincoln only sent provisions; he sent no troops, arms or animation and announced this publicly and to the governor of SC prior to any ships being sent. The South saw their opportunity and took it. (Not to mention, the leading commander of Fort Sumter taught at West Point, and one of his best armory students was the person who lead the attack against him. His student knew all that the teacher had to offer, and I am sure wanted to prove it.)
Also, let us not also forget that nearly everyone thought of the South's succession as only temporary and that no bloodshed would be had. A sitting senator said that you could clean up all of the blood spilt with a single pocket handkerchief at the onset of the war. Those like Sherman, who knew it would be a very bloody battle, were ostracized to the point of insanity.
This being said, how could Lincoln have not sent provisions? How could have Lincoln prevented the war without allowing the South to succeed?
The war was inevitable. Nothing done in the 1860s, even the 1850s, could have prevented it.
Also, no blood was shed at Fort Sumter. It was not until Bull Run (personally I prefer Manassas even though I'm not southern, the name has more flare), about six month later, that blood was actually spilled. So doing nothing would have been kind of weird and cowardly.
I have to wonder where does your 40% vote come from? Lincoln was not even on the ballots of most of the Southern states. If he was, if those in the South who against succession were for able to vote for Lincoln, what would his number have been?
Anyway, I've got work to do, images to raw process, a cigar to enjoy, rum to be had and True Grit to watch.
No, not the original; this is a rare case where I think the remake out does the original, and by a great deal at that. Maybe because I love cinematic lighting and Roger Deakins is one of the best DPs there has ever been.
Here's Lincoln's margin in 1860. I'm assuming that included the Southern votes.
303/180 Electoral votes
59.41% Electoral
39.65% Popular
1864 ( I don't know how the Southern votes worked during the war. Do you?
233/212 Electoral Votes
90.99% Electoral
55.03% Popular
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
-
Something you can give Trump credit for, getting Otto Warmbier returned to America. Unfortunately, those bastard North Koreans destroyed his brain. When his father was asked whether he thought the previous administration could have done more, Fred Warmbier replied: “I think the results speak for themselves.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/higher-education/doctors-say-us-student-freed-by-north-korea-has-brain-damage/2017/06/15/c5082bfc-522e-11e7-b74e-0d2785d3083d_story.html
-
Well, at least the Senate has some issues with the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election...good for them.
Senate Approves Russia Sanctions, Limiting Trump's Oversight (https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/senate-approves-russia-sanctions-that-limit-trumps-power/530382/)
A new bipartisan deal prohibits the president from rolling back sanctions without Congress’s approval.
In an overwhelming vote of 97-2, the U.S. Senate approved a new round of sanctions on Russia in response to the nation’s likely interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as well as its involvement in the Syrian civil war. The deal also prevents President Trump from loosening or rolling back restrictions on Russia without Congress’s approval, representing one of the most significant GOP-enforced checks on the president to date. Only two GOP senators, Utah’s Mike Lee and Kentucky’s Rand Paul, voted against the sanctions. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, a democrat, was absent for the vote.
The decision comes amid an ongoing investigation to determine whether members of the Trump administration colluded with Russian officials to influence the results of the election—and could signal a growing bipartisan concern over Trump’s reported sympathy toward Russia. On Tuesday, ahead of the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Trump administration “has been too eager—far too eager, in my mind—to put sanctions relief on the table.” He added that the new sanctions will “send a powerful, bipartisan statement that Russia and any other nation who might try to interfere with our elections will be punished.”
The bill will still need to be approved by the House and will end up on Trump's desk for signing, the sweeping bipartisan support suggests the deal is unlikely to be vetoed...
-
The problem is that anti-Trump forces are at work in the government. The Russians are coincidental. The leak about Flynn lying was only one of many and leaks will continue until they can force out Trump. The Russian hack is only an excuse, a Trojan horse. If it didn't happen, another one would be made up. Since it's pretty apparent Trump never colluded with the Russians, the anti-Trump forces are using obstruction of justice as the new avenue for attacks. It will never end until they "get" him.
Step back and look at the bigger picture. The open societies of the West are at a disadvantage in cyber warfare used by hostile states and, as yet, no real answer has been found. The UK authorities have just fingered North Korea as the origin of the cyber attack which crippled many hospitals here a few weeks ago. I would be amazed if using hacking and all manner of things to turn the organs of a state against one another in order to weaken it wasn't a primo goal of Russian policy when dealing with the USA or Europe. And in Trump, the Russians have found the perfect scenario. The more they hack, brief and sow discord, the more unstable and ineffectual the USA becomes. The result is a greater likelihood of policy errors its enemies can take advantage of.
My guess is that the US authorities are going after Trump using the election because it is the best way of cornering him. But the bigger picture is that he lacks the personal and intellectual skills to be more than a very dangerous and unstable president. He may also be sitting on thoroughly unsavoury financial dealings from his past which make him vulnerable to all sorts of pressure. His refusal to release his financial returns or put his businesses into a blind trust more or less confirms it. The world will be a safer place for all of us when he's gone. Concentrating on the election is simply a way for Trump supporters to avoid having to look at all the other things going on. Thank god there still are some "US authorities" left who won't be browbeaten. If it wasn't for a core of decent, dedicated public servants still in place we'd all be sunk.
-
Forcing out a sitting president because you you don't like him and assume there are corrupt things going on although you have no proof is a terrible thing to do. It weakens our republic and straightens our enemies. It distracts us from dealing with important issues.
Also remember what goes around comes around.
-
Forcing out a sitting president because you you don't like him and assume there are corrupt things going on although you have no proof is a terrible thing to do.
Just understand that it's not Trump's "enemies" that are going to bring this president down, it's Trump that has repeatedly engaged in self-inflicted wounds...that's what will bring him down. That's what brought down Nixon...(ironic that his good buddy Roger Stone worked for Nixon-more about that later)
The original charter for the House and Senate Intelligence committees was to investigate and report on Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential elections. The reason that the FBI started investigating Trump's campaign is that both domestic and foreign intelligence services produced indications that Trump campaign members had an unusual umber of contacts with Russians. And the Trump campaign attempted to hide those contacts...they didn't properly fill out forms and in the case of Flynn he lied to the FBI with is a crime.
Based on the actions of people around Trump the House and Senate investigations expanded from just the Russian investigation to include the Trump campaign for possible collusion. If nothing else came out I suspect that nothing would have come of it but...
Like an addict can't help taking drugs, Trump is incapable of keeping his mouth shut. Why did he try to get Comey to let Flynn go? Why did he fire Comey? Why does he keep doing interviews that contradict his own staff? And why, even given proof that his tweets come back to haunt him does he keep stirring things up?
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 8h8 hours ago
I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
Huh? He honestly thinks that poking a stick at Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller, the special counsel is a good idea?
His good buddy Roger Stone thinks Trump should fire everybody...Roger Stone to Trump: Fire Mueller and Rosenstein (http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/16/news/roger-stone-russia-cannabis-conference/index.html)
In an interview with CNNMoney on Friday, Stone said that Trump should also fire Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general.
Rosenstein wrote a memo recommending the firing of FBI Director Comey, and Rosenstein later approved the appointment of a special counsel -- Mueller -- to lead the Russia probe. Trump appeared to attack Rosenstein in a furious tweet on Friday morning.
Stone, speaking at a marijuana industry conference in New York, said they should both be gone.
"I'd fire Mueller and Rosenstein for wasting the taxpayers' money," Stone said. "This is a witch hunt."
Stone's life in national politics dates to his days as a dirty-trickster for President Richard Nixon. More recently, he was an adviser to Trump's presidential campaign. He himself has been named in the Russia investigations, including as a possible link between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks.
So, Stone was at marijuana industry conference telling Trump to fire everybody? Was he Stoned? (that was a pun...)
You can whine and complain that the "dirty leftists" are out to get Trump...in point of fact, the reality is it seems Trump is out to get Trump. He's been doing these things to himself. All he needs to do is look at what the 9th Circuit Appeals Court had to say about his tweets...he put his foot into his mouth and he's been consistently doing that since Jan 20th of this year.
If Trump does try to fire everybody, his support by the GOP, as slim as it is now, will likely disappear. Sure, Trump's "base" loves all this stuff but Trump's approval/disapproval numbers keep getting worse.
Trump is nuts...he's driving the people around him nuts...he's driving the country and perhaps the world nuts. I kinda think, for the sanity of the country, it would be good to get him some help and get him out of office.
Witch Hunt?
We found him, he's a warlock named Donald J. Trump.
-
...
Also remember what goes around comes around.
Which to at least some extent is what's happening now.
-
You know it's getting bad when the attorneys start hiring their own attorneys...and now the VP?
Longtime Trump attorney hires lawyer in Russia probe (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politics/michael-cohen-hires-attorney-russia-investigations/index.html)
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's longtime attorney and adviser Michael Cohen has hired a lawyer to represent him in the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Cohen told CNN on Friday.
Cohen, who serves as Trump's personal attorney, hired Stephen Ryan, a partner at the DC-based law firm McDermott, Will and Emery, to handle inquiries related to the investigations into Russian meddling in the election. News of the hire comes two weeks after Cohen was subpoenaed by the House intelligence committee as part of the committee's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Cohen told CNN earlier this week that he is "committed to complying with the subpoena." He has also agreed to testify before the committee September 5.
He declined to say whether he is fielding additional investigative inquiries, directing all questions on the matter to his attorney. Ryan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Vice President Mike Pence hires outside counsel in Russia probe (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/mike-pence-lawyer-outside-counsel-russia/index.html)
Washington (CNN)Vice President Mike Pence has hired his own lawyer to represent him in the special counsel investigation and congressional inquiries into Russia's role in the 2016 election.
The lawyer, Richard Cullen, is a former Virginia attorney general and a former US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia. Pence interviewed several lawyers before selecting Cullen, who is based in Richmond.
The decision to hire Cullen has been in the works for weeks, aides to the vice president said. It follows President Donald Trump's decision to assemble a team of outside lawyers to represent him through the Justice Department special counsel's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
"The vice president is focused entirely on his duties and promoting the President's agenda and looks forward to a swift conclusion of this matter," Jarrod Agen, the vice president's communications director, said Thursday night in a statement.
--snip--
How he'll pay
So how is the vice president going to pay for his new personal lawyer?
A Pence adviser told CNN the legal fees will be paid through "non-taxpayer funds." The adviser declined to elaborate whether it would come out of Pence's pocket -- doubtful, given his modest net worth -- or a campaign fund of some kind.
-
And now he's yelling at the TVs in the White House...prolly good he went to Camp David. Hope the staff there tells him they don't have TVs there...
Donald Trump 'yells at TVs in the White House' about Russia investigation (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-angry-russia-investigation-yells-at-tv-white-house-rod-rosenstein-a7794601.html)
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/194177/story_image/Trump-angry.jpg?1454006818)
Confidantes say the US President is furious about the press coverage
Donald Trump has reportedly been yelling at TV sets in the White House as he becomes "increasingly angry" about an investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the US presidential election. The US leader thinks he is the victim of a conspiracy aimed at discrediting his leadership and ending his time in the White House, according to the Associated Press. Confidants and advisers close to Mr Trump said his fury was mounting at the probe and he had been yelling at TV sets about its press coverage.
-
I've said this before, but in general it astonishes me when politicians get angry at the press, and go public with their anger. It's almost as if they think that the press is part of their marketing department. Why would they think that? Where have they been all their lives?
Former prime minister Harper here in Canada behaved this way, was well-known for his anti-media bias, and fought it by being an utter control freak trying to "control the message" to an absurd degree. The non-answers of his cabinet ministers and himself to questions, the rare times they faced public questions, became the butt of comedic satire. Do these clowns really think they can snow people these days?
For myself, when I hear politicians criticize media, especially when they call it biased, well, it makes me take more notice of that media, because I just assume that the politicians behave this way because the media is doing a good job. It may be perverse of me, but there you go.
The thing is that I have myself gotten emotional over crap on TV myself, and fully understand it happening to Trump too, nothing mysterious about getting angry. The thing is how did this behaviour become the story? Doesn't the guy have the sense yet to shut up in public? I guess if you're a CEO, you get used to everyone around you hopping when you say jump, but did he really think that running the country was like running a company? Those guys who didn't like you before the election, they will still be there after the election. Who doesn't know this.
-
Jeff; Why do you always pick pictures of Trump that are ugly. So here's one of him and his family that's a little more pleasing. At least we don't have to look at Hillary for 4 years. :)
http://s3.india.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/034.jpg
-
Jeff; Why do you always pick pictures of Trump that are ugly.
Kinda creepy that you picked one showing a shot of the First Lady in lingerie...
-
Kinda creepy that you picked one showing a shot of the First Lady in lingerie...
You don't know what's creepy until you saw Hillary in lingerie... it gave Bill a heart attack ;)
-
Kinda creepy that you picked one showing a shot of the First Lady in lingerie...
Well, maybe now that Melania is with Donald in Washington, he'll have other things to do beside tweet. ;)
-
From a not left wing media Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/) (Least Biased)
Donald Trump Is Proving Too Stupid to Be President (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/16/donald-trump-is-proving-too-stupid-to-be-president/)
“You know, I’m, like, a smart person.” Uh huh.
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public/thumbnails/image/2017/03/08/11/trump-1.jpg)
I’m starting to suspect that Donald Trump may not have been right when he said (http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/12/11/exclusive-donald-trump-on-cabinet-picks-transition-process.html), “You know, I’m like a smart person.” The evidence continues to mount that he is far from smart — so far, in fact, that he may not be capable of carrying out his duties as president.
There is, for example, the story of how Trump met with the pastors of two major Presbyterian churches in New York. “I did very, very well with evangelicals in the polls,” he bragged. When the pastors told Trump they weren’t evangelicals, he demanded to know, “What are you then?” They told him they were mainline Presbyterians. “But you’re all Christians?” he asked. Yes, they had to assure him, Presbyterians are Christians. The kicker: Trump himself is Presbyterian.
Or the story of how Trump asked the editors of the Economist whether they had ever heard of the phrase “priming the pump.” Yes, they assured him, they had. “I haven’t heard it,” Trump continued. “I mean, I just … I came up with it a couple of days ago, and I thought it was good.” The phrase has been in widespread use since at least the 1930s.
Or the story of how, after arriving in Israel from Saudi Arabia, Trump told his hosts, “We just got back from the Middle East.”
These aren’t examples of stupidity, you may object, but of ignorance. This has become a favorite talking point of Trump’s enablers. House Speaker Paul Ryan, for example, excused Trump’s attempts to pressure FBI Director James Comey into dropping a criminal investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn on the grounds that “the president’s new at this” and supposedly didn’t realize that he was doing anything wrong. But Trump has been president for nearly five months now, and he has shown no capacity to learn on the job.
More broadly, Trump has had a lifetime — 71 years — and access to America’s finest educational institutions (he’s a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, he never tires of reminding us) to learn things. And yet he doesn’t seem to have acquired even the most basic information that a high school student should possess. Recall that Trump said that Frederick Douglass, who died in 1895, was “an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.” He also claimed that Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War, “was really angry that he saw what was happening in regard to the Civil War.”
Why does he know so little? Because he doesn’t read books or even long articles. “I never have,” he proudly told a reporter last year. “I’m always busy doing a lot.” As president, Trump’s intelligence briefings have been dumbed down, denuded of nuance, and larded with maps and pictures because he can’t be bothered to read a lot of words. He’d rather play golf.
There, is that photo better?
-
From a not left wing media Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/) (Least Biased)
Donald Trump Is Proving Too Stupid to Be President (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/16/donald-trump-is-proving-too-stupid-to-be-president/)
There, is that photo better?
If actually true then only two options. One is to hand day-to-day affairs to a core of very capable people - that is, very astute delegation. This would be the Reagan option and so far as we know it did work, in fact it worked well even when in retrospect Reagan was starting to lose his battle with Alzheimer's. The other is to go. Can't see how a vast and highly complex organisation - modern government - can be run on these lines. The risk of some ill-considered foreign escapade involving destructive firepower is pretty high.
-
If actually true then only two options. One is to hand day-to-day affairs to a core of very capable people - that is, very astute delegation. This would be the Reagan option and so far as we know it did work, in fact it worked well even when in retrospect Reagan was starting to lose his battle with Alzheimer's. The other is to go. Can't see how a vast and highly complex organisation - modern government - can be run on these lines. The risk of some ill-considered foreign escapade involving destructive firepower is pretty high.
For all of Obama's brilliance, his foreign policy decisions were a disaster. He was busy trying to be president of the world instead of president of America. He was more interested in being liked by everyone, more concerned about his "legacy" than doing what had to be done for the USA. He didn't know how to execute. Just talked a lot. He created more problems for the world and for America. His domestic policies divided America rather than united us. Of course he had the support of a liberal press, so he was more Teflon than Reagan.
-
He created more problems for the world and for America.
Really? I think your current president is creating an order of magnitude more with his erratic behaviour.
-
For all of Obama's brilliance, his foreign policy decisions were a disaster. He was busy trying to be president of the world instead of president of America. He was more interested in being liked by everyone, more concerned about his "legacy" than doing what had to be done for the USA. He didn't know how to execute. Just talked a lot. He created more problems for the world and for America. His domestic policies divided America rather than united us. Of course he had the support of a liberal press, so he was more Teflon than Reagan.
Every time someone points out Trump's real, demonstrable, visible deficiencies, Alan responds with the same old opinions about Obama.
-
Obama: "red line" failure in Syria caused total civil war, Russian intervention, major deaths and refugee crisis into your country and the rest of Europe causing Muslim conflicts there. He did nothing with Russia hence Crimea, Georgia, Ukraine. Then there was pulling out of Iraq in 2011 which created ISIS. He removed our fleet in the South China Sea allowing China to militarize all those islands there between 2012-2015. The Iran deal was just for his "legacy". He gave away too much and Iran will have the bomb in less than ten years. His (and Hillary's) encouragement to have Khadaffi killed cause Lybia to descend into a failed state that has terrorists there galore. Should I go on?
Trump has been President 4 months. Yet, he's strengthened our position in the Pacific again so our allies are returning to the foal and China seems to be helping with North Korea. We'll see how that works. He's recommited to NATO while pushing for more European spending for their own defenses which should take the burden off of America. (He works for us, remember, not you.) His bombing of Syrian air base shows he means business The world's adversaries are now on notice and are less likely to test America or our Allies. He's pulled out of Cuba agreement, a disaster for the Cubans. You can disagree, but that was his platform while running. He keeps his word. He's re-established strong ties with Israel and our Arab friends in the Middle East. They were drifting away under Obama. Iran is nervous under him. They didn't fear Obama at all.
It's only the middle of June.
-
Every time someone points out Trump's real, demonstrable, visible deficiencies, Alan responds with the same old opinions about Obama.
Read my last post.
-
Trump has been President 4 months.
--snip--
It's only the middle of June.
It's June and his presidecy by any true measure (not the fake bravado of supporters) has been and continues to be an unmitigated disaster...with every indication he's about to completely melt down. Yelling at TVs? Tweeting to vent? His attorneys must have brain damage from all the head slaps they've been giving themselves. The GOP is shell shocked and Trumps approval ratings are historically bad.
You keek telling yourself you're not in deep doodoo but if he rest of the world is laughing, we all should be worried.
-
Trump has been President 4 months. Yet, he's strengthened our position in the Pacific again so our allies are returning to the foal and China seems to be helping with North Korea. We'll see how that works. He's recommited to NATO while pushing for more European spending for their own defenses which should take the burden off of America. (He works for us, remember, not you.) His bombing of Syrian air base shows he means business The world's adversaries are now on notice and are less likely to test America or our Allies. He's pulled out of Cuba agreement, a disaster for the Cubans. You can disagree, but that was his platform while running. He keeps his word. He's re-established strong ties with Israel and our Arab friends in the Middle East. They were drifting away under Obama. Iran is nervous under him. They didn't fear Obama at all.
It's only the middle of June.
Are these achievements? They may sound like that to you but to me they're just a list of policy failures and bad choices.
And his list of failed promises and initiatives is even larger (on some of them I think that's a positive)
-
Obama: "red line" failure in Syria caused total civil war, Russian intervention, major deaths and refugee crisis into your country and the rest of Europe causing Muslim conflicts there. He did nothing with Russia hence Crimea, Georgia, Ukraine. Then there was pulling out of Iraq in 2011 which created ISIS. He removed our fleet in the South China Sea allowing China to militarize all those islands there between 2012-2015. The Iran deal was just for his "legacy". He gave away too much and Iran will have the bomb in less than ten years. His (and Hillary's) encouragement to have Khadaffi killed cause Lybia to descend into a failed state that has terrorists there galore. Should I go on?
So totally beside the truth, everything, I wouldn't know where to start, and even then it's probably a waste of my time. This morning I read an interesting article in a local newspaper that tried to explain why Trump voters keep defending him, despite logic telling them that it will even hurt their cause (lower income, more cost, higher taxes, and more violent division in society). Logic and knowledge have nothing to do with it anymore, feelings are dominant, even if people know better than to hurt themselves.
It's not a new phenomenon, we have a similar group of voters in my country. They too, contribute very little positive to society.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump has been President 4 months.
And already allienated the whole world against himself and USA.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said Europe must take control of its fate, because they can't rely anymore on USA. This will be a busy and eventful week for Europe.
On Monday, they will start the Brexit negotiations and on Thursday and Friday the European heads of the states will convene at the EU summit in Brussels.
-
And already allienated the whole world against himself and USA.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said Europe must take control of its fate, because they can't rely anymore on USA. This will be a busy and eventful week for Europe.
On Monday, they will start the Brexit negotiations and on Thursday and Friday the European heads of the states will convene at the EU summit in Brussels.
And the exit polls today indicate a ginormous victory for Emmanuel Macron's party, from 0 to in the order of 61%. Macron and Merkel seem to get along fine, no white-knuckle handshakes needed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
This morning I read an interesting article in a local newspaper that tried to explain why Trump voters keep defending him, despite logic telling them that it will even hurt their cause (lower income, more cost, higher taxes, and more violent division in society). Logic and knowledge have nothing to do with it anymore, feelings are dominant, even if people know better than to hurt themselves.
It's not a new phenomenon, we have a similar group of voters in my country. They too, contribute very little positive to society.
There's actually been a lot written about what you are referring to...it's called the Dunning–Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) and Trump supporters are NOT going to be happy about it, but, if the shoe fits...
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias), wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority) when they mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.
As described by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1] Hence, the corollary to the Dunning–Kruger effect indicates that persons of high-ability tend to underestimate their relative competence, and erroneously presume that tasks that are easy for them to perform also are easy for other people to perform.
Although the Dunning–Kruger effect was formulated in 1999, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority has been referred to in literature throughout history.
Now, I'm not saying all Trump supporters fall under the Dunning–Kruger effect explanation. There are plenty of really smart people who seem to be Trump supporters but it's clear that a large number of Trump supporters do...
But there are more aspects to Trump supporters as outlined by this Psychology Today article: The Psychology Behind Donald Trump's Unwavering Support (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201609/the-psychology-behind-donald-trumps-unwavering-support)
There’s no doubt that Donald Trump has said many things that would have been political suicide for any other Republican candidate. And almost every time he made one of these shocking statements, political analysts on both the left and the right predicted that he’d lose supporters because of it. But as we have clearly seen over the past year, they were dead wrong every time. Trump appears to be almost totally bulletproof.
The only thing that might be more perplexing than the psychology of Donald Trump is the psychology of his supporters. In their eyes, The Donald can do no wrong. Even Trump himself seems to be astonished by this phenomenon. "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
The article mentions the The Dunning-Kruger Effect as well as Hypersensitivity to Threat, Terror Management Theory and High Attentional Engagement.
The article is really accurate with the description of the phenomenal success of Trump's campaign. But as we've seen since he's taken office, that success has not been able to be transferred to governing and likely won't because if the very factors that gave rise to Trump's support in the first place...a bunch of angry white folk don't really want to talk and engage with people with different ideas (which was the difference in the race).
I just hope we learn something from this lesson in civics, if you care about the way our country is governed, you would do well to actually friggin' vote when you have the chance. 92 million people sat on the sidelines and let a wing nut get into the White House.
-
Trump got trumped :~)
TEACHER TOOK 'SASSY' PICTURE WITH DONALD TRUMP TO HIGHLIGHT GAY PRIDE BECAUSE TRUMP WON'T (http://www.newsweek.com/teachers-sassy-picture-donald-trump-highlights-lgbtq-rights-one-pose-627040)
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p235x350/19060156_10104845083081603_7102275947976333871_n.jpg?oh=7617c583f4acd0469772dfa0280b2a10&oe=599D7645)
Rhode Island’s teacher of the year saw his face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump go viral after taking a “sassy” picture with the president.
Nikos Giannopoulos, 29, visited the White House after being named the state’s teacher of the year, and whipped out a lace fan to strike a pose during his photo opportunity.
Despite the president failing to acknowledge June as Pride month in the United States, and picking a vice-president with a dubious record on LGBTQ rights, Giannopoulos managed to make his picture with Trump as gay friendly as possible.
The teacher of the year sported a rainbow pin during his visit, which he said was intended “to represent my gratitude for the LGBTQ community,” and paired it with a gold necklace and the fan, which he said was to “celebrate the joy and freedom of gender nonconformity,” in a post on his Facebook page.
Asked how Trump reacted to the fan, Giannopoulos told NPR: “Oh, he loved it!”
He added: “I popped it open when I walked into the office because I’m a very sassy person. And Trump complimented it right away. He said, ‘I love the fan!’ And he told me I had great style. Then, when I was ushered in for my private photo with the president and Melania, I was told I should put it away. So I just folded it up and held it at my side. But when it came time for the photo, I just asked the president, ‘Do you mind if I use the fan for the photo?’ He said, ‘Absolutely go for it.’ So I popped my fan and did my pose.”
It’s not often that a citizen manages to steal the limelight from the president in a single photo, but Giannopoulos’ picture proves it’s possible–and has been widely shared on the internet.
But it would be useful if Trump would do what has been done in the recent past and issue a proclamation for Pride Month...maybe it's because Obama started it that Trump is refusing to do so?
Trump’s failure to issue Pride Month proclamation called ‘deeply disappointing’ (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/02/donald-trump-lgbt-pride-month-proclamation-239069)
President Donald Trump has yet to issue a proclamation for Pride Month, breaking a recent tradition that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender advocacy groups call “deeply disappointing” but not entirely surprising.
June is historically recognized as LGBT Pride Month. Former President Barack Obama issued a federal proclamation every year dating back to 2011, according to White House archives.
-
Well up until now, as a fiscal conservative, I have been somewhat pleased with some financial policies, but indifferent towards most anything else.
However, Trump's rollback on Cuba is indefensible, and nothing more then a ploy to garner political points amongst a very small percentage of the population.
I have been to Cuba, and I very much want to go back. More then likely I can now qualify as a journalist since I am a full time photographer. Most though will not have that luxury.
In an effort to stop moneys from going to the military, which I would support, the ban on individual people-to-people travel will do nothing more then increase the military's influence over the economy. The private sector in Cuba has grown fairly rapidly to 40%, largely due to American tourism. A big plus for free market ideals, capitalism, improvements in living conditions, and a step closer to free elections, much like Nixon's opening of China did.
This policy will do nothing more then cause the free market to contract, the military's power to increase and lower the quality of life. And, of course, their leaders will use this as propaganda.
Joe, he's keeping his campaign promise regarding Cuba. That small group helped him win Florida and the election. Also, there's nothing stopping Castro from doing a few good things like returning murderer Chesimard back to the US. How about if he actually gave some freedom to the Cuban people before we give back to some of the giveaways Obama did. Obama just gave them away without anything in return for the Cuban people or us. Of course, Raul might not now trade these things. But, he certainly won't do them if we let these giveaways stand.
-
So totally beside the truth, everything, I wouldn't know where to start, and even then it's probably a waste of my time. This morning I read an interesting article in a local newspaper that tried to explain why Trump voters keep defending him, despite logic telling them that it will even hurt their cause (lower income, more cost, higher taxes, and more violent division in society). Logic and knowledge have nothing to do with it anymore, feelings are dominant, even if people know better than to hurt themselves.
It's not a new phenomenon, we have a similar group of voters in my country. They too, contribute very little positive to society.
Cheers,
Bart
So what's beside the truth? Go ahead and start to explain why my points of what Trump has done internationally are not good, for America and the world include the EU.
-
And already allienated the whole world against himself and USA.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said Europe must take control of its fate, because they can't rely anymore on USA. This will be a busy and eventful week for Europe.
On Monday, they will start the Brexit negotiations and on Thursday and Friday the European heads of the states will convene at the EU summit in Brussels.
Good. I hope they increase their defense budget and defend themselves.
-
There's actually been a lot written about what you are referring to...it's called the Dunning–Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect) and Trump supporters are NOT going to be happy about it, but, if the shoe fits...
Now, I'm not saying all Trump supporters fall under the Dunning–Kruger effect explanation. There are plenty of really smart people who seem to be Trump supporters but it's clear that a large number of Trump supporters do...
But there are more aspects to Trump supporters as outlined by this Psychology Today article: The Psychology Behind Donald Trump's Unwavering Support (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201609/the-psychology-behind-donald-trumps-unwavering-support)
The article mentions the The Dunning-Kruger Effect as well as Hypersensitivity to Threat, Terror Management Theory and High Attentional Engagement.
The article is really accurate with the description of the phenomenal success of Trump's campaign. But as we've seen since he's taken office, that success has not been able to be transferred to governing and likely won't because if the very factors that gave rise to Trump's support in the first place...a bunch of angry white folk don't really want to talk and engage with people with different ideas (which was the difference in the race).
I just hope we learn something from this lesson in civics, if you care about the way our country is governed, you would do well to actually friggin' vote when you have the chance. 92 million people sat on the sidelines and let a wing nut get into the White House.
You just can't get over the fact that Hillary lost. Carrying resentments is debilitating according to psychologists. I hope you get over it soon.
-
... Chancellor Angela Merkel said Europe must take control of its fate, because they can't rely anymore on USA...
Gee... what took you so long? Like a dork who still lives in his parent's basement? ;)
-
Ah, you people of "high ability"... so able to lose an election that any idiot could have won. Wait, scratch that last part :D
-
Gee... what took you so long? Like a dork who still lives in his parent's basement? ;)
Well, it's one thing to work together with a strong partner in an assisting role, the other getting fed up with an unpredictable one.
In the latter case, it's definitely better not to be dependent on an erratic ally and assume the full control of own commerce and defense.
Actually, I don't think Germany is concerned too much, it's the small countries like Baltics, Finland or Slovakia which worry most.
Watch Germany and Russia coming closer together. On the other hand, we've seen a similar movie before and it did not end well.
-
Well, it's one thing to work together with a strong partner in an assisting role, the other getting fed up with an unpredictable one.
In the latter case, it's definitely better not to be dependent on an erratic ally and assume the full control of own commerce and defense.
Actually, I don't think Germany is concerned too much, it's the small countries like Baltics, Finland or Slovakia which worry most.
Watch Germany and Russia coming closer together. On the other hand, we've seen a similar movie before and it did not end well.
Les, that's a two-way street. If Europe doesn't pull its weight because it's not meeting its defense requirements, that Europe becomes unpredictable. What America is saying is come on fellows. We support each other but you have to meet your obligations. Saying you'll meet them in 2024 isn't good enough.
I do agree with that "movie" though. But, do you really think that Germany and Russia could really be pals?
-
Les, that's a two-way street. If Europe doesn't pull its weight because it's not meeting its defense requirements, that Europe becomes unpredictable. What America is saying is come on fellows. We support each other but you have to meet your obligations. Saying you'll meet them in 2024 isn't good enough.
I do agree with that "movie" though. But, do you really think that Germany and Russia could really be pals?
I think the NATO obligations could be worked out to mutual satisfaction if all partners behaved in a responsible and respectable way.
As to the Molotow-Ribbentrop pact, it did not make Stalin and Hitler exactly pals, but they divided clearly their spheres of interest which worked for them for a few years. The historians will be analyzing many details which are not noticed or publicized right now and drawing all kinds of conclusions for the next few years.
-
You just can't get over the fact that Hillary lost. Carrying resentments is debilitating according to psychologists. I hope you get over it soon.
Hum, typical Trumpian deflection...rather than address the message, attack the messenger.
And interesting that you bring up psychologists...here's what Psychology Today is saying about Trump more recently...
Shrinks Define Dangers of Trump Presidency (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/201704/shrinks-define-dangers-trump-presidency)
(http://nodeassets.nbcnews.com/cdnassets/projects/trump/images/mp-trumpstatenisland201-840px.jpg)
Mental health experts begin carving out a new role for unprecedented times.
Donald Trump may or may not be mentally ill. He may or may not have an organic brain disease. Despite those unknowns, a group of prominent mental health professionals today agreed that they have an ethical obligation to expose to the public every instance of reality distortion, impulsive decision-making, and violation of presidential norms of behavior that singularize the Trump presidency.
At a conference held at Yale University Medical School and led by Bandy Lee, assistant clinical professor in law and psychiatry, mental health experts met to discuss whether their professional responsibility includes a duty to warn the public of dangers posed by President Trump’s behavior. For them the issue is no longer what psychiatric diagnosis Donald Trump merits or not. It is how to avert the "malignant normality"—as psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton called it—now threatening American democracy.
But the conference itself exemplified the unusual problems created by the 45th president. Even in organizing the gathering, Lee said, she encountered “a sudden wave of fear" that led to withdrawal of official support from the school of public health and the department of psychiatry, where she specializes in studying and treating violent offenders and preventing violence. "Colleagues are concerned about the repercussions of speaking,” she observed, because they lack legal protections from a president who has demonstrated his willingness to publicly target those who say something he doesn't like.
Further, ever since 1973, mental health experts have been professionally restrained by the Goldwater Rule from commenting on the mental fitness of any person they have not personally examined. Although the rule was established by the American Psychiatric Association and psychologists are not expressly forbidden from making public pronouncements about the mental health of public figures, the American Psychological Association has affirmed the rule and psychologists generally abide by it.
But, by all means, stick your head in the sand and keep telling yourself that Trump is doing a fine job and it's just all the liberals who are still morning the loss of Hillary that is causing all the problems for Trump. Russia didn't influence our election? #FAKENEWS The liberal biased MSM is telling lies? #FAKENEWS Climate science is bogus? #FAKENEWS Coal miners will get their jobs back? #FAKESNEWS Obama wiretapped Trump Tower? #FAKENEWS
Ironically, my mental health is actually rather good in no small part because I find it therapeutic to point out the problems Trump and the GOP are causing our country and the world. I'm not the one yelling at my TV...I'm actually rather amused by the TV news these days :~)
-
Ah, you people of "high ability"... so able to lose an election that any idiot could have won. Wait, scratch that last part :D
Thanks to the Russians...
-
Hum, typical Trumpian deflection...rather than address the message, attack the messenger.
And interesting that you bring up psychologists...here's what Psychology Today is saying about Trump more recently...
But, by all means, stick your head in the sand and keep telling yourself that Trump is doing a fine job and it's just all the liberals who are still morning the loss of Hillary that is causing all the problems for Trump. Russia didn't influence our election? #FAKENEWS The liberal biased MSM is telling lies? #FAKENEWS Climate science is bogus? #FAKENEWS Coal miners will get their jobs back? #FAKESNEWS Obama wiretapped Trump Tower? #FAKENEWS
Ironically, my mental health is actually rather good in no small part because I find it therapeutic to point out the problems Trump and the GOP are causing our country and the world. I'm not the one yelling at my TV...I'm actually rather amused by the TV news these days :~)
There's nothing wrong with my mental health either. But I tell you. I keep hearing clicks on my phone and think someone is tapping my line. It must be one of Obama's left-over supporters in the deep state. I wish Trump would get rid of those guys once and for all.
-
It must be one of Obama's left-over supporters in the deep state. I wish Trump would get rid of those guys once and for all.
Well, in a somewhat ironic twist, it seems Donny & The Admins (I should TM that) are having a hard time finding people to work for them...
White House Faces Talent Shortage Thanks to Wariness of Trump: Report (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/white-house-faces-talent-shortage-due-to-wariness-of-trump.html)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/18/18-trump-white-house.w710.h473.jpg)
You’d think a CEO would know a lot more about the dangers of toxic company culture.
Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
The Trump administration’s penchant for chaos, controversy, and legal uncertainty is hurting its ability to recruit Republican talent to help it run the government, according to a new report (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/help-wanted-why-republicans-wont-work-for-the-trump-administration/2017/06/17/61e3d33e-506a-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumphiring818pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.d7367e4b1faa) in the Washington Post. Almost 30 Republican operators who have been approached about taking jobs in the administration have told the Post that they have turned down or are leaning against the opportunities, citing anxiety about Trump’s temperament and his record of disloyalty and mistreatment toward his senior staff. Some have even consulted professional headhunters over whether or not working with Trump could cause permanent damage to their reputations, or are worried about potential legal expenses down the line should current or future scandals require as much. Ultimately, it seems the typical sacrifices that GOP job candidates would normally be more than willing to make in exchange for the pomp and prestige of working in the White House are no longer worth it for many.
The White House denies that they are having any problems sourcing talent, of course. Press Secretary Sean Spicer even made it sound like they were, in fact, overwhelmed with interest. “I have people knocking down my door to talk to the presidential personnel office,” he claimed in response to the story.
According to the Post’s sources, however, the only jobs the White House hasn’t had trouble filling are mid- and entry-level positions, but not for the top roles that require more discerning and experienced candidates. In addition, the Trump administration has already set a historically slow pace when it comes to even trying to fill out the federal government. White House hiring efforts have increased over the past few months, but they are still far behind the pace set by the last two presidential administrations. The Trump administration, for instance, has less than one-third of the confirmed appointees for senior posts that the Obama administration had by this point. Furthermore, the White House has yet to nominate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/) candidates for 415 key administration positions out of a total of 558 requiring Senate confirmation.
I know Bannon wanted to destroy Washington as we knew it but I didn't think it would be by simply not hiring staff. But even if they did want to hire people, who would want Donald J Trump as a boss?
-
If Europe doesn't pull its weight because it's not meeting its defense requirements, that Europe becomes unpredictable.
Europe is meeting its agreed NATO obligation so there is no unpredictability on this side. The unpredictability comes from Trump who misrepresents what was agreed. The worst thing is he doesn't do that for the whole USA, but only for himself and a couple of close moguls in the defense industry.
-
I tend to side with Joe on Cuba.
-
From a reference cited in a previous post.
a group of prominent mental health professionals today agreed that they have an ethical obligation to expose to the public every instance of reality distortion, impulsive decision-making, and violation of presidential norms of behavior that singularize the Trump presidency.
First of all, I question the credability of any mental health care professional offering a professional opinion of someone they have neither examined nor reviewed the reports of anyone who has examined the person. This is what amateurs do, not professionals.
Second I question any ethical obligation to expose this type of information to the public. It is, in my opinion, actually unethical.
Third IF, and that is a bigly if, these mental health care professionals can make a professional opinion based on simple observation and IF (another bigly if) there is an ethical obligation to release it to the public, then the same obligation needs to apply to all elected officials, not just one... And I don't think that is what anyone really wants.
We can all make our own layperson impressions and opinions of Trump based on how we choose to interpret what he says and his actions. Some may choose to interpret it positively, others may choose to interpret it negatively. But health care professionals need to act according to the ethics of their profession. To do otherwise puts their credibility in question.
-
Sorry Alan, I don't buy it.
We are for freedom and free markets and this move does nothing buts hurts the Cuban people and free markets. When I was there in January, I saw the beginnings of a thriving free market, very much brought on by American tourism. This free market certainly undermines the government since it so successful, and the best way to chip away at the regime.
Now it will contract due to this move.
I could support restrictions on Americans dealing with military run businesses, but cutting off Cuba to Americans will only hurt the Cuban people and increase the Regime's control.
Also, this is not a split issue like most things. 75% of the country want better relations with Cuba and the ability to visit. Not to mention we have 54+ years of experience with the embargo, and guess what, it has done nothing.
Absolutely nothing!
This is a decision based on no logic, but on the emotions of a small group of people in FL.
Not to mention we deal with countries that have much worse human rights records. We, rightly so, don't tell them how to govern. We should have no business lecturing Cuba either.
Just to reiterate, Trump was doing what he promised his Cuban supporters. It doesn't matter what others think, It may or may not be a good or bad idea. But if he didn't reverse Obama's action, people would just say "See, he even lies to his own supporters. You just can't trust Trump."
But also, we tell a lot of other countries how they should govern. Your argument we don't doesn't comport with what we actually do all the time. Russia, Iran, North Korea as well as Cuba. These all have embargoes. To blame America not trading with Cuba for their dictatorship isn't true. Cuba has been trading with Canada, Europe etc. Visitors from those countries have been going there for decades with no effect on Castro's control of the Cubans and hardly any economic advantage to the people. I see the pictures of the 60 year old cars and decrepit old buildings. They may make interesting photos for us photographers, but it just shows how Castro and Communism has held back a country and its people. Most of the profits from tourism and trade goes to the Castro family, the military and his close associates who rule the roost. The people get crap and will continue to get crap while Castro's and friends just get richer and secure their future control over the country. The only difference between North Korea and Cuba is that Cuba is warm and has nice beaches.
-
From a reference cited in a previous post.
First of all, I question the credability of any mental health care professional offering a professional opinion of someone they have neither examined nor reviewed the reports of anyone who has examined the person. This is what amateurs do, not professionals.
Second I question any ethical obligation to expose this type of information to the public. It is, in my opinion, actually unethical.
Third IF, and that is a bigly if, these mental health care professionals can make a professional opinion based on simple observation and IF (another bigly if) there is an ethical obligation to release it to the public, then the same obligation needs to apply to all elected officials, not just one... And I don't think that is what anyone really wants.
We can all make our own layperson impressions and opinions of Trump based on how we choose to interpret what he says and his actions. Some may choose to interpret it positively, others may choose to interpret it negatively. But health care professionals need to act according to the ethics of their profession. To do otherwise puts their credibility in question.
I agree. Their opinions are political not scientific.
-
Just to reiterate, Trump was doing what he promised his Cuban supporters. It doesn't matter what others think, It may or may not be a good or bad idea. But if he didn't reverse Obama's action, people would just say "See, he even lies to his own supporters. You just can't trust Trump."
But also, we tell a lot of other countries how they should govern. Your argument we don't doesn't comport with what we actually do all the time. Russia, Iran, North Korea as well as Cuba. These all have embargoes. To blame America not trading with Cuba for their dictatorship isn't true. Cuba has been trading with Canada, Europe etc. Visitors from those countries have been going there for decades with no effect on Castro's control of the Cubans and hardly any economic advantage to the people. I see the pictures of the 60 year old cars and decrepit old buildings. They may make interesting photos for us photographers, but it just shows how Castro and Communism has held back a country and its people. Most of the profits from tourism and trade goes to the Castro family, the military and his close associates who rule the roost. The people get crap and will continue to get crap while Castro's and friends just get richer and secure their future control over the country. The only difference between North Korea and Cuba is that Cuba is warm and has nice beaches.
And that's the problem. It worked with postwar Germany and Japan, but it failed miserably in Iraq, Afghanistan, and a few other countries.
You can't tell Russia how to run their country. American system just wouldn't work there.
-
You could not be more wrong considering the current estate of affairs.
First, how is that wall coming along? I was for Trump getting in, mainly due to his fiscal policy, and I could not be happier that his wall idea is failing. I think the general electorate is a much bigger portion of the population then those whom would like us to return to a 54+ year policy of nothing but failure.
Second, perhaps we do tell other countries how to govern, but we don't forbade citizens from going to any of them other then Cuba, even those with worse human rights violations. Why is Cuba so special? Also, why do we have the right to instruct others how to conduct themselves within their own country?
Third, lets get serious on tourism; they have not be open for decades. Tourism really only started to be accepted as a way to produce income after the USSR stopped being their cash cow, and it took a while for it to catch on. So yes, everyone else has been visiting them for a while, but not in droves like you are implying.
Also, no one spends more then Americans tourists, nor is any country closer (3 1/2 hour flight from Newark), so allowing Americans to tour the country is a huge plus for the hospitality industry, both private and public. Americans will be more likely to visit and bring more money when they do then any other tourists.
Now I would be all for not allowing Americans to stay in military run hotels, since that would mean the moneys would go directly to the Cubans. You could also forbade Americans from shopping in military run shops and restaurants, although that would be impossible to enforce.
But forbidding all Americans from going will only take away from the Cuban people and the free market that is finally starting to flourish after 50 years.
Third, when Raul Castro took over the country in 2012, he implemented many capitalistic reforms (which is interesting since it was he that was the communist, Fidel just wanted to get rid of Batista). Of course, it took a little while for Cubans to start doing their own thing, but these reforms combined with Americans visiting have brought a great deal of wealth to the island, much of which is going to the average Cuban, not just the Castros.
Your vision of what is going on in Cuba is nowhere near the reality of the situation.
We should be embracing the Cuban people and preparing for Raul's retiring next February. Making good with the new leader early will be the best chance we have of helping the Cuban people by influencing policy.
This move is only going to make his successor more skeptical of us and help continue the same ideals of the past.
Insofar as those in Miami, get over it! At a certain time, one should cut their losses.
Joe, I just read this article and it appears that Castro made out a lot better than we did. His reversal of Obama's measures are half hearted, more for show. Many of them are being left in placed or modified.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/politics/cuba-trump-engagement-restrictions.html?_r=0
-
Really?
The article has nothing that supports your statement other then one quote from one Cuban. A mere paragraph. No evidence is shown at all.
However, there is plenty within it that supports my side.
Article after article is showing more free market activity in Cuba mainly due to American tourism and investment. People are starting to make money in Cuba from the free market.
In 54 years, this is the best thing that has happened to undermine communism on the island.
This last clutch of a policy that has failed over and over again is going to due more harm then good.
From your article, Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, "By denying Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, we will be denying them (Cuban people) customers, and they will be worse off."
The following was extracted from the NY Times article:
"Still, Mr. Trump’s action allowed him to claim credit for taking a tough stand while leaving in place many of the changes made by Mr. Obama, which polls have shown are broadly supported, including by most Republicans.
Under the directive, embassies in Washington and Havana will stay open and cruises and direct flights between the United States and Cuba will be protected under an exception from the prohibition on transactions with military-controlled entities.
Nor does the measure affect the ability of Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the island and send money to relatives there, or a broad array of rules the Obama administration put in place aimed at making it easier for American companies to do business in Cuba."
Also, the one Cuban you motioned is the leader of the major opposition group, not some minor figure:
"But some Cuban dissidents who had backed Mr. Obama’s thaw in the hopes it would lead to greater openness on the island said the opposite had occurred. Among them was José Daniel Ferrer García, head of the Cuban Patriotic Union, the largest opposition group in Cuba, who was among the dissidents Mr. Obama met last year in Cuba.
“We believe that this is the moment for a maximum reversal of some policies that only benefit the Castro regime and does very little or nothing for the oppressed people,” Mr. Ferrer wrote in an open letter to Mr. Trump last week. “It is time to impose strong sanctions on the regime of Raúl Castro.”
In the end, Cuban Americans still have a lot of power here and their voice is more important since it effects them and their compatriots and relatives still living in Cuba. the most. While the polls may indicate support for loosening, those people aren't Cuban or have as deep a concern for Cuba as Cuban Americans.
-
What changed in Cuban governance since Obama changed the policy? Nothing. They're no more freer.
-
The only difference between North Korea and Cuba is that Cuba is warm and has nice beaches.
And you, having apparently visited neither, are the authority on this?
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance…”
― H.L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy
-
I think this site contradicts your premise, and it also provide evidence of such.
https://www.engagecuba.org/cubas-private-sector/
Many changes made by Castro predates Obama's policy changes. The Cuban economy is a disaster. They know they have to change economic policies. If they want to improve it even more, let them provide additional freedoms before we give them more carrots. Also, let them return Chesimard to us who killed a number of state troopers from New Jersey where live. Although I'm not Cuban, I have as axe to grind also. Castro is protecting her, a murderer.
-
Many changes made by Castro predates Obama's policy changes. The Cuban economy is a disaster. They know they have to change economic policies. If they want to improve it even more, let them provide additional freedoms before we give them more carrots. Also, let them return Chesimard to us who killed a number of state troopers from New Jersey where live. Although I'm not Cuban, I have as axe to grind also. Castro is protecting her, a murderer.
a citizen of country that was shielding Brazinskas' is righteously whining about Chesimard ? hilarious !
-
Joe, he's keeping his campaign promise regarding Cuba. That small group helped him win Florida and the election.
Not really, Trump overwhelmingly won the Panhandle area in Florida. The anti=Castro votes in the Miami area are really rather small these days. ONe of the big anti-Castro members of Congress, Ros-Lehtinen is retiring as her district is now swinging to the Dems and she voted against the Republican healthcare bill.
-
Don't be foolish Alan.
Are you seriously suggesting that Raul, the devout communist, the one who convinced Fidel to implement communism and socialize the whole economy, just came up with his reforms on his own? That he suddenly had a change in heart?
Also you seriously suggesting that talks between him and Obama did not occur long before the 2014 thawing and that maybe Obama was an influence on Raul's reforms? And that maybe, due to negotiations, Obama could not claim part of them.
The Cuban state economy is a disaster, but there is a free market revolution starting. It's really sad to see so many fanboys ready to piss that away just because Trump says so. I may have been for Trump over HRC due to fiscal concerns and over regulations, but I will not idly approve of all his policies, especially when they lack all reason and evidence of working.
I am glad to see republicans voice their opposition to this foolish policy that has a 54 year track record of failure.
Insofar as Chesimard, you really need to learn to cut your losses at a certain point. Move on, get over it, and you're a New Yorker that now lives in NJ.
And by the way, you have provided nothing but ideas that, on top of this, have 54 years of proof against them working. My side of the argument has proof of our ideas working and improving the Cuban economy.
Yes I'm a New Yorker that moved to NJ 4 years ago. But as a New Yorker living miles from the killing and with Chesimard very much in the news at the time, it put all people in the NY Metro area with a lot of hate for her. She held up banks in the Bronx where I grew up. She and her Black Liberation Party terrorist cohorts held up banks in Queens where I lived for over 40 years. She also attacked NYPD police with a hand grenade two miles from my home in Queens, NYC. You're very nonchalant about it which isn't right.
I have no idea what you mean when you say cut my loses. What does that even mean? I'm not losing anything when the President is tough on the Communist Cuban regime that protected Chesimard. So you're saying screw the families of the cops, who cares that this women killed them that she escaped from jail 35 years ago? She has a $1 million reward on her head from the FBI. She was sentenced to life in prison and escaped to Cuba where Fidel gave her political asylum. If Raul wants us to help economically, let them return her.
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/joanne-deborah-chesimard
-
a citizen of country that was shielding Brazinskas' is righteously whining about Chesimard ? hilarious !
The US should have returned him to Russia. At least there's poetic justice. His son who helped him hijack the plane, shot and killed him years later in an argument.
-
In so many words, yes, that is exactly what I am saying to your Red Herring of an argument on not opening diplomatic relations with Cuba.
It happened in 1977, another era, and I could care less about some trivial event, albeit a tragedy, that happened 40 years ago.
What I care about is allowing free markets to do their job, which they are doing in Cuba.
The one thing that has finally happened in 54 years that is undermining the regime you want to nix because of someone whom you don't know was murdered two generations ago.
Joe, she's still alive. She's been living high off the hog down there for 35 years with Castro using her as a foil, rubbing our noses in it for all that time. All you seem to be concerned with is getting Americans on cruise ship to Havana so they can enjoy vacationing in the Caribbean. I wonder why you're so strong on this? Is there some business or monetary thing going on that you would benefit from closer ties? Why are you so concerned with free markets?
-
Because it is stupid policy. Because allowing old wounds to prevent better relations makes no sense. Because allowing Americans to visit may spark even more freedoms. Because having good relations with a country so close is a good thing.
So let Raul show he's serious about change. Let him return Chesimard and allow some personal freedoms at the same time Trump can change and allow more openings. You just don't give things away and hope the other side responds. There has to be good faith on both sides. When you sell your services., do you just give in to the other sides demands? Or do you negotiate, in good faith, a little give and take, and make a deal BOTH sides can live with.
-
Well here is the thing, we did get something in return.
Raul's policy changes in 2012 were most surely influenced by outside sources, especially considering he is a lifelong communist, and, since it can be rightly assumed talks between Obama and Raul began long before 2014, that source might have been Obama.
Not to mention, you are in the small minority (<25%) of people who actually want and think we can get something out of this.
Let bygones be bygones. We should move on and continue normalizing our relationship.
By the way, do you think Americans should not be allowed to visit say Saudi Arabia? Or North Korea? Both have much worse track record with human rights.
Even though I think it is foolish to visit North Korea, I would not restrict it.
There's a scene in The Godfather, where Generalissimo and President Batista, who was overthrown by Castro in real life, accepted a huge payments from the Corleone family of the Godfather to do gambling business in Cuba. So now American companies will be making deals with Cuban companies to do business but with the military of Castro's government. The true owners might appear to be non-military on the surface. But you know it will be Castro and his cronies who actually control and own the front companies. Trump is allowing that to continue. Airlines and cruise ship will continue their operations. So you really got what you want despite Trump's "tough" stand.
So in 57 years we've gone from Batista to Castro. Nothing's changed.
-
Ok, back to Trump. Occasionally, anti-Trumpers can make some good humor:
-
Meanwhile is seems the White House hopes that if they quit letting reporters actually record things, the bad news will go away? Yeah, they wish...
President Trump’s White House Media Blackout Has Reporters Talking Mutiny (http://www.thedailybeast.com/president-trumps-white-house-media-blackout-has-reporters-talking-mutiny)
(https://punditfromanotherplanet.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/white-house-podium.jpg?w=550&h=314)
This may be the empty briefing room of the future...
After Sean Spicer banned live broadcasts of press briefings, many long-suffering White House correspondents are openly wondering whether it’s worth the hassle anymore.
Nearly every president in office, at one time or another, is confronted with a near-impossible decision.
Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. Truman relieving General MacArthur. Kennedy’s blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis. And now, the great question of President Donald Trump’s era: does he care more about his image? Or about his ratings?
The president’s unquenchable thirst for the attention of “the crooked media” and his ravenous hunger to punish them is the pushmi-pullyu of the Trump era—the political equivalent of what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. But as Trump’s faith in his press shop reportedly wears thinner with every briefing gone awry, the White House communications team appears ready to make the president’s choice for him.
On Monday, reporters were barred from broadcasting live video or audio during the afternoon White House press briefing, the second briefing at which journalists were explicitly banned from making audio broadcasts since the previous Thursday. Press secretary Sean Spicer, flanked by counselor Kellyanne Conway and former Apprentice agitator-turned-communications liaison Omarosa Manigault, explained that the president’s appearance earlier with the president of Panama was enough for the whole class to share.
Although it looks like we won't have Spicy to kick around much longer...seems he's being "promoted" up and off camera...the position of White House Press Secretary might be a tough one to find somebody who would be willing to work for Trump.
-
Mixing Hollywood with real life now? You did read the recent articles on how the latest Churchill movie gets all the important parts wrong, so sorry if I can't help but question this.
A lot has changed in 57 years; the Cubans are getting their economic freedom back. Political change will come as this flourishes.
I think you are also over looking that Castro retires in February.
What area you questioning? It's been estimated that the Castro family and cronies have enriched themselves with 800-900 billion dollars over the years. I believe Castro's son in law will take over after Raul. Like I said, it's like North Korea but warmer.
-
Joe, I guess we just disagree about Cuba.
-
Australia is stopping its air operations against ISIS in Syria because of Russian threats. I hope they reconsider. This must also disappoint the anti-Trumpers who want us to go toe-to-toe against Russia. It'll make it harder for Trump to "collude" with them to make peace.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/middleeast/australia-syria-conflict/index.html
-
The US should have returned him to Russia.
but US didn't, did it ? so Cuba follows the example ...
and Luis Posada Carriles ?
-
If Cuba wants trade with America, they have to give us something in return . In any case, Trump didn't reverse all of Obamas changes, frankly only some minor ones.
-
In any case, Trump didn't reverse all of Obamas changes, frankly only some minor ones.
So, Trump DIDN'T actually make good on his promise to completely reverse Obama's changes, "only some minor ones" which is par for the course with Trump. Twiddle about doing something essentially meaningless then make speeches claiming great things have been done then run and hide in the White House and avoid the press.
Must suck to be Trump and see his world starting to crumble...even he admitted the job was harder than he thought it would be and he used to enjoy his life before becoming president. Maybe he should think about returning to the life and let America heal from the wounds he's been responsible...
-
Chalk up another goof on the part of the big orange dummy...maybe he should start listening when he get's a state department briefing, IF he get's state department briefings.
Trump calls Ukraine the thing Ukrainians hate the most (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/20/trump-calls-ukraine-the-thing-ukrainians-hate-the-most/?utm_term=.158fb247d0f2)
(https://www.kyivpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/000_PQ865.jpg)
As President Trump greeted his Ukrainian counterpart, Petro Poroshenko, on Tuesday at the White House, he made an unfortunate slip. “It's a great honor to be with President Proshenko of the Ukraine,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, “a place that we've all been very much involved in.”
Trump was right: The United States has indeed long been involved with Ukraine — but unfortunately it's been adding a “the” to Ukraine's name for quite some time too. While it's an understandable mistake, it's also one that may leave many Ukrainians annoyed because of its awkward geopolitical implications.
Some countries include the definitive article in their name. This typically occurs when the name refers to a geographic entity or a political organization — for example, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Philippines — though it is often not considered an official part of the name. According to the CIA World Fact Book, only The Bahamas and The Gambia officially include “the” in their names.
Ukraine is not referred to as “the Ukraine” in its own constitution or other official documents. In fact, there is no definite article in the Ukrainian or Russian languages used in the country. “Ukraine is both the conventional short and long name of the country,” a representative of the Ukrainian Embassy in London told the BBC in 2012. “This name is stated in the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence and Constitution.”
--snip--
Exactly why the declarative article came to be attached to Ukraine in the first place is hard to know, but the reasoning may lie in the country's history. Between 1919 and 1991, Ukraine was officially known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the English language; it may have been this Soviet period that resulted in the “the” being added. A more likely alternative may lie in the etymology of the word “Ukraine,” which is believed by many (but not all) scholars to come from the Old Slavic word “Ukraina,” thought to have meant something like “the borderland.”
This explains why “the Ukraine” annoys many Ukrainians. The mistake seems to imply that Ukraine can only be defined by its relation to its larger neighbor, Russia, and the years of domination it suffered under Moscow during the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire before that. Calling Ukraine “the Ukraine” would seem to question its sovereignty: A fraught thing after Russia's annexation of Crimea and support for rebels in east Ukraine.
For Trump, whose benign view of Moscow has become notorious, it's especially awkward. Poroshenko was not visibly upset by Trump's choice of words on Tuesday, but on Twitter many pointed out the slip, with former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul indicating that Trump's choice of words suggested he hadn't been adequately briefed.
-
Gotcha.
-
Gotcha.
Yep...Trump produces a inordinate number of gotchas becuase he doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He has zero knowledge and experience in governing. While Trump supporters thought that would be a good thing, as we've seen it's not gone so well :-(
-
Australia is stopping its air operations against ISIS in Syria because of Russian threats. I hope they reconsider. This must also disappoint the anti-Trumpers who want us to go toe-to-toe against Russia. It'll make it harder for Trump to "collude" with them to make peace.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/middleeast/australia-syria-conflict/index.html
But Russia and Trump are best mates there is no problem let Trump work with Putin and sort it all out 8)
-
Seriously, people!? The "the"!? What the what!? That is what are you going to latch onto now? Nothing better? Bigger, more serious?! "The"!?
It annoys the Ukrainians!? Who do not speak English, do not have a definitive article in their language in the first place? Not referred as "The Ukraine" in their constitution!? Are you all now out of your minds!? How can a country who does not have English as its official language and doesn't' even have a definite article in their language, how can such a country refer to itself in its constitution as "The Ukraine"!?
-
You have no idea what you are talking about. Your statement about Cuba being like North Korea but warmer shows your utter lack of knowledge on the subject. Not to mention your arrogance is amazing
Precisely. That's why I said what I said.
Alan, you have to stop painting with such a large brush. These wild, unverifiable generalizations do nothing to educate us.
-
Seriously, people!? The "the"!? What the what!? That is what are you going to latch onto now? Nothing better? Bigger, more serious?! "The"!?
It annoys the Ukrainians!? Who do not speak English, do not have a definitive article in their language in the first place? Not referred as "The Ukraine" in their constitution!? Are you all now out of your minds!? How can a country who does not have English as its official language and doesn't' even have a definite article in their language, how can such a country refer to itself in its constitution as "The Ukraine"!?
Precisely! A definite article or no article might be important for an english scholar, but doesn't bear much importance to any Slavic person, speaking ukrainian, russian, czech, polish or slovak.
What will those clueless journalists come up with next? They'd better start reading Pushkin and Solzhenitsyn. Or Havel.
-
If Cuba wants trade with America, they have to give us something in return . In any case, Trump didn't reverse all of Obamas changes, frankly only some minor ones.
Alan, best is to see Cuba in person. Personally, for a long time, I wasn't keen on visiting any communist country, but when I finally went to Cuba a few years ago, it was largely a very pleasant experience. You could take a photo tour or some other "educational" trip from USA, and you'll see there is a difference between those 50-year old Castro slogans and the real Cubans. There is also a difference how Americans and Cubans look at the life. Take for example a lowly papaya. A plant-based eating, American health-nut may think of it just as a cheap tropical fruit, but a Cuban may read much more into it. Better to ask for Fruta Bomba.
If you can't find a suitable Cuba tour from NJ, just take a short flight to Toronto and board a direct flight to Cuba from there. The flight lasts only 3 hours and the prices are very good now.
-
Alan, best is to see Cuba in person. Personally, for a long time, I wasn't keen on visiting any communist country, but when I finally went to Cuba a few years ago, it was largely a very pleasant experience. You could take a photo tour or some other "educational" trip from USA, and you'll see there is a difference between those 50-year old Castro slogans and the real Cubans. There is also a difference how Americans and Cubans look at the life. Take for example a lowly papaya. A plant-based eating, American health-nut may think of it just as a cheap tropical fruit, but a Cuban may read much more into it. Better to ask for Fruta Bomba.
If you can't find a suitable Cuba tour from NJ, just take a short flight to Toronto and board a direct flight to Cuba from there. The flight lasts only 3 hours and the prices are very good now.
Well, my wife and I have seen most of the other islands in the Caribbean. I suggested a cruise as she really loves those. But she said that she wasn't giving any money to those Communists. I guess we'll have to take another cruise too conservative Canada.
-
Jeff, Ossoff lost. How does it feel to keep winning?
-
You don't what you are missing.
I found Cuba to be, by far, the safest country I have visited in the Caribbean. I would say Havana is just as, if not more, safe than Hamilton, Bermuda. It's much more safe then NYC, especially outside of Manhattan, and Philadelphia. I not once felt threatened, and I was walking around with a $45K camera morning, noon, evening and night.
Well, I'd have to go by myself. Then, I'd have to ask Castro to let me stay because I don't think I'd have a home to go back too. :)
-
Jeff, Ossoff lost. How does it feel to keep winning?
"Republican Karen Handel defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff in the most expensive congressional race in history [financed by California liberals] for Georgia's sixth district."
"The result was a big blow to Democrats, who were hungry for a victory to demonstrate that grass roots, anti-Trump energy gives them a shot at taking control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections."
-
Well, my wife and I have seen most of the other islands in the Caribbean. I suggested a cruise as she really loves those. But she said that she wasn't giving any money to those Communists. I guess we'll have to take another cruise too conservative Canada.
Cuba is very different from the other Caribbean islands. In more than one way.
You can tell your wife that not all your money will go to Castro. Quite a few resorts and other companies in Cuba are owned partially by Canadian firms.
And now, there are many ways to pay small Cuban businesses directly - restaurants, casas particulares, taxi drivers, tourist guides, so the communists won't get their cut. For $10 she can get a massage, facial or a pedicure. Cosmetic surgeries like face lift, breast lift and tummy tacks are also much cheaper than in USA. Go there before McDonalds does!
-
Jeff, Ossoff lost. How does it feel to keep winning?
Well, let's see...Tom Price, who gave up his seat to screw up HHS, won his election by 23% in a solid red district and Handle wins by about 3 points (less than 10k votes as of this post)...so I don't see Ossoff's loss as something the GOP should be celebrating-they just squeaked bye...and a democrate will get another chance to run against Handle again in 2018. In point of fact the RNC should be worried because if solid red districts become tight battleground districts the GOP is bound to lose a fair share of seats. So we'll see how ya feel after 2018.
-
Jeff, I think you're on the right path. Keep attacking Trump.
-
Seriously, people!? The "the"!? What the what!? That is what are you going to latch onto now? Nothing better? Bigger, more serious?! "The"!?
Geeeze...I thought it was funny :~)
Ironic you didn't read the whole story, if you had you would have found that Obama made the same mistake in 2014.
So, there ya go.
-
Jeff, I think you're on the right path. Keep attacking Trump.
Well, it will be interesting to learn about what didn't work...there's already some interesting stories coming out:
Why Did Democrats Ossoff and Parnell Lose Their Congressional Races in Georgia and South Carolina? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-did-democrats-ossoff-and-parnell-lose-their-congressional_us_5949ea31e4b0d799132a15dd)
Democrats around the country were hopeful that they could win two special elections Tuesday in what had long been “safe” Republican districts in Georgia and South Carolina. Instead, both Democratic candidates — Jon Ossoff and Archie Parnell — narrowly lost. Why did they lose? Pundits and politics will be debating this question for a long while, but here’s one factor that made a huge difference: Low turnout among African Americans. If this sounds familiar, it should. It explains why Hillary Clinton lost Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to Donald Trump last November by a total of 77,000 votes. Had she won those three states, she would have won the Electoral College and would be occupying the White House today.
Democrat Jon Ossoff’s campaign in the Atlanta suburbs attracted the most attention and the most money. Last November, no political expert expected Georgia’s 6th Congressional district to be a hotly-contested swing district. For many years it was represented by right-wing Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich. When he retired, he was replaced by Tom Price, his ideological twin. But after Trump picked Price to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, Ossoff, an unknown 30-year old documentary filmmaker, jumped into the race to replace Price in a special election.
The national Democratic Party did not initially support Ossoff’s campaign. The party leaders viewed it as a long shot at best. What propelled Ossoff’s campaign were hundreds of local volunteers – many of them political neophytes – who formed new local groups like PaveItBlue, Johns Creek-Milton Progressives Network, Roswell Resistance Huddle, and Liberal Moms of Roswell and Cobb to support Ossoff. Progressive groups like MoveOn and Daily Kos, and a strong endorsement from civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (who represents Atlanta in Congress) helped Ossoff raise millions of dollars, mostly in small-size donations. In the April primary, he came in first among 18 contenders, with 48% of the vote, only 3,700 shy of winning the 50% needed for victory. Instead, he faced a run-off with the second-place finisher, Karen Handel, a conservative Republican. At that point, in part because of the contest’s symbolic value, the national Democratic Party began helping Ossoff. In fact, Democrats and Republicans from around the country poured money into the race, making it by far the most expensive U.S. House race in the nation’s history.
Ok, democrats shouldn't pick an unknown 30-year old documentary filmmaker to run against a long time GOP political figure.
Check!
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCuRV8cUAAACnA8.jpg:large)
Siri, Cortana, Alexa how do we get rid of Donal Trump?
Since I don't have Cortana or Alexa I asked Siri, here's what he said:
(just so you know, I gave Siri a male voice, there's no way I'll take driving directions from a woman)
This is what Siri suggested:
Wanna Get Rid Of Donald Trump? Here's How You Can 'Suffocate' Him (http://www.inquisitr.com/2670430/wanna-get-rid-of-donald-trump-heres-how-you-can-suffocate-him/)
Just recently, an app that filters any mention (http://www.inquisitr.com/2561476/news-app-that-blocks-anything-kardashian-is-now-available/) of the Kardashian-Jenner clan on people’s newsfeed made its debut. Now, it seems that some people also wish to delete Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump from the Internet, as a new Google Chrome extension that promises to eliminate all references to the outspoken businessman has been created.
Dubbed as the “Trump Filter,” the Google Chrome extension will filter out (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/30/tired-of-reading-about-donald-trump-this-chrome-extension-can-help/) Trump-related articles while users surf the Internet.
The extension is described as “part of the antidote for this toxic candidacy.” The extension will identify parts of a web page that contain Donald Trump and remove them from the Internet, according to the creator’s description on his Trump Filter website.
Developed and created by Brooklyn-based Rob Spectre, the extension launched on December 20.
“Eliminate Donald Trump from all your web browsing without leaving the Internet. Donald simply disappears from your view of every web page,” Spectre wrote on his website. “Simply install the Chrome extension through the Chrome Web Store and you’ll never have to see Donald Trump on the Internet again.”
--snip--
Spectre said he was not commissioned by anyone to develop the Google Chrome add-on but claimed he was doing it out of pure “annoyance and patriotic duty.” Unfortunately, the filter cannot block Trump from people’s television. Spectre continued to lament:
“Tragically, Trump Filter cannot be installed on your television. However, we hope that enough installs will be a strong signal to the international media that America is ready to move on from this inveterate jackass.”
Delete Donald Trump from the Internet.
* Install the Chrome extension
* Browse the Internet you love
* Adjust filter settings on the fly
* Make America great again
The Trump Filter (http://trumpfilter.com) developer added that the add-on is free of charge.
Wow...that's almost enough to wanna make me use Chrome.
But, if I do that, how will I keep annoying Alan and Slobodan with all these fun posts?
Naw, I'll keep using Safari so I can get the goods on the Trumpster and his clan...
BTW, do you notice how dour Tim's, Satya's and Jeff's faces are? Must have pained them to be sitting there..
-
Interesting CBC documentary about Steve Bannon and Breitbart:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/969920067643/
-
Jeff, you now quote above and blame low black voter turnout for Hillary's loss. Before you blamed the Russians? Well, you're evolving. That's a good sign you're getting past the anger.
-
"With losses in Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, and now Georgia, the score for Democrats seeking a win against Donald J. Trump is now 0-4."
-
Jeff, you now quote above and blame low black voter turnout for Hillary's loss. Before you blamed the Russians? Well, you're evolving. That's a good sign you're getting past the anger.
And you still think Trump won due to a loyal voter base without some external help ... ?
You've been led by the nose.
A Republican contractor’s database of nearly every voter was left exposed on the Internet for 12 days, researcher says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/06/19/republican-contractor-database-every-voter-exposed-internet-12-days-researcher-says/?utm_term=.fac5f0eabf62
QUOTE "Detailed information on nearly every U.S. voter — including in some cases their ethnicity, religion and views on political issues — was left exposed online for two weeks by a political consultancy that works for the Republican National Committee and other GOP clients.
The data offered a strikingly complete picture of the voting histories and political leanings of the American electorate laid out in an easily downloadable format, said cybersecurity researcher Chris Vickery. He discovered the unprotected files of 198 million voters in a routine scan of the Internet last week and alerted law enforcement officials.
The precision and volume of the information, including dozens of data points on individual Republicans, Democrats and independent voters, highlights the rising sophistication of the data-mining efforts that have become central to modern political campaigns."
----------------
And some more on the leak: The RNC Files: Inside the Largest US Voter Data Leak
https://www.upguard.com/breaches/the-rnc-files
QUOTE "In what is the largest known data exposure of its kind, UpGuard’s Cyber Risk Team can now confirm that a misconfigured database containing the sensitive personal details of over 198 million American voters was left exposed to the internet by a firm working on behalf of the Republican National Committee (RNC) in their efforts to elect Donald Trump. The data, which was stored in a publicly accessible cloud server owned by Republican data firm Deep Root Analytics, included 1.1 terabytes of entirely unsecured personal information compiled by DRA and at least two other Republican contractors, TargetPoint Consulting, Inc. and Data Trust. In total, the personal information of potentially near all of America’s 200 million registered voters was exposed, including names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and voter registration details, as well as data described as “modeled” voter ethnicities and religions."
Cheers,
Bart
-
...(just so you know, I gave Siri a male voice, there's no way I'll take driving directions from a woman)...
Ah, you, the misogynist you! ;D
-
Ah, you, the misogynist you! ;D
And maybe a mistake. Male persons seem to pay more attention to female voices, which is why Airforce Fighter pilots call the female voice warnings "Bitching Betty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitching_Betty)". Don't know if female pilots can switch to male voices instead, or whether females get annoyed by female voices as well? ;)
A bit of annoyance can apparently be functional ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Don't know if female pilots can switch to male voices instead, or whether females get annoyed by female voices as well? ;)
Don't know...my wife hates to use the maps in her phone let alone Siri. Actually my wife hates to use her phone period. She likes to leave it at home...but she won't hesitate to stop and ask directions. BTW she likes my male Siri voice too.
-
Seriously, people!? The "the"!? What the what!? That is what are you going to latch onto now? Nothing better? Bigger, more serious?! "The"!?
It annoys the Ukrainians!?
I agree, just like inhabitants of Former Czechoslovakia should stop bitching by being called that when referring to the period before 1993? Or is that different somehow?
Of course, a head of state should at least show the courtesy to remember the name of the person he/she is meeting, and how their home country they represent is called today, even if he/she could care less personally.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Siri, Cortana, Alexa how do we get rid of Donal Trump?
Since I don't have Cortana or Alexa I asked Siri, here's what he said:
(just so you know, I gave Siri a male voice, there's no way I'll take driving directions from a woman)
This is what Siri suggested:
My wife always gives me driving directions in a female voice. I'm no misogynist.
-
Russian hackers targeted 21 U.S. states during election: U.S. official
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKBN19C1Y3
QUOTE "Russian hackers targeted election systems belonging to 21 U.S. states in last year's presidential election, a U.S. official told Congress on Wednesday.
Jeanatte Manfra, the acting deputy undersecretary of cyber security at the Department of Homeland Security, declined to identify which states had been targeted, citing confidentiality agreements."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Russian hackers targeted 21 U.S. states' election systems...
Well, that's pretty vague.
Jeanette Manfra, the department's acting deputy undersecretary of cyber security, would not identify which states had been targeted, citing confidentiality agreements.
If you are not supposed to be talking about it, why are you talking about it?
-
Well, that's pretty vague.
If you are not supposed to be talking about it, why are you talking about it?
Reuters news reports get updated as more details become available (I quoted the full article when I read it first, it has already been added to), so check the article again in a while. Reporters are at work as we speak.
It's not a surprise that she can talk about it, but not in detail (details can be labeled 'Classified').
Cheers,
Bart
-
Perhaps she could keep her mouth shut until she has all the information and authorization to release it to the public.
What she is doing now is what is called innuendo -- making comments with the intention of leading the audience to make their own, biased, interpretations. We have too much of that going on these days.
-
Trump's son-in-law launches Middle East peace effort
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-usa-talks-idUSKBN19C162
QUOTE "President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, held talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Wednesday, beginning a new U.S. effort to revive long-fractured Middle East peace efforts.
Kushner, a 36-year-old real estate developer with little experience of international diplomacy or political negotiation, arrived in Israel on Wednesday morning and will spend barely 20 hours on the ground -- he leaves shortly after midnight."
I wish him lots of luck, but cannot stop wondering; Where's the United States Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson? Isn't it his (department's) job? Why does a personal advisor to the president have to fly over and have a private meeting with the president of Israel, in "an effort to keep the conversation going"?
Airmiles (since Trump visited Camp David instead of Mar a Lago, and left the Kushners home)?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Russian hackers targeted 21 U.S. states during election: U.S. official
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKBN19C1Y3
QUOTE "Russian hackers targeted election systems belonging to 21 U.S. states in last year's presidential election, a U.S. official told Congress on Wednesday.
Jeanatte Manfra, the acting deputy undersecretary of cyber security at the Department of Homeland Security, declined to identify which states had been targeted, citing confidentiality agreements."
Cheers,
Bart
You conveniently didn't mention that she also acknowledged that there were no changes in any of the vote tallies in any of those states. You're a foreigner spreading fake news to cause issues in my country. You're just like the Russians. You really should stop it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dhs-official-jeanette-manfra-russian-hackers-targeted-election-systems-in-21-states/vp-BBCZK53
-
You conveniently didn't mention that she also acknowledged that there were no changes in any of the vote tallies in any of those states.
You're wrong, I quoted the full article as it was when I first read it.
The innuendo that I 'conveniently' left things out is not appreciated. Apparently you do not understand how press agencies work. They publish as soon as their reporters get hold of information, and they add or correct the report as new information becomes available.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Perhaps she could keep her mouth shut until she has all the information and authorization to release it to the public.
What she is doing now is what is called innuendo -- making comments with the intention of leading the audience to make their own, biased, interpretations. We have too much of that going on these days.
Otto: It was Bart creating the innuendo and fake news, not the official. She was answering direct questions at an open Senate hearing. See my last post. Watch the video link. It's only about 20 seconds.
-
You're wrong, I quoted the full article as it was when I first read it.
The innuendo that I 'conveniently' left things out is not appreciated. Apparently you do not understand how press agencies work. They publish as soon as their reporters get hold of information, and they add or correct the report as new information becomes available.
Cheers,
Bart
That's an excuse; not an apology. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize my country. You obviously have an axe to grind.
-
Like I said, it's like North Korea but warmer.
Well this is a bit of an exaggeration.
-
That's an excuse; not an apology. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize my country. You obviously have an axe to grind.
Bart doesn't owe you an apology...you actually owe him one for accusing him of doing something that he didn't do. He linked to a Reuters report. It was, what it was. He didn't make anything up and he didn't, as far as I can see, engage in "creating the innuendo and fake news". Wow, you sure seem on edge...what, don't you like finding out that Russia actually WAS actively trying to hack into the state elections?
Here, I'll copy the entire Reuters report including the Democratic Senator's complaints about not naming the states affected...
Russian hackers targeted 21 U.S. states' election systems in last year's presidential race, a Department of Homeland Security official told Congress on Wednesday.
Jeanette Manfra, the department's acting deputy undersecretary of cyber security, would not identify which states had been targeted, citing confidentiality agreements. She reiterated that there was no evidence that any actual votes were manipulated.
"As of right now, we have evidence that election-related systems in 21 states were targeted," Manfra told the Senate Intelligence Committee, which investigating Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Systems were breached in a smaller number of states, she said, but did not give a specific figure.
Department officials had said about 20 states had been probed by hackers working on behalf of the Russian government, but recent news media reports had suggested the number could have been far higher.
Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate panel, expressed frustration at Manfra's refusal to identify which states had been targeted.
"I just fundamentally disagree," he said.
Warner on Tuesday sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asking the agency to disclose more information about hacking attempts on state and local election systems.
Arizona and Illinois last year confirmed that hackers had targeted their voter registration systems.
U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that the Kremlin orchestrated a wide-ranging influence operation that included email hacking and online propaganda in order to discredit Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump, a Republican, win the White House.
Manfra and other officials testifying on Wednesday reiterated that U.S. elections are resilient to hacking in part because they are decentralized and largely operated on the state and local level.
Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, expressed skepticism at that assertion, saying only a small amount of votes in key battleground states would need to be altered to tip the scales of an election.
"A sophisticated actor could hack an election simply by focusing on certain counties," King said. "I don't think it works just to say it’s a big system and diversity will protect us."
Russia has repeatedly denied responsibility for any cyber attacks during the U.S. presidential election. Trump has inconsistently said Russia may or may not have been responsible for the hacking but has dismissed allegations that his associates colluded with Moscow as "fake news."
And, since this issue seems so important to you, here's another view from across the pond:
Sinister portrait of Russia cyberattacks emerges at U.S. Congress hearing (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/ex-obama-homeland-security-chief-jeh-johnson-to-testify-in-russia-probe/article35406978/)
A sinister portrait of Russia’s cyberattacks on the U.S. emerged Wednesday as current and former U.S. officials told Congress Moscow stockpiled stolen information and selectively disseminated it during the 2016 presidential campaign to undermine the American political process.
The Russians “used fake news and propaganda and they also used online amplifiers to spread the information to as many people as possible,” Bill Priestap, the FBI’s top counterintelligence official, told the Senate Intelligence committee.
While he said the Russians had conducted covert operations targeting past American elections, the internet “has allowed Russia to do so much more” than before. But, he added, the “scale and aggressiveness” was different this time, with the primary goal being to sow discord and aid the candidacy of Republican Donald Trump, the eventual winner.
Russia’s actions did not change the final election count, they said, but warned that Moscow’s efforts will likely continue.
“I believe the Russians will absolutely try to continue to conduct influence operations in the U.S.,” which will include cyberattacks, Priestap said.
Jeanette Manfra, Homeland Security undersecretary for cybersecurity, said there is evidence that 21 state election systems were targeted, but she told the Senate intelligence committee she couldn’t disclose the identities of the states because that was up to the states. Last September, DHS told The Associated Press that hackers believed to be Russian agents had targeted voter registration systems in more than 20 states.
There, have we aired this issue out enough yet?
And speaking about the importance of this issue, does it strike anybody else that it would be useful to actually have a permanent vs acting deputy under secretary for cybersecurity at DHS’ National Protection & Programs Directorate (NPPD)? Seems the Trumpster is having issues with that:
Trump’s empty administration: What’s behind the high number of vacant government jobs (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-empty-administration-whats-high-number-vacant-government/story?id=47851403)
But hey, there's a bright spot!
Trump hires the wedding planner -- to oversee NY federal housing program? (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/opinions/patton-urban-development-louis-opinion/index.html)
(CNN)According to a report in the New York Daily News, Donald Trump has appointed the spectacularly unqualified Lynne Patton to run the Region II office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which covers New York and New Jersey -- thus confirming the Trump administration's haphazard treatment of the problems facing American cities.
Patton, who has been an event planner and personal aide to members of the Trump family (she planned Eric Trump's wedding), has no experience in housing or urban development. She will now be tasked with coordinating the flow of billions of federal dollars into New York City, Newark, Trenton and other troubled urban centers.
#MAGA HIRE YOUR FRIENDS FOR JOBS THEY CAN'T DO!!!
#GOTCHATRUMP
-
Trump's son-in-law launches Middle East peace effort
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-usa-talks-idUSKBN19C162
QUOTE "President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, held talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Wednesday, beginning a new U.S. effort to revive long-fractured Middle East peace efforts.
Kushner, a 36-year-old real estate developer with little experience of international diplomacy or political negotiation, arrived in Israel on Wednesday morning and will spend barely 20 hours on the ground -- he leaves shortly after midnight."
I wish him lots of luck, but cannot stop wondering; Where's the United States Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson? Isn't it his (department's) job? Why does a personal advisor to the president have to fly over and have a private meeting with the president of Israel, in "an effort to keep the conversation going"?
Airmiles (since Trump visited Camp David instead of Mar a Lago, and left the Kushners home)?
I don't know what the occasion was, but I saw a clip during a John Oliver rant during which Trump said he was assigning his son-in-law to the middle east problem. He said, I paraphrase, 'If he can't solve the middle east problem, then it can't be solved.' It was the usual now-normal over-the-top silly late night TV salesman boasting, but pathetically stupid nonetheless.
-
Appalling video of Trump voters responding to the "push and shove" video
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/06/20/donald-trump-love-the-shove-moos-pkg-erin.cnn
-
Bart doesn't owe you an apology...you actually owe him one for accusing him of doing something that he didn't do. He linked to a Reuters report. It was, what it was. He didn't make anything up and he didn't, as far as I can see, engage in "creating the innuendo and fake news". Wow, you sure seem on edge...what, don't you like finding out that Russia actually WAS actively trying to hack into the state elections?
Here, I'll copy the entire Reuters report including the Democratic Senator's complaints about not naming the states affected...
First off the Reuters article did indicate she stated that there was no effect on the votes. So Bart took just what he needed to produce an innuendo and fake news against Trump. Apparently you didn't take the time to read it either but was quick to defend someone who knocks the president and the USA every time he posts.
"Jeanette Manfra, the department's acting deputy undersecretary of cyber security, would not identify which states had been targeted, citing confidentiality agreements. She reiterated that there was no evidence that any actual votes were manipulated."
Also, it's interesting that when Trump quotes another internet article or one from a newspaper, you say he lies, it's fake news. But when Bart does it, or you do, you have the opposite viewpoint. It's OK to quote another source, apparently, as long as it's point is something you agree with.
-
Well, let's see...I don't see Ossoff's loss as something the GOP should be celebrating-they just squeaked bye...
The Onion's take:
;D
-
First off the Reuters article did indicate she stated that there was no effect on the votes.
No, it didn't. I quoted the full article (because it was so short) at the moment that I read it. That's how news agencies work, they are not newspapers that have a closing/deadline for publishing, instead, they publish when the news is happening, and add or correct after other reporters or sources get new/updated information to improve the initial report. Chance has it that Jeff's quote was also different from when you read it for the first time. You can easily verify that for new just published reports. After a short period, the article will be expanded/updated/corrections made.
BTW, 'Reuters' is classified as one of the "Least biased" information sources, because it takes some time to verify the initial information and they try to avoid potentially colored/biased classifiers. So when other sources have a different view, they will adapt to a more weighted/neutral take on things. Their business model depends on reliability.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. the current article ends with: QUOTE "(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Writing by Phil Stewart; Editing by James Dalgleish)". By the time you read it, more changes may have been made.
-
Also, it's interesting that when Trump quotes another internet article or one from a newspaper, you say he lies, it's fake news. But when Bart does it, or you do, you have the opposite viewpoint. It's OK to quote another source, apparently, as long as it's point is something you agree with.
Wow...somebody is pretty confused...I just went back and reread the associated posts and you seem to foaming at the mouth about something that didn't actually happen. The Rueters article changed over time...what you are accusing Bart of doing he didn't do. And just because you yell fake news doesn't mean it is...take a chill pill and reserve your outrage and indignation for when it's justified.
-
...
-
Wow...somebody is pretty confused...I just went back and reread the associated posts and you seem to foaming at the mouth about something that didn't actually happen. The Rueters article changed over time...what you are accusing Bart of doing he didn't do. And just because you yell fake news doesn't mean it is...take a chill pill and reserve your outrage and indignation for when it's justified.
The bottom line is you and Bart foam at the mouth when Trump quotes a news article that appears to get it wrong. But when your side does it, you claim it's the news outlet's fault. Double standard.
-
Gulags coming to a country near you:
"Canadians Can Now Be Fined Or JAILED For Using Wrong Gender Pronouns"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/17756/orwellian-canadians-can-now-be-fined-or-jailed-amanda-prestigiacomo
-
Gulags coming to a country near you:
"Canadians Can Now Be Fined Or JAILED For Using Wrong Gender Pronouns"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/17756/orwellian-canadians-can-now-be-fined-or-jailed-amanda-prestigiacomo
What do you expect from from liberals like Trudeau? Meanwhile in America, free speech is still fully protected by our constitution. The Supreme Court just ruled that you can not only use but also copyright perverse and insulting words and names such as the oriental band that copyrighted the name The Slants.
-
What do you expect from from liberals like Trudeau? Meanwhile in America, free speech is still fully protected by our constitution.
Maybe you haven't read or understood the linked article?
“Bill C-16 has passed the Senate — making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression.
The Canadian Senate apparently is not in favor of discrimination.
So are you saying that you are in favor of discrimination?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Maybe there is some legal concern possible about some definitions in the bill that are used without solid legal basis, but that's up to the Canadian lawmakers to decide and amend.
-
... P.S. Maybe there is some legal concern possible about some definitions in the bill that are used without solid legal basis...
No kidding! (emphasis mine)
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.
Source: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
-
No kidding! (emphasis mine)
Source: http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/
It's always funny when a Psychology professor makes assumptions about how the Law might be interpreted by judges. To me, it's a bit too much of an opinion (by someone who's not an expert in Law) to quote as if it were a certainty.
It can also be tricky to interpret Canadian Law from an American (or other) legal amateur's perspective. One would at least have to study Canadian jurisprudence before beginning to grasp the subtleties, IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump's recent statement that it was his idea to put solar panels on the Mexico wall really is beyond the pale. A perfect example of a six-year-old's thinking.
Or someone well and truly baked :)
Can you imagine a more inefficient distribution of photovoltaics than a 2000 mile long ten foot wide string? Solar panels are deployed in rectilinear and circular arrays for good reason.
That he thinks such an idea will appeal to his base is further proof of his disdain for them. Admit it, Trumpers. You've been HAD.
-
Trump's recent statement that it was his idea to put solar panels on the Mexico wall really is beyond the pale. A perfect example of a six-year-old's thinking.
Or someone well and truly baked :)
Can you imagine a more inefficient distribution of photovoltaics than a 2000 mile long ten foot wide string? Solar panels are deployed in rectilinear and circular arrays for good reason.
It's laughably inefficient indeed, and the PVs would probably have to be on the Mexican side (generally pointing to the South)!!!
Maybe someone uttered that search lights and motion detectors could be solar powered to avoid having to build long distance power lines, but it got misunderstood?
Cheers,
Bart
-
U.S. intelligence chiefs say they did not feel pressured by Trump: CNN
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN19D1TU
QUOTE Thu Jun 22, 2017 | 10:32am EDT Two top U.S. intelligence officials have told investigators President Donald Trump suggested they publicly deny any collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia, but they did not feel he had ordered them to do so, CNN reported on Thursday, citing multiple sources.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers met separately last week with investigators with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate intelligence committee, according to CNN.
The two senior officials said they were surprised at Trump's suggestion and found their interactions with him odd and uncomfortable, but they did not act on the presidents' requests, CNN reported, citing sources familiar with their accounts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data, Officials Say
http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking-election-widespread-private-data/
QUOTE 11:24 AM ET The hacking of state and local election databases in 2016 was more extensive than previously reported, including at least one successful attempt to alter voter information, and the theft of thousands of voter records that contain private information like partial Social Security numbers, current and former officials tell TIME.
In one case, investigators found there had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database but the alterations were discovered and rectified, two sources familiar with the matter tell TIME. Investigators have not identified whether the hackers in that case were Russian agents.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump says he did not record conversations with former FBI Director Comey
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tapes-idUSKBN19D27L
QUOTE Thu Jun 22, 2017 | 1:11pm EDT "U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday said he did not make and does not possess any tapes of his conversations with former FBI Director James Comey, laying to rest speculation that arose after he tweeted last month that Comey better hope there were no tapes.
"With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are 'tapes' or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings," Trump wrote on Twitter."
For Alan, this is again a full quote because the article was so short.
Well, if Trump didn't make or have any tapes, why wait to deny that? Is this a diversion from something else?
Cheers,
Bart
-
In other words, congress called Trump's bluff and all he had was a deuce.
-
Some things ya just wish you could unsee. So since I saw it, of course I wanted to spread the misery...
This Donald Trump Swimsuit Is Here to Ruin Summer for All of Us (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/this-donald-trump-swimsuit-is-here-to-ruin-summer-for-all-of-us/ar-BBCYMEV)
If you're looking forward to escaping the headlines and endless Trump tweets with a beach getaway this summer, bad news: a one-piece bathing suit is about to sabotage that little plan.
Beloved Shirts (https://www.belovedshirts.com/collections/swimsuits/products/shocked-trump-one-piece-swimsuit), a company that describes itself as "a brand that says it's ok to wear pizza on your clothing," has created a new swimsuit featuring a close up of Donald Trump's face. The one-piece features a zoomed-in version of Trump's "shocked" expression and is currently on sale for £39.65 ($49.95)-a small price to ruin everyone's entire summer.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0199/9492/products/ShockedTrump_Front_Swimsuit_1024x1024.jpg?v=1497472988)
Just in case you want to imagine this on a body...
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0199/9492/products/ShockedTrump_Model_Swimsuit_1024x1024.jpg?v=1497472988)
#OMGNO
-
Can you imagine a more inefficient distribution of photovoltaics than a 2000 mile long ten foot wide string?
if you need to augment the power supply to something installed across 2000 miles it makes some sense... like cameras/motion detectors/etc ... one might assume that wall shall have lights running the whole length of it...
-
Another move by the big orange dummy...
Trump called for legislation blocking immigrants from receiving welfare for 5 years — but it already exists (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-called-for-legislation-blocking-immigrants-from-receiving-welfare-for-5-years-but-it-already-exists-2017-6)
President Donald Trump announced at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Wednesday that he will seek legislation preventing immigrants from receiving welfare for at least five years after entering the country, although they are already barred from most benefits under a 1996 welfare law.
"I believe the time has come for new immigration rules which say those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years," Trump said to thunderous applause.
(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/57431cad52bcd026008c4814-480/donald-trump.jpg)
He added that he will be "putting in legislation to that effect very shortly."
It's unclear how such legislation would depart from policy already in place. The 1996 law, signed by President Bill Clinton, prohibits most immigrants (https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/) from accessing federal programs such as Social Security and food stamps for their first five years in the US. Eligibility for local benefits programs, however, are usually determined by state governments.
Well, I suppose that's one way to fulfill your promises, promise to do something that's already been done and then take credit :~)
-
Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data, Officials Say
http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking-election-widespread-private-data/
Actually, you didn't quote one part of the story that caught my eye. From the link above:
The fact that private data was stolen from states is separately providing investigators a previously unreported line of inquiry in the probes into Russian attempts to influence the election. In Illinois, more than 90% of the nearly 90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors contained drivers license numbers, and a quarter contained the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers, according to Ken Menzel, the General Counsel of the State Board of Elections.
Congressional investigators are probing whether any of this stolen private information made its way to the Trump campaign, two sources familiar with the investigations tell TIME.
“If any campaign, Trump or otherwise, used inappropriate data the questions are, How did they get it? From whom? And with what level of knowledge?” the former top Democratic staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, Michael Bahar, tells TIME. “That is a crux of the investigation."
Meanwhile Trump is still calling the Russian hackings a hoax...
(http://l-files.livejournal.net/medius_cards/3625/main-4-image?v=1475656759)
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago
...Why did Democratic National Committee turn down the DHS offer to protect against hacks (long prior to election). It's all a big Dem HOAX!
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 7h7 hours ago
...Why did the DNC REFUSE to turn over its Server to the FBI, and still hasn't? It's all a big Dem scam and excuse for losing the election!
He still doesn't believe...
-
if you need to augment the power supply to something installed across 2000 miles it makes some sense... like cameras/motion detectors/etc ... one might assume that wall shall have lights running the whole length of it...
Wait, can it power automated machine gun nests? ;)
-
Trump says he did not record conversations with former FBI Director Comey
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tapes-idUSKBN19D27L
QUOTE Thu Jun 22, 2017 | 1:11pm EDT "U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday said he did not make and does not possess any tapes of his conversations with former FBI Director James Comey, laying to rest speculation that arose after he tweeted last month that Comey better hope there were no tapes.
"With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are 'tapes' or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings," Trump wrote on Twitter."
For Alan, this is again a full quote because the article was so short.
Well, if Trump didn't make or have any tapes, why wait to deny that? Is this a diversion from something else?
Cheers,
Bart
He waited because he knew it would annoy people like you as you foolishly go on another wild goose chase and make democrats look silly to the average American. The public is going to start wondering why the media and Democrats waste their time on such foolishness. You bought his bluff and wasted weeks ruminating on it instead of reporting on issues the public really want to hear from elected officials.
-
Maybe you haven't read or understood the linked article?
“Bill C-16 has passed the Senate — making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression.
The Canadian Senate apparently is not in favor of discrimination.
So are you saying that you are in favor of discrimination?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Maybe there is some legal concern possible about some definitions in the bill that are used without solid legal basis, but that's up to the Canadian lawmakers to decide and amend.
You don't understand the difference between discrimination and free speech. If I refused to serve a McDonald's hamburger to a gay guy, that's discrimination. If I call a gay guy a degenerate, flaming queer who should go to jail for sexual perversion, that's free speech. It's not discrimination and the government cannot stop me from saying it. Canada's Senate wants to impose the latter including jailing people for improperly using the wrong pronoun. It would never stand in America. The Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional for imposing regulations on free speech.
-
Trump's recent statement that it was his idea to put solar panels on the Mexico wall really is beyond the pale. A perfect example of a six-year-old's thinking.
Or someone well and truly baked :)
Can you imagine a more inefficient distribution of photovoltaics than a 2000 mile long ten foot wide string? Solar panels are deployed in rectilinear and circular arrays for good reason.
That he thinks such an idea will appeal to his base is further proof of his disdain for them. Admit it, Trumpers. You've been HAD.
Peter, you've been had. You took the bait. Again. You guys don't learn. You're never going to get it because you're too serious and full of hate to get the joke.
-
Sorry Peter, wrong idiom. Instead of "You took the bait", I meant to say "he's pulling your leg". Lighten up. Don't take everything he says so seriously. He jokes around. Although thinking about the panel idea, it won'tt work anyway because you'd have to face the sun with them. That means that the panels will have to be on the south side or facing Mexico and all the Mexicans would probably spray paint them black just to tick off the Americans and Trump.
That's a joke.
-
...
Slobodan, I showed this at my poker game last time and the guys thought it was a pisser. Even the Democrat. :)
-
Some things ya just wish you could unsee. So since I saw it, of course I wanted to spread the misery...
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0199/9492/products/ShockedTrump_Model_Swimsuit_1024x1024.jpg?v=1497472988)
Indecent Exposure!
-
David Frum on Trump
The president’s attempt to intimidate James Comey didn’t merely backfire—it may also embolden hostile regimes to conclude his other threats are equally empty.
.
The failed intimidation does have important real world consequences. It confirms America’s adversaries in their intensifying suspicion that the president’s tough words are hollow talk.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-lasting-damage-of-trumps-tapes-bluff/531306/
-
David Frum on Trump
The president’s attempt to intimidate James Comey didn’t merely backfire—it may also embolden hostile regimes to conclude his other threats are equally empty.
.
The failed intimidation does have important real world consequences. It confirms America’s adversaries in their intensifying suspicion that the president’s tough words are hollow talk.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-lasting-damage-of-trumps-tapes-bluff/531306/
I interpreted Trump's "threat' there may be tapes as a way to make sure Comey didn't embellish the conversation. Since Comey didn't know if there were tapes or not, he had to be especially accurate about the conversation. Since Trump didn't have tapes, if Comey embellished the truth to make him look worse, he didn't have any proof that Comey lied. So Trump's bluff worked. Maybe as a regular poker player I appreciate a good bluff more than others.
I don't see adversaries gaining too much from this. You don't know for sure his position because he bounces around a lot and he's not embarrassed to change his position if its advantageous too. He doesn't let his ego get in the way. He's bluffs, tells the truth, lies (embellishes) and often says nothing until he acts. When he sent missiles into Syria and the MOAB, he said nothing beforehand. He'll lower the boom on you when you're not expecting it. There weren't any "tells". That's good poker too.
-
... He doesn't let his ego get in the way ...
I just wanted to thank you for that, best belly laugh of the week. It was hilarious.
-
I just wanted to thank you for that, best belly laugh of the week. It was hilarious.
I didn't say Trump doesn't have a big ego. He does. But he doesn't let him stop him from changing his position if it becomes advantageous to him. The bottom line overrides his ego. It overrides what we would find embarrassing to us. For example, he swore that Trump University was better than Harvard. But when the time was ripe, he paid the plaintiff millions to end the lawsuit and moved on. He never looked back.
-
... For example, he swore that Trump University was better than Harvard. But when the time was ripe, he paid the plaintiff millions to end the lawsuit and moved on. He never looked back.
I'm confused. Are you saying that this was a good thing?
-
Since Trump didn't have tapes, if Comey embellished the truth to make him look worse, he didn't have any proof that Comey lied. So Trump's bluff worked. Maybe as a regular poker player I appreciate a good bluff more than others.
Yeah, that bluff worked like a charm...it convinced Comey to release his notes of all of his conversations with Trump and ended up with the hiring of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to take over the criminal investigation. So, Trump bluffed himself from NOT being under investigation to being under investigation. Wow, if you play poker as bad as Trump, I would love to play you...
Just in case you missed it, here's a special article for Trump supporters:
A Special Enemy
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller was born and bred to torment Donald Trump. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/05/special_counsel_robert_mueller_was_born_and_bred_to_torment_donald_trump.html)
(http://media.beta.wsbtv.com/photo/2017/05/17/Mueller_20170517222642519_8083916_ver1.0_640_360.jpg)
Donald Trump went to sleep Wednesday night with a new enemy outside his window: former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.
Mueller, a 72-year-old former prosecutor who left the FBI in 2013, has been called upon by the Justice Department to serve as a special counsel to investigate Trump and his associates. In accordance with an order issued Wednesday by the deputy attorney general, it will be up to Mueller—whose last name is pronounced Muh-lur—to decide whether anyone involved in the Trump campaign should be charged with a crime. “I accept this responsibility and will discharge it to the best of my ability,” Mueller said in a statement Wednesday.
Even if Mueller’s investigation doesn’t result in any charges being brought, it’s almost certain Mueller and his team will end up asking Trump questions he doesn’t want to answer and demanding to see documents he doesn’t want to provide. Barring a drastic change in Trump’s disposition, the president will respond to these affronts by publishing angry tweets about Mueller and snarling about him in interviews. Maybe he’ll even compare him to a “dog,” as he did recently when talking about former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Or perhaps he could threaten Mueller, as he did last week in a tweet directed at former FBI Director James Comey.
While Trump loathes a lot of people, his hatred of Mueller is likely to be particularly intense. That’s because Mueller is exactly the kind of guy Trump always hates. He’s also exactly the kind of law enforcement official Trump doesn’t understand.
And, it doesn't end with just Mueller. He has a investigative dream team that will undoubtedly give the Trumpster nightmares...
What does Robert Mueller's team tell us about the Russia investigation? (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/15/robert-mueller-trump-russia-investigation-team-members)
Seasoned lawyers with a depth of experience that includes the investigations into Watergate, Enron and the bombings of the US embassies in east Africa won’t be intimidated by the intense spotlight, experts say
Even before the special counsel’s inquiry has begun in earnest into links between the Trump campaign and Moscow, the team Robert Mueller is building provides clues about which way the investigation is heading.
One is a veteran of the Watergate investigation, and Donald Trump – like Richard Nixon – was reported on Wednesday to now be under investigation for obstruction of justice. Other team members have specialities that could point toward where Mueller is looking after taking over control of the investigation from the FBI: money laundering, financial fraud and Russian organised crime.
--snipp--
It is the specialities of Mueller’s team that is more likely to be a serious concern to the Trump camp, since they point to a wide-ranging inquiry that will look into all aspects of Trump’s complex links to Russia.
One of the more recent recruits is reported to be Lisa Page, a justice department trial attorney with a substantial record of investigating Russian and former Soviet organised crime and in particular its reputed godfather, Semion Mogilevich.
Mogilevich associates are reported to have owned condos in Trump Tower in New York, and the father of Trump’s business partner in the Trump Soho hotel, Felix Sater, was a Mogilevich lieutenant.
Vladimir Putin is known to use oligarchs and organised crime bosses as instruments of Kremlin influence abroad.
“This pick really shows that Mueller recognises that Russian organised crime and sophisticated financial transactions involving them are going to be right at the centre and Page is definitely a leading expert there,” said Scott Horton, a US lawyer with experience of working in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Another sign that the Mueller team will take a “follow the money” approach is the recruitment of Andrew Weissmann, an organised crime expert who oversaw lengthy cases in the US district court for the eastern district of New York focused on the city’s mafia families and their infiltration of Wall Street.
Weissmann formerly led the FBI’s fraud unit and the taskforce that unpicked the complex financial dealings of Enron, after the giant energy corporation collapsed in December 2001. It was the most complex white collar crime investigation in FBI history and led to the convictions of the firm’s top management.
“What is striking to me is that his team is a counter-intelligence team and is a money fraud, banking, laundering-type team. Andrew Weissman did the Enron cases, which is all about following the money trail,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former deputy assistant secretary for policy in the homeland security department.
Another legal heavyweight Mueller has recruited is Michael Dreeben, a former deputy solicitor general who has argued more than 100 cases before the US supreme court. Rosenzweig described him on the Lawfare blog as “quite possibly the best criminal appellate lawyer in America” and said he represented even worse news for Trump last week than Comey’s damning testimony.
Mueller has brought with him three members of his law firm, WilmerHale, who have justice department and law enforcement backgrounds. One of them is James Quarles, who was part of the Watergate taskforce and focus on irregularities in GOP campaign finance.
Another WilmerHale lawyer is a former FBI agent, Aaron Zebley, a cybersecurity specialist who, according to Wired magazine, was part of the bureau’s I-49 counter-terrorism unit, which helped track down the bombers who blew up the US embassies in east Africa in 1998. He worked as a counsel at the justice department’s national security division before following Mueller to WilmerHale.
The third member of the WilmerHale trio is Jeannie Rhee, who was deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama administration and is an expert on the intersection of criminal law and government.
“This is a team with wide expertise that is really top notch,” said Karen Greenberg, the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University. “These are people who have a number of competencies who have dealt with fraud and corruption and who know government well. All of them know obstruction of justice and many have worked with Mueller and with each other before.”
So, if this was a Trump bluff, it backfired with a glorious splendor, well, unless you are a Trump supported. In that case, Trump screwed the pooch and is now staring down the barrel of such an intensive investigation that by the time Robert Mueller and his team is done, we'll know everything, regardless of where the chips may fall.
-
Lighten up. Don't take everything he says so seriously. He jokes around.
Really? That's how you explain his behaviour? He's just joking around?
You know him better than I. How can you tell when he's joking and when he's serious?
-
Really? That's how you explain his behaviour? He's just joking around?
You know him better than I. How can you tell when he's joking and when he's serious?
First get rid of your prejudice against him. As long as you stay angry, you won't know when he's pulling your leg. You see I knew he was bluffing when he said he had tapes. And only a jokester would recommend putting solar panels on the wall.
-
Yeah, that bluff worked like a charm...it convinced Comey to release his notes of all of his conversations with Trump and ended up with the hiring of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to take over the criminal investigation. So, Trump bluffed himself from NOT being under investigation to being under investigation. Wow, if you play poker as bad as Trump, I would love to play you...
So, if this was a Trump bluff, it backfired with a glorious splendor, well, unless you are a Trump supported. In that case, Trump screwed the pooch and is now staring down the barrel of such an intensive investigation that by the time Robert Mueller and his team is done, we'll know everything, regardless of where the chips may fall.
Comey acknowledged that he create those notes in his car about his conversation with Trump with the intention of getting a special counsel involved. That was before Trump said anything about tapes. Trump knew the conversation he had with Comey was going to come out in hearings before congress. At the time, it was important that Comey tell only what happened and not embellish it in any way. So he said he had tapes to keep Comey honest.
The real problem with the Special Counsel was that his guy Sessions recused himself. That's why Trump was so upset at him because he lost his protection. Session would never had picked a Special Counsel. Trump had and has little control of Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who is not loyal to Trump. He's just another bureaucrat. Meanwhile, Rosenstein went ahead and got a Special Counsel and Trump can't stop him because Session is recused. But the bluff about the tapes still was a good idea because what Comey said in apparent honest testimony does not add up to obstruction of justice. Of course Trump knew this as well because he knew what he said to Comey. However, if Comey embellished it by saying that "yeah, he really pushed me to drop the investigation.", Trump had no tapes to prove he lied. But of course Comey didn't know that so was extra careful he told the truth and only the truth before congress and nothing more.
-
Nice bluff Trump, now you are in for some pure misery....
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/final-mueller-cover.jpg?w=560)
Will Robert Mueller Separate Fact From Fiction? (http://time.com/4828081/robert-mueller-special-counsel/)
In Washington, the 'first law of holes' is one of those shopworn maxims that are so familiar, they need not be spoken. It's like what you should do if you want a friend in the capital: 'Get a dog' goes without saying.
But maybe things are different where Donald Trump came from. And maybe that's why he didn't know what to do when he found his young presidency in a small hole involving contacts between a few of his underlings and Russian officials.
Now he's learning the local folklore the hard way. The first law of holes is, if you're in one, stop digging. Three times, Trump heard assurances from former FBI director James Comey that the Russia investigation wasn't aimed at him. Instead of putting his shovel down, though, Trump worked it furiously.
According to Comey's sworn testimony, Trump pushed the G-man for a public exoneration, and when Comey demurred, he may have pressed his case with Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers. Unsatisfied, he fired Comey in ham-fisted fashion, then reportedly boasted to Russian visitors that he did it to take pressure off the investigation. Now he's in the hounded condition of various predecessors: struggling to regain control of the agenda, lashing out at aides, shouting at television sets and peppering his dig-the-hole-deeper tweets with all-caps exasperation.
He blames his enemies, but guess what? All Presidents have enemies. Successful ones try to outsmart them. Trump's own actions have turned a small hole into a yawning abyss: a special counsel's investigation that could run from the Oval Office to Trump Tower and command headlines for the next year or more. Trump has traded the anguished Hamlet Comey for the adamantine Marine Robert Mueller, the Justice Department ramrod who remade the FBI after 9/11. As special counsel appointed in the wake of the Comey firing, Mueller has one job, no deadline and bottomless resources, and he is assembling an all-star team of veteran prosecutors whose expert backgrounds go beyond counterintelligence to include money laundering, corporate fraud and the limits of Executive Branch power.
-
Comey acknowledged that he create those notes in his car about his conversation with Trump with the intention of getting a special counsel involved.
No, Comey said he took his notes because he thought they would be important and that Trump might lie and he would need to be able to definitively testify as to what was said. He didn't take notes to get a special council...he did say he RELEASED his note in the hope it would prompt the selection of a special council. The fact that it was his friend Mueller was poetic justice :~)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Trump isn't playing three dimensional chess...he's playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess. He's horribly out classed...
-
No, Comey said he took his notes because he thought they would be important and that Trump might lie and he would need to be able to definitively testify as to what was said. He didn't take notes to get a special council...he did say he RELEASED his note in the hope it would prompt the selection of a special council. The fact that it was his friend Mueller was poetic justice :~)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Trump isn't playing three dimensional chess...he's playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess. He's horribly out classed...
OK, so he released his notes to get a special counsel. Of course, who is he to decide there should be a special counsel? That makes his note taking somewhat suspicious as if he planned the whole thing. But that's beside my point. It has nothing to do with why Trump said he had tapes. The main issue is he knew that Comey was going to testify before congress, special counsel or not. He also knew that their discussion about Flynn would come out. He wanted to make sure that Comey didn't embellish that or anything else so Trump told the world he had the tapes. Comey said trump said he "hoped" he'd consider Flynn. And Comey said that although he felt funny Trump never really pushed him. I don't see lying on either side. Things were discussed but not obstruction of justice seems to be on the table. It's just there now because collusion with Russia seems to be off the table and the Democrats are looking for something, anything.
-
Nice bluff Trump, now you are in for some pure misery....
If Mueller goes on a witch hunt and investigates more than obstruction and Russian collusion or if anything leaks from his staff about his investigations such as Trump tax records, Trump will try to fire him, and rightly so.
-
If Mueller goes on a witch hunt and investigates more than obstruction and Russian collusion or if anything leaks from his staff about his investigations such as Trump tax records, Trump will try to fire him, and rightly so.
I do not think Trump will fire another FBI head, without being sacked himself.
-
First, it is pretty much agreed on both sides that Trump did not collude with the Russians.
Joe,
Nobody knows, but I think it is unlikely that he do that willingly. However, he does keep piling on strange behavior in relation to Russian connections and a somewhat questionable choice of advisors (e.g. Manafort). Maybe Trump is just a fool who keeps digging when in a hole ...
So the fact that the Dems are now pushing obstruction of justice into the collusion probe bags the question, how could Trump obstruct an investigation that had no merits to begin with? If the collusion investigation was not going to go anywhere, how could one obstruct that?
As far as I've understood, the collusion that is being investigated is that between members of the campaign staff and Russia, not necessarily or exclusively Trump himself.
Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge. If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct. It makes no sense.
That's the trouble with such investigations, dig deep enough and (initially innocent) things start surfacing that fit a suspect situation. Add to that Trump's behavior, e.g. obstructing justice (possibly just out of stupidity), and a new (more serious?) investigation is born.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I do not think Trump will fire another FBI head, without being sacked himself.
Maybe you're right. But then again Presidents don't get "sacked". They have to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate and Congress is all Republican. I think if Mueller goes on a witch hunt investigating everything about Trump, the president will pull the plug. If someone friend or foe, becomes a problem for Trump, he's not shy about getting rid of them. Think of Flynn, and the people he was suppose to hire like Christie and Giuliani. Even ex-wives. "You're fired."
-
I find this whole situation to be rather amusing, the irony is just so thick.
First, it is pretty much agreed on both sides that Trump did not collude with the Russians. So the fact that the Dems are now pushing obstruction of justice into the collusion probe bags the question, how could Trump obstruct an investigation that had no merits to begin with? If the collusion investigation was not going to go anywhere, how could one obstruct that?
Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge. If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct. It makes no sense.
Of course some here will say a lot about Trump makes no sense and that he did it just to do it. That argument could be valid, but if Trump is truly innocent of collusion, it is not one the overall electorate will not buy into. It will be very much like Benghazi. Did Hillary make decisions that likely made a bad situation worse, yes, but, was she guilty of anything, no. So the public did not care.
However, the real funny thing about all of this is that the Dems and Pelosi are doubling down on obstruction, even after being walloped in the recent special elections. The Dems nationwide have become branded as the party of witch hunters, which certainly played a big roll in causing Ossoff to loose.
Even after a small, but notable, group of Dems called for Pelosi to step down and new leadership to take over (even Schumer is in the crosshairs), directly due to the recent losses and lack of any positive branding, I still see no evidence of anyone in a leadership position in the party trying to develop an actual message other then, "resist, resist, resist, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, impeach, impeach, impeach!"
Now I certainly don't agree with Trump on everything, but one thing I have to is, "it would be a very, very sad day for Republicans" if Nancy Pelosi steps down.
Joe: I think the obstruction charge has to do with Flynn, not Russian collusion, that Trump tried to get Comey to stop any investigation of Flynn and "let him go". That's what the whole testimony was about with Comey's notes in the middle of the night. But your point is the same. Trump "hoped" that Comey would just move on regarding Flynn which is a hard thing to pin obstruction of justice on. So there's no "there" there.
Trump did ask Comey and other officials to publicly announce that he was not being investigated when they told him he wasn't. He wanted the cloud over him to be removed so he could go on governing and dealing with the Russians as he saw fit and not constrained by the "cloud". But again, there's no obstruction in that case either as asking someone to public acknowledge what they are not doing anyway is not obstruction.
-
I would not necessarily call him a fool, but inexperienced. If he did obstruct out of stupidity (inexperience), I doubt it will get very far and he will more then likely be given a pass by the overall public.
Aside from Trump, I can't help but notice the Democratic party is imploding right now, primarily due to a lack of any clear positive messaging, and that the leaders really don't seem to care.
2018 could be brutal for the Dems if this keeps up.
The Dems are hoping the constraint barrage will pay off for them. It may. A lot depends on timing and what else Trump and the republican congress do between now and the 2018 election. The problem though for them is that if the republicans do get something done, yet the Dems are still "crying wolf" about how bad Trump is, the public is going to realize it was all just BS on the Dems side. Trump's low rating will start to reverse and go up as the public realizes the Dems are playing a "get Trump" game.
-
I would not necessarily call him a fool, but inexperienced.
Someone who seems incapable of learning from his mistakes and keeps repeating them is a fool, IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I find this whole situation to be rather amusing, the irony is just so thick.
First, it is pretty much agreed on both sides that Trump did not collude with the Russians. So the fact that the Dems are now pushing obstruction of justice into the collusion probe bags the question, how could Trump obstruct an investigation that had no merits to begin with? If the collusion investigation was not going to go anywhere, how could one obstruct that?
Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge. If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct. It makes no sense.
Of course some here will say a lot about Trump makes no sense and that he did it just to do it. That argument could be valid, but if Trump is truly innocent of collusion, it is not one the overall electorate will not buy into. It will be very much like Benghazi. Did Hillary make decisions that likely made a bad situation worse, yes, but, was she guilty of anything, no. So the public did not care.
However, the real funny thing about all of this is that the Dems and Pelosi are doubling down on obstruction, even after being walloped in the recent special elections. The Dems nationwide have become branded as the party of witch hunters, which certainly played a big roll in causing Ossoff to loose.
Even after a small, but notable, group of Dems called for Pelosi to step down and new leadership to take over (even Schumer is in the crosshairs), directly due to the recent losses and lack of any positive branding, I still see no evidence of anyone in a leadership position in the party trying to develop an actual message other then, "resist, resist, resist, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, impeach, impeach, impeach!"
Now I certainly don't agree with Trump on everything, but one thing I have to is, "it would be a very, very sad day for Republicans" if Nancy Pelosi steps down.
From an outsider, this seems to be standard operating procedure in American politics, and it has been going on for a while now. All I remember from the past 8 years is Republicans stalling budgets and bringing government to a standstill during the Obama administration. Did anyone expect the gloves to come off now? All I see is two rhetorically armed camps firing at each other incessantly, who both seem to have forgotten that they are there to make life better for citizens, but I might be a hopeless romantic. And the polarized rhetoric is so over the top that it plays like farce. Obama has been called "socialist", which is laughably silly, while the Republican belief in the free market only extends as far as the latest boutique tax cut or corporate subsidy for their job-creator-industry du jour. My understanding was that the electorate was sick of all this nonsense, and that's why they elected Trump. So far, I'm not seeing any improvement.
-
Yes, the whole Flynn thing, forgot about that.
To be honest, I'm not really paying attention to it anymore. It clearly looks like a witch hunt and the Dems are just being so negative for the sake of being negative.
Unfortunately for them, people don't get excited and vote on negatives. Sure, maybe the bases do, but they are a small part of the overall electorate.
Yeah, they're pretty much beating a dead horse with the Russian collusion. So they picked up the obstruction business. If Mueller keeps going and plays games, he (and the Dems) will look for something else when obstruction ends as it too doesn't pass the smell test. But Trump is evil and they have to get him. Smart Dems are starting to talk about jobs and other things that the people really care about. But the left has too much invested in attacking Trump. I think I'm going to send a contribution to Pelosi's re-election fund. We need democrats who go for the throat.
-
I do not think Trump will fire another FBI head, without being sacked himself.
Just to be clear, Mueller is not currently head of the FBI, he's a special council to the Justice Department. Mueller WAS head of the FBI for 12 years under Bush and Obama and Trump was rumored to have met with him about the FBI opening but Trump nominated Christopher A. Wray for the position of FBI Director. Also, while Trump might think he could fire Mueller, he can't. Only the acting DOJ director can and he said he would only fire Mueller for cause.
So Trump has made his bed...
-
So, about that idea of hiring a businessman to be president, how's that working' out? Well, according to the CNBC Global CFO Council (http://www.cnbc.com/global-cfo-council/) which is an elite group of chief financial officers from public and private companies, it ain't working' very well...
We asked CFOs to describe Trump’s management style, and it’s not pretty: Survey (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/cfos-react-to-trumps-management-style-and-its-not-pretty-survey.html)
If you had to describe President Donald Trump's management style in one word, what would it be? That's the open-ended question we asked the members of the CNBC Global CFO Council in our quarterly survey. Here are their responses, in alphabetical order:
Antagonistic
Arrogant
Authoritarian
Autocratic
Business-style
Chaos
Chaotic (4 CFOs gave this response)
Clueless
Confusing
Dictatorial
Directive
Disjointed
Disruptive
Divisive
Erratic (2 CFOs)
Fluid
Hubristic
Incompetent
Narcissistic
Obnoxious
Reactive
Reckless (2 CFOs)
Self-absorbed
Terrible
There are no words
Unconventional
Unpredictable (2 CFOs)
Volatile
(https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2017/06/23/cfro-trump-words.png)
Responses to the CNBC Global CFO Survey are anonymous. Thirty-five of the 39 CFOs who completed the survey responded to this question.
The CNBC Global CFO Council represents some of the largest public and private companies in the world, collectively managing more than $4 trillion in market capitalization across a wide variety of sectors. The quarterly CFO Council poll was conducted from June 2–16.
The responses help to explain why CFOs are significantly more pessimistic now than they were three months ago about Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress' ability to enact key agenda items into law by the end of the year.
As a group, CFOs are 44 percent confident that corporate tax reform will get done in 2017. They were 59 percent confident in February. Confidence in overseas cash repatriation fell from 63 percent in February to 48 percent, and expectations for a large infrastructure plan fell from 58 percent to 49 percent.
Making good on the Trump agenda
Meanwhile, some of Trump's recent accomplishments have been met with concern and outright opposition. Fifty-nine percent of CFOs say they are somewhat concerned that the president's recent confrontation with Germany over trade imbalances could lead to a trade war between the two countries or between the United States and the European Union. Another 5 percent are "very concerned."
The charts (which are dynamic and can't be reposted) offer a pretty dim view that "professional" business people hold for Trump as president. Heck NONE of the companies actually supported the United States' decision to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.
So, this is what happens when you put a "Chaotic, Erratic, Reckless, Unpredictable" businessman with zero experience governing in the White House. Sadly, it's gonna get worse before it gets better :~(
-
Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge. If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct. It makes no sense.
While it's likely Trump did NOT personally collude with the Russians, that can't be said for members of the Trump campaign. And Flynn is just the tip of that spear...think of Kushner meeting with the head of a banned Russian bank, why? Think of the plan to use Russian intelligence facilities to talk with Russia, why? Why did Carter Page travel to Russia with the permission of the Trump campaign? Why, of all the potential countries to meet with was Russia the one country that so many Trump people met with and then forget to mention those meetings on their security forms?
Why, if nobody is guilty of collusion does everybody scurry around acting guilty?
As for why Trump would go out on a limb for Flynn and try to get him off, one wonders what Flynn may have to say about the campaign and it's activities. What would Flynn have to say that would be worth immunity?
Also, to be clear, of those entities investigating the Russians and possible collusion, as far as I know, nobody has actually said there's zero evidence of collusion...as far as I can recall they've been tight lipped because the investigation is on going. We won't really know if there's any evidence until the investigation is over...and now that Mueller is involved and his all star line up of investigators, if there is any evidence, they will find it.
I'm far more convinced Mueller will run an honest and exhaustive investigation and get to the truth. I can live with whatever they determine. If the Trump campaign didn't collude, they didn't collude and we can all move on. If they did, and anybody broke a law, they should pay for their crimes.
In any event, we need to learn EXACTY what Russia did, how they did it and figure out a way to absolutely prevent Russia or any other bad actor from interfering ever again. Can we at least all agree with that?
-
... figure out a way to absolutely prevent Russia or any other bad actor from interfering ever again. Can we at least all agree with that?
Sure. And while we are at it, why don't we find a cure for cancer and eradicate poverty as well? ;)
-
So, about that idea of hiring a businessman to be president, how's that working' out? Well, according to the CNBC Global CFO Council (http://www.cnbc.com/global-cfo-council/) which is an elite group of chief financial officers from public and private companies, it ain't working' very well...
We asked CFOs to describe Trump’s management style, and it’s not pretty: Survey (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/cfos-react-to-trumps-management-style-and-its-not-pretty-survey.html)
The charts (which are dynamic and can't be reposted) offer a pretty dim view that "professional" business people hold for Trump as president. Heck NONE of the companies actually supported the United States' decision to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.
So, this is what happens when you put a "Chaotic, Erratic, Reckless, Unpredictable" businessman with zero experience governing in the White House. Sadly, it's gonna get worse before it gets better :~(
Who of them is a billionaire and President? In any case, when things get even better next year, they'll be singing praises. Meanwhile the stock market and their stocks are doing 15% better than before the election. And they don't care about Paris. What they want is for him to pass a rule that will allow overseas profits back in the US at 15% tax instead of 35%. These people are CFO's, Chief Financial Officers. They're only concerned with the bottom line. They really don't care about carbon.
I think it's interesting that they indicated Chaotic, Erratic, Reckless, Unpredictable the most. That fits in what I was saying before. Foreign nations have to be careful. They don't know what he will do. That puts them on the defensive where we want them to be.
-
Trump signs law to make VA more accountable for vets’ care. So he's getting things done that he campaigned on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-signs-historic-bill-to-transform-va/2017/06/23/da366ab4-582f-11e7-840b-512026319da7_story.html
-
Sure. And while we are at it, why don't we find a cure for cancer and eradicate poverty as well? ;)
I'm down with that but with Trump's proposd budget it's unlikey to happen don't ya think? Funny how the wealthiest country in the world can't afford universal healthcare and refuses to deal with income disparity.
As your Trupster would tweet SAD!
-
House panel wants formal response from Trump on Comey tapes
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-house-idUSKBN19E2A1
QUOTE Fri Jun 23, 2017 | 3:07pm EDT "The head of the U.S. House of Representatives' Russia investigation said on Friday he wanted a formal response from President Donald Trump to a request for records about conversations with fired FBI Director James Comey.
The House panel said on June 9 it had written to Don McGahn, the White House counsel, asking about the existence of any recordings or memos covering Comey's conversations with Trump and asked that copies of the materials be provided to the panel by June 23.
Trump wrote on Twitter on Thursday, a day before the deadline, that he did not know if there were recordings of his conversations with Comey, but he did not make or have any such recordings.
Republican Representative Mike Conaway, who is leading the House Intelligence Committee's investigation, told reporters Friday morning that Trump's tweet was not a sufficient response."
For Alan, for copyright reasons, not the full report was copied here. Follow the link as provided, to read the latest version in full.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...Funny how the wealthiest country in the world can't afford universal healthcare and refuses to deal with income disparity...
That's precisely what makes it the wealthiest ;)
-
So now Trump's proposing a law that Clinton already signed into law 20 years ago:
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/trump-proposes-a-law-thats-existed-for-20-years/ar-BBD53OS?li=AAavLaF&ocid=ientp
Really, you can't make this stuff up!
-
That's precisely what makes it the wealthiest ;)
Another reason is that many of the people in the wealthy states eat themselves to death.
-
Now the Sanders are breaking everyone's heart acting like Clinton and Trump.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/
-
More Trump "goodness"...
So, remember that Carrier plant Trump visited admist his self-congratulatory tour about saving American job?
Carrier workers facing layoffs feel betrayed by Trump (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrier-workers-betrayed-by-trumps-promise-to-save-their-jobs/)
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/161204_POL_Trump-Carrier-FB.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
INDIANAPOLIS -- A promise made before Christmas is fizzling before the Fourth of July.
In December, then-President-elect Trump told hundreds of workers at the Carrier manufacturing plant that he had worked out a deal to save their jobs. But it's not working out that way. A steady downpour today did little to wash away the fact that the jobs of 600 union employees are going south.
"They're going to Monterrey, Mexico," said Robert James, president of the local union.
Reynolds said he felt betrayed, since Mr. Trump told workers during his December visit to the plant that 1,100 jobs would be saved.
"And by the way, that number is going to go up very substantially as they expand this area, this plant," Mr. Trump said. "So the 1,100 is going to be a minimum number."
Blasting companies for moving American jobs abroad was a feature of the Trump campaign, and saving the Carrier jobs was touted as a sign of Mr. Trump's bargaining prowess.
"You're going to have a good Christmas," he said at the plant.
But the truth is that 400 of the 1,100 jobs Mr. Trump mentioned were white-collar positions that were never going away. Only 700 union jobs were saved. Six hundred others will be lost, and Carrier is not paying a price. The company actually received a $7 million incentive package from Indiana to keep the plant open with a reduced work force.
"That is what he said was not going to happen," James said. "That's what he told all of us."
"And a lot of these people voted for Mr. Trump" with the understanding that he would save their jobs, James added.
Duane Oreskovic voted for the president, and is among those losing their jobs.
"I liked this job. This was a job that I actually wanted to retire from," Oreskovic said. "It's not going to happen any more."
At the White House Friday, press secretary Sean Spicer said the job cuts here were long-planned and nothing new.
The first round of layoffs will take effect next month, and the second in December -- three days before Christmas.
So, about that #MAGA, not so much at Carrier...
-
Trump golfing? Aides won't say, but video tells the tale (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/trump-golfing-bedminster-video/index.html)
Washington (CNN)If a president golfs in private -- and the White House refuses to comment -- did it ever really happen?
Apparently so.
President Donald Trump hit the links at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminsiter, New Jersey, over the June 10-11 weekend, according to a golfer who also played the course and took a video of the President.
That video is the only reason the public knows Trump was golfing because White House aides, seemingly to obscure whether the President, who was once critical about another president playing golf, declined to say.
(http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-22-at-3.53.27-PM.png)
The video (https://youtu.be/o6IrmHI5j94), posted by Twitter user @MikeNFrank, also shows Trump breaking a cardinal rule of golf: Driving a cart on the green. (According to Golfweek, golfers should "Keep your cart ... about 30 feet away from the greens.")
"It's the only place you can drive on the green, your own golf course," a man is overheard saying on the video.
"Thanks, fellas," Trump said as he drove up, while the people behind the camera asked how Trump is doing.
"Everything good?" Trump asked before driving up and soliciting a fist bump from one of the men behind the camera.
"How are you hitting them?" a man asked.
"Good, until this hole," Trump says as the video cuts out.
The White House official traveling with the press in New Jersey that weekend refused to confirm whether Trump had been playing golf. This is par for the course for the Trump administration: White House aides regularly say Trump "may hit a few balls," but Trump is regularly seen playing by reporters or guests at his golf clubs.
Aides are sensitive to Trump's golf habit given how he regularly slammed former President Barack Obama for golfing during his presidency.
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
President Obama has a major meeting on the N.Y.C. Ebola outbreak, with people flying in from all over the country, but decided to play golf!
10:54 PM - 23 Oct 2014
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.Worse than Carter
7:03 PM - 13 Oct 2014
Trump's critiques of Obama now could be thrust onto him, though.
His golfing in New Jersey came on the weekend that three United States soldiers were killed and another wounded during a joint US-Afghan military operation in Afghanistan.
The shooter in the June 20 incident was an Afghan army commando, Nangarhar provincial spokesman Attaullah Khogyani said.
Trump's aides -- the same who would not confirm he was golfing -- told CNN that weekend that he was getting continuous updates about the incident.
I was gonna make a snarky comment but, in reality, there's no need.
-
And, about all those Trump lies...
T r u m p ’ s L i e s (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?mcubz=0&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article)
Many Americans have become accustomed to President Trump’s lies. But as regular as they have become, the country should not allow itself to become numb to them. So we have catalogued nearly every outright lie he has told publicly since taking the oath of office.
I won't bore you with a listing of all of them, the list is really very long. But here's a tweet jpg that covers from Jan 21st-March 22nd.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDCPbD_XkAEgduP.jpg)
-
So Obama did little to nothing to stop Russian intrusion into our election process. So Democrats who are ticked off at Obama because he did nothing are still using that to say Trump won the election because of it and now he doesn't want to stop Russia from interfering in the future and they threw in that he's probably colluding with them for good measure. Alice in Wonderland.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/339236-frustrated-dems-say-obama-botched-russia-response
-
The things Trump says...
No Poor Need Apply: Four Reasons Why President Trump Is Wrong (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/06/22/no-poor-need-apply/#3219a4ba52df)
(https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/699485026/960x0.jpg?fit=scale)
Wednesday, President Trump uttered the following now widely-publicized statement regarding the top economic positions in his administration:
“And I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions, I just don’t want a poor person. Does that makes sense? Does that make sense?”
While this has provided wonderful material for critics and satirists, are they really being fair? On the surface of it, there’s a certain logic to his statement. Shouldn’t those who have been the most successful in the economy also be the ones to offer advice?
Unfortunately, no. Here are four reasons why putting rich folks in charge is in no way a guarantee of superior economic performance:
--snipped to just the bullet points--
1. Earning riches and developing economic policy draw on different skill sets
2. Capitalism is not about the rich, it’s about the poor and middle class
3. The rich are likely to view their problems as the problems
4. The government is not a business
Trump just doesn't get the concept of governing...likely he never will.
-
More Trump "goodness"...
So, remember that Carrier plant Trump visited admist his self-congratulatory tour about saving American job?
Carrier workers facing layoffs feel betrayed by Trump (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrier-workers-betrayed-by-trumps-promise-to-save-their-jobs/)
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/161204_POL_Trump-Carrier-FB.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
So, about that #MAGA, not so much at Carrier...
The main issue was the plant production was not shut down and a majority of the jobs did stay. It's not perfect. He didn't save all the jobs. But better than what Hillary did for them. Trump went to bat for them and helped a lot of the workers, not all, but a good percentage.
-
The things Trump says...
No Poor Need Apply: Four Reasons Why President Trump Is Wrong (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/06/22/no-poor-need-apply/#3219a4ba52df)
Trump just doesn't get the concept of governing...likely he never will.
So you say that poor people have better skill sets to help the economy? Keep repeating things like that and Trump will get three terms.
-
So Obama did little to nothing to stop Russian intrusion into our election process.
Well, it was a little more complicated than that. The day that the Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national) that the intelligence community warned about Russian meddling (Oct 7th) was also the day that the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording came out and then an hour later Podesta's emails hit...so the Russian story scrolled off.
That and even after warning the Congressional Gang of Eight, Mitchell McConnel reportedly refused to believe the classified version of the briefing and claimed it was a partisan ploy.
Yes, Obama should have just pulled the trigger and gone on TV and accused Putin and Russia of meddling...but Trump was already claiming the election was "rigged" and if Obama had started blaming the Russians, what do you suppose Trump would have done.
And yes, Obama and the Democrats were working under the assumption that Clinton was supposed to win. Once the election occurred it was locking the barn after the horses got out.
So, wouldn't you think Trump might be worried that the Russians might come after him next?
-
So you say that poor people have better skill sets to help the economy? Keep repeating things like that and Trump will get three terms.
No, Forbes said that being a billionaire does not amount to creds for being successful in government...did you bother to read what they said? Should I copy/paste the whole darn article?
-
Well, it was a little more complicated than that. The day that the Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national) that the intelligence community warned about Russian meddling (Oct 7th) was also the day that the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording came out and then an hour later Podesta's emails hit...so the Russian story scrolled off.
That and even after warning the Congressional Gang of Eight, Mitchell McConnel reportedly refused to believe the classified version of the briefing and claimed it was a partisan ploy.
Yes, Obama should have just pulled the trigger and gone on TV and accused Putin and Russia of meddling...but Trump was already claiming the election was "rigged" and if Obama had started blaming the Russians, what do you suppose Trump would have done.
And yes, Obama and the Democrats were working under the assumption that Clinton was supposed to win. Once the election occurred it was locking the barn after the horses got out.
So, wouldn't you think Trump might be worried that the Russians might come after him next?
So you just agreed with me and the article that Obama did nothing about Russian intrusion into our election process even though he knew all along they were doing it. He even knew that Putin ordered it. Just more fecklessness on Obama's part. What else is new?
-
No, Forbes said that being a billionaire does not amount to creds for being successful in government...did you bother to read what they said? Should I copy/paste the whole darn article?
Three terms!
-
"Capitalism is not about the rich, it’s about the poor and middle class"
Buahahaha!
Someone was really high writing that article, daydreaming about socialism (i.e., a system for the poor and middle class).
This is what capitalism is about:
-
And he thinks he's doing so much...NOT!
Despite Claims To Contrary, Trump Has Signed No Major Laws 5 Months In (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/23/533840991/despite-claims-to-contrary-trump-has-signed-no-major-laws-5-months-in)
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/06/23/gettyimages-800132698_custom-ab895a99d171250da389d911796b99bf4365e6cd-s800-c85.jpg)
President Trump holds up the signed Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 on Friday.
Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
President Trump kept one of his campaign promises, signing a bill Friday to make it easier for the secretary of veterans affairs to fire and discipline employees. It came in response to the 2014 VA scandal in which employees covered up long wait times while collecting bonuses.
The bill, which passed earlier this month with strong bipartisan support, also gives the secretary authority to revoke bonuses and protects whistleblowers who report wrongdoing.
"What happened was a national disgrace and yet some of the employees involved in these scandals remained on the payrolls," Trump said just before signing the bill. "Outdated laws kept the government from holding those who failed our veterans accountable. Today we are finally changing those laws."
The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 marks Trump's 40th law signed.
Sounds like a lot.
And in recent days, Trump has boasted about all the legislation he has signed.
"We passed and signed 38 pieces of legislation, which nobody likes to talk about," Trump said June 13 before a lunch with lawmakers. "I think probably seldom has any president and administration done more or had more success so early on, including a record number of resolutions to eliminate job-killing regulations."
And he tweeted the same message on Friday morning.
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
I've helped pass and signed 38 Legislative Bills, mostly with no Democratic support, and gotten rid of massive amounts of regulations. Nice!
5:39 AM - 23 Jun 2017
A White House spokesperson confirmed to NPR that at the time of Trump's tweet, the number was actually 39 — not 38.
Measuring laws passed by counting rather than by significance is pretty meaningless. More on that in a bit. Among modern Oval Office occupants, Presidents Jimmy Carter (52), George H.W. Bush (41) and Bill Clinton (41) had all signed more bills into law than Trump has by this point in their presidencies.
So, what has Trump accomplished with Congress so far? Nothing that political scientists would categorize as major pieces of legislation. We looked at this question as Trump hit his 100 days mark. This story (http://www.npr.org/2017/04/27/525753448/white-house-touts-historic-28-laws-signed-by-trump-but-what-are-they) contains more detail on legislation he signed in the early part of his presidency.
Ooooh, he's been so busy! But if you read the article and check the charts, Trump has been singularly ineffective. Most of the "bills" have been to overturn Obama's efforts. Yes, something he promised to do but it's not like it
's major legislation...
Regardless of all the hand waving and chest thumping, Trump has actually done little other than nominating a Supreme...How's that Travel Ban working?
-
Three terms!
I'll betcha $1 he doesn't last his whole term...
-
I'll betcha $1 he doesn't last his whole term...
My $1 against your $2. I'm learning from Trump. :)
-
Stephen Colbert Appears on Russian TV, Jokes About Presidential Run (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/colbert-russia-tv-presidential/2017/06/23/id/797948/)
(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/40/401621e1-1277-4564-aa1a-8a86d1c06b2e.jpg)
Stephen Colbert made an appearance on Russian TV, where he appeared to jokingly mull a presidential run.
In a video (https://www.1tv.ru/shows/vecherniy-urgant/nashi-rubriki/russkaya-russkaya-ruletka-vecherniy-urgant-fragment-vypuska-ot-23-06-2017) released Friday, Colbert appeared on "Evening Urgant," a late-night style talk show that airs on Russia's Channel 1. The back and forth between Colbert and host Ivan Urgant took place partly in Russian, partly in English.
In the interview, Colbert and Urgant played a Russian roulette-style drinking game with multiple vodka shots.
Lifting a glass to the studio audience upon taking his first shot, Colbert said, "To the beautiful and friendly Russian people, I have no idea why no members of the Trump administration can remember meeting you." Colbert then took a shot and ate a pickle.
After Urgant took a shot, Colbert asked, "By the way, can I announce something?" He then continued, "I'm here in Russia ... I am here to announce that I am considering a run for president in 2020, and I thought it would be better to cut out the middle man and just tell the Russians myself. If anyone would like to work on my campaign in an unofficial capacity, please, just come let me know."
Note when you click on the video link you do need to wait through a few seconds of a promo to a 1TV.ru TV show...but even though I don't speak Russian, it's kinda funny to watch...something about eating pickles after a vodka shot? It's about 5 minutes...
-
My $1 against your $2. I'm learning from Trump. :)
Very Trump-like. You think you're on a winner and being clever but you are being completely unrealistic and unreasonable and silly. Got him to a tee.
-
Bill Maher on Georgia election result: "Democrats are so lame the Russians are like, ‘We were going to hack this election but why bother'”
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
Go ahead. Click on it. You know you want to.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
Go ahead. Click on it. You know you want to.
Some of it is Trump's hyperbole and sales pitch. That's how he talks after being a salesman all his life. But there are very many things that were taken out of context or misinterpreted by a media that just cherry picks his words out of context to deliberately make him look bad. People understood what he means unless you don't want to understand what he means. Here are just a couple of examples.
Your article stated: Feb. 24 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.” (Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)
Trump is first referring to people who had coverage they liked but which they lost when insurance companies pulled out or otherwise they had to cancel their plans because prices went up, He wasn't referring to people who had no insurance to begin with who got on Obamacare. Also, Obamacare itself does cover very few people. Around 85% of Americans still have their own insurance they pay for privately or through their employers.
Feb. 28 “And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.” (NATO countries agreed to meet defense spending requirements in 2014.) Yes, NATO countries agreed in 2014 to EVENTUALLY meet the requirements. But you left out that they didn't have to meet it until 2024. Trump insisted they do it sooner. And he got positive responses from them.
Feb. 27 “On one plane, on a small order of one plane, I saved $725 million. And I would say I devoted about, if I added it up, all those calls, probably about an hour. So I think that might be my highest and best use.” (Much of the price cut was already projected.) What does much mean? It means not all savings so he got more saving. Also, projected doesn't mean anything. Who projected what and did the manufacturers agreed to it? He got their agreement.
-
So it was Obama who dropped the Russian meddling ball. He choked.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/vladmir-putin-russia-election/index.html
It seems that President Obama failed in his duties and did little figuring he could hide it and it would go away. Then when Clinton took over, she could continue to do nothing. Of course when the musical chairs music stopped and Trump became president by mistake, Obama was a chair to short and wound up holding the ugly cupie doll. Of course, now that the truth has come out, the Democrats are blaming Trump for collusion, obstruction of justice, and a sundry misdeeds. With misfits like we have, the Russians really don't have to do too much to really confuse us.
-
DOES EVERYTHING THAT DONALD TRUMP TOUCHES DIE? (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-boeing)
Months after talking up Carrier, Ford, and Boeing, all three companies are cutting jobs.
(http://media.vanityfair.com/photos/594d80ab6f568871b9b7813f/master/w_600,c_limit/donald-trump-jobs.jpg)
Even before Donald Trump was sworn in to office, he began declaring victories on behalf of the American worker. The bizarre public relations campaign began in November, at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, where he announced that his Art of the Deal-style negotiating skills had prevented 1,100 jobs from being sent to Mexico. In January, after Ford canceled plans to build a plant in Mexico, he tweeted, “This is just the beginning—much more to follow.” Weeks later, he delivered a speech in front of a South Carolina Boeing plant, during which he managed to make a sexist joke about how airplanes, unlike women, can still look good at the ripe old age of 30, and boasted, “My focus has been all about jobs, and jobs is one of the primary reasons I’m standing here today as your president, and I will never, ever disappoint you.” Seven, five, and a mere four months later, how are things working out at those companies? Let’s take a look!
Carrier, CNBC reported this week, will be laying off 600 employees over the next five months. Ford announced on Tuesday that it would be producing its Focus line in China. And Boeing, 16 weeks after Trump stood in front of a Boeing Dreamliner and declared himself the savior of the Working Man, confirmed Friday that it would be cutting 200 jobs at that very South Carolina plant.
Of course, it’s hardly fair to blame Trump for global, cyclical, and secular economic trends that are largely beyond his control. But then, it was hardly fair for Trump to try to take credit for every alleged bit of good job news, either. And hey, we’re willing to give Trump a pass on Carrier, Ford, and Boeing, so long as he can admit that all of his previous bogus “JOBS” announcements were fake news, too.
-
Well, I guess you get what you pay for...
The Kremlin's Election Meddling Is Paying Off (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trump-putin-russia/531420/)
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/06/AP_17028624464092/lead_960.jpg?1498249851)
Donald Trump speaks on the phone with Vladimir Putin in late January from the Oval Office. Andrew Harnik / AP
The president’s policies in office have aligned almost perfectly with Vladimir Putin’s goals.
Fifty-four years ago this month, former President John F. Kennedy delivered the “Strategy of Peace,” a powerful address that captured America’s indispensable leadership at the height of the Cold War. Kennedy knew that our country could not guard against the Soviet Union alone, for he believed that “genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.”
Incredibly, the man who now leads the United States seems to find himself locked in an alarming and perilous embrace with the Russian government. These ties threaten to weaken a system of alliances that have held Russia—and countless other threats to the international community—at bay since the conclusion of the Second World War.
In his Senate testimony two weeks ago, former FBI Director James Comey affirmed a disturbing suspicion: that Donald Trump first undermined Comey, by leaning on him to drop his investigation of former National Security-Adviser Michael Flynn, and then removed him from his post. Since then, events have escalated at a dizzying pace: Trump accused Comey of lying under oath about their interactions earlier this year, even as he cheered Comey’s public assertion that the president wasn’t under FBI investigation. Soon, reports emerged that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating obstruction-of-justice allegations against the president—revelations Trump was none too happy about. And all the while, rumors have continued to swirl that Trump may fire both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who’s overseeing the special counsel inquiry.
But Trump’s reckless handling of these events should not distract from a startling reality: As the president faces accusations of colluding with the Russians during last year’s campaign, his policies in office have aligned almost perfectly with the Kremlin’s goals. If Moscow wanted its interference in America’s election to yield dividends, it could hardly have hoped for more.
-
So it was Obama who dropped the Russian meddling ball. He choked.
There may be another point of view...
Obama Did What He Had to Do (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/06/obama_s_response_to_russian_interference_he_did_his_job.html)
(http://ekurd.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Barack-Obama-with-Vladimir-Putin-Lima-Peru-Nov-20-2016-Reuters.jpg)
His cautious response to Russian interference protected our democracy.
Did President Obama blow the 2016 election? Should he have spoken up sooner and louder about Russia’s interference? That’s what many Democrats are wondering, particularly after reading the Washington Post’s latest investigative report on Obama’s reticent response to the Russian attack. A former official tells the Post that after the election, Obama’s aides, “mortified” by Donald Trump’s victory, thought to themselves: “Wow, did we mishandle this.”
There’s plenty to second-guess in Obama’s management of this episode. But the idea that he failed because Trump won is wrong. Obama’s job wasn’t to prevent the election of a particular person, even one as awful as Trump. Obama’s job was to preserve the country. That meant protecting the integrity of our elections and public faith in them, which he did, to the extent possible after Russia had already hacked into the Democratic National Committee and spread misinformation.
The next task—exposing the full extent of Russia’s interference, punishing it, and deterring future attacks—is up to Trump.
If he fails, the responsibility to hold him accountable falls to Congress.
And if Congress fails, the job of electing a new, more patriotic legislature falls to voters.
So far, there is little indication that Trump cares about protecting future elections...he seems satisfied to blame it all on Obama :~(
-
There may be another point of view...
Obama Did What He Had to Do (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/06/obama_s_response_to_russian_interference_he_did_his_job.html)
So far, there is little indication that Trump cares about protecting future elections...he seems satisfied to blame it all on Obama :~(
So after months and months of making Trump a victim by accusing him falsely of collusion, you now blame the victim for not "protecting future elections" when Obama was the culprit who knew about it all and did nothing when he could have done something. Yet, you still look for a way to blame Trump for the former president's dereliction.
-
So after months and months of making Trump a victim by accusing him falsely of collusion
Care to point to any posts where I accused Trump of collusion?
Pretty sure I asked you this same question before...pretty sure you didn't offer any proof before.
-
Some of it is Trump's hyperbole and sales pitch. That's how he talks after being a salesman all his life. But there are very many things that were taken out of context or misinterpreted by a media that just cherry picks his words out of context to deliberately make him look bad. People understood what he means unless you don't want to understand what he means...
+1
Not a single lie there.
-
Care to point to any posts where I accused Trump of collusion?...
You surely post and quote many articles that do just that.
-
You surely post and quote many articles that do just that.
Point to even one...
-
Point to even one...
Post #3885 above:
As the president faces accusations of colluding with the Russians during last year’s campaign,
-
Post #3885 above:
Surely Slobodan, you cannot hold Jeff responsible for what someone else ('The Atlantic' in this case) writes?
You do understand that that's a literal quote from their article, don't you?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Surely Slobodan, you cannot hold Jeff responsible for what someone else ('The Atlantic' in this case) writes?
You do understand that that's a literal quote from their article, don't you?
Cheers,
Bart
I appreciated that Slobodan defended my point mentioning the articles. Thanks.
But come on Bart, after all these pages, you don't think that Jeff has not been pushing the idea that Trump colluded with the Russians? It's not just one article, but article after article stating how it was Trump, it was his son-in-law, it was Flynn, it was his administration, etc. His winks and nods at Democratic accusations of collusion adds to his position. You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well...
-
I appreciated that Slobodan defended my point mentioning the articles. Thanks.
But come on Bart, after all these pages, you don't think that Jeff has not been pushing the idea that Trump colluded with the Russians?
Actually, I don't think Jeff has said to believe that, and vaguely remember him saying as much. But we cannot say with certainty that Trump didn't collude either, until the investigations come to a conclusion. The investigations are looking into collusion by campaign staff members, and we'll have to see what surfaces.
You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well...
Careful, people might start believing that Trump did collude, tape, etc. ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Surely Slobodan, you cannot hold Jeff responsible for what someone else ('The Atlantic' in this case) writes?
You do understand that that's a literal quote from their article, don't you?...
You do understand the point I was making, don't you? Jeff did.
I said "You surely post and quote many articles that do just that."
-
... But we cannot say with certainty that Trump didn't collude either, until the investigations come to a conclusion...
We are also waiting with a bated breath for the results of an investigation that unicorns do not exist. You know, we can not say with certainty they don't, until the investigation is done.
-
Wow...what a week! But it ain't over–we still have the Sunday shows to get through. In the meantime just in case somebody still believes Trump when he says This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won., well here's Politifact to the rescue ~)
Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim Russia story 'made-up' by Democrats (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/12/donald-trump/trump-calls-trump-russia-story-made-/)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vRl9o6W90DnnqKs/giphy.gif)
During a May 11 interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, President Donald Trump said he had made the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey prior to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s recommendation. (Yahoo)
Sources:
NBC News, Interview with Donald Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/transcript-donald-trump-nbc-news/), May 11, 2017
Office of Director of National Intelligence, Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf)": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution, Jan. 6, 2017
You can always tell when Trump is lying...his lips move.
Here's an article and Jeff's comments on collusion. Quote from above:
"In the meantime just in case somebody still believes Trump when he says This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won., well here's Politifact to the rescue ~)"
I guess by rescue, Jeff means he agrees with the article.
-
We are also waiting with a bated breath for the results of an investigation that unicorns do not exist. You know, we can not say with certainty they don't, until the investigation is done.
Actually, there's more evidence that unicorns do exist. :)
-
You do understand the point I was making, don't you? Jeff did.
I said "You surely post and quote many articles that do just that."
Sure, the point is that you don't like the subject, which is fine with me.
Next thing is that quotes containing the word/name "trump" are not allowed?
Don't be silly.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually, there's more evidence that unicorns do exist. :)
Indeed they do, they're known as Narwhal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal)s.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The unfortunate part of the whole collusion, and now obstruction business, is that it only has to do with domestic politics. How the Democrats are going to take back power in Congress in 2018 and win the presidency in 2020. The Dems could otherwise give a whit about all this.
It's unfortunate because it's taking our eyes off of really important issues that most Americans who aren't addicted to Trump II are most concerned about. These are, Internationally: War, ISIS, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, trade, Russian and Chinese adventurism, North Korea, Iran, etc. Domestically: taxes, health care, jobs, debt, immigration, opioid addiction, military, VA, etc. There's no oxygen left in the room for these other more immediate and important issues.
-
Seems like the Sanders' family is part of the swamp as well. Jane his wife is being investigated for bank fraud in 2010 when she was a college president and Senator Bernie for pushing the bank to give the loan. I'm not saying they actually did this, Jeff, just passing on the article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-jane-sanders-fbi-investigation_us_594fc816e4b0da2c731c2d1d
-
Post #3885 above:
That's the best ya got? Really? The article itself didn't even accuse Trump of collusion, it merely referenced charges of collusion. If you are gonna quote, at least quote the whole darn sentence, not a sentence fragment (like the way Trump speaks)
But Trump’s reckless handling of these events should not distract from a startling reality: As the president faces accusations of colluding with the Russians during last year’s campaign, his policies in office have aligned almost perfectly with the Kremlin’s goals.
So, the article is referencing the face the president is facing accusations of colluding. It's not accusing him of colluding. So, from that tenuous thread you are trying to accuse me of accusing Trump of collusion?
That really is pretty entertaining, thanks...but no, I don't count that as me quoting an article accusing Trump of colluding with Russia, sorry, not guilty as charged...try again?
-
Here's an article and Jeff's comments on collusion. Quote from above:
"In the meantime just in case somebody still believes Trump when he says This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won., well here's Politifact to the rescue ~)"
I guess by rescue, Jeff means he agrees with the article.
Again doooode, ya gotta do better than that. I pointed to a http://www.politifact.com article debunking Trump's claim that "This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should've won." was a pants-on-fire lie.
And that is somehow tantamount to an accusation of collusion by Trump how?
We all know (even Trump now but he blames it on Obama) that Russia interfered with our election, right? You believe that, right?
So, my saying "rescue" means I agree with the article is a true statement...
My saying "rescue" means I'm accusing Trump of collusion is a pants-on-fire claim...
(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-pantsonfire.gif)
#BUZZZZZ Thank's for playing our game...wanna try again?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I never said Trump colluded with Russia...if he did collude, he wouldn't have been capable of keeping his big mouth shut and not brag about it.
What I'm pretty sure about is there is likely some collusion with Russia on the part of Trump's campaign and/or his "satellites".
We know Flynn was talking with the Russians and lied about it.
We know Kushner talked to the Russians and lied about it.
We're pretty sure Manafort was talking to the Russians and we know he was talking Ukrainians who were Russian supporters and lied about it.
We know Carter Page went to Russia with the Trump campaign permission and we know he had been under FBI investigation because he was being requited by known Russian spies.
We know Roger Stone was bragging about Podesta coming under fire just before his emails were released (funny how he predicted that, huh).
What I'm also sure about was that Trump was acting as a "polezni durak" (useful idiot). Michael Hayden, former NSA director and former CIA director, described Trump as a polezni durak, translating the term as "the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited".
Heck, Trump even begged the Russians to try to hack Clinton's emails and release them. And while Trump may have said that largely in jest, don't think for a moment he's wasn't reveling in the release of the DNC Server and Podesta's emails so while Trump may not have colluded, he sure did benefit, right?
But that's why we're having this whole investigation...to find out who did what and why and how to keep it from ever happening again.
-
Seems like the Sanders' family is part of the swamp as well. Jane his wife is being investigated for bank fraud in 2010 when she was a college president and Senator Bernie for pushing the bank to give the loan. I'm not saying they actually did this, Jeff, just passing on the article.
Yep...he and his wife are being investigated...we'll see what comes of it huh?
-
As if the President of the United States doesn't have anything better to do today, he's still fixated on last year's election....
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Hillary Clinton colluded with the Democratic Party in order to beat Crazy Bernie Sanders. Is she allowed to so collude? Unfair to Bernie!
7:00 AM - 25 Jun 2017
17,805 17,805 Retweets 66,451 66,451 likes
Seems he's got "collusion" on his brain...
-
Don't let the door hit ya on the way out!
Russia is recalling ambassador at center of Trump campaign controversy: report (http://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/339401-russia-is-recalling-ambassador-at-center-of-trump-campaign)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/kislyaksergey_030217getty.jpg?itok=yriNwfOf)
Russia is reportedly recalling Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the man who has emerged as a focal point in the FBI probe into Russia’s election meddling.
BuzzFeed News (https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnhudson/moscow-is-finally-recalling-russian-ambassador-sergey?utm_term=.saYNrnzEKj#.uaz61awyAq) is citing three sources saying Russia is calling Kislyak back home.
The Kremlin did not confirm to the news outlet when Kislyak would head back to Russia, but the US-Russia Business Council on July 11 will have a going away party for Kislyak at the St. Regis Hotel, the report said.
I hope they let him retire to his да́ча (dacha) rather than, uh, well you know what happens to Russians that disappoint Putin, right?
-
Naughty, naughty...
Trump can’t stop hurling ‘Pocahontas’ insult at Warren (http://nypost.com/2017/06/25/trump-cant-stop-hurling-pocahontas-insult-at-warren/)
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/trump-warren-split.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1)
President Trump rekindled his feud with persistent critic Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Sunday, saying referring to her as “Pocahontas” is an insult to the Native American woman.
“She’s a hopeless case. I call her Pocahontas, and that’s an insult to Pocahontas,” Trump said in an interview on “Fox and Friends” on Sunday, taking a shot at Warren’s heritage.
Because, you know, he can...not that he should, but he can't help himself...
-
So, he admits to throwing the House GOP under the bus just because he wanted the world to know he said "mean" before Obama said "mean" when talking about the Trumpcare bill. Boy, Trump sure is fixated on Obama, huh?
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19366050_10154996555246749_7115851506205968566_n.jpg?oh=43d6aa240ed06a6165ec36735543e1f1&oe=59D290CD)
Trump confirms he called health care bill 'mean' (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/25/politics/donald-trump-confirms-mean-health-care/index.html)
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of stealing his terminology when Obama said last week that there was a 'fundamental meanness' at the core of the Republican health care bill.
During an interview on "Fox and Friends" Sunday morning, Trump was asked about Obama's Facebook Post (https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10154996557026749) post condemning the Republican health care plan, and the President responded by saying Obama used the descriptor after he originally did.
"Well he actually used my term, 'mean.' That was my term," Trump said. "Because I want to see -- and I speak from the heart -- that's what I want to see, I want to see a bill with heart."
When White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked about Trump's use of the word "mean" in reference to the bill last week, Spicer said he wouldn't comment on rumors about what the President may or may not have said behind closed doors.
-
So, maybe there ARE tapes?
Trump 'is leaving open the possibility' conversations with Comey were taped: Adviser (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/trump-leaving-open-possibility-conversations-comey-taped-adviser/story?id=48266351)
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/594fc47dd084cc12098b5438-886/screen%20shot%202017-06-25%20at%20100512%20am.png)
Eeeek, sorry about the size...don't mean to give people the creeps (actually, I do)
President Trump is "leaving open the possibility" that his conversations with former FBI Director James Comey were taped, presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway said.
Conway's comments in an interview with ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday came two days after the president announced on Twitter that he had not personally taped his conversations with Comey.
Trump in a pair of tweets on Thursday wrote: "With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea whether there are 'tapes' or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings."
Stephanopoulos asked Conway on "This Week" if the president has tried to end any uncertainty over the issue by asking the intelligence community if it had recorded any of the conversations between Trump and Comey.
She declined to say.
“I'm not going to comment on his conversations with his intelligence community," Conway said. “He is leaving open the possibility that it could have happened.”
Wait, what? Are there tapes? Who's on first? I don't know...he's on second!
-
Russia is recalling ambassador at center of Trump campaign controversy: report (http://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/339401-russia-is-recalling-ambassador-at-center-of-trump-campaign)
The Kremlin did not confirm to the news outlet when Kislyak would head back to Russia, but the US-Russia Business Council on July 11 will have a going away party for Kislyak at the St. Regis Hotel, the report said.
They should have had the going away party at one of Trump's Hotels. Just to rub it in and drive the Democrats and the media nuts. Could you imagine that news cycle? :)
-
That's the best ya got? Really? The article itself didn't even accuse Trump of collusion, it merely referenced charges of collusion. If you are gonna quote, at least quote the whole darn sentence, not a sentence fragment (like the way Trump speaks)
So, the article is referencing the face the president is facing accusations of colluding. It's not accusing him of colluding. So, from that tenuous thread you are trying to accuse me of accusing Trump of collusion?
That really is pretty entertaining, thanks...but no, I don't count that as me quoting an article accusing Trump of colluding with Russia, sorry, not guilty as charged...try again?
That's too funny.
Now... you are not accusing Trump of colluding... the article did not accuse Trump of colluding... Comey did not accuse Trump of colluding...but nevertheless, everybody, including yourself, is "just referencing" the accusations of colluding. So, who is actually accusing Trump? Apparently nobody, including yourself, is willing to admit the accusations (because, you know, that would make them look stupid), but somehow, someone is making the accusations, and the rest, the "innocent" gang is just "referencing" it.
Potato, potahto.
-
... Trump can’t stop hurling ‘Pocahontas’ insult at Warren (http://nypost.com/2017/06/25/trump-cant-stop-hurling-pocahontas-insult-at-warren/)
You know, there currently is an ad for Disney on Hulu that splashes the word Pocahontas across the screen. And every time that happens, my image of that heroine is destroyed by first recollecting the deranged, rabid Democrat. Damn you, Trump! ;)
-
Naughty, naughty...
Trump can’t stop hurling ‘Pocahontas’ insult at Warren (http://nypost.com/2017/06/25/trump-cant-stop-hurling-pocahontas-insult-at-warren/)
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/trump-warren-split.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1)
Because, you know, he can...not that he should, but he can't help himself...
You don't get the joke. He's not insulting Indians. He's insulting Warren who passed herself of as an Indian when she was younger so she could take advantage of a minority status. That gained her entrance into schools and getting other benefits she would not have otherwise received. She impersonated a minority of a different race and people. She tried to be Pocahontas for personal gain. So calling her Pocahontas reminds the world what a phony she is.
-
Trump is struggling to stay calm on Russia, one morning call at a time (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-is-struggling-to-stay-calm-on-russia-one-morning-call-at-a-time/2017/06/22/1da3385a-5762-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.30af11e215c9)
(http://www.tnp.sg/sites/default/files/styles/rl680/public/articles/2017/02/03/np_20170203_call03_14942632.jpg?itok=P5Ed9cQZ)
President Trump has a new morning ritual. Around 6:30 a.m. on many days — before all the network news shows have come on the air — he gets on the phone with a member of his outside legal team to chew over all things Russia.
The calls — detailed by three senior White House officials — are part strategy consultation and part presidential venting session, during which Trump’s lawyers and public-relations gurus take turns reviewing the latest headlines with him. They also devise their plan for battling his avowed enemies: the special counsel leading the Russia investigation; the “fake news” media chronicling it; and, in some instances, the president’s own Justice Department overseeing the probe.
His advisers have encouraged the calls — which the early-to-rise Trump takes from his private quarters in the White House residence — in hopes that he can compartmentalize the widening Russia investigation. By the time the president arrives for work in the Oval Office, the thinking goes, he will no longer be consumed by the Russia probe that he complains hangs over his presidency like a darkening cloud.
It rarely works, however. Asked whether the tactic was effective, one top White House adviser paused for several seconds and then just laughed.
-
A bit of history. What an Egyptian leader said about the request that all women should wear hijab when in public... in 1958 (!)
A required reading (watching) for all "multiculturalism" and "inclusiveness" nutjobs:
https://www.facebook.com/inthenow/videos/834567250026979/
-
So, maybe there ARE tapes?
Trump 'is leaving open the possibility' conversations with Comey were taped: Adviser (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/trump-leaving-open-possibility-conversations-comey-taped-adviser/story?id=48266351)
Wait, what? Are there tapes? Who's on first? I don't know...he's on second!
Trump is playing you, the liberal media and the democrats like a well-tuned xylophone. Bang! and you run down that blind alley. Bing! and you then run down that dark alley.
He's keeping the tapes issue in the air (trolling?) to get you guys to run around like a chicken without a head. He keeps capturing every news cycle. His supporters get it and his enemies are getting ulcers. Meanwhile, he's laughing it all up as the media fools keep trying to decipher the tea leaves.
THERE ARE NO TAPES. Now, there.
-
He's not insulting Indians.
Actually, he is...even the name Pocahontas generally refers to a historical myth with racist overtones...in case you are unfamiliar with the REAL "Pocahontas" whose birth name was actually Matoaka, here's a story about the historical sad reality...and if you know the real story of Pocahontas you would understand why native Americans find the use of the name to describe Warren as racist...and so should you. (I'll be you don't real the whole story :~)
The True Story of Pocahontas: Historical Myths Versus Sad Reality (https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/genealogy/true-story-pocahontas-historical-myths-versus-sad-reality/)
Pocahontas had a Native Husband and Native Child; Never Married John Smith
Vincent Schilling • March 21, 2017
Despite what many people believe due to longstanding and inaccurate accounts in history books and movies such as Disney’s Pocahontas, the true story of Pocahontas is not one of a young Native Powhatan woman with a raccoon friend who dove off of mountain-like cliffs off the coasts of Virginia. (Note: there are no cliffs on the coast of Virginia.)
The true story (https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/genealogy/true-story-pocahontas-historical-myths-versus-sad-reality/news/opinions/pocahontas-was-a-kidnap-victim-not-a-disney-princess/) of Pocahontas is a tale of tragedy and heartbreak.
It is time to bust up the misconceptions perpetuated over 400 years regarding the young daughter of Powhatan chief Wahunsenaca. The truth—gathered from years of extensive research of the historical record, books, and oral histories from self-identified descendants of Pocahontas and tribal peoples of Virginia —is not for the faint of heart.
The story of Pocahontas is a tragic tale of a young Native girl who was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and allegedly murdered by those who were supposed to keep her safe.
Pocahontas’ Mother, Also Named Pocahontas, Died While Giving Birth to Her
This is in many historical accounts, though not always. It is important to note that Pocahontas was born to her mother, named Pocahontas and her father Wahunsenaca, (sometimes spelled Wahunsenakah), who later became the paramount chief.
Her name at birth was Matoaka, which means “flower between two streams,” and according to Mattaponi history was likely given to her because she was born between the two rivers of Mattaponi and Pamunkey (York).
Due to his wife’s death, Wahunsenaca was devastated and little Matoaka became his favorite because she looked like her mother. She was raised by her aunts and other women of the Mattaponi tribe at Werowocomoco.
As was custom at the time, as the Paramount Chief of the Powhatan Chiefdom, Wahunsenaca had other wives from the other villages and little Matoaka had many loving brothers and sisters.
Because of his lingering grief and due to the reminder she gave to him of her mother, Wahunsenaca often called his daughter the endearing name of Pocahontas.
John Smith Came to the Powhatan When Pocahontas Was about 9 or 10
According to Mattaponi oral history, little Matoaka was possibly about 10 years old when John Smith and English colonists arrived in Tsenacomoca in the spring of 1607. John Smith was about 27 years old. They were never married nor involved.
Pocahontas Never Saved the Life of John Smith
The children of the Powhatan were very closely watched and cared for by all members of the tribe. Since Pocahontas was living with her father, Chief Powhatan Wahunsenaca, at Werowocomoco, and because she was the daughter of a chief, she was likely held to even stricter standards and provided with more structure and cultural training.
When she was a child, John Smith and English colonists stayed near the Powhatan on the nearby Jamestown Island, but later began to explore outlying areas. Smith was feared by many Native people because he was known to enter villages and put guns to heads of chiefs demanding food and supplies.
In the winter of 1607, the colonists and Smith met with Powhatan warriors and Smith was captured by the chief’s younger brother.
Because the English and Powhatan feared the actions of the Spanish, they formed an alliance. Eventually and according to oral history and contemporary written accounts by the Mattaponi, Wahunsenaca grew to like Smith, eventually offering him the position of ‘werowance’ or leader of the colonists as recognized by the Powhatan as well as a much more livable area for his people with great access to game and seafood.
Years later, Smith alleged that Pocahontas saved his life in the four-day process of becoming a werowance. But according to Mattaponi oral and contemporary written accounts, there would be no reason to kill a man designated to receive an honor by the chief.
Additionally, children were not allowed to attend any sort of religious ritual similar to the werowance ceremony.
She could not have thrown herself in front of John Smith to beg for his life for two reasons: Smith was being honored, and she would not have been allowed to be there.
Pocahontas Never Defied Her Father to Bring Food to John Smith or Jamestown
Some historical accounts claim Pocahontas defied her father to bring food to the colonists of Jamestown. According to the history of the Mattaponi tribe as well as simple facts, these claims could not be true.
Jamestown was 12 miles from Werowocomoco and the likelihood that a 10-year-old daughter would travel alone are inconsistent with Powhatan culture. She as well as other tribal members did travel to Jamestown, but as a gesture of peace.
Additionally, travel to Jamestown required crossing large bodies of water and the use of 400-pound dugout canoes. It took a team of strong people to lift them into the water.
It is likely Pocahontas served as a symbol of peace by simply being present as a child among her people to show no ill intentions when her people met with the Jamestown settlers.
Pocahontas Did Not Sneak Into Jamestown to Warn John Smith About a Death Plot
In 1608 and 1609, John Smith’s role as the werowance (chief) of the colonists had taken an ugly turn. The colonists made inadequate attempts to plant crops to harvest, and Smith violently demanded supplies from surrounding villages after once again holding a gun to the heads of village leaders.
Accounts from Mattaponi histories tell of one tribal woman proclaiming to Smith, “You call yourself a Christian, yet you leave us with no food for the winter.”
Pocahontas’ father, who had befriended Smith, once said to him, “I have not treated any of my werowances as well as you, yet you are the worst werowance I have!”
Smith claimed Wahunsenaca wanted to kill him, and asserted he knew of the plot because Pocahontas had come to warn him.
Due to the icy conditions at the time and because of the many watchful eyes attending to the daughter of a chief, as well as gestures of peace by the Powhatan to include additional provisions, Native historians rebuff the historical claims of Smith as completely fabricated.
To further prove Smith’s tale was a fabrication, a letter by Smith written in 1608 was published without Smith’s knowledge. The letter makes no claim of Pocahontas trying to save his life on two separate occasions. It wasn’t until Smith published his book General Historie of Virginia in 1624 that he claimed Pocahontas had twice saved his life. Any of the people who could have refuted Smith’s claims by that time were no longer alive.
As Colonists Terrorized Native People, Pocahontas Married and Became Pregnant
The early 1600’s were a horrible time for tribes near Werowocomoco. Native tribes once comfortable wearing clothing suitable for summer — including exposed breasts for Native women and little or nothing for children — found themselves being sexually targeted by English colonists.
Young children were targets of rape and Native women in the tribe would resort to offering themselves to men to keep their children safe. The Powhatan people were shocked by the behavior and were horrified that the English government offered them no protections.
In the midst of the horrible and atrocious acts committed by the colonists, Matoaka was coming of age. During a ceremony, Matoaka was to choose a new name, and she selected Pocahontas, after her mother. During a courtship dance, it is likely she danced with Kocoum, the younger brother of Potowomac Chief Japazaw.
She married the young warrior at about 14 and soon became pregnant.
It was at this time rumors began to surface that colonists planned to kidnap the beloved chief’s daughter Pocahontas.
Pocahontas Was Kidnapped, Her Husband Was Murdered and She Was Forced to Give Up Her First Child
When Pocahontas was about 15 or 16, the rumors of a possible kidnapping had become more of a threat and she was living with her husband Kocoum at his Potowomac village.
An English colonist by the name of Captain Samuel Argall sought to find her, thinking that a captured daughter of the chief would thwart attacks by Natives.
Hearing of her whereabouts, Argall came to the village and demanded Chief Japazaw, brother of Pocahontas’ husband, to give up Pocahontas or suffer violence against his village. Overcome with grief at a horrible choice, he relented with a hopeful promise that she would only be gone temporarily. That was a promise Argall quickly broke.
Before Argall left the village, he gave Chief Japazaw a copper pot. He later claimed to have traded it for her. This “trade” is still taught by historians. This is akin to the way that Smith ‘traded’ for corn by holding a gun to the heads of chiefs.
Before leaving the village, Pocahontas had to give her baby (referred to as little Kocoum) to the women of the village. Trapped onboard an English ship, she was not aware that when her husband returned to their village, he was killed by the colonists.
The tribal chiefs of the Powhatan never retaliated for the kidnapping of Pocahontas, fearing they would be captured and that the beloved daughter of the chief and the “Peace Symbol of the Powhatan” might be harmed.
Pocahontas Was Raped While in Captivity and Became Pregnant With Her Second Child
According to Dr. Linwood Custalow, a historian of the Mattaponi Tribe and the custodian of the sacred oral history of Pocahontas, soon after being kidnapped, she was suffering from depression and was growing more fearful and withdrawn. Her extreme anxiety was so severe her English captors allowed Pocahontas’ eldest sister Mattachanna and her husband Uttamattamakin to come to her aid.
Dr. Custalow writes in his book, The True Story of Pocahontas, The Other Side of History, that when Mattachanna and her husband Uttamattamakin, a spiritual advisor to Chief Wahunsenaca, Pocahontas confided in her sister.
When Mattachanna and Uttamattamakin arrived at Jamestown, Pocahontas confided in that she had been raped. Mattaponi sacred oral history is very clear on this: Pocahontas was raped. It is possible that it had been done to her by more than one person and repeatedly. My grandfather and other teachers of Mattaponi oral history said that Pocahontas was raped.
The possibility of being taken captive was a danger to be aware of in Powhatan Society, but rape was not tolerated. Rape in Powhatan Society was virtually unheard of because the punishment for such actions was so severe. Powhatan society did not have prisons. Punishment for wrongful actions often consisted of banishment from the tribe.
Historians differ on where Pocahontas was held, but tribal historians believe she was likely held in Jamestown, but was relocated to Henrico to when she was pregnant.
Pocahontas had a son, Thomas.
John Rolfe Married Pocahontas to Create a Native Alliance in Tobacco Production
Mattaponi history is clear that Pocahontas had a son out of wedlock, Thomas, prior to her marriage to John Rolfe. Prior to that marriage, the colonists pressed Pocahontas to become “civilized” and often told her that her father did not love her because he had not come to rescue her.
Pocahontas often tore off her English clothes, because they were uncomfortable. Eventually, Pocahontas was converted to Christianity and took the name Rebecca.
In the midst of her captivity, the English colony of Jamestown was failing. John Rolfe was under a 1616 deadline to become profitable or lose the support of England. Rolfe sought to learn tobacco curing techniques from the Powhatan, but curing tobacco was a sacred practice not to be shared with outsiders. Realizing the political strength of aligning himself with the tribe, he eventually married Pocahontas.
Though some historians claim Pocahontas and Rolfe married for love, it is not a certainty, as Pocahontas was never allowed to see her family, child or father after being kidnapped.
After the two were married, the Powhatan spiritual leaders and family to Pocahontas shared the curing practice with Rolfe. Soon afterwards, Rolfe’s tobacco was a sensation in England, which saved the colony of Jamestown, as they finally found a profitable venture.
The Powhatan tribal lands were now highly sought after for the tobacco trade and the tribe suffered great losses of life and land at the hands of greedy tobacco farmers.
It is worth noting that though it was custom for a Powhatan father to give away his daughter at a marriage, Wahunsenaca did not attend the wedding of his daughter to Rolfe for fear of being captured or killed. He did send a strand of pearls as a gift.
As Dr. Custalow wrote in The True Story of Pocahontas, The Other Side of History:
Although Wahunsenaca did not attend the wedding, we know through sacred Mattaponi oral history that he gave Pocahontas a pearl necklace as a wedding gift. The pearls were obtained from the Chesapeake Bay oyster beds. The necklace was notable for the large size and fine quality of the pearls. Pearls of the size were rare, making them a suitable gift for a paramount chief’s daughter. No mention of this necklace has been found in the English writings, but a portrait of Pocahontas wearing a pearl necklace used to hang in the Gov.’s mansion in Richmond.
Pocahontas Was Brought to England To Raise Money and Was Then Likely Murdered
Rumors of the colonists desire to bring Pocahontas made its way to the Powhatan, who feared for her well-being and considered an attempt to rescue her. But Wahunsenaca feared his daughter might be harmed.
Rebecca “Pocahontas” Rolfe traveled to England with John Rolfe, her son Thomas Rolfe, Captain John Argall (who had kidnapped her) and several Native tribal members, including her sister Mattachanna.
Though many settlers were committing atrocities against the Powhatan, many elites in England did not approve of the mistreatment of natives. The bringing of Pocahontas to England to show friendship with Native nations was a key to continued financial support for the colonists.
According to the accounts of Mattachanna, she realized that she was being used and desperately desired to return home to her father and little Kocoum. During her travels in England, Pocahontas did meet John Smith and expressed outrage due to the mistreatment of his position as leader of the colonists and the betrayal to the Powhatan people.
After the journey and showing off of Pocahontas to the English elites, plans were made to return to Virginia in the spring of 1617. According to a recounting by Mattachanna, she was in good health while in England and on the ship preparing to go home.
Shortly after a dinner with Rolfe and Argall, she vomited and died. Those tribal members who were accompanying her, including her sister Mattachanna, said she was in previous good health and assessed she must have been poisoned due to her sudden death.
According to Mattaponi oral history, many of the Native people accompanying Pocahontas were sold as servants or carnival attractions or sent to Bermuda if they became pregnant after being raped and sold into slavery.
Pocahontas was just under 21 at the time of her death. Instead of being taken home and laid to rest with her father, Rolfe and Argall took her to Gravesend, England, where she was buried at Saint George’s Church, March 21, 1617. Though Virginia tribes have requested that her remains returned for repatriation, officials in England say the exact whereabouts of her remains are not known.
Wahunsenaca learned from Mattachanna that his beloved daughter had died but had never betrayed her people, as some historians claim. Heartbroken that he had not ever rescued his daughter, he died from grief less than a year after the death of Pocahontas.
The Descendants of Pocahontas
Oral histories of both the Mattaponi and Patawomeck and historical references say she mothered two children, Thomas Rolfe, who was left in England after the death of his mother, and ‘little Kocoum.’
According to Deyo, Little Kocoum was the name that Dr. Linwood Custalow used for the purpose of his book to reference a small child whose name was not yet known. In the sacred oral history of the Mattaponi, the child was raised by the Patawomeck Tribe. The name of that child was passed down in the Patawomeck oral history was discovered to be Ka-Okee, a daughter.
This lineage to Ka-Okee includes the world famous entertainer Wayne Newton, a member of the Virginia state-recognized Powhatan Patawomeck tribe.
Thomas Rolfe stayed in England and was educated there. He later returned to the Powhatan as an adult. He was married and had many descendants.
-
Actually, he is...even the name Pocahontas generally refers to a historical myth...
Damn, you, Jeff!
What' next? You are going to tell me that Santa is not real? That Disney was the real progenitor of fake news?
-
Actually, he is...even the name Pocahontas generally refers to a historical myth with racist overtones...in case you are unfamiliar with the REAL "Pocahontas" whose birth name was actually Matoaka, here's a story about the historical sad reality...and if you know the real story of Pocahontas you would understand why native Americans find the use of the name to describe Warren as racist...and so should you. (I'll be you don't real the whole story :~)
The True Story of Pocahontas: Historical Myths Versus Sad Reality (https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/genealogy/true-story-pocahontas-historical-myths-versus-sad-reality/)
It's interesting that you didn't even consider the insult to Indians when Elizabeth Warren, a white woman, passed herself off as an Indian woman, like Pocahontas, to gain minority advantage of their race. I didn't know the Pocahontas story that you describe, or do most Americans or Disney for that matter. But, that name is the only name that 99% of Americans associate with a Indian woman. I can't think of any others, off hand. So when Trump calls Warren Pocahontas, we immediately understand the point he is making about Warren who usurped another race's identity for her own personal gain. She's the one who insulted the Indians.
-
II didn't know the Pocahontas story that you describe, or do most Americans or Disney for that matter. But, that name is the only name that 99% of Americans associate with a Indian woman. I can't think of any others, off hand.
Sacagawea (1788-1812). Significant contributor to the Lewis and Clark expedition.
-
+1
Not a single lie there.
In the NYT article? Really?
-
She falsely identified as a Native American for personal gain.
And you know this how?
The funny thing is that Scott Brown tried that same line on her back in the 2012 Senate race and was awarded "Two Pinocchios" for the claim...Scott lost BTW.
Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she ‘applied’ to Harvard and Penn? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversy-over-elizabeth-warrens-claimed-native-american-heritage/2012/09/27/d0b7f568-08a5-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.6a5b8d7522cd)
The Pinocchio Test
Brown said that Warren “checked the box claiming she was Native American” when she applied to Harvard and Penn, suggesting the Democratic candidate somehow gained an unfair advantage because of an iffy ethnic background. But there is no proof that she ever marked a form to tell the schools about her heritage, nor is there any public evidence that the universities knew about her lineage before hiring her.
The senator’s debate comments also suggest Warren actively applied for positions with Harvard and Penn, but the evidence suggests the schools recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy. Harvard, in fact, did not give up on her after she first turned down a tenured position with the university.
Some might assume that Warren listed herself as a minority in the law school directories to attract offers from top schools, which would be a pro-active measure. The explanation that she was reaching out to other Native Americans — when she was merely listed as a “minority” — certainly appears suspicious, but there is no conclusive evidence that she used her status in the listing to land a job.
But Warren appears to have been well-qualified for the teaching positions and excelled once she was hired.
The Fact Checker expects accusers to satisfy the burden of proof for their charges. That was the case when Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney tried to avoid taxes with offshore accounts. We awarded four Pinocchios to Reid because the senator lacked conclusive evidence — or much evidence at all, for that matter. We’ve also knocked the Obama campaign repeatedly for jumping to unwarranted conclusions about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital.
The outstanding questions about Warren’s directory listing — and her relying on family lore rather than official documentation to make an ethnic claim — certainly raise serious concerns about Warren’s judgment. But in the debate, the Republican incumbent conflated conjecture and sketchy information to make a claim not supported by the available evidence, and so he earns Two Pinocchios.
Trump is using the Pocahontas tag as a way of belittling Warren. It's simply base, mean hearted nastiness with racist and sexist overtones–something Trump does all the time and seems to get away with. But it's something that the President of the United States of America should have the class to avoid...
-
...it's something that the President of the United States of America should have the class to avoid...
No effing kidding.
-
And, just to be clear, Trump used the "Pocahontas" line as a way of side stepping to avoid answering a question in his Fox Infomercial interview this morning...
Donald Trump responds to Elizabeth Warren’s claim that ‘people will die’ due to Republican health care bill (https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/06/25/donald-trump-responds-to-elizabeth-warrens-claim-that-people-will-die-due-to-republican-health-care-bill)
(https://www.boston.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/trumpwarren-850x478$large.jpeg)
President Donald Trump pictured during a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa last week. –Charlie Neibergall / AP
They’re at it again.
In response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s strongly worded criticism (https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/06/22/elizabeth-warren-says-the-senate-republican-health-care-bill-is-paid-for-with-blood-money) of the Senate Republican health care bill, President Donald Trump shot back at the Massachusetts senator in a Fox News interview Sunday.
Trump was asked about Warren’s claim that “people will die” due to the recently unveiled bill. He responded with some familiar ad hominem attacks.
-----------
“Well, I actually think she’s a hopeless case. I call her Pocahontas, and that’s an insult to Pocahontas. I actually think that she is just somebody who has got a lot of hatred, a lot anger.
…
I don’t think she has the kind of support that some people do. I think she hurt Hillary [Clinton]. I watched her campaigning for Hillary, and she was so angry. Hillary would be sitting back, listening to her, trying to smile, but there were a lot of people in that audience that were going ‘Wow, is this what we want?’ There’s a lot of anger there and hostility.”
-----------
Trump did not address or dispute Warren’s criticism of the legislation, which would significantly cut Medicaid and roll back many aspects of the Affordable Care Act.
“I think she’s a highly overrated voice,” he added, including Warren (not for the first time) on the long list of other people and things (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-overrated-tweets-540479) he thinks are “overrated.”
Actually, you really should click on that list of "overrated" people...it's kinda like a who's who of people that get's on Trump's nerves. And we all know that Trump always lashes out whenever he's attacked and feels threatened...and powerful women threaten Trump. And, sadly, I'm pretty sure people will end up getting less healthcare and most likely will result in people dying who might otherwise had be able to survive.
-
Sacagawea (1788-1812). Significant contributor to the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Of course, I forgot about her. Now she wasn;t abused was she. Maybe Trump should call Warren Sacagawea?
-
Trump really only has himself to blame for all the self inflicted injuries...
Trump’s Deflections and Denials on Russia Frustrate Even His Allies (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/06/26/us/26DC-TRUMP/merlin-to-scoop-123890813-227264-master768.jpg)
The lectern before President Trump spoke on Friday in the East Room of the White House.
He has refused to acknowledge that Russia orchestrated hacking during last year’s election.
Credit Al Drago for The New York Times
In the span of 72 hours, President Trump described the email hacking that roiled the 2016 campaign as a Democratic “hoax” and as clear aggression by Russia that his predecessor, President Barack Obama, failed to address.
Other times, Mr. Trump has said the hacking might have been done by China.
Or, as he claimed during the first general election debate, the hacking could have been the work of a lone wolf weighing 400 pounds, sitting on his bed at home.
Then there was the time Mr. Trump blamed “some guy in his home in New Jersey.”
Or, as Mr. Trump has also suggested, there might not even have been hacking at all…
On Saturday, Mr. Trump tried again to focus attention on Mr. Obama.
“Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action?” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “Focus on them, not T!”
The sad thing for Trump supporters in particular and the GOP in general, is by refusing to admit Russia is to blame and to say it's in the US's best interest to investigate the interference and take steps to avoid a repeat, he gives credence to his critics and gives incentives to his enemies to push all the investigations even harder.
Imagine if Trump had actually accepted what the intelligence community told him and said that a full investigation was in order and then moved on with his agenda and ignored all the intrigue and innuendo and actually used his twitter to move forward instead of being fixated looking backwards about the election.
But no...he tried to influence the investigation of Flynn, belittled the intelligence community which fought back and defended itself. He fired Comey and was surprised the Democrats were upset and ended up prompting Comey to testify which prompted the deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein to hire a special council to investigate stuff Trump really, REALLY doesn't want investigated...
Any way you look at it, Trump has played this whole thing terribly poorly. He's a novice...he's a 71 year old rookie trying to learn governing on the fly by the seat of his pants. He's made everything worse and done very little if anything right.
-
It's a bit old but with Trump talking about Obama using Trump's own word "mean" I thought this was appropoe.
Obama’s Barrage of Complete Sentences Seen as Brutal Attack on Trump (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obamas-barrage-of-complete-sentences-seen-as-brutal-attack-on-trump)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5909805bc14b3c606c109e04/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-Obama-Complete-Sentences.jpg)
PHOTOGRAPH BY SCOTT OLSON / GETTY
By Andy Borowitz April 24, 2017
CHICAGO (The Borowitz Report)—In an appearance at the University of Chicago on Monday, former President Barack Obama unloaded a relentless barrage of complete sentences in what was widely seen as a brutal attack on his successor, Donald Trump. Appearing at his first public event since leaving office, Obama fired off a punishing fusillade of grammatically correct sentences, the likes of which the American people have not heard from the White House since he departed.
“He totally restricted his speech to complete sentences,” Tracy Klugian, a student at the event, said. “It was the most vicious takedown of Trump I’d ever seen.”
“About five or six sentences in, I noticed that all of his sentences had both nouns and verbs in them,” Carol Foyler, another student, said. “I couldn’t believe he was going after Trump like that.”
Obama’s blistering deployment of complete sentences clearly got under the skin of their intended target, who, moments after the event, responded with an angry tweet: “Obama bad (or sick) guy. Failing. Sad!”
-
Trump really only has himself to blame ...
Imagine if Trump had actually accepted what the intelligence community told him and said that a full investigation was in order and then moved on with his agenda and ignored all the intrigue and innuendo and actually used his twitter to move forward instead of being fixated looking backwards about the election.
But no...he tried to influence the investigation of Flynn, belittled the intelligence community which fought back and defended itself. He fired Comey and was surprised the Democrats were upset and ended up prompting Comey to testify which prompted the deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein to hire a special council to investigate stuff Trump really, REALLY doesn't want investigated...
Any way you look at it, Trump has played this whole thing terribly poorly. He's a novice...he's a 71 year old rookie trying to learn governing on the fly by the seat of his pants. He's made everything worse and done very little if anything right.
Well, if he did these things you suggest, you and the democrats still would be attacking him. After all, there is now an independent special investigator Mueller looking into all these things. But you still allude to collusion instead of moving on to real issues the country has. So Trump knows he's in a real battle and will continue to attack back to defend himself.
-
Is anyone surprised the Trump dossier was prepared by a Democrat and Clinton operative?
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/25/explosive-report-reveals-org-behind-trump-dossier-has-strong-ties-to-hillary-clinton-democrats/
-
Well, if he did these things you suggest, you and the democrats still would be attacking him. After all, there is now an independent special investigator Mueller looking into all these things. But you still allude to collusion instead of moving on to real issues the country has. So Trump knows he's in a real battle and will continue to attack back to defend himself.
Yes he attacks and insults everybody in person while they are trying to address some political choices that are made by Trump and the republican party.
He feels personally attacked while people are attacking government policy.
The subject is not about Elizabeth Warren, but about the Senate Republican health care bill.
Nonetheless also here a complete page of posts about 'Pocahontas'- diverging from the subject.
I cannot remember one president that made personal insults like that and Mr Trump - the president of the USA, does it on a daily basis.
-
Yes he attacks and insults everybody in person while they are trying to address some political choices that are made by Trump and the republican party.
He feels personally attacked while people are attacking government policy.
The subject is not about Elizabeth Warren, but about the Senate Republican health care bill.
Nonetheless also here a complete page of posts about 'Pocahontas'- diverging from the subject.
I cannot remember one president that made personal insults like that and Mr Trump - the president of the USA, does it on a daily basis.
Elizabeth Warren, a Senator, one of only 100 in the world, effectively linked Trump to murder ("people will die") for trying to get new health care legislation done before Obamacare goes bankrupt. Thousands of people have been losing their medical coverage as insurance companies have been pulling out of Obamacare because they are losing money. So he punched back reminding the world that Elizabeth Warren stole someone else's race for her own personal advantage. Who's insulting whom depends on where you stand.
I'm sorry you don't like our president.
-
Trump wins the travel ban in the Supreme Court unless the foreign national has a close relationship with an American. All others will be barred for 90 days from the 6 nations on the list. Ban goes into effect in 72 hours. Let's watch how the liberal media spins this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-limited-version-of-trumps-travel-ban-to-take-effect-will-consider-case-in-fall/2017/06/26/97afa314-573e-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html
-
unless the foreign national has a close relationship with an American.
so people colluding with Trump are excluded... a wise decision !
-
Here's the full opinion of the COurt,
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Interesting that I read nothing about what Trump said regarding his reasons that liberals and the biased media made such a big deal out of calling him a bigot. Nor did I read any opinion how the "establish clause" of the Constitution regarding religious rights of Muslims or other religious groups, had anything to do with their decision. They ignored these things.
It seems to me they made a fair and reasonable ruling that allows the president to protect America while still allowing individuals who have solid connections to America and Americans, such as familial, work, college, the right to enter. All others can be kept out for 90 days as per the Executive Order.
-
Trump has been president for almost 6 months. Shouldn't the vetting review already be done?
Or has the Trump administration done nothing?
The courts blocking the executive orders did not, in any way, affect the government's plan to review the vetting process.....if they ever had a plan that is.
-
...
Thousands of people have been losing their medical coverage as insurance companies have been pulling out of Obamacare because they are losing money.
...
While it's estimated that 13 million people would lose insurance under the GOP plan. I don't believe America will ever have the level of affordable and accessible healthcare enjoyed by Australia, Japan, and most other advanced countries.
-
People in the USA eat poorly and don't exercise nearly as much.
So, as a recent GOP representative said:
Republican Blurts Out That Sick People Don’t Deserve Affordable Care (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/republican-sick-people-dont-deserve-affordable-care.html)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/01/1-mo-brooks.w710.h473.jpg)
Mo Brooks, mo’ problems. Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Republicans usually defend their health-care position with an array of buzzwords like choice, patient-centric, or competition. In a CNN interview, Representative Mo Brooks, an Alabama Republican, makes the case for Trumpcare in much starker terms: It will free healthy people from having to pay the cost of the sick. “It will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy,” explained Brooks. “And right now, those are the people who have done things the right way that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”
So, next I guess we will stockpile old people in mass dormitories because they lived too long? As it stands, 2/3 of nursing home patients get Medicaid support so let's find a cheap way of housing them so young people don't have to pay.
And all those babies (49%) whose births are subsidized by Medicaid, let's just quit allowing all those poor people to have babies because it's costing the rest of us too much money?
And how about the the kids with disabilities? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (http://www.kff.org/report-section/medicaid-at-50-people-with-disabilities/) more than 10 million children and adults who qualify for Medicaid based on disability include individuals with physical impairments and conditions such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, and multiple sclerosis; spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries; severe mental health conditions, such as depression and schizophrenia; intellectual and developmental disabilities, including Down Syndrome and autism; and other functional limitations. So, sick or disabled through no fault of their own, do these kids not deserve care?
So, yeah, America doesn't eat healthy and doesn't exercise enough...so let's just let the sick and fat people die?
Do you realize how heartless that sounds? We don't eat right and exercise so what, we don't deserve healthcare?
-
While it's estimated that 13 million people would lose insurance under the GOP plan. I don't believe America will ever have the level of affordable and accessible healthcare enjoyed by Australia, Japan, and most other advanced countries.
I hear that Trumpcare is like Trump University except that you die.
-
It's probably time to start a TRUMP II branch on LuLa so the Coffee Corner can be cleared of this absurd, ongoing, never-ending series of asinine posts. Trump's been President now for six months and he's going to continue to be President for at least another 3 1/2 years; probably for another 7 1/2 years. The 7 1/2 probability is being enhanced by the kind of thing you see on this thread.
-
Is anyone surprised the Trump dossier was prepared by a Democrat and Clinton operative?
Too bad the truth doesn't line up with your "facts"...
How the Trump dossier came to light: secret sources, a retired spy and John McCain (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain)
What began as opposition research during the Republican primary slowly grew from a covert investigation into an extraordinary but unverified global story
The extraordinary but unverified documents published on Tuesday on Donald Trump’s ties with Moscow began life as a piece of opposition research, which has become as much a part of US politics as yard signs and coloured balloons.
There is a small industry of research and investigative firms in Washington, typically staffed by a mix of former journalists and security officials, adept at finding information about politicians that the politicians would rather stay hidden. The firms often do not know who exactly is hiring them; the request could come from a law firm acting on behalf of a client from one of the parties.
In this case, the request for opposition research on Donald Trump came from one of his Republican opponents in the primary campaign. The research firm then hired one of its sub-contractors who it used regularly on all things Russian: a retired western European former counter-intelligence official, with a long history of dealing with the shadow world of Moscow’s spooks and siloviki (securocrats).
By the time the contractor had started his research, however, the Republican primary was over. The original client had dropped out, but the firm that had hired him had found a new, Democratic client. This was not necessarily the Hillary Clinton campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Opposition research is frequently financed by wealthy individuals who have donated all they can and are looking for other ways to help.
By July, the counter-intelligence contractor had collected a significant amount of material based on Russian sources who he had grown to trust over the years – not just in Moscow, but also among oligarchs living in the west. He delivered his reports, but the gravity of their contents weighed on him. If the allegations were real, their implications were overwhelming.
He delivered a set to former colleagues in the FBI, whose counter-intelligence division would be the appropriate body to investigate. It is believed he also passed a copy to his own country’s intelligence service, but it felt constrained in what action it could take and left it up to the Americans to do their own investigation and draw their own conclusions.
So, why let facts ruin a good story, huh?
The Blaze article (and the NY Post article it quoted) kinda glossed over the fact it was started by republican anti-trumpers before being pitched to democrats. The Blaze and Post article glosses over the fact that the two founding partners; Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch were both former journalists for The Wall Street Journal, not a known hotbed of leftist journalism huh?
The dossier was first commissioned as opposition research by one of his republican opponents (we don't know who). But after the primary it's presumed that opponent did poorly and then cancelled the contract at which point the opposition research firm went looking for a new client. The research firm found a democratic client.
So what started as a republican effort turned into a democratic effort which so concerned the investigator that he continued the investigation pro bono and turned over the dossier to friends at the FBI and presumably his own country.
The interesting thing is that while there are things in the dossier that are not yet confirmed, there are some things that have been confirmed.
I wonder what the truth is, don't you?
-
It's probably time to start a TRUMP II branch on LuLa so the Coffee Corner can be cleared of this absurd, ongoing, never-ending series of asinine posts.
You are free to quit reading these asinine posts any time now bud.
Trump's been President now for six months and he's going to continue to be President for at least another 3 1/2 years; probably for another 7 1/2 years. The 7 1/2 probability is being enhanced by the kind of thing you see on this thread.
That's assuming Trump doesn't pop a blood vessel yelling at his TV or isn't taken down by the numerous investigations that have spawned. Heck, he's only been president for 6 months and we know of 3 House and at least 2 maybe 3 Senate investigations then the FBI and the special council investigation. But hey, maybe nothing really will come of them all. Or, maybe he ends up getting drummed out of office.
In either event, as long as this thread does not devolve into personal attacks and nastiness to each other, I'm pretty sure Kevin and Chris will let this thread continue. Heck, we're at almost 4K posts and 99K reads. Why quit now?
-
What makes you think I've been reading it, Jeff? I gave that up weeks ago. The problem with it is that it's just THERE on the Coffee Corner. It's like a roadblock steering traffic around a broken sewer.
-
And, now to continue this absurd, ongoing, never-ending series of asinine posts...
The President of the United States of America was very, very busy on Twitter on Sunday. In case you missed them:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Democrats have become nothing but OBSTRUCTIONISTS, they have no policies or ideas. All they do is delay and complain.They own ObamaCare!
5:30 AM - 26 Jun 2017
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The reason that President Obama did NOTHING about Russia after being notified by the CIA of meddling is that he expected Clinton would win..
5:37 AM - 26 Jun 2017
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
...and did not want to "rock the boat." He didn't "choke," he colluded or obstructed, and it did the Dems and Crooked Hillary no good.
5:50 AM - 26 Jun 2017
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The real story is that President Obama did NOTHING after being informed in August about Russian meddling. With 4 months looking at Russia...
5:59 AM - 26 Jun 2017
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
..under a magnifying glass, they have zero "tapes" of T people colluding. There is no collusion & no obstruction. I should be given apology!
6:05 AM - 26 Jun 2017
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Republican Senators are working very hard to get there, with no help from the Democrats. Not easy! Perhaps just let OCare crash & burn!
6:14 AM - 26 Jun 2017
Such a busy boy...but Donny, the election is over, if Obama HAD done something more than he did YOU would likely not president and the reason that democrats have not been involved in any healthcare discussions at all? Only 13 old GOP white guys did the top secret draft of the senate healthcare plan and democrats were forbidden from the meetings. Kinda hard to to get support for something done in total secrecy, don't ya think?
-
What makes you think I've been reading it, Jeff?
Uh because you described it as absurd, ongoing, never-ending series of asinine posts?
But, oooops, you came and read it again...you need to exert more self discipline–DON'T READ THIS POST
:~)
-
The Trumpster is so darn smart, he outsmarted himself (and not for the first time).
John Oliver: Donald Trump’s Tape Admission “Extraordinarily Stupid” Confirmation Of James Comey Testimony (http://deadline.com/2017/06/john-oliver-donald-trump-tapes-james-comey-extraordinarily-stupid-confirm-witness-tampering-1202119782/)
(https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/last-week_-tonight-john_-oliver.jpg?w=446&h=299&crop=1)
Last Week Tonight host John Oliver reveled in last week’s admission by President Donald Trump that he did not, as he had suggested on Twitter, tape his conversations with FBI director James Comey before sacking him.
“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Trump tweeted back in May.
On Thursday, Trump tweeted that he had no idea if someone taped conversations with Comey, but he did not have any such tapes. Soon thereafter, Trump explained why he had suggested there were recordings, telling Fox News Channel that while he did not tape Comey, “you never know what’s happening when you see the Obama administration” with all its “unmasking and surveillance” and “horrible situation with surveillance all over the place, so you never know what’s out there.”
Observed Oliver, “Whenever Trump talks, it’s like a cross between a lottery machine that spits out words and a Speak & Spell that just fell into a toilet.”
But Trump also explained to FNC the strategic brilliance of his first tweet as a means of influencing Comey.
“When he found out that maybe there were tapes out there, whether governmental tapes or who knows…I think his story may have changed,” Trump said of Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“You’ll have to take a look at that, because he has to tell what actually took place at the events. My story didn’t change. My story was always a straight story. My story was always the truth. But you’ll have to determine for yourself whether or not his story changed.”
Thrown a compliment that it was “a smart way to make sure he stayed honest at those hearings” Trump responded, “Well, it wasn’t very stupid, I can tell you.”
“Let’s break down what just happened there,” Oliver dove in with both feet.
“He didn’t just casually admit to misleading the American public. He also implied that doing so may have swayed Comey testimony which, if that was his intent, could constitute witness tampering.”
Trump also implied in his remark that tossing out the tape idea compelled Comey to tell the truth. In so doing, Oliver noted, Trump verified Comey’s account of his interaction with Trump, “which is incredibly damaging to the president.”
“So yeah, Trump might be right. It wasn’t very stupid.
“It was extraordinarily stupid.”
It's remarkable what Trump says and/or tweets when he's not using a teleprompter. But heh, Trump's like a smart guy, really–he said so himself!!!
Trump to CIA: ‘Trust me, I'm like a smart person’ (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-cia-trust-smart-person-article-1.2952569)
-
Interesting that I read nothing about what Trump said regarding his reasons that liberals and the biased media made such a big deal out of calling him a bigot. Nor did I read any opinion how the "establish clause" of the Constitution regarding religious rights of Muslims or other religious groups, had anything to do with their decision. They ignored these things.
Admittedly, this is fairly arcane stuff, but it's important to understand that this was a response to an application for a writ of certiorari—a request by the government for the Supreme Court to schedule a discretionary review of the preliminary injunctions, issued by lower federal courts, that have been preventing the Administration from restricting entry of foreign nationals pursuant to the Trump executive order. It is not a decision on the merits of the claims by the plaintiffs who are challenging the executive order as an improper restriction on religious liberty. No court, at any level, has yet decided the merits of this case. The issue before the Supreme Court today was only whether the preliminary injunctions were properly granted.
In granting the writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court also modified the preliminary injunctions to the extent that they applied to foreigners with no connection to persons or institutions in the United States on the theory that
[d]enying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself.
Preliminary injunctions are fairly rare. They are granted when a court concludes that the party seeking the injunction is likely to win on the merits of its lawsuit. The Supreme Court today rejected the government's contention that the lower courts should not have granted preliminary injunctions, but it modified those injunctions to the extent that they affected foreigners who have no claim that would be recognized under U.S. law.
-
Too bad the truth doesn't line up with your "facts"...
How the Trump dossier came to light: secret sources, a retired spy and John McCain (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain)
So, why let facts ruin a good story, huh?
I wonder what the truth is, don't you?
OK. Both Democrats and anti - Trump elite swamp Republicans paid for a phony dossier to get Trump. A plague on both their houses.
-
Trump has been president for almost 6 months. Shouldn't the vetting review already be done?
Or has the Trump administration done nothing?
The courts blocking the executive orders did not, in any way, affect the government's plan to review the vetting process.....if they ever had a plan that is.
I thought I already stated this somewhere.
The point you are making is not correct. The lower court stopped all government review of the vetting process. One of the appeals courts however, on or about June 12, allowed the review to commence again. So the administration could not have completed the vetting review. Now they'll get their 90 days per SCOTUS.
-
Admittedly, this is fairly arcane stuff, but it's important to understand that this was a response to an application for a writ of certiorari—a request by the government for the Supreme Court to schedule a discretionary review of the preliminary injunctions, issued by lower federal courts, that have been preventing the Administration from restricting entry of foreign nationals pursuant to the Trump executive order. It is not a decision on the merits of the claims by the plaintiffs who are challenging the executive order as an improper restriction on religious liberty. No court, at any level, has yet decided the merits of this case. The issue before the Supreme Court today was only whether the preliminary injunctions were properly granted.
In granting the writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court also modified the preliminary injunctions to the extent that they applied to foreigners with no connection to persons or institutions in the United States on the theory that
Preliminary injunctions are fairly rare. They are granted when a court concludes that the party seeking the injunction is likely to win on the merits of its lawsuit. The Supreme Court today rejected the government's contention that the lower courts should not have granted preliminary injunctions, but it modified those injunctions to the extent that they affected foreigners who have no claim that would be recognized under U.S. law.
I understand your point.. But I'm wondering went on in private. This was a 9-0 decision. 3 of the justices wrote a concurring brief that supported throwing out the entire lower court injunction. In affect stating that even those who may have American connections should not be allowed in if only for the practical reason that how is the government going to determine that relationship. It's not spelled out. They said it will only go back to the same courts to review that just got overruled 9-0.
Both the original full court ruling and the supporting ruling's conclusion never seem to consider religion or what Trump said although the SCOTUS papers referred to it when discussing the lower courts' rulings. Nothing was said about the "sausage making" that goes on as laws and executive orders are done. I think the fact SCOTUS didn't mention it gives hope that if they do return to this case, their ruling will definitive state that what Presidents and Congressmen and Senators say during free and open debate should not be part of a ruling. Only what a law or Executive Order actually states should be reviewed for Constitutionality. Otherwise every law and EO can be quashed based on what someone said rather than the act itself opening up every law to who said what and when. It will stifle open and free debate. Everyone's comments should be heard from the ones that are noble to those that are base because that's how sausages and laws are made.
Also, If this thing goes to SCOTUS again, which I doubt, we could also hear about whether the President and the law congress gives the president allows him to decide based on religious affiliation as well, and whether non-American aliens are protected by the establishment clause of the Constitution. You would think the court would have somehow even mentioned it considering the 9-0 vote. None of the 9 flinched regarding the establishment challenge to the EO or what Trump said prior to enacting the EO.
-
That is correct. People in the USA eat poorly and don't exercise nearly as much. Until we stop actively trying to kill ourselves, our healthcare is always going to be pretty damn expensive.
Some of the healthcare costs are because Americans expect the best and not have to pay for it because insurance covers it. The reasons it's cheaper in Europe and other places is that healthcare is rationed. For example, you can get an MRI in the US the same or next day. In other countries you have to wait months. My wife who broke her leg and had surgery had 7 or 8 X-rays of the leg after surgery prescribed by the surgeon. It cost around $475 for each x-ray including the radiologist's reviews. Of course it only cost us 10% of that out-of-pocket. So who cared? If we had to pay that much, I would have at least asked the surgeon if it was necessary to have an xray every time. Also, the surgeon ordered these Xrays for each visit to protect himself from malpractice lawsuits in case something went wrong. So huge and unnecessary amounts are being spent for little practical purpose.
What will happen with Obamacare, national health care, or Trumpcare, or whatever is that once everyone has insurance whether private or national, costs will become so high that rationing will be imposed. Also, more cost limits for doctor payment will be imposed lowering the quality of the doctors. In any case, healthcare in the US is a runaway train.
-
...Furthermore, if people want to have children why can't they have them when they are ready? Also, why can't people practice safe sex? Neither are difficult to do.
At my age, I'm for any kind of sex. :)
-
This is a tragic development for American justice system and democracy. It turns judges into mind readers, instead of reading the law.
Thanks god the SCOTUS agreed with me 😊
-
Also, If this thing goes to SCOTUS again, which I doubt, we could also hear about whether the President and the law congress gives the president allows him to decide based on religious affiliation as well, and whether non-American aliens are protected by the establishment clause of the Constitution.
"This thing" is going to the Supreme Court again. Precisely because what the Justices did in today's order was to agree to schedule the government's appeal for a hearing when the Supreme Court begins its new term in October. In doing so, they slightly modified the lower court delay in carrying out Trump's executive order, which otherwise remains in effect while the issues are litigated. That is all they did. There has been no decision on the merits and in my experience* it's almost impossible to infer how the Court will finally rule in a particular case by its decision to grant certiorari.
When the Justices do consider the issues, there are a number of ways they could rule. I think there are four likely alternatives. They could (1) decide that the claims made by the plaintiffs, even when interpreted in a manner most favorable to the plaintiffs, could not as a matter of law constitute a valid challenge to the Trump executive order, and simply dismiss the lawsuits (i.e., no further evaluation of the facts by a trial court would be necessary); (2) provide guidance on the legal parameters that should govern future litigation on the issues, and let the lawsuits proceed in the lower courts; (3) declare the current case before the Supreme Court to be moot (not justiciable because of things that have happened between now and then—e.g., if the government has concluded its review of the entry procedures for the countries in question); (4) avoid these issues altogether and just rule on the validity of the part of the injunction they let stand today, which would be tantamount to proceeding per option 2 but without further legal guidance.
___
*I'm a lawyer and I covered the Supreme Court as a reporter for six years.
-
"This thing" is going to the Supreme Court again. Precisely because what the Justices did in today's order was to agree to schedule the government's appeal for a hearing when the Supreme Court begins its new term in October. In doing so, they slightly modified the lower court delay in carrying out Trump's executive order, which otherwise remains in effect while the issues are litigated. That is all they did. There has been no decision on the merits and in my experience* it's almost impossible to infer how the Court will finally rule in a particular case by its decision to grant certiorari.
When the Justices do consider the issues, there are a number of ways they could rule. I think there are four likely alternatives. They could (1) decide that the claims made by the plaintiffs, even when interpreted in a manner most favorable to the plaintiffs, could not as a matter of law constitute a valid challenge to the Trump executive order, and simply dismiss the lawsuits (i.e., no further evaluation of the facts by a trial court would be necessary); (2) provide guidance on the legal parameters that should govern future litigation on the issues, and let the lawsuits proceed in the lower courts; (3) declare the current case before the Supreme Court to be moot (not justiciable because of things that have happened between now and then—e.g., if the government has concluded its review of the entry procedures for the countries in question); (4) avoid these issues altogether and just rule on the validity of the part of the injunction they let stand today, which would be tantamount to proceeding per option 2 but without further legal guidance.
___
*I'm a lawyer and I covered the Supreme Court as a reporter for six years.
Chris: At first I though that 3 would happen since the 90 days will be over and the Administration would have completed it's new vetting process and the travel ban would end. There would be no case to review. Unfortunately, I'm thinking logically based on what most people would do.
But now, I'm thinking that will not happen. Knowing Trump, the disruptor, he might want the fight to continue the case to prove he was right about all or most of the issues. SCOTUS has already ruled 9-0 that the president has the right to exclude aliens. So he can't lose on that. SCOTUS is not going to reverse themselves. It's possible that he could win on the other part where they agreed 6-3 that aliens with close relations with America or Americans cannot be banned. But they could reverse even that and make him a 100% winner. So he has little to lose by keeping it going and a lot to win politically. Even if SCOTUS doesn't help with the other part, the issue would stay in the news and remind everyone he won.
So what he's going to do is to issue new vetting after the 90 days that would eliminate practically all entry of aliens for one year, or maybe even permanently until the war with ISIS is completed and we are safe again. That will drive the Democrats nuts. The liberal media will go crazy. And his supporters will scream their approval at his determination to protect the country. The lower court will say the ban is unconstitutional. SCOTUS will overrule them and allow the ban against aliens with no relationship with America.
This is the part of the decision that will make Trump feel he'll have the support of SCOTUS:
From SCOTUS Decision page 11:
...But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762 (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . has no constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below. At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former cate- gory. See, e.g., §§3(c)(i)–(vi). The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else...
-
Clarification: When I say all aliens, I'm referring to those from the 6 nations in the current EO.
If Trump does what I suggest, or something like it, Scotus will know they've been had. But what are they going to do about it? They can't change their current position about aliens that have no relationship to America or Americans. They'll have to continue that ban.
-
Trump just issued a warning to Syria's Assad and his top leaders not to drop more chemical bombs that they are apparently preparing to drop. Otherwise, he will hold them personally responsible. A red line like Obama.
Of course, I don't think this message is mainly for Assad. It's really to put pressure on China regarding North Korea.
-
MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD GIVE UP ALCOHOL TO SEE DONALD TRUMP IMPEACHED, SURVEY SAYS (http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-quit-drinking-so-donald-trump-impeached-survey-629110)
Donald Trump's presidency has caused stress and anxiety in Americans across the country, many of whom have opted to offset their worries with an extra glass of wine or two or shots of whiskey from time to time. But as it turns out, the majority of citizens say they would quit drinking alcohol tomorrow if it meant the president would be impeached.
Nearly 73 percent of Democrats and 17 percent of Republicans said they would abstain from alcohol for the rest of their lives if they could see the official political process begin to remove Trump, according to a Detox.net survey of 1,013 men and women nationwide. The latest data set showing support for Trump’s impeachment—an exhaustive political process that includes no definite promise of his removal—comes at a time when multiple Democratic lawmakers are drafting articles of impeachment and at some point could bring them to the floor of Congress.
Meanwhile, more than 30 percent of Republicans surveyed said they’d quit drinking in order to have the media stop writing negative articles about Trump, compared to 6.5 percent of Democrats.
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/full/public/2017/06/26/alcohol.jpg)
73 percent of Democrats and 17 percent of Republicans would quit drinking forever if it meant Trump would be impeached tomorrow.
DETOX
Personally, I've already given up drinking...sure glad I did otherwise this Trump stuff would drive me off the cliff!
-
Majority Of Global Poll Respondents Find Trump Arrogant, Dangerous (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/26/534442273/majority-of-global-poll-respondents-find-trump-arrogant-dangerous)
(http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2017/06/pew-world-opinion-map.png)
A new poll from the Pew Research Center has found that Donald Trump's presidency is strongly and negatively impacting how the rest of the world views the United States.
At the end of Barack Obama's term, 64 percent of global respondents said they were confident in the U.S. president, compared to 22 percent now. Seventy-four percent of those surveyed said they have no confidence in Trump.
Compared to the final years of Obama's presidency, Trump received higher ratings in just two of the 37 countries surveyed – Russia and Israel.
The Trump administration is aiming to improve relations with Russia. The president has also expressed a desire to help mediate a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, while his policies have also appeared to embolden settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.
"The sharp decline in how much global publics trust the U.S. president on the world stage is especially pronounced among some of America's closest allies in Europe and Asia, as well as neighboring Mexico and Canada," the report states.
The negative perceptions of the U.S. president appear to be impacting U.S. favorability ratings in general. Sixty-four percent of those surveyed had favorable views of the U.S. at the end of the Obama presidency, compared to 49 percent now.
(http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2017/06/pew-world-opinion-traits.png)
Arrogant, intolerant and dangerous — these are all traits that a sizeable majority of global respondents said describe the U.S. president. On the other hand, 55 percent see him as a strong leader, while 39 percent say that he is charismatic.
Only about one in four people stated that they found Trump "well-qualified to be president" and "caring about ordinary people."
The survey asked about five of the Trump administration's signature policy proposals — withdrawing from the Iran deal, restricting travelers from some Muslim-majority countries, withdrawing from climate change and trade agreements, and building a wall along the border with Mexico. It found that all of these positions are unpopular globally.
It's worth noting that Americans as a people remain popular, and "a median of 58% say they have a favorable impression of Americans." Global respondents also tend to like U.S. popular culture, such as television and music, by a wide margin.
#MAGA Make the world hate the USA....
-
Well, I'm glad this issue is finally put to bed!!!
Park Service behaved appropriately regarding Trump crowd reports, watchdog finds (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/26/trump-crowd-estimates-park-service-239976)
(http://static.politico.com/dims4/default/a4d5d13/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F92%2F2b%2F432d9efe4b9fa9a87f7a336d2a25%2F170626-crowd-size-ap-1160.jpg)
One day after the inauguration, White House press secretary Sean Spicer lambasted reporters in the briefing room and said, falsely, that Trump’s inaugural had drawn
the “largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period.” | AP Photo
The feud between the National Park Service and the Trump White House appeared to ease on Monday after a watchdog found that NPS officials did not alter inauguration crowd size estimates and that public affairs officials did not leak information about a phone call between President Donald Trump and the agency’s acting director.
The NPS was wrapped up in the controversy that overwhelmed the first days of Trump’s administration after the president and his aides claimed record crowds at his inauguration and railed against those who cast doubt on the claim.
One day after the inauguration, White House press secretary Sean Spicer lambasted reporters in the briefing room and said, falsely, that Trump’s inaugural had drawn the “largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period.”
The Park Service became the target of Trump’s ire after its Twitter account retweeted side-by-side images that appeared to show a paltry crowd for Trump’s inauguration compared to former President Barack Obama.
The feud deepened when reports leaked of a phone call Trump placed the day after the inauguration to Acting NPS Director Michael Reynolds in which the president allegedly ordered the agency to produce images to help prove his claims of crowd size.
But a report from the Department of the Interior Inspector General released on Monday found that NPS employees did not alter crowd size records and the NPS public affairs officials did not leak information to the press about the phone call.
The report does not make clear who requested the investigation, which was initiated in February.
Hum, I wonder who would care so much that they demanded an investigation?
T?
(I get a kick out of the fact the Trumpster has taken to referring to himself as 'T' on Twitter...does it stand for Trump or Twit?)
-
Hum, I'll bet the Trumpster won't be happy that overrated Alec Baldwin will be back on the overrated Saturday Night Live Fall season :~)
'SNL': Alec Baldwin will return as Donald Trump in season 43 (http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/snl-alec-baldwin-will-return-as-donald-trump-in-season-43/ar-BBDiLng)
(http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBDj0vJ.img?h=486&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1314&y=462)
Alec Baldwin, you’re not fired.
After previously saying he wouldn’t keep portraying Donald Trump for “much longer,” the 30 Rock alum has now declared he will be back in the wig and suit for season 43 of Saturday Night Live.
“Yeah, we’re going to fit that in,” he told CNN. “I think people have enjoyed it.” According to CNN, Baldwin’s other commitments will mean a little less of his Trump impersonation, with fans getting “a couple celery sticks” instead of a “whole meal.”
-
Prime minister Modi could lecture Trump on climate change — India is leapfrogging the US on renewables (http://www.businessinsider.com/modi-trump-meeting-india-renewables-climate-change-2017-6)
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/kenrapoza/files/2014/04/Narendra_Modi.jpg)
India's prime minister Narendra Modi is meeting with President Donald Trump on Monday, and the agenda could include climate change as the two prepare for the G-20 Summit in July.
In the wake of Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, Modi might have a thing or two to lecture the American president about. India is leapfrogging the US with ambitious renewable energy goals — and it's achieving them.
Following the US' departure from the Paris accord, countries like India, China, and the EU have "stepped up to fill the void the US left behind" John Coequyt, the Sierra Club's global climate policy director, told Business Insider on Monday.
India wants to get nearly 60% of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027, and the country is on track to exceed the goals it set in its commitment to the Paris deal.
"India in particular has made huge progress in terms of not only meeting but actually being on track to exceed its Paris commitments," Coequyt said, "and as the cost of solar energy and other renewables continues to fall globally, we're only going to see that trend accelerate."
So how did India, infamous for its sometimes choking pollution in major cities, cut back its emissions faster than anyone predicted? One word: coal.
India has been unabashedly shutting down its coal plants. For example, The Independent reported last week that Coal India, the world's largest coal company that's responsible for 82% of India's coal, announced it was closing 37 mines due to the economic non-viability of the fossil fuel. Indian economic coal imports are falling, and Bloomberg reported the India's energy minister announced the government wants to do-away with coal imports entirely.
Dropping coal isn't a new phenomenon in India. From July 2015 to July 2016, India's "coal plant pipeline" fell by 40 gigawatts, according to Coal Swarm. And under its draft National Electricity Plan from December 2016, the country isn't planning on building any new coal power plants.
By virtue of adopting renewables with such gusto, about 25,000 remote villages in India could never use fossil fuels. They'll sail right past coal and start using solar, hydropower, and biomass as their first sources of electricity.
Yeah, meanwhile Trump is claiming that he's gonna put coal miners back to work! Just about the time everybody is moving on from using coal.
#MAGA Step back in time to the 1890's!
-
Jeff, Did I miss your post on the travel ban since SCOTUS ruled? And Gorsuch sided with the conservatives on the court. And Obama knew from the beginning that Putin ordered interference but Trump didn't collude. How does it feel to keep winning?
-
Typical, claiming credit for something somebody already did...
Trump Promotes a U.S. Gas Trade With India That Already Exists (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/trump-promotes-a-u-s-gas-trade-with-india-that-already-exists)
(http://www.lngworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/capture.jpg)
Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas terminal in Louisiana started shipping in Feb 2016
In promoting trade with India, President Donald Trump suggested Monday that the U.S. is on the verge of signing long-term agreements to send natural gas to the Asian country.
There’s just one thing: India already has long-term agreements for U.S. gas. And it’s received at least seven cargoes of it since the U.S. started liquefying its shale gas and sending it overseas last year, according to ship-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.
After a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump said the U.S. will sign long-term contracts to supply India with American gas, adding that it’s “trying to get the price up a little bit” first. Meanwhile, Indian companies have already secured agreements for supplies from Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas terminal in Louisiana; Dominion Energy Inc.’s planned Cove Point LNG plant in Maryland; and Sempra Energy’s Cameron LNG project in Louisiana, company filings show.
At this point, such long-term gas contracts between the U.S. and India are “not new,” said Anastacia Dialynas, an energy analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "We’ve already had 24 billion cubic feet since we started exporting last year and that will likely increase. The biggest impact this could have is if it signals a new contract being signed."
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on already-existing gas contracts with India.
-
Jeff, Did I miss your post on the travel ban since SCOTUS ruled?
Well, you were posting about it enough, no need for me to weigh in...meanwhile other stuff happened today that I though you might need to know. I like the poll about who would give up alcohol to get Trump impeached! What was YOUR favorite piece of news from Monday? Tuesday brings a whole new crop of news stories :~)
#NEVERADULLMOMENT
-
SCOTUS has already ruled 9-0 that the president has the right to exclude aliens. So he can't lose on that.
No, they didn't.
As you quoted:
and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.viating obvious hardship to anyone else...
That doesn't say he has an absolute right to do so. It says the authority is at its "peak" - it's strongest. It doesn't exclude the possibility that such an order might be invalid in some circumstances. It's important to differentiate between authority and a right in this case. Authority can be withdrawn far easier than can a right.
I don't think anyone (sane) believes that he doesn't have the authority to exclude aliens, or that doing so to those with no ties to the US would have the least restrictions, but the question that arises is the definition of a tie. As the SCotUS also said it's a question of injury to the rights of others that comes into play and again, that's why it's key not to call the Executive's authority a right. The rights of others cannot be abridged by virtue of an authority that does not carry the same level of right (i.e. constitutional).
If Trump's smart (and he's not, but sometimes he know when to leave well enough alone such as the law suits he dropped before taking office), he'll do the review, tighten up the checks, and then move on and hope the SCotUS decides there's no longer anything to decide (because if they decide and limit his authority, then it's done - testing things in court that can go against you when you really don't have anything to gain is silly).
Again, I don't think anyone feels that more robust or thorough checks on people coming from potentially dangerous regions is a problem. The problem is that he didn't include the place all the 9/11 terrorists came from (instead he sold them billions of dollars in arms), and the language and scope of his order was inept. Had he been more reasonable and sensible, he could have easily worked on increasing the vetting and implementing stronger restrictions and actually achieved something, instead of attempting to grandstand and show who was boss and falling flat on his face.
-
No, they didn't.
As you quoted:
That doesn't say he has an absolute right to do so. It says the authority is at its "peak" - it's strongest. It doesn't exclude the possibility that such an order might be invalid in some circumstances. It's important to differentiate between authority and a right in this case. Authority can be withdrawn far easier than can a right.
I don't think anyone (sane) believes that he doesn't have the authority to exclude aliens, or that doing so to those with no ties to the US would have the least restrictions, but the question that arises is the definition of a tie. As the SCotUS also said it's a question of injury to the rights of others that comes into play and again, that's why it's key not to call the Executive's authority a right. The rights of others cannot be abridged by virtue of an authority that does not carry the same level of right (i.e. constitutional).
If Trump's smart (and he's not, but sometimes he know when to leave well enough alone such as the law suits he dropped before taking office), he'll do the review, tighten up the checks, and then move on and hope the SCotUS decides there's no longer anything to decide (because if they decide and limit his authority, then it's done - testing things in court that can go against you when you really don't have anything to gain is silly).
Again, I don't think anyone feels that more robust or thorough checks on people coming from potentially dangerous regions is a problem. The problem is that he didn't include the place all the 9/11 terrorists came from (instead he sold them billions of dollars in arms), and the language and scope of his order was inept. Had he been more reasonable and sensible, he could have easily worked on increasing the vetting and implementing stronger restrictions and actually achieved something, instead of attempting to grandstand and show who was boss and falling flat on his face.
Phil, I'm using "right" and "authority" interchangeably. The point is the President gets his authority to exclude aliens from a Congressional law not SCOTUS. SCOTUS just ruled that as long as the alien has no ties to America or Americans, that authority granted in legislation is constitutional. If a president extends the vetting to make it impossible for that alien to get in unless he can show "he can walk on water", SCOTUS would have to reverse its own opinion to stop him from that kind of extreme vetting. Remember the whole point of what Trump is doing is to make the vetting extreme. So I'm saying the he's going to make a splash with the new vetting ruling to show how tough he is. His supporters will cheer and enemies will scowl. But, SCOTUS has to approve or reverse their own 9-0 ruling.
One other thing. The anti-Trump forces are downplaying the SCOTUS decision. They say it only effects a few tourists and photographers who want to visit Yosemite and get sunset pictures from Inspiration Point. That's nonsense. His EO stops 99.9% of all people living in the 6 countries. They don't have any ties to America. So if any of them are terrorists trying to sneak in, he's stopping them with the EO. People who have ties represent only an tiny percentage of the six countries.
Finally, the argument that the 9-11 terrorists were mainly Saudi has nothing to do with the selection of countries. 9-11 was 16 years ago. After all, Japan is a close ally who was once our mortal enemy. But the main issue is that the 6 nations in the EO are failed states or terrorist states. It's difficult to vet people who want to come here. Saudi Arabia is not a failed state who also chops the heads off of terrorists, We can vet people from there more easily. They are also a strong ally so political decisions are in play as well. These other countries are not our allies. The whole point of the EO is to give the government 90 days to review and adjust the vetting process to take any holes in it that might let in terrorists. Hasn't your country Australia tightened up the rules since 9-11 for aliens to gain entry?
-
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE
...
-
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE
...
Yeah Project Veritas is a reliable source...oh wait they aren't...Google it
-
Yeah Project Veritas is a reliable source...oh wait they aren't...Google it
;D
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40414886
not enough though
-
;D
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40414886
not enough though
And that has zero to do with Project Veritas...
What's your point?
That CNN isn't perfect?
Pretty sure nobody is :-)
-
Wow, even millionaires are thinking Trump isn't doing so well!
Trump's millionaire voters are losing faith — government dysfunction a top worry (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/trumps-millionaire-voters-are-losing-faith-cnbcs-millionaire-survey.html)
CNBC's Millionaire Survey finds that half of all millionaires surveyed are now anti-Trump; 29 percent are pro-Trump.
The millionaires see government dysfunction as the biggest risk.
Among those millionaires surveyed, 45 percent said they voted for Trump.
39 percent identified as Republican.
President Donald Trump is losing support among millionaires, who increasingly worry about government dysfunction.
CNBC's Millionaire Survey found that 45 percent of millionaire respondents voted for Trump, compared with 41 percent for Hillary Clinton. (The survey respondents were 39 percent Republican, 24 percent Democrat and 35 percent independent).
Yet when asked to rate Trump's first 100 days, Trump ranked 38 overall on a scale of 1 to 100.
And when analyzed by "pro-Trump" and "anti-Trump" attitudes, 50 percent of millionaires are now anti-Trump, while only 29 percent are pro-Trump, according to the poll. Only 21 percent have mixed views. That means that some of the millionaire voters who voted for Trump have become "anti-Trump."
"He's an unconventional president, and I think many of these voters are still getting used to that," said George Walper, president of Spectrem Group, which conducts the survey. "And I think that the hopes for tax reform and health-care reform faded a bit."
When asked about the biggest risk to the economy over the next 12 months, government dysfunction ranked first, at 38 percent. Millionaires also said government dysfunction is the biggest threat to their personal wealth.
-
MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD GIVE UP ALCOHOL TO SEE DONALD TRUMP IMPEACHED, SURVEY SAYS (http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-quit-drinking-so-donald-trump-impeached-survey-629110)
Personally, I've already given up drinking...sure glad I did otherwise this Trump stuff would drive me off the cliff!
Just when I thought Dems could not get weaker. These are probably Dems who drink vodka not good single malt Scotch. Lol
Don
-
Wow, even millionaires are thinking Trump isn't doing so well!
Jeff don't worry - for as long as we have Electoral College we shall win ;D ...
-
Couldn't decide whether to post it here or to the Climate & CO2 thread, it fits into both. Here it goes:
http://grist.org/briefly/this-professor-made-a-climate-change-powerpoint-for-trump-and-it-will-make-you-smile/
-
Couldn't decide whether to post it here or to the Climate & CO2 thread, it fits into both. Here it goes:
http://grist.org/briefly/this-professor-made-a-climate-change-powerpoint-for-trump-and-it-will-make-you-smile/
Excellent!
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wow, even millionaires are thinking Trump isn't doing so well!
Trump's millionaire voters are losing faith — government dysfunction a top worry (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/trumps-millionaire-voters-are-losing-faith-cnbcs-millionaire-survey.html)
Trump didn't win because millionaires voted for him. They voted for Hillary who they thought would keep the gravy train rolling for them with crony capitalism. He won because the working man voted for him, you know, the deplorables.
-
And that has zero to do with Project Veritas...
What's your point?
That CNN isn't perfect?
Pretty sure nobody is :-)
Unfortunately, the news media forgot what they learned in Journalism 101 in college. That you present the facts, not color them to make a point. The media now presents news politicized for their viewer's and reader's political viewpoints. Just preaching to the choir to keep their bottom line healthy. Most of it is biased liberal and Democrat. But whatever their viewpoint, it does a disservice to the public who gets fake news.
Because of it, Trump's polling has been swinging down a little. But what people forget is that pendulums have a way of swinging both ways. Trump news is so negative and distorted that people are finally going to get it, including non-Trump supporters. And then his numbers are going to swing the other way.
-
Even the Washington Post, another purveyor of fake news, agrees that CNN is, well, faker than it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnns-russia-story-debacle-came-at-the-worst-possible-time-for-the-network/2017/06/27/8eb23616-5b3d-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html
And CNN's Jim Acosta a White House reporter, screams that Trump should turn back on the cameras during the news conferences with Sean Spicer. Why? Does he want us to see what the liars look like?
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18001/cnns-jim-acosta-cries-little-baby-wh-briefing-joseph-curl
-
And CNN's Jim Acosta a White House reporter, screams that Trump should turn back on the cameras during the news conferences with Sean Spicer. Why? Does he want us to see what the liars look like?
Yep, the reporters want the people of the United States to see Spicer's and Sanders' faces and body language when they spew their own brand of "fake news".
Oh, wait, that's probably not what you meant to say, right?
I mean Spicer and Sanders have never lied from the podium when the cameras were on, PERIOD!
(http://crooksandliars.com/files/mediaposters/2017/01/35458.jpg)
“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”
—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017
-
Trump didn't win because millionaires voted for him. They voted for Hillary who they thought would keep the gravy train rolling for them with crony capitalism. He won because the working man voted for him, you know, the deplorables.
Hum, I guess you didn't bother to actually read the article huh?
From the article:
CNBC's Millionaire Survey found that 45 percent of millionaire respondents voted for Trump, compared with 41 percent for Hillary Clinton. (The survey respondents were 39 percent Republican, 24 percent Democrat and 35 percent independent).
So, in reality, more millionaires, 45% voted for Trump vs 41% for Hillary...last time I checked, 45% was more the 41%, right?
Not sure what that whole "gravy train rolling for them with crony capitalism" is all about unless you are talking about Trump's Swamp™...
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/11/trumpswamp-sack.png)
-
Yep, the reporters want the people of the United States to see Spicer's and Sanders' faces and body language when they spew their own brand of "fake news".
Oh, wait, that's probably not what you meant to say, right?
I mean Spicer and Sanders have never lied from the podium when the cameras were on, PERIOD!
“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.”
—White House press secretary Sean Spicer, remarks to reporters, Jan. 21, 2017
They should make Melania press secretary. Then everyone would watch. Ratings would soar.
-
And, this just in...and it's delicious!!!
And he's the President of the United States of America...
#MAGA!
A Time Magazine with Trump on the cover hangs in his golf clubs. It’s fake. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-time-magazine-with-trump-on-the-cover-hangs-in-his-golf-clubs-its-fake/2017/06/27/0adf96de-5850-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.b7aa7015bb43)
(http://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-27-at-2.57.38-PM-1498590005-compressed.png)
The framed copy of Time Magazine was hung up in at least four of President Trump’s golf clubs, from South Florida to Scotland. Filling the entire cover was a photo of Donald Trump.
“Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!” the big headline said. Above the Time nameplate, there was another headline in all caps: “TRUMP IS HITTING ON ALL FRONTS . . . EVEN TV!”
This cover — dated March 1, 2009 — looks like an impressive memento from Trump’s pre-presidential career. To club members eating lunch, or golfers waiting for a pro-shop purchase, it seemed to be a signal that Trump had always been a man who mattered. Even when he was just a reality-TV star, Trump was the kind of star who got a cover story in Time.
But that wasn’t true.
The Time cover is a fake.
There was no March 1, 2009, issue of Time Magazine. And there was no issue at all in 2009 that had Trump on the cover.
In fact,the cover on display at Trump’s clubs, observed recently by a reporter visiting one of the properties, contains several small but telling mistakes. Its red border is skinnier than that of a genuine Time cover, and, unlike the real thing, there is no thin white border next to the red. The Trump cover’s secondary headlines are stacked on the right side — on a real Time cover, they would go across the top.
And it has two exclamation points. Time headlines don’t yell.
“I can confirm that this is not a real TIME cover,” Kerri Chyka, a spokeswoman for Time Inc., wrote in an email to The Washington Post.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/06/27/National-Politics/Images/TRUMPCOVER_COMPOSITE_WHITE.jpg?uuid=kI-VLFtNEeefxsfvS8WNEw)
The real Time cover, left, and the fake Donald Trump cover. (Left: Time. Right: Angel Valentin for The Washington Post)
So how did Trump — who spent an entire campaign and much of his presidency accusing the mainstream media of producing “fake news” — wind up decorating his properties with a literal piece of phony journalism?
The Trump Organization did not respond to questions this week about who made the cover and why it was displayed at Trump clubs. White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to say whether Trump had known the cover wasn’t real.
“We couldn’t comment on the decor at Trump Golf clubs one way or another,” Sanders wrote in an email.
The cover seems to fit a broader pattern for Trump, who has often boasted of his appearances on Time’s cover and adorned his Trump Tower office with images of himself from magazines and newspapers. Trump has made claims about himself — about his charitable giving, his business success, even the size of the crowd at his inauguration — that are not supported by the facts.
-
Actually, I think they got the date wrong on that fake Time cover. I think it was supposed to be April 1, not March1: a special April Fool issue. ;D
-
Phil, I'm using "right" and "authority" interchangeably.
OK, but you shouldn't - they don't mean the same thing and in a discussion like this, it's an important distinction.
The point is the President gets his authority to exclude aliens from a Congressional law not SCOTUS.
That doesn't matter at all. It can't trump a constitutional right.
SCOTUS just ruled that as long as the alien has no ties to America or Americans, that authority granted in legislation is constitutional.
No, it didn't. They have not ruled on the constitutionality of anything with this writ of certiorari.
They have ONLY ruled on the extent to which the lower court can block the executive order. It's a HUGELY different thing.
If a president extends the vetting to make it impossible for that alien to get in unless he can show "he can walk on water", SCOTUS would have to reverse its own opinion to stop him from that kind of extreme vetting.
No, they wouldn't. They haven't yet ruled. They did say that the Executive's powers were at their peak with respect to blocking aliens with no ties. That's ALL they said in that regard. It is most likely that their decision will be whether PotUS has absolute authority to block aliens with no ties (i.e. needs no specific reason or can impose any requirement) or has limited authority (in which case they will effectively leave open the option of challenging any such order in the future). They are extremely unlikely to provide a specific list of limitations unless they decide (also extremely unlikely) that aliens with no ties have constitutional protections.
Remember the whole point of what Trump is doing is to make the vetting extreme.
No, it's not. The whole point is that Trump wants to be able to say "Look, I blocked them all!". He wants to be seen, clearly, to be doing something "big" to stop "them", even though "they" haven't done anything to the US and the "ones" who did came from somewhere else. If he just wanted to make the vetting tougher, he could have done it without all of this trouble.
So I'm saying the he's going to make a splash with the new vetting ruling to show how tough he is.
Yes, that is what he is trying to do, despite it being pointless (in fact it's worse than pointless - it will make people think they're safer but it won't actually improve anything).
His supporters will cheer and enemies will scowl. But, SCOTUS has to approve or reverse their own 9-0 ruling.
No, they don't. It's been explained multiple times. They haven't ruled on the matter. If he issued a new EO attempting to block another group, it could be challenged in a lower court just as the first two have been.
One other thing. The anti-Trump forces are downplaying the SCOTUS decision. They say it only effects a few tourists and photographers who want to visit Yosemite and get sunset pictures from Inspiration Point. That's nonsense. His EO stops 99.9% of all people living in the 6 countries. They don't have any ties to America. So if any of them are terrorists trying to sneak in, he's stopping them with the EO. People who have ties represent only an tiny percentage of the six countries.
Of 99.9% of people blocked by the EO, 99.999% of them are not attempting to enter the US without any ties to it. So it's true, the class of people affected might be large but the group who are actually affected is extremely small. It's all about show. It's why Trump wants to build a wall. He wants to claim to do big things even if they only have a tiny impact or effect.
Finally, the argument that the 9-11 terrorists were mainly Saudi has nothing to do with the selection of countries. 9-11 was 16 years ago. After all, Japan is a close ally who was once our mortal enemy. But the main issue is that the 6 nations in the EO are failed states or terrorist states. It's difficult to vet people who want to come here. Saudi Arabia is not a failed state who also chops the heads off of terrorists, We can vet people from there more easily. They are also a strong ally so political decisions are in play as well. These other countries are not our allies. The whole point of the EO is to give the government 90 days to review and adjust the vetting process to take any holes in it that might let in terrorists. Hasn't your country Australia tightened up the rules since 9-11 for aliens to gain entry?
Saudi Arabia is still a breeding ground for terrorists. That's well established and well known. They are also very likely still funding many grounds (or at least elements within SA are).
Yes, if it's difficult to vet people from a particular country and they don't meet those standards then deny them entry. That doesn't need an EO. If you want to increase the level of vetting, do it - it doesn't need an EO. There was nothing stopping the government from reviewing the vetting standards already.
Yes, Australia's immigration vetting and process have developed and are now more stringent, particularly from certain countries. No one that I've seen is challenging the idea that the US can do the same (indeed, it already has). But the blanket ban (which at least Trump is correctly calling it instead of trying to sugar-coat it as a "pause") simply wasn't necessary to do the review nor in its current form does it really have any impact.
-
Phil, I say SCOTUS will agree with the president's right to exclude in a final judgement just as they overrode the lower courts and agreed 9-0 to exclude in the writ. If they didn't think what Trump did was constitutional regarding aliens with no affiliation, they would have let the writ stand. You're creating a distinction without a difference. And the vetting will be more onerous than it is at present.
On your point about just changing the vetting process without issuing the ban, it begs the question. If the president feels there's danger enough to tighten up the vetting, why would he wait to prevent possible terrorists from sneaking in while the vetting process is being re-vamped? That's stupid. If a terrorist came through and blew something up, you would be saying he was an idiot for waiting. When I was in the fire alarm maintenance business in high-rise office buildings in NYC, when the fire alarm system failed, NYC codes required the building to provide fire watches walking throughout the building looking for fires while the system was being repaired. A ban during the vetting process review is similar.
I guess we'll have to re-visit this after the 90 days to see who's right.
-
Why wouldn't he, after getting the EO so wrong, move the vetting review along in the meantime if he really thought there was a "clear and present danger"? Also, how many attacks have occurred in the meantime in the US that he can point to as a "told you so" moment? Zero.
And you're wrong about the writ. The court has only said that they lower court didn't properly consider that issue - they haven't said it would or wouldn't be upheld once they reviewed it.
-
...how many attacks have occurred in the meantime in the US that he can point to as a "told you so" moment? Zero...
Said someone on 9/10.
-
I guess we'll have to re-visit this after the 90 days to see who's right.
Hum, I'm thinking what Trump thought was a win might not be a win after all...
Why the supreme court's travel ban ruling may not be a win for Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban-ruling-analysis)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a9dd9bb65e0d8749d5859204d5a6b2b4e838f063/0_0_5472_3283/master/5472.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=c2e385b2d95e1b3c64527dbc9734e209)
Donald Trump proclaimed victory after the supreme court’s decision. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
Analysis: The president celebrated the decision to allow parts of the ban to take effect, but ultimately, ‘the president might well lose on this’, says a legal expert
Donald Trump was quick to proclaim victory when the supreme court decided to allow elements of one of his most controversial policies to take effect before justices hear the case in the fall.
“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,” the US president said in a statement. “It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective.”
But legal experts had a message for the president: not so fast.
While the court appeared to side with the Trump administration on the president’s authority to temporarily bar visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, immigration lawyers and civil rights advocates said the majority of travelers from those countries would still be permitted to enter the United States under the supreme court’s directive.
“I think it’s a vast exaggeration to say this is a victory for the president,” said Jennifer Gordon, a professor of law at Fordham University who focuses on immigration.
Noting that at least five justices agreed on the need to grant visas to individuals with a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”, Gordon argued that the court’s decision reflected a seemingly majority consensus that the Trump administration could not implement an outright ban on immigrants from the six-Muslim majority countries.
“In fact, you might read it as a signal … that the president might well lose on this,” she said.
The president and his surrogates have championed what they claim was a 9-0 ruling in Trump’s favor. In fact, though, the tally represented what is known as a per curiam opinion – on behalf of the court, as opposed to individual justices.
In essence, the court agreed to hear oral arguments on the merits of the executive order. At least three conservative justices on the bench – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch – would have preferred to have allowed the travel ban to go into full effect, but ultimately the court significantly narrowed the scope of Trump’s order.
Margo Schlanger, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, who also headed the civil rights and civil liberties division at the Department of Homeland Security under Barack Obama from 2010-11, said the supreme court had actually paved the way for the bulk of travelers affected by the ban to come into the US.
“In reality, the travel ban remains largely enjoined,” Schlanger said. “If [travelers] didn’t have a real connection – a job, or enrollment at a school, or a family member – they wouldn’t be able to get visas.
“Most of the travel that’s covered by the travel ban remains stayed,” she added. “I think the Trump administration is spinning.”
-
Naughty, naughty Donny...
Time magazine wants Donald Trump’s fake covers taken down (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/time-magazine-wants-donald-trumps-fake-covers-taken-down-2017-06-27)
(https://www.fairfaxstatic.com.au/content/dam/images/g/w/z/z/a/y/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gwzyei.png/1498613011563.jpg)
Talk about fake news.
Time magazine has asked the Trump Organization to remove copies of a fake magazine cover featuring Donald Trump from its golf clubs’ walls. The request came Tuesday after a Washington Post report found framed copies of Trump on the cover of Time displayed in at least five of Trump’s clubs. The magazine cover, dated March 1, 2009, features the headline: “Donald Trump: The ‘Apprentice’ is a television smash!”
However, there was no Time magazine published on March 1, 2009. Nor was Trump ever on the cover that year. And there are a number of design inaccuracies. “I can confirm that this is not a real TIME cover,” Time spokeswoman Kerri Chyka told the Post.
-
Sports Illustrated trolls Trump over fake Time magazine cover (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/06/27/sports-illustrated-trolls-trump-over-fake-time-magazine-cover/?utm_term=.1d78e461ac86)
President Trump has been on the cover of several magazines, but he was not on a March 1, 2009, edition of Time magazine. That’s because, as The Post’s David Fahrenthold uncovered Tuesday, there was no edition of Time magazine from that date. But who cares? Trump certainly didn’t seem to. Regardless of the cover’s lack of veracity, he has it prominently displayed in at least four of the golf clubs he owns.
Well, now Sports Illustrated is offering Trump — and anyone else who’s got a knack for Photoshop — a chance to grace another fake cover. On Tuesday, SI (which is owned by Time Inc.) tweeted a blank cover featuring the headline “Top 10 NFL Draft Picks.”
Sports Illustrated (https://twitter.com/SInow/status/879782747103002624) Verified account
@SInow
Put yourself on the cover of SI. We won't tell anyone it's fake 😉
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDWdbEAXkAIexWL.png)
Retweets Likes
873 2,744
12:25 PM - 27 Jun 2017
84 replies 873 retweets 2,744 likes
Reply 84 Retweet 873 Like 2.7K
The cover image is a .png with a transparent background to make it ease to do a Photoshop job...as you might expect, Twitter has had a field day...here are just a few:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDW798PUMAA1k0F.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDW3l5zXcAEpzBX.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDXfdQjXoAAIa8n.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDWpOpXUQAAAF90.jpg)
-
Hum...a "foreign agent" worked for Trump (and he wasn't the first)
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort files as foreign agent for Ukraine work (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-trump-campaign-chairman-paul-manafort-files-as-foreign-agent-for-ukraine-work/2017/06/27/8322b6ac-5b7b-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_manafort-548pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f5f9696b4db7)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/22/National-Politics/Images/rncconvention231469162471.jpg?uuid=hdkPFk_GEea_J0BRBoNvlg)
A consulting firm led by Paul Manafort, who chaired Donald Trump’s presidential campaign for several months last year, retroactively filed forms Tuesday showing that his firm received $17.1 million over two years from a political party that dominated Ukraine before its leader fled to Russia in 2014.
Manafort disclosed the total payments his firm received between 2012 and 2014 in a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing late Tuesday that was submitted to the U.S. Justice Department. The report makes Manafort the second former senior Trump adviser to acknowledge the need to disclose work for foreign interests.
Manafort is one of a number of Trump associates whose campaign activities are being scrutinized by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of a probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller’s team has been consolidating inquiries into matters unrelated to the election.
#Patterns
-
Why wouldn't he, after getting the EO so wrong, move the vetting review along in the meantime if he really thought there was a "clear and present danger"? Also, how many attacks have occurred in the meantime in the US that he can point to as a "told you so" moment? Zero.
And you're wrong about the writ. The court has only said that they lower court didn't properly consider that issue - they haven't said it would or wouldn't be upheld once they reviewed it.
The lower court stopped all reviews of vetting procedures. It wasn't until June 12 that the appeals court removed that restriction.
SCOTUS didn't just say the lower court didn't just consider the issue. They stated 9-0 and you stated in your earlier post that the president is at his strongest when he restricts aliens that have no ties to America or Americans. Why would they change that understanding in their final decision in October?
-
A consulting firm led by Paul Manafort, who chaired Donald Trump’s presidential campaign for several months last year, retroactively filed forms Tuesday showing that his firm received $17.1 million over two years from a political party that dominated Ukraine before its leader fled to Russia in 2014.
That is really affront to Ukrainian citizens whose average monthly salary is $200.
-
Sports Illustrated trolls Trump over fake Time magazine cover (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/06/27/sports-illustrated-trolls-trump-over-fake-time-magazine-cover/?utm_term=.1d78e461ac86)
The cover image is a .png with a transparent background to make it ease to do a Photoshop job...
30 years ago my cousin posted on his tv room wall a Sports Illustrated cover with him and baseball legend Willie Mays. I wonder if both Time and SI did sales promotions like this or whether a third party was doing it without their consent. Any one know?
-
That is really affront to Ukrainian citizens whose average monthly salary is $200.
Why?
-
Hum...a "foreign agent" worked for Trump (and he wasn't the first)
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort files as foreign agent for Ukraine work (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-trump-campaign-chairman-paul-manafort-files-as-foreign-agent-for-ukraine-work/2017/06/27/8322b6ac-5b7b-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_manafort-548pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f5f9696b4db7)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/22/National-Politics/Images/rncconvention231469162471.jpg?uuid=hdkPFk_GEea_J0BRBoNvlg)
#Patterns
Manaforts company work in Ukraine ended in 2014. What fake news innuendos are you trying to create?
-
Said someone on 9/10.
Not even close. Trump is trying to sell a narrative of imminent attack via a particular vector, even though no one with actual knowledge and experience is saying that, as if he somehow knows better. It's not like on 9/10 someone was saying "Don't let Saudis get on planes" and it was ignored. Trump's looked at something happening elsewhere and then, lacking the sophistication to understand that direct translation of circumstances doesn't always work, he's seen something "big" he can go after to try to "win".
Trump brought upon himself the restrictions on reviewing vetting by being ham-fisted and ignorant, when he could have easily, reasonably, and likely with significant support, have reviewed the processes and tightened them and all in place by now.
-
The lower court stopped all reviews of vetting procedures. It wasn't until June 12 that the appeals court removed that restriction.
SCOTUS didn't just say the lower court didn't just consider the issue. They stated 9-0 and you stated in your earlier post that the president is at his strongest when he restricts aliens that have no ties to America or Americans. Why would they change that understanding in their final decision in October?
You're not reading, Alan. They said that the lower court did not adequately consider. They themselves have not yet considered. But, because they feel the lower court did not consider adequately, they have ruled out part of the lower court's decision. That in no way pre-empts what they may decide once they consider the issue.
And, as I've just said to Slobo, if Trump had any idea at all, he could have had the vetting reviewed and updated and in place by now, but that wouldn't have been showy enough or "big" enough for him, instead he stuffed it up completely because he's vastly under qualified for the job.
-
Manaforts company work in Ukraine ended in 2014.
Did it? How do you know...
Seems like there's a lot to ponder about Manafort's finances...
Paul Manafort's off-the-books funding appears to include $20 million from Trump associates (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/13/1652788/-Paul-Manafort-s-off-the-books-funding-appears-to-include-20-million-from-Trump-associates)
On August 19, just weeks after the Republican convention, Paul Manafort resigned as campaign chairman of Donald Trump’s campaign. Manafort left under pressure as stories of his corruption, secret funding by the Russians, and anti-NATO activities were growing almost daily.
Fresh details of alleged secret payments allocated for Paul Manafort by the pro-Russian party of Ukraine’s former president have emerged after 12 itemised regime accounting entries, totalling $7.61 million, were obtained by The Times.
But as it turns out, Manafort did not go quietly into that good night. Or at least, he did not go cheaply.
Papers were recorded that same day creating a shell company controlled by Mr. Manafort that soon received $13 million in loans from two businesses with ties to Mr. Trump, including one that partners with a Ukrainian-born billionaire and another led by a Trump economic adviser. They were among $20 million in loans secured by properties belonging to Mr. Manafort and his wife.
Why was Manafort picking up millions from Trump’s associates as he went out the door? That’s not clear. On one front, he seems to have been going through a “personal crisis” related to bad investments. But if that’s true, how did he possibly qualify for $20 million in loans?
The idea that Manafort served on the Trump campaign “for free” has been brought up frequently by Trump, by Manafort, by Spicer, by Conway, by everyone trying to make Manafort’s role in Trump’s campaign seem smaller.
But ending up with $20 million on the day he left the campaign, doesn’t make Manafort’s work seem all that gratis. In fact, it seems like exactly the sort of off-the-books funding that Manafort was infamous for in other jobs.
So, what did Manafort do that was worth $20 million in loans?
-
That is really affront to Ukrainian citizens whose average monthly salary is $200.
Why?
I don't feel I am qualified to report about the suffering of Ukrainian people under all their corrupt presidents, but if want to find out more, just google "poverty in Ukraine" or "Viktor Yanukovych corruption".
As to Manafort, what kind of person would get involved with pro-Russian and corrupt Yanukovych and other dictators (in Zaire and Philippines)?
Ernst & Young (in 2012) put Ukraine among the three most corrupted nations of the world together with Colombia and Brazil. In 2015, The Guardian called Ukraine "the most corrupt nation in Europe". United States diplomats have described Ukraine under Presidents Kuchma and Yushchenko as a kleptocracy, according to Wikileaks cables.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
-
...The Guardian called Ukraine "the most corrupt nation in Europe". United States diplomats have described Ukraine under Presidents Kuchma and Yushchenko as a kleptocracy...
And all that stopped, of course, when the US overthrew the "pro-Russian," legitimately elected president? And the new one, an oligarch himself, who became billionaire in the same corrupt system and by corrupting his way to the top, is the shining example of virtue?
-
...Trump is trying to sell a narrative of imminent attack...
Says who? His supporters understand it rather well that it is not just about imminence, but preventing a long-term damage from cancer. You are not going to get cancer by lighting your first cigarette. Although, to stay within the metaphor, if you light an electric cigarette, it might explode in your face ;)
-
... what kind of person would get involved with pro-Russian and corrupt Yanukovych...
What kind of person would make such a statement? (Sorry, Les, don't mean to pick on you personally, this is a rhetorical question). Yanukovich was a legitimately elected president, elected by the majority of Ukrainians, and that majority definitely is not pro-Russian.
And what's up with that "pro-Russian" curse? Since the fall of communism, every major Western company and institution entered Russia, established its presence there or is doing business with it otherwise. Shall all they be cursed as "pro-Russian"? Russia is not the enemy, but a partner with its own geopolitical interests, just like we have ours. If we try to encroach it and bring it to its knees, they'll fight back, of course.
-
...Russia is not the enemy, but a partner with its own geopolitical interests, just like we have ours. If we try to encroach it and bring it to its knees, they'll fight back, of course.
Tell that to the people living in Ukraine. Not to mention the Tartars living in the Krim
-
What kind of person would make such a statement? (Sorry, Les, don't mean to pick on you personally, this is a rhetorical question). Yanukovich was a legitimately elected president, elected by the majority of Ukrainians, and that majority definitely is not pro-Russian.
And what's up with that "pro-Russian" curse? Since the fall of communism, every major Western company and institution entered Russia, established its presence there or is doing business with it otherwise. Shall all they be cursed as "pro-Russian"? Russia is not the enemy, but a partner with its own geopolitical interests, just like we have ours. If we try to encroach it and bring it to its knees, they'll fight back, of course.
Slobodan, that sentence was more about Manafort than Yanukovych.
There is nothing wrong to be an equal partner with Russia, but being a Moscow's stooge is a different story. BTW, Yanukovych was not the only leader from the former Soviet block to lean that way.
Similar to Trump, Yanukovych won also narrowly the election - against Julia Tymoshenko (who was also not an angel and neither is Poroshenko), and he was famously gaffe-prone and appeared at times to struggle to put words to his thoughts. He even used to boast to other heads of state about how corrupt he was, according to Georgia's former president Mikheil Saakashvili. Corruption in Ukraine is about the same as in Russia.
-
As to Manafort, what kind of person would get involved with pro-Russian and corrupt Yanukovych and other dictators (in Zaire and Philippines)?
every single US president (Democrat or Republican) was involved on very good terms with brutal sunni dictators in Saudi Arabia and equally brutal nearby sunni sheikdoms ;D
-
every single US president (Democrat or Republican) was involved on very good terms with brutal sunni dictators in Saudi Arabia and equally brutal nearby sunni sheikdoms ;D
Almost like working as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.
-
Did it? How do you know...
Seems like there's a lot to ponder about Manafort's finances...
Paul Manafort's off-the-books funding appears to include $20 million from Trump associates (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/13/1652788/-Paul-Manafort-s-off-the-books-funding-appears-to-include-20-million-from-Trump-associates)
So, what did Manafort do that was worth $20 million in loans?
You're continuing innuendos against Trump. Who cares about Manafort, what he made, who he helped in Ukraine? It's got nothing to do with Trump and you're just trying to smear him. Guilt by association.
-
You're not reading, Alan. They said that the lower court did not adequately consider. They themselves have not yet considered. But, because they feel the lower court did not consider adequately, they have ruled out part of the lower court's decision. That in no way pre-empts what they may decide once they consider the issue.
And, as I've just said to Slobo, if Trump had any idea at all, he could have had the vetting reviewed and updated and in place by now, but that wouldn't have been showy enough or "big" enough for him, instead he stuffed it up completely because he's vastly under qualified for the job.
The 9-0 SCOTUS ruling pretty strongly backed the president's right to exclude aliens with no relationship to America. They're not going to change their minds when they fully consider the whole case That part is baked in stone. You're just trying to undermine the "win" Trump received from SCOTUS.
In fact, it's interesting how the fake news liberal press dropped the whole SCOTUS decision after the first day. After using the topic against Trump for months and month, now that they lost, suddenly they're not talking about it and switched to other fake news to knock Trump. People get it.
-
Tell that to the people living in Ukraine. Not to mention the Tartars living in the Krim
While it's terrible what some countries do to other peoples, Americans can't bleed, and pay for and get involved in every conflict. The American Neo-cons who gave us the war in Iraq now want us to go to war with Russia. The Democrats, who once blamed the Neo-Cons for Iraq, are now joining them for domestic political reasons against Republicans and Trump, that has nothing to do with our security. We should be developing good relations with Russia as the problem in the future will be China. Having a Russian ally of ours on China's northern border will help keep China in check.
-
While it's terrible what some countries do to other peoples, Americans can't bleed, and pay for and get involved in every conflict.
Nobody stated that…. to what post are you referring to?
The American Neo-cons who gave us the war in Iraq now want us to go to war with Russia.
Nobody stated that…
The Democrats, who once blamed the Neo-Cons for Iraq, are now joining them for domestic political reasons against Republicans and Trump, that has nothing to do with our security.
sorry? i do not understand…
We should be developing good relations with Russia as the problem in the future will be China. Having a Russian ally of ours on China's northern border will help keep China in check.
About the first thing Trump decided was to end the proposed TTP treaty ( Trans-Pacific Partnership)
making it easy for China to enlarge its influence in the region.
https://www.ft.com/content/2fe572fc-ff39-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30
-
While it's terrible what some countries do to other peoples, Americans can't bleed, and pay for and get involved in every conflict. The American Neo-cons who gave us the war in Iraq now want us to go to war with Russia. The Democrats, who once blamed the Neo-Cons for Iraq, are now joining them for domestic political reasons against Republicans and Trump, that has nothing to do with our security. We should be developing good relations with Russia as the problem in the future will be China. Having a Russian ally of ours on China's northern border will help keep China in check.
Interesting how you seem to always need an enemy. Why is that? China is next, it seems. After the jihadists have been dealt with, I presume, because I thought they were the existential threat du jour, or do you think that Trump has fixed that already? In any case, what are you getting at? China is a major trading partner of the US. They have 1 billion people over there, a huge market. They're not your enemy, they're the best friend you could have. And please don't tell me that it's because of their heinous regime, because the US has been in bed with and bankrolled far worse regimes.
Your first sentence is also interesting about how America can't afford to save the world. Did anyone ask you to? I'm not saying that the US does not play a major role in world affairs, but it may not be as big as your ego would like to think. There are only 300 million of you. There are 7 billion others on the planet who get by just fine every day without your help. You are not at the centre of the universe. All empires have their day and yours didn't even have the staying power to linger and help rebuild Afghanistan. Somehow, your behaviour seems to be to drop a few bombs, tell the people at home what a great job you did, and leave a mess behind. Sooner of later, the rest of the planet is going to get sick and tired of that kind of help, if they haven't already. It's difficult to take that kind of foreign policy seriously.
As Slobodan stated above about Russia. They are a sovereign nation with their own geopolitical interests. So is China. So is everyone else. You seem to insist on viewing the world as an extension of America. I don't think it's really like that.
-
You're continuing innuendos against Trump. Who cares about Manafort, what he made, who he helped in Ukraine? It's got nothing to do with Trump and you're just trying to smear him. Guilt by association.
Well, how do YOU know his $20 million loan given him on the day he left as Trump's campaign manager had nothing to do with Trump–considering the sources of that loan. Considering Manafort DID have close ties to Russians and friends of Putin and considering Manafort is the SECOND member of Trump's campaign after Flynn to retroactively register as an agent of a foreign government what makes you think that their activities had zero to do with Trump and his campaign? That's what an investigation is all about...in the case of Flynn and potentially Manafort, they are looking at Federal charges and the possibility of jail time.
And, why all the lying? Why all the trying to hide meetings? Why are Trump's people looking and acting so guilty of something? If they have nothing to hide, quit acting like they do and get on with running the government instead of constantly re-litigating the darn election and blaming the Fake News for everything that's going wrong.
-
Robert: ask the Europeans if they would like us to pull out of NATO. Ask Pacific countries if they would like us to pull out of the Pacific and leave them to the Chinese. As a Canadian, you're also under the American Military umbrella.
It's the Democrats and anti Trumpists who are stirring up problems with Russia. I agree with you though that we should be friends with China. What concerns me is that as they grow, they will test their military power. They've already illegally militarized islands against the world court directives in the South China Sea. Isn't that a serious matter. Will Canada stop their future territorial designs? Will Canada stop them from seizing Taiwan and their free people.? Should we leave the middle east to the Iranians? Should we pull back too a fortress America? We did that before WWI and WWII and looked what happened. Whay do you propose to keep peace in the world. I'm all for getting America to stop being policeman. We should be spending our money at home.
-
Well, how do YOU know his $20 million loan given him on the day he left as Trump's campaign manager had nothing to do with Trump–considering the sources of that loan. Considering Manafort DID have close ties to Russians and friends of Putin and considering Manafort is the SECOND member of Trump's campaign after Flynn to retroactively register as an agent of a foreign government what makes you think that their activities had zero to do with Trump and his campaign? That's what an investigation is all about...in the case of Flynn and potentially Manafort, they are looking at Federal charges and the possibility of jail time.
And, why all the lying? Why all the trying to hide meetings? Why are Trump's people looking and acting so guilty of something? If they have nothing to hide, quit acting like they do and get on with running the government instead of constantly re-litigating the darn election and blaming the Fake News for everything that's going wrong.
I don't know what Manafort did with the $20 million if there was that transaction. But neither do you. Yet , you keep making assumption that there was collusion. We know that Manafort was selling legally his services to foreign countries for years.
You forget that Comey, Clapper and even now some of the Democrats are admitting there's nothing there. It just came out that even Obama knew what was going on with the Russians. If they had seen collusion, and they were "tapping" his phone through NSA surveillance, they would have known. Yet the Obama administration came up with no collusion.
In any case stop the innuendos and let Mueller do his investigation.
-
You forget that Comey, Clapper and even now some of the Democrats are admitting there's nothing there.
That may be the Trump surrogate talking points but that's not the reality.
Comey was asked about collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians but he said he couldn't answer that in a public hearing. He never said there was no collusion, he said the investigation was ongoing...
Clapper said what he said initially about not knowing of any collusion evidence but clarified the fact that he wouldn't have known about investigations of collusion and wasn't aware that the FBI was already investigating.
What Democrats what you heard say there was no collusion?
All we know is that the investigation of collusion between Russians and the Trump campaign is on going...
We know that Trump personally had not been under investigation at least while Comey was at the FBI but we're now pretty sure Trump is under investigation by Mueller now...we know there are multiple investigations ongoing about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian efforts to interfere in our election.
We also know that a lot of Trump people have lied about meeting with Russians and are under investigation and Flynn and Manafort are facing potential criminal charges and jail time and at least Flynn has asked about immunity in exchange for testimony and that his attorney has said Flynn "has a story to tell".
In any case stop the innuendos and let Mueller do his investigation.
Ok...how's this, the President of the United States of America is under investigation and Russia interfered with the election that put him in office. And it seems every day brings more bad news that exposes how poorly this president is performing his job and he seems to have an unhealthy fixation on all of the investigations to the point that he seems incapable of getting much of anything done.
Right?
-
Says who? His supporters understand it rather well that it is not just about imminence, but preventing a long-term damage from cancer. You are not going to get cancer by lighting your first cigarette. Although, to stay within the metaphor, if you light an electric cigarette, it might explode in your face ;)
Says Trump. Go read his earlier rhetoric.
-
The 9-0 SCOTUS ruling pretty strongly backed the president's right to exclude aliens with no relationship to America. They're not going to change their minds when they fully consider the whole case That part is baked in stone. You're just trying to undermine the "win" Trump received from SCOTUS.
No, it didn't. It literally did not deal with that issue at all. It only dealt with whether or not the lower court examined the issue sufficiently, and SCotUS said "no" at the level of aliens without ties.
-
No, it didn't. It literally did not deal with that issue at all. It only dealt with whether or not the lower court examined the issue sufficiently, and SCotUS said "no" at the level of aliens without ties.
You're quite correct: the Supreme Court did not address the issue of Trump's authority at all. The Court simply agreed to address that issue later this year, in its next term, which begins in October.
It also modified the preliminary injunction that has been preventing the Trump Administration from carrying out the executive order.
Under U.S. law, a preliminary injunction is a rather rarely granted restriction on the behavior of a party to a lawsuit that is only issued when a court determines that the adverse party (in this case, the plaintiffs who are challenging the Trump executive order) is likely to prevail when the case goes to trial.
The Supreme Court concluded that the preliminary injunction issued against the Trump Administration was excessively broad—that it could not apply to aliens who had no connection to people or institutions within the United States because the U.S. government has no jurisdiction over them. So it scaled it back.
Significantly, the Court did not lift the preliminary injunction altogether (three Justices dissented from that part of the opinion), which indicates that six Justices accepted the conclusion that the plaintiffs challenging Trump's executive order were likely to prevail at trial. At least for now.
However, as I said in an earlier post, I wouldn't infer that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule against the Trump Administration. The Justices tend to defer to lower court decisions regarding issues such as the applicability of injunctive relief until they can hear and consider full arguments.
-
You're quite correct: the Supreme Court did not address the issue of Trump's authority at all. The Court simply agreed to address that issue later this year, in its next term, which begins in October.
It also modified the preliminary injunction that has been preventing the Trump Administration from carrying out the executive order.
Under U.S. law, a preliminary injunction is a rather rarely granted restriction on the behavior of a party to a lawsuit that is only issued when a court determines that the adverse party (in this case, the plaintiffs who are challenging the Trump executive order) is likely to prevail when the case goes to trial.
The Supreme Court concluded that the preliminary injunction issued against the Trump Administration was excessively broad—that it could not apply to aliens who had no connection to people or institutions within the United States because the U.S. government has no jurisdiction over them. So it scaled it back.
Significantly, the Court did not lift the preliminary injunction altogether (three Justices dissented from that part of the opinion)...
Possibly more notable for the fact that it establishes Gorsuch as another ideologue that will grossly misapply "originalist" ideas in the pursuit of radically conservative findings (when it suits his personal leanings). Yippee.
-
...The Supreme Court concluded that the preliminary injunction issued against the Trump Administration was excessively broad—that it could not apply to aliens who had no connection to people or institutions within the United States because the U.S. government has no jurisdiction over them. So it scaled it back...
That's what I said. It allowed Trump to exclude aliens without ties to America. Since the 90 day ban will be up, this point will become moot. However, I think there will be a challenge to the new vetting procedure. That's because Trump is going to make it onerous to show his supporters he's continuing to keep America safe. Then at some point SCOTUS will have to rule on the President's authority to control alien entry to the country using the new vetting procedure. SCOTUS will find that as long as the alien has no close connections, then the vetting procedure is constitutional. I say that based on their current ruling on the preliminary injunction.
Think about this as an aside. The president could once order the execution of a foreign national overseas. There are new rules proscribing these that I'm not familiar with off hand. However, if he had that authority, he certainly should have the authority to keep foreign nationals out of the US. Which of course raises the issue three of the Justices raised saying that the president had the right to keep all aliens out including those with close ties to Americans. How can the president be allowed to kill but not exclude?
-
Possibly more notable for the fact that it establishes Gorsuch as another ideologue that will grossly misapply "originalist" ideas in the pursuit of radically conservative findings (when it suits his personal leanings). Yippee.
There's nothing in the Constitution that protects foreign nationals. If tomorrow, the President feels it might be dangerous to allow North Koreans into our country, why should we let them in? Congress had given authority to the president to make those determinations. What rights do North Koreans have in America? That's what Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas basically said. The fact they have a kin here already should not be the determinant. SCOTUS could still rule that way.
-
There's nothing in the Constitution that protects foreign nationals. If tomorrow, the President feels it might be dangerous to allow North Koreans into our country, why should we let them in? Congress had given authority to the president to make those determinations. What rights do North Koreans have in America? That's what Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas basically said. The fact they have a kin here already should not be the determinant. SCOTUS could still rule that way.
If only it weren't so damn inconvenient to apply those great words about "all men" and their "inalienable rights" to, well, all men. And women. Honestly Alan, I've got no issue with you individually, but I hold your right to life, liberty and property in no greater (or lesser) regard than that of a guy from Germany, Mexico or Iran.
-
If only it weren't so damn inconvenient to apply those great words about "all men" and their "inalienable rights" to, well, all men. And women. Honestly Alan, I've got no issue with you individually, but I hold your right to life, liberty and property in no greater (or lesser) regard than that of a guy from Germany, Mexico or Iran.
My point is not to say that before God we all aren't equal. We are. But all people aren't equal according to the US Constitution in the same way as Americans would not be to other countries.
There are a lot of people in the world who would love to have an American passport. However, they cannot enter the US like an American citizen because they don't have one. Germans can't apply for monetary benefits like Medicare. If Mexicans visit us, they will be treated pretty much like an American in courts regarding protecting their life, liberty and property as they should be. But they have to go home at some point. They can't stay although it seems with all the illegals we have here, that really is a moot issue.
But the point I was making was that foreigners don't have the same legal standing. If Congress declares war against their country, there's nothing protecting those individuals from being killed. If Congress wants to exclude certain countries from getting American VISAs to visit us, they have few rights to protest. But that's no different then any other country. Americans are exposed in the same way in return. Your theory about inalienable rights stop at the American border as it does at other country's borders for their citizens. Your wrong if you think it's otherwise. We aren't a one world government.
-
If only it weren't so damn inconvenient to apply those great words about "all men" and their "inalienable rights" to, well, all men. And women. Honestly Alan, I've got no issue with you individually, but I hold your right to life, liberty and property in no greater (or lesser) regard than that of a guy from Germany, Mexico or Iran.
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!" - Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
-
‘Internet Taxes’?
Take that, #AmazonWashingtonPost
Trump, Amazon and 'internet taxes': The real story (http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/28/technology/business/trump-amazon-taxes/index.html?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article)
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_720_noupscale/595420021500004500bfb4d4.jpeg)
President Trump has resumed his long fight with Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos. But his latest attack has left experts scratching their heads.
"The #AmazonWashingtonPost, sometimes referred to as the guardian of Amazon not paying internet taxes (which they should) is FAKE NEWS!" Trump said on Twitter early Wednesday.
The post contains multiple erroneous or misleading claims. The Washington Post is not owned by Amazon (AMZN, Tech30), but rather by Bezos personally. It's also unclear what Trump means by internet taxes.
"There is no 'internet tax,'" says Michael Pachter, an analyst who covers Amazon and other internet companies for Wedbush. There is only a sales tax for e-commerce companies like Amazon.
If Trump is actually claiming Amazon doesn't pay sales taxes, then he's right -- but only if you stopped following the news years ago. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Amazon often came under fire in its early years for not collecting taxes, giving it a leg up on bricks-and-mortar competitors. Amazon was able to get around these taxes thanks to a Supreme Court decision that said states can only force retailers to collect taxes if they have a physical presence.
In recent years, however, Amazon has gone in the opposite direction as it opens physical stores and fulfillment centers across the country. Amazon now collects sales taxes in every state that has a sales tax.
It's 2017 Donny...
-
Wonder which poll is correct?
Fox News Poll: 27 percent favor Senate GOP health care plan, as vote gets delayed (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/28/fox-news-poll-27-percent-favor-senate-gop-health-care-plan-as-vote-gets-delayed.html)
By two-to-one, American voters oppose the Senate health care bill to replace the Affordable Care Act -- even as a majority wants to repeal at least some of the existing law.
That’s according to the latest Fox News Poll, conducted Sunday through Tuesday evenings.
Among Republicans, 51 percent favor the Senate bill. That’s in contrast to 75 percent support for the House bill last month.
Overall, 27 percent of voters favor the Senate proposal, 54 percent oppose it, and 18 percent are unsure. For comparison, in polling conducted after the House health care bill passed, 40 percent favored it and 54 percent were opposed (May 2017). That’s the plan President Trump has called “mean.”
Or this poll...
Poll: Only 12% of Americans support the Senate health care plan (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/28/suffolk-poll-obamacare-trump-senate-health-care-plan/103249346/)
Just 12% of Americans support the Senate Republican health care plan, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, amid a roiling debate over whether the GOP will deliver on its signature promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
In the survey, taken Saturday through Tuesday, a 53% majority say Congress should either leave the law known as Obamacare alone or work to fix its problems while keeping its framework intact.
But the dilemma for the GOP is this: Eight in 10 Republicans support repeal, and close to a third say the law should be repealed even if a replacement health care plan isn't ready yet. Just 11% of independents and 2% of Democrats feel that way.
The divide between the demands of the GOP base and the skepticism of the broader electorate helps explain why Senate Republican leaders have been forced to delay a vote as they scramble for the 50 votes needed to pass a measure.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/usatoday/editorial/graphics/2017/06/062817-Health-Care-Poll-ONLINE.png)
So, 53% say either leave Obamacare alone or fix it...
-
And this just in from breitbart.com
NBC’s Chuck Todd Defends CNN — Calls Trump Admin’s War on the Press ‘a War on the Truth’ (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/06/28/nbcs-chuck-todd-defends-cnn-calls-trump-admins-war-on-the-press-a-war-on-the-truth/)
(http://public.vilynx.com/01d958ce304abb01323c8d6d333703fe/pro69.viwindow0.jpg)
Wednesday on MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,” host Chuck Todd defended CNN after they retracted a report on Russia and three staffers resigned.
Todd said the White House’s “war on the media” is a “war on the truth.”
Partial transcript as follows:
TODD Welcome back. Tonight—well, not just tonight—but I’m obsessed with the White House’s war on the press and on media. Let’s be clear about this, that war is nothing less than a war on the truth. Do we get it right all the time? Nope, we don’t. And when we don’t, we run a correction, and in some cases, people lose their jobs. That’s what just happened at CNN. CNN took responsibility for its mistakes. At this network, we’ve done it quite a few times publicly as well. But because we try to get it right. We take what we do seriously, because trust, viewers and readers’ trust is all we have, and without that we’re nothing. We all know we get fired for not telling the truth. And of course that’s the point, isn’t it? Of course, the White House attacks, delegitimizes the media to create running room for its version of events. It’s as old as media itself. The White House is not above using anonymous sources to criticize the use of anonymous sources. Nor to promote what it admits could be a lie to call others liars. Here’s Sarah Huckabee Sanders attacking CNN in an unbelievable way. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUCKABEE SANDERS: There’s a video circulating now, whether it’s accurate or not, I don’t know. But I would encourage everybody in this room, and frankly everybody across the country, to take a look at it. I think if it is accurate, I think it’s a disgrace to all of the media, to all of journalism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TODD: Excuse me? You got that? I don’t know whether it’s accurate or not, but go take a look at it because it disgraces you? Seriously? And that’s been this White House’s M.O. Pedal a false story to claim the media is telling false stories. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was just a bit more honest apparently about the White House’s dishonesty. So no, Mr. President, no, White House press shop, the media is not the enemy of the people. We’re just here to find, as Carl Bernstein put it so well, the best obtainable version of the truth. It can hurt you, it can hurt us and, yes, even you, Mr. President.
Nice of breitbart.com to post that!
-
Uhh Ooo...
Trump Fails To Reach Beyond Base As Independents' Disapproval Grows (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/28/534602973/trump-fails-to-reach-beyond-base-as-independents-disapproval-grows)
President Trump's support among independent voters has eroded since he took office. Though he still clings to a loyal base of supporters, his overall disapproval among Americans has reached record highs, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. (http://NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll)
Link directly to chart of results (https://apps.npr.org/dailygraphics/graphics/marist-poll-trump-approval-20170627/child.html?initialWidth=1217&childId=pym-0-o5ufw&parentTitle=Trump%20Fails%20To%20Reach%20Beyond%20Base%20As%20Independents'%20Disapproval%20Grows%20%3A%20NPR&parentUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2017%2F06%2F28%2F534602973%2Ftrump-fails-to-reach-beyond-base-as-independents-disapproval-grows)
Just 37 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing just over five months into his tenure, while 51 percent disapprove. Forty percent of those polled strongly disapprove of Trump's performance, twice the 20 percent who strongly approved.
The most pronounced swing seen in the poll was among independents. Over the past four months, their approval of the president has dissipated. In February, 40 percent of independents said they approved of the job Trump was doing, with 51 percent disapproving. Four months later in June, just 31 percent say they approve of the president with 59 percent of independents disapproving — a 17-point net-negative drop.
Despite almost full employment nationwide, independents are particularly dissatisfied with Trump on the economy. That's likely driving much of their overall disapproval. Just 31 percent of independents say they have confidence in Trump's ability to improve the U.S. economy, while 49 percent doubt he can do so. Just three months ago, 44 percent thought Trump could turn around the economy, while 38 percent didn't — a whiplash-worthy 24-point swing.
Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, said the scope of the shift over the past few months among independents should cause "alarm bells to go off" at the White House.
-
Trump's Company Gets Millions So Toronto Hotel Can Erase Brand (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/trump-hotel-owner-in-toronto-reaches-deal-to-remove-trump-brand)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/surveillance_trumptower_030717getty_lead.jpg?itok=hztNvdAF)
Donald Trump’s business will be paid millions of dollars to release the owner of a Toronto hotel complex from using his name.
JCF Capital ULC, the closely held U.S. firm that owns the Trump International Hotel & Tower in the city’s downtown business district, reached a buyout deal to exit the contracts with the Trump Organization’s hotel unit, the companies said Tuesday in a statement. While no breakup fee was disclosed, the amount was at least $6 million, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Signage may be removed from the 65-story tower as soon as Aug. 1, said the person, who asked not to be identified discussing confidential details.
The hotel will likely be operated under Marriott International Inc.’s St. Regis brand, people familiar with the plan said earlier this month.
The agreement to remove the the U.S. president’s brand marks the first step toward revamping the property, which has faced a history of construction delays and lawsuits. Most recently, it’s been a site for protests against the Trump’s comments disparaging women, Mexicans and Muslims, even though his company has no ownership stake in the property.
-
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!" - Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels
"We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. " 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.' "
- Edward Murrow, on Joe McCarthy
-
Trump's Company Gets Millions So Toronto Hotel Can Erase Brand (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/trump-hotel-owner-in-toronto-reaches-deal-to-remove-trump-brand)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/surveillance_trumptower_030717getty_lead.jpg?itok=hztNvdAF)
Maybe they'll rename it Obama Tower.
-
Probably not. I don't think that Obama has as much to "compensate for" as Trump does. ;D
-
"We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. " 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.' "
- Edward Murrow, on Joe McCarthy
McCarthy, although often wrong in the particulars, was closer to the truth about Communists in our government then the left will ever admit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/04/14/was-mccarthy-right-about-the-left/a0dc6726-e2fd-4a31-bcdd-5f352acbf5de/?utm_term=.d27ae809cf59
The casual way many Americans today think that Communism is okay, is quite disturbing. They know little about what the Soviet Union was about. They can't seem to see beyond our borders to Cuba, Venezuela, China and North Korea. Sanders, a near Marxist if not a Communist in his outlook, would never have gotten the support he did thirty years ago.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/trump-attacks-psycho-joe-scarborough-crazy-mike-brzezinski-in-twitter-tear.html
Trump Tweet
“I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”
This is how a President acts?
I did like Senator Graham's reply ]"Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America," Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, tweeted.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/trump-attacks-psycho-joe-scarborough-crazy-mike-brzezinski-in-twitter-tear.html
Trump Tweet
This is how a President acts?
I did like Senator Graham's reply ]"Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America," Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, tweeted.
As long as he picks another justice like Gorsuch, he can say whatever he wants.
-
McCarthy, although often wrong in the particulars, was closer to the truth about Communists in our government then the left will ever admit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/04/14/was-mccarthy-right-about-the-left/a0dc6726-e2fd-4a31-bcdd-5f352acbf5de/?utm_term=.d27ae809cf59
The casual way many Americans today think that Communism is okay, is quite disturbing. They know little about what the Soviet Union was about. They can't seem to see beyond our borders to Cuba, Venezuela, China and North Korea. Sanders, a near Marxist if not a Communist in his outlook, would never have gotten the support he did thirty years ago.
1) This is a fascinating attitude coming from someone who casually blows off the impact of tens of millions of dollars in financial ties between ex-KGB Soviets and top-level strategists in the Trump campaign...
-
As long as he picks another justice like Gorsuch, he can say whatever he wants.
2) ...and this is why - so long as DJT promotes your far-right ideological bent, the morality of the man and the method is irrelevant to you. Unfortunately, all of us pay for the means that justify the ends in ways that ideologues can't seem to process.
-
1) This is a fascinating attitude coming from someone who casually blows off the impact of tens of millions of dollars in financial ties between ex-KGB Soviets and top-level strategists in the Trump campaign...
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, all the former Communists suddenly became Capitalists. Amazing what greed will do. In any case, what does a Capitlist selling his services to another Capitalist have anything to with just how terrible Communism is?
-
2) ...and this is why - so long as DJT promotes your far-right ideological bent, the morality of the man and the method is irrelevant to you. Unfortunately, all of us pay for the means that justify the ends in ways that ideologues can't seem to process.
What method are your referring too? Gorsuch legally became a Supreme Court justice. Everyone says he is extremely qualified to be Justice. What does Donald's hair and orange tan have to do with that? Why do people make such nasty comments about Trump yet expect him to not respond in kind.
Unlike Obama, Trump is a counter puncher. It's one of the reasons he won. It gets leaders from around the world to think twice before doing something that might piss him off. His antics keep everyone off balance. Forget what polls say here and overseas. Ask the leaders of these nations how they intend to deal with Trump and whether he's got them concerned. Being President is not a popularity contest like Obama thought especially when it comes to foreign affairs. In any case, his methods honed for 70 years, work for him. It won him the presidency.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/trump-attacks-psycho-joe-scarborough-crazy-mike-brzezinski-in-twitter-tear.html
Trump Tweet
This is how a President acts?
I did like Senator Graham's reply ]"Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America," Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, tweeted.
nice tweet from Trump... now he needs to tweet more about Graham, McCain and the rest of old farts
-
Gorsuch legally became a Supreme Court justice.
Yeah, not so much...
(http://workplacereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mitch-mcconnell-recently-received-a-100000-donation-from-a-texan-who-died-in-april-in-that-case-a-1.jpg)
Mitch McConnell kinda stole that seat from Merrick Garland. Mitch even said he was going to refuse to bring Garland or any nominee before the Senate in the event Clinton won. So, yeah, much like Trump backed into the White House, Gorsuch backed onto the Supreme Court. Neither one actually deserve to be where they are...
-
Chris: At first I though that 3 would happen since the 90 days will be over and the Administration would have completed it's new vetting process and the travel ban would end. There would be no case to review. Unfortunately, I'm thinking logically based on what most people would do.
But now, I'm thinking that will not happen. Knowing Trump, the disruptor, he might want the fight to continue the case to prove he was right about all or most of the issues. SCOTUS has already ruled 9-0 that the president has the right to exclude aliens. So he can't lose on that. SCOTUS is not going to reverse themselves. It's possible that he could win on the other part where they agreed 6-3 that aliens with close relations with America or Americans cannot be banned. But they could reverse even that and make him a 100% winner. So he has little to lose by keeping it going and a lot to win politically. Even if SCOTUS doesn't help with the other part, the issue would stay in the news and remind everyone he won.
So what he's going to do is to issue new vetting after the 90 days that would eliminate practically all entry of aliens for one year, or maybe even permanently until the war with ISIS is completed and we are safe again. That will drive the Democrats nuts. The liberal media will go crazy. And his supporters will scream their approval at his determination to protect the country. The lower court will say the ban is unconstitutional. SCOTUS will overrule them and allow the ban against aliens with no relationship with America.
This is the part of the decision that will make Trump feel he'll have the support of SCOTUS:
From SCOTUS Decision page 11:
...But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762 (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . has no constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below. At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former cate- gory. See, e.g., §§3(c)(i)–(vi). The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else...
Well, Trump apparently has created the new rule. "Visitors from six predominantly Muslim nations will not be granted visas unless they have a very close family tie to someone already in the United States or an entity like a workplace or university, under new guidelines the State Department said become effective Thursday night."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/travel-ban-to-take-effect-as-state-department-defines-close-family/2017/06/29/03eb8a8e-eba6-4749-9fa2-79117be89884_story.html
Like I said what would happen, it is onerous to all people from these 6 countries that do not have a close relationship, either through family, work or schooling. ALL others will be excluded. So if any of those 99.9% are terrorist, they won't be able to get Visas.
Basically he just repeated what SCOUTUS said in their ruling. He upped it a little to exclude those who may have family relationship but not that close like grandparents.
There will be challenges to both the ALL exclusion part as well as to the definition of a close family member. But other than possible tweaking with the family member definition, SCOTUS will agree to the new plan. There will be no ruling on religious exclusions, what Trump said or didn't say before the EO, etc. None of that matters. SCOTUS will support the Presidents right to limit immigration.Supporters will applaud and opponents will frown. Trump will win.
-
Yeah, not so much...
(http://workplacereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mitch-mcconnell-recently-received-a-100000-donation-from-a-texan-who-died-in-april-in-that-case-a-1.jpg)
Mitch McConnell kinda stole that seat from Merrick Garland. Mitch even said he was going to refuse to bring Garland or any nominee before the Senate in the event Clinton won. So, yeah, much like Trump backed into the White House, Gorsuch backed onto the Supreme Court. Neither one actually deserve to be where they are...
It was all legal. The Constitution grants equal power between the President and the Senate. Both are required for appointment. The Democrats should not have changed the filibuster rule regarding appointments of Cabinet Secretaries and lower federal court judges. That gave the Republicans the moral ground to change the filibuster rule regarding Supreme Court justices. What goes around comes around.
-
Why do people make such nasty comments about Trump yet expect him to not respond in kind.
Oh, I don't know...maybe because HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE LEADER OF THE FREE FRIGGIN' WORLD?
Considering that Spicy has stated that Trump's tweets are official presidential statements, how's this look to you?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDfXzKEVYAAluwV.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDfY8VFVoAAQoCF.jpg)
There...does that help put it into perspective for you?
BTW the images of the statements are being produced by a Twitter bot ( @RealPressSecBot (https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot) )that retweets everything Trump tweets as though it's an official WH statement, which it actually is..
Sad!
-
Jeff, He hasn't changed. I agree that he says things that make you queasy. Me too. But it seems to work for him. His supporters like it when he sticks his nose in other people's faces. He did these same things during the run-up to the election and won. But you go right ahead bringing this up for the next four years when you'll lose again because you're not coming up with any real ideas to help the country.
-
Jeff, He hasn't changed. I agree that he says things that make you queasy. Me too. But it seems to work for him. His supporters like it when he sticks his nose in other people's faces. He did these same things during the run-up to the election and won. But you go right ahead bringing this up for the next four years when you'll lose again because you're not coming up with any real ideas to help the country.
Alan, he's contemptible, and it's embarrassing that *anyone* likes his behavior. His supporters that do are just as contemptible as he is.
His politics, well, there's some percentage of Americans that think that a reactionary and ignorant far-right-wing agenda is a good idea, and hey - that's the marketplace of ideas and I'm confident that in time people will see the folly in that approach. But if you think Trumpism is the winning path in 2020, you better hope that he gets muzzled and told to shut the hell up, because aside from the deplorables, everyone is already sick of his nonsense.
-
What method are your referring too? Gorsuch legally became a Supreme Court justice. Everyone says he is extremely qualified to be Justice. What does Donald's hair and orange tan have to do with that? Why do people make such nasty comments about Trump yet expect him to not respond in kind.
Unlike Obama, Trump is a counter puncher. It's one of the reasons he won. It gets leaders from around the world to think twice before doing something that might piss him off. His antics keep everyone off balance. Forget what polls say here and overseas. Ask the leaders of these nations how they intend to deal with Trump and whether he's got them concerned. Being President is not a popularity contest like Obama thought especially when it comes to foreign affairs. In any case, his methods honed for 70 years, work for him. It won him the presidency.
Responding in kind reminds me more of an ill-mannered 10 year old shouting insults on a playground than a U.S. President. Trump sees everything in terms of winners and losers and obviously feels a great need to denigrate anyone he views as a loser. There's some classic psychological theories about people who do that.
While being President is not a popularity contest, it makes no sense that being obnoxious and getting on everyone's bad side is in America's long term best interest. Likewise, keeping the whole world including a most Americans "off balance" seems like an incredibly bad idea. Exactly how does sewing instability help America? If as you say "what goes around comes around", America is in for some bad times based on what Trump is doing now.
-
On the other hand...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/23/why-need-four-years-trump/mRm0mMoAzjG42yHzQ0AV2N/story.html
-
Alan, he's contemptible, and it's embarrassing that *anyone* likes his behavior. His supporters that do are just as contemptible as he is.
His politics, well, there's some percentage of Americans that think that a reactionary and ignorant far-right-wing agenda is a good idea, and hey - that's the marketplace of ideas and I'm confident that in time people will see the folly in that approach. But if you think Trumpism is the winning path in 2020, you better hope that he gets muzzled and told to shut the hell up, because aside from the deplorables, everyone is already sick of his nonsense.
I agree. Keep attacking him. He's deplorable. We need civility.
-
Well, at least SOME GOP members are not willing to be enablers for the #BigOrangeButthead
Republicans Slam President Trump for 'Face-Lift' Tweet: 'This Isn't Normal' (http://time.com/4839060/donald-trump-republican-senators-mika-brzezinski-tweet/)
Several Republicans in Congress called out President Trump on Thursday for a series of tweets they described as "beneath the dignity of your office."
At least seven Republican Senators — including Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Maine Sen. Susan Collins — spoke out after Trump targeted Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski on Twitter. Trump called her "crazy" and criticized her appearance, saying he saw her "bleeding badly from a face-lift." The tweet followed a trend of Trump singling out female reporters, often for their appearance.
"This is not okay," Republican Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins said. "As a female in politics I am often criticized for my looks. We should be working to empower women."
Other Republican leaders weighed in on social media throughout the day, as did Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan: "Obviously, I don't see that as an appropriate comment."
"I think what we're trying to do around here is improve the tone and civility of the debate, and this obviously doesn't help do that," Ryan said at a press conference, when asked about Trump's tweet.
Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee also called on more Republicans to condemn Trump's remarks."
I want my GOP colleagues to explain to my 3 granddaughters why they think these viciously sexist comments are acceptable from our President," Lee said on Twitter. "This isn’t just about Trump. We already knew he has no respect for women. It’s also about the GOP – which continues to defend & support him. President Trump acts like his words don’t have consequences. Why? Because others in his party come to his defense every single time."
-
Responding in kind reminds me more of an ill-mannered 10 year old shouting insults on a playground than a U.S. President. Trump sees everything in terms of winners and losers and obviously feels a great need to denigrate anyone he views as a loser. There's some classic psychological theories about people who do that.
While being President is not a popularity contest, it makes no sense that being obnoxious and getting on everyone's bad side is in America's long term best interest. Likewise, keeping the whole world including a most Americans "off balance" seems like an incredibly bad idea. Exactly how does sewing instability help America? If as you say "what goes around comes around", America is in for some bad times based on what Trump is doing now.
Keeping foreign leaders off balance by his instability makes them think twice before they do anything rash. It's hard to second-guess Trump. What is he really going to do? That's why it helps us. But he's also been strong. He dtew a red line in Syria and prove he's serious by the last raid on Syrian air bases. Don't you think Assad and Putin ate wondering what his next move is going to be? Don't you think they're treading carefully before they do anything too rash?
-
It's hard to second-guess Trump. What is he really going to do? That's why it helps us.
This helps us how? By driving our European allies away, we've driven them into the hands of the Chinese (who swooped in and signed climate deals after Trump pulled us from the Paris Accord). That helps us?
His boorish behavior is not making anybody want to work with Trump. Trump is a laughing stock and so is America by extension...
Image what's gonna happen next week at the G20...all the the world's leaders are exchanging notes on how to handle Trump...puff him up with false praise and ignore what he says because he doesn't have a clue about anything substantive. He doesn't know how to negotiate in a diplomatic way and as a result he gets outplayed by all of the foreign leaders...
Trump is nutz...and he's hellbent on destroying everything–well, he's not–he's into winning bigly, but Bannon wants to tear everything down and rebuild it in his likeness.
You know this right? You understand what Bannon and by extension Trump are trying to do? Look at what they are doing with departments all over his administration:
Trump is crippling his agenda by leaving top jobs unfilled (http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/news/economy/trump-staffing-vacancies/index.html)
President Trump has roughly 1,100 top-tier positions to fill across his administration.
So far, he's nominated only 111 of them.
No president in modern history has fallen so far behind in naming heads of agencies, assistant secretaries, ambassadors and other critical leadership roles that require Senate approval.
Heck Trump & Team won't even let Tillerson hire who he wants (instead of staffing with Trump cronies)
TILLERSON blows up at White House aide over staffing decisions (http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2017/06/29/tillerson-blows-up-at-white-house-aide-over-staffing-decisions-trump-mocks-cnn-pelosi-at-closed-door-fundraiser-sergio-gors-pr-hobby-bday-carl-forti-221096)
ISENSTADT: “Tillerson blows up at top White House aide,” by Josh Dawsey, Eliana Johnson and Alex Isenstadt: “Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's frustrations with the White House have been building for months. Last Friday, they exploded. The normally laconic Texan unloaded on Johnny DeStefano, the head of the presidential personnel office, for torpedoing proposed nominees to senior State Department posts and for questioning his judgment.
“Tillerson also complained that the White House was leaking damaging information about him to the news media, according to a person familiar with the meeting. Above all, he made clear that he did not want DeStefano’s office to ‘have any role in staffing’ and ‘expressed frustration that anybody would know better’ than he about who should work in his department — particularly after the president had promised him autonomy to make his own decisions and hires, according to a senior White House aide familiar with the conversation.
“The episode stunned other White House officials gathered in chief of staff Reince Priebus’ office, leaving them silent as Tillerson raised his voice. In the room with Tillerson and DeStefano were Priebus, top aide Jared Kushner and Margaret Peterlin, the secretary of state's chief of staff. The encounter, described by four people familiar with what happened, was so explosive that Kushner approached Peterlin afterward and told her that Tillerson’s outburst was completely unprofessional, according to two of the people familiar with the exchange, and told her that they needed to work out a solution.” http://politi.co/2ukaMVf (http://politi.co/2ukaMVf)
You are kidding yourself if you think Trump's time in office is anything other than a total clusterf$%ck...and the rest of the world knows it and is lining up ready to take advantage of Trump's exposed weaknesses...
-
I agree. Keep attacking him. He's deplorable. We need civility.
I do agree, and honestly, I'm embarrassed at my own reaction to him. That said, there comes a point when reasonable debate over policy (and as I said, I have zero problem with evidence-based discussion of far-right or far-left policy in the public sphere) is impossible, and Trump and this Congress are well past that point. From the two-faced games they played to install Gorsuch, to McConnell's absolutely shameless hypocrisy on how he's crafting the ACA "repeal" it's crystal clear that Republicans aren't interested in a policy discussion, but rather in playing to the emotions of their 35% "base" in hopes of retaining power.
That's not how it's supposed to work, right? And how any sane American can watch this cluster***k, hear the outrageous, blatant and easily verifiable lies that come from the White house and Congressional leadership every day, and not be offended beyond all rationality is truly beyond me.
-
This helps us how? By driving our European allies away, we've driven them into the hands of the Chinese (who swooped in and signed climate deals after Trump pulled us from the Paris Accord). That helps us?
His boorish behavior is not making anybody want to work with Trump. Trump is a laughing stock and so is America by extension...
Image what's gonna happen next week at the G20...all the the world's leaders are exchanging notes on how to handle Trump...puff him up with false praise and ignore what he says because he doesn't have a clue about anything substantive. He doesn't know how to negotiate in a diplomatic way and as a result he gets outplayed by all of the foreign leaders...
Trump is nutz...and he's hellbent on destroying everything–well, he's not–he's into winning bigly, but Bannon wants to tear everything down and rebuild it in his likeness.
You know this right? You understand what Bannon and by extension Trump are trying to do? Look at what they are doing with departments all over his administration:
Trump is crippling his agenda by leaving top jobs unfilled (http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/news/economy/trump-staffing-vacancies/index.html)
Heck Trump & Team won't even let Tillerson hire who he wants (instead of staffing with Trump cronies)
TILLERSON blows up at White House aide over staffing decisions (http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2017/06/29/tillerson-blows-up-at-white-house-aide-over-staffing-decisions-trump-mocks-cnn-pelosi-at-closed-door-fundraiser-sergio-gors-pr-hobby-bday-carl-forti-221096)
You are kidding yourself if you think Trump's time in office is anything other than a total clusterf$%ck...and the rest of the world knows it and is lining up ready to take advantage of Trump's exposed weaknesses...
You're right. Keep attacking him. He deserves it.
-
I do agree, and honestly, I'm embarrassed at my own reaction to him. That said, there comes a point when reasonable debate over policy (and as I said, I have zero problem with evidence-based discussion of far-right or far-left policy in the public sphere) is impossible, and Trump and this Congress are well past that point. From the two-faced games they played to install Gorsuch, to McConnell's absolutely shameless hypocrisy on how he's crafting the ACA "repeal" it's crystal clear that Republicans aren't interested in a policy discussion, but rather in playing to the emotions of their 35% "base" in hopes of retaining power.
That's not how it's supposed to work, right? And how any sane American can watch this cluster***k, hear the outrageous, blatant and easily verifiable lies that come from the White house and Congressional leadership every day, and not be offended beyond all rationality is truly beyond me.
You mean like all the Russian collusion attacks and lies by the Democrats. You mean like how the Democrats locked out the Republicans from debates when policy decisions were being made when Obamacare was being written. You mean how the Democrat Senate leader did away with the filibuster rule so Democrats and Obama could can stuff the lower courts with their federal judges without debate and without being topped by Republicans.
Look, the fact is both sides play political games for power. The advantage democrats have is that most of the liberal media is on their side and bias the news to help them.
-
You mean like all the Russian collusion attacks and lies by the Democrats. You mean like how the Democrats locked out the Republicans from debates when policy decisions were being made when Obamacare was being written. You mean how the Democrat Senate leader did away with the filibuster rule so Democrats and Obama could can stuff the lower courts with their federal judges without debate and without being topped by Republicans.
Look, the fact is both sides play political games for power. The advantage democrats have is that most of the liberal media is on their side and bias the news to help them.
Every single point you just made is demonstrably falsely equivalent. Well, except for the Russia stuff. That has yet to play out, but if you want we can compare the nonsensical Benghazi garbage to the current investigation if you like. As for the rest, go research the equivalency of process and the norms prior to this current generation of republican "party of no" types and get back to me on how, exactly, you think both parties are the same.
(As a point of reference, by the way, I only voted for Obama once and Bill Clinton once. I'm an honest-to-God independent). Trump and the Tea Partiers are the outliers, not the current crop of Dems. That's not to say that the Dems are innocent - they're not - but they're not half (or more) of the problem.
-
Trump's Company Gets Millions So Toronto Hotel Can Erase Brand (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/trump-hotel-owner-in-toronto-reaches-deal-to-remove-trump-brand)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/surveillance_trumptower_030717getty_lead.jpg?itok=hztNvdAF)
Seems Trump made easy money before and after. :D
Don
-
On the other hand...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/23/why-need-four-years-trump/mRm0mMoAzjG42yHzQ0AV2N/story.html
Excellent article. Beyond criticism.
-
You mean like all the Russian collusion attacks and lies by the Democrats. You mean like how the Democrats locked out the Republicans from debates when policy decisions were being made when Obamacare was being written. You mean how the Democrat Senate leader did away with the filibuster rule so Democrats and Obama could can stuff the lower courts with their federal judges without debate and without being topped by Republicans.
Look, the fact is both sides play political games for power. The advantage democrats have is that most of the liberal media is on their side and bias the news to help them.
ACA process and AHCA process are grossly incongruent (http://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/)
Republicans block as many Obama nominees as both parties did *for all time* before Obama (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/09/ben-cardin/did-senate-republicans-filibuster-obama-court-nomi/)
Alan, this iteration of Republicans have decided to abandon the norms of compromise and try to implement a style of right-wing extremism that most Americans don't agree with. Why?
-
Every single point you just made is demonstrably falsely equivalent. Well, except for the Russia stuff. That has yet to play out, but if you want we can compare the nonsensical Benghazi garbage to the current investigation if you like. As for the rest, go research the equivalency of process and the norms prior to this current generation of republican "party of no" types and get back to me on how, exactly, you think both parties are the same...
Instead of giving me a homework assignment, why don't you tell us how my points are not factual. I'll repeat them again below.
You mean like all the Russian collusion attacks and lies by the Democrats. You mean like how the Democrats locked out the Republicans from debates when policy decisions were being made when Obamacare was being written. You mean how the Democrat Senate leader did away with the filibuster rule so Democrats and Obama could can stuff the lower courts with their federal judges without debate and without being topped by Republicans...
-
Instead of giving me a homework assignment, why don't you tell us how my points are not factual. I'll repeat them again below.
You mean like all the Russian collusion attacks and lies by the Democrats. You mean like how the Democrats locked out the Republicans from debates when policy decisions were being made when Obamacare was being written. You mean how the Democrat Senate leader did away with the filibuster rule so Democrats and Obama could can stuff the lower courts with their federal judges without debate and without being topped by Republicans...
Look up, hoss.
-
ACA process and AHCA process are grossly incongruent (http://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/)
Republicans block as many Obama nominees as both parties did *for all time* before Obama (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/09/ben-cardin/did-senate-republicans-filibuster-obama-court-nomi/)
Alan, this iteration of Republicans have decided to abandon the norms of compromise and try to implement a style of right-wing extremism that most Americans don't agree with. Why?
The articles you pointed to are BS. The first says that both sides were guilty of hidden negotiation regarding Obamacare. Of course, the article also adds "Experts agree" by claiming the republicans were worse. Well, anytime someone says "Experts agree", they're trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. As a New Yorker, I know about those things as I've sold it a number of times myself.
The second article's arguments came from Sen. Cardon, a Democrat, who was trying to blame Republicans for the Democrats doing away with the filibuster rule. At that time the Dems were in charge of the Senate. Did they check with republicans about doing away with the rule? What do you expect Democrats to say about what they did?
-
The articles you pointed to are BS. The first says that both sides were guilty of hidden negotiation regarding Obamacare. Of course, the article also adds "Experts agree" by claiming the republicans were worse. Well, anytime someone says "Experts agree", they're trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. As a New Yorker, I know about those things as I've sold it a number of times myself.
The second article's arguments came from Sen. Cardon, a Democrat, who was trying to blame Republicans for the Democrats doing away with the filibuster rule. At that time the Dems were in charge of the Senate. Did they check with republicans about doing away with the rule? What do you expect Democrats to say about what they did?
Oh FFS, Alan. just look at the numbers in the articles. Or go Google. Look at the hearings on the ACA, the amendments offered and by whom, and so on and so on.
As for Republican obstructionism under Obama, *just look at the numbers* They're real. Not Trumpy "fake news." Seriously, the ideologues need to be drummed out, so adults can get back to governing.
-
Well, at least SOME GOP members are not willing to be enablers for the #BigOrangeButthead
Republicans Slam President Trump for 'Face-Lift' Tweet: 'This Isn't Normal' (http://time.com/4839060/donald-trump-republican-senators-mika-brzezinski-tweet/)
I don't see you getting so upset when they cut off his head as a joke or murdered him on a stage playing Caesar; or when comedians have said the most vulgar things about him and all these fake news hosts do who do nothing but spew insults. But keep attacking him. It'll payoff in 2018 and 2020.
-
Oh FFS, Alan. just look at the numbers in the articles. Or go Google. Look at the hearings on the ACA, the amendments offered and by whom, and so on and so on.
As for Republican obstructionism under Obama, *just look at the numbers* They're real. Not Trumpy "fake news." Seriously, the ideologues need to be drummed out, so adults can get back to governing.
"Obstructionism" is when the other side is doing it. When we do it, it's being loyal to the Constitution and following long-established "checks and balances."
-
"Obstructionism" is when the other side is doing it. When we do it, it's being loyal to the Constitution and following long-established "checks and balances."
Relative perception isn't what we're talking about - we're talking about the objective reality of how the Republicans decided to go stupid when Obama was elected, and the result, 9 years later, is the kneejerk need to defend "their" guy, even when he's an unmitigated disaster like Trump. Again, go look at the numbers, and if you have a shred of objectivity, you have admit that the Rs are the one that have goofed up the system.
-
Relative perception isn't what we're talking about - we're talking about the objective reality of how the Republicans decided to go stupid when Obama was elected, and the result, 9 years later, is the kneejerk need to defend "their" guy, even when he's an unmitigated disaster like Trump. Again, go look at the numbers, and if you have a shred of objectivity, you have admit that the Rs are the one that have goofed up the system.
The "objective reality" you speak of is that 9 years ago the Democrats owned the presidency and both house of Congress. They jammed through Obamacare. Then they lost the House, the Senate, and 1000 other elected positions around the country and finally lost the presidency last year. So who goofed up what?
-
Alan - look up the numbers. Until you do and discuss them, you have nothing useful to say.
-
I don't see you getting so upset when they cut off his head as a joke or murdered him on a stage playing Caesar; or when comedians have said the most vulgar things about him and all these fake news hosts do who do nothing but spew insults. But keep attacking him. It'll payoff in 2018 and 2020.
Hum...while I don't think Kathy Griffin's post of the Trump head was in good taste, I think it is actually covered under the 1st amendment. The primary thing wrong with it in my opinion was in addition to being in poor taste, it wasn't funny. But then again Kathy Griffin is often not very funny that that's her problem. I also think the furor about it was way more out of scale than the many, MANY example of similar examples where Obama was the victim...I don't recall nearly the furor over that...so, can you spell double standard? Something you scream a lot...
As for the production of Julius Caesar in the park, while I didn't see it, I'm pretty sure it was intended as political commentary and not advocating violence. To claim that is simply being silly...from the director:
But Mr Eustis, creative director of the theatre, said people were missing the point.
“Anyone seeing our production of Julius Caesar will realise it in no way advocates violence towards anyone,” he said. Instead, he said his production makes “the opposite point: Those who attempt to defend democracy by undemocratic methods pay a terrible price and destroy their Republic.
“For over 400 years, Shakespeare’s play has told this story and we are proud to be telling it again in Central Park.”
So, casting Caesar as an overweight blond guy with bad hair and a long tie might have been a bit obvious but I thought it was poignant commentary...
As for comedians and TV hosts saying vulgar things about Trump, well duh. What did Trump expect? That people would treat him as a creepy wealthy playboy real estate mogul? Then he shouldn't have run for public office. Seriously, if Trump is gonna go apoplectic over what somebody says about him he should resign the office. When you step into the public glare you better prepare yourself for a lot of flak–which Trump clearly didn't do.
Remember the earlier interviews when he lamented that the job of president was a lot of work? That he loved his old life and he thought once he was president, the media would treat him nicer.
Was he naive, inexperienced or simply stupid?
Yeah, we'll see what happens in 2018. The democrats' best weapon is Donald J Trump...he has already galvanized the resistance and the town halls that the GOP congressmen run from is hitting home–while spending 7+ years as the "Party of No™" they have arrived in power with little idea of how to actually govern and they are saddled with a psycho in the White House...
There is no way this whole situation is anything but terrible and Trump has done ZERO to make things better and seems to daily sink us lower and lower.
-
It sucks folks, it really sucks and the whole world knows it...
American politics Donald Trump’s Washington is paralysed (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21724392-and-man-oval-office-making-bad-situation-worse-donald-trumps-washington)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/20170701_LDD001_0.jpg)
JULY 4th ought to bring Americans together. It is a day to celebrate how 13 young colonies united against British rule to begin their great experiment in popular government. But this July 4th Americans are riven by mutual incomprehension: between Republicans and Democrats, yes, but also between factory workers and university students, country folk and city-dwellers. And then there is President Donald Trump, not only a symptom of America’s divisions but a cause of them, too.
Mr Trump won power partly because he spoke for voters who feel that the system is working against them, as our special report this week sets out. He promised that, by dredging Washington of the elites and lobbyists too stupid or self-serving to act for the whole nation, he would fix America’s politics.
His approach is not working. Five months into his first term, Mr Trump presides over a political culture that is even more poisonous than when he took office. His core voters are remarkably loyal. Many businesspeople still believe that he will bring tax cuts and deregulation. But their optimism stands on ever-shakier ground. The Trump presidency has been plagued by poor judgment and missed opportunities. The federal government is already showing the strain. Sooner or later, the harm will spread beyond the beltway and into the economy.
From sea to shining sea
America’s loss of faith in politics did not start with Mr Trump. For decades, voters have complained about the gridlock in Washington and the growing influence of lobbyists, often those with the deepest pockets. Francis Fukuyama, a political theorist, blamed the decay on the “vetocracy”, a tangle of competing interests and responsibilities that can block almost any ambitious reform. When the world changes and the federal government cannot rise to the challenge, he argued, voters’ disillusion only grows.
Mr Trump has also fuelled the mistrust. He has correctly identified areas where America needs reform, but botched his response—partly because of his own incontinent ego. Take tax. No one doubts that America’s tax code is a mess, stuffed full of loopholes and complexity. But Mr Trump’s reform plans show every sign of turning into a cut for the rich that leaves the code as baffling as ever. So, too, health care. Instead of reforming Obamacare, Republicans are in knots over a bill that would leave millions of Mr Trump’s own voters sicker and poorer.
Institutions are vulnerable. The White House is right to complain about America’s overlapping and competing agencies, which spun too much red tape under President Barack Obama. Yet its attempt to reform this “administrative state” is wrecking the machinery the government needs to function. Mr Trump’s hostility has already undermined the courts, the intelligence services, the state department and America’s environmental watchdog. He wants deep budget cuts and has failed to fill presidential appointments. Of 562 key positions identified by the Washington Post, 390 remain without a nominee.
As harmful as what Mr Trump does is the way he does it. In the campaign he vowed to fight special interests. But his solution—to employ businesspeople too rich for lobbyists to buy—is no solution at all. Just look at Mr Trump himself: despite his half-hearted attempts to disentangle the presidency and the family business, nobody knows where one ends and the other begins. He promised to be a dealmaker, but his impulse to belittle his opponents and the miasma of scandal and leaks surrounding Russia’s role in the campaign have made the chances of cross-party co-operation even more remote. The lack of respect for expertise, such as the attacks on the Congressional Budget Office over its dismal scoring of health-care reform, only makes Washington more partisan. Most important, Mr Trump’s disregard for the truth cuts into what remains of the basis for cross-party agreement. If you cannot agree on the facts, all you have left is a benighted clash of rival tribes.
---snip--
July 4th is a time to remember that America has renewed itself in the past; think of Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of a modern, professional state, FDR’s New Deal, and the Reagan revolution. In principle it is not too late for Mr Trump to embrace bipartisanship and address the real issues. In practice, it is ever clearer that he is incapable of bringing about such a renaissance. That will fall to his successor.
-
On the other hand...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/23/why-need-four-years-trump/mRm0mMoAzjG42yHzQ0AV2N/story.html
Excellent article, and I agree that I still take Trump with all his bullying and stupid decisions over the veneered crooks like Ryan and Pence. So look at the alternatives of Trump stepping down (or being forced to step down), it will be worse then what we have today. I just wish he would cut out the stupid crap and start governing with a bit of common sense and dignity.
-
Excellent article, and I agree that I still take Trump with all his bullying and stupid decisions over the veneered crooks like Ryan and Pence. So look at the alternatives of Trump stepping down (or being forced to step down), it will be worse then what we have today. I just wish he would cut out the stupid crap and start governing with a bit of common sense and dignity.
I agree, good article and the short-term alternatives might be more politically correct/acceptable but just as damaging (or worse).
Of course, the current President is also damaging to the interests of the USA in an international arena, but true leaders know they will only have to put up with a fool for one term. The damage to the American people might have a cleansing effect at next election time, although gullible people usually stay gullible and might fall for the next false messiah.
I do feel sorry for those who have to endure the whole thing unraveling.
War is a likely diversion and is often used by populists (who always try to blame others for their own failings) as a diverion, and it tends to unite the people behind the foreign threat.
Cheers,
Bart
-
War is a likely diversion and is often used by populists (who always try to blame others for their own failings) as a diverion, and it tends to unite the people behind the foreign threat.
not populists only, MIA as well = https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower's_farewell_address_(reading_copy) (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower's_farewell_address_(reading_copy))
-
I agree, good article and the short-term alternatives might be more politically correct/acceptable but just as damaging (or worse).
Of course, the current President is also damaging to the interests of the USA in an international arena, but true leaders know they will only have to put up with a fool for one term. The damage to the American people might have a cleansing effect at next election time, although gullible people usually stay gullible and might fall for the next false messiah.
I do feel sorry for those who have to endure the whole thing unraveling.
War is a likely diversion and is often used by populists (who always try to blame others for their own failings) as a diverion, and it tends to unite the people behind the foreign threat.
Cheers,
Bart
The interests of America have been straightened internationally since Trump? It was very weak under Obama. Our adversaries are afraid of us again. And our so-called friends no longer see us as an easy mark. That's why your hear all the complaints from some of our allies. They're going to have to pay more. That will be good for American taxpayers.
-
The interests of America have been straightened internationally since Trump?
Good question, but I don't think so. Maybe his enemies will be a bit more careful but the US allies are mostly just ignoring him and will sweat it out. Probably the best choice in the short run.
-
The Wayback Machine from 11:01 a.m. ET Nov. 3, 2016
Melania Trump pledges to combat cyber-bullying as first lady (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/03/melania-trump-suburban-women-pennsylvania/93232926/)
If Melania Trump is first lady, she'll focus efforts on putting an end to bullying on social media.
In her first solo speech since the Republican National Convention, Melania Trump on Thursday called for an end to online bullying of children and teenagers, saying, it is "absolutely unacceptable when it’s done with no name hiding on the internet."
“Technology has changed our universe. But like anything that is powerful it can have a bad side. We have seen this already. As adults, many of us are able to handle mean words — even lies. Children and teenagers can be fragile. They hurt when they are made fun of or made to feel less in looks or intelligence. This makes their life hard and forces them to hide and retreat. Our culture has gotten too mean and too rough especially to children and to teenagers.”
"We have to find a better way to talk to each other, to disagree with each other, to respect each other," she continued. She did not make any reference to the fact that her husband has engaged throughout the campaign in bare-knuckled personal attacks on his political opponents, the media, random celebrities and a host of others.
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/composite-trump-wife.jpg?strip=all&w=750&h=500&crop=1)
Ironic huh? Sad too...and now:
'Fake News.' President Trump Doubles Down on Twitter Feud With 'Morning Joe' Hosts (http://time.com/4840993/donald-trump-joe-scarborough-national-inquirer/)
President Donald Trump on Friday called MSNBC's Morning Joe "fake news" after host Joe Scarborough alleged senior White House aides asked him to apologize to the President to prevent the publication of a negative story about Scarborough in the National Enquirer.
"Watched low rated Morning Joe for first time in long time," Trump tweeted Friday morning. "FAKE NEWS. He called me to stop a National Enquirer article. I said no! Bad show."
Scarborough made the allegation in a scathing op-ed he wrote with co-host Mika Brzezinski published in The Washington Post Friday. Scarborough reiterated the claim on MSNBC, saying "the calls kept coming" about the potential story from three top White House aides.
Scarborough has since responded to Trump's tweet over the allegation, asking the President in a tweet why he keeps "lying about things that are easily disproven?"
"I have texts from your top aides and phone record," Scarborough wrote. "Also, those records show I haven't spoken with you in many months."
The White House did not immediately respond to TIME's request for comment on the alleged communications.
The President of the United States of America and the Leader of the Free Friggin' World™ has nothing better to do than watch Morning Joe and get into a Twitter war with TV talk show hosts...
#MAGA-NOT!
-
The interests of America have been straightened internationally since Trump?
Huh?
If by interests of America have been straightened internationally since Trump you mean the whole world is laughing, then yes, you are correct! The whole world is laughing at Trump. Can you image the snickering he'll get next week at the G20? And he's gonna meet Putin and do what, try to sound tough?
Yeah...not so much :~(
-
The interests of America have been straightened internationally since Trump? It was very weak under Obama. Our adversaries are afraid of us again. And our so-called friends no longer see us as an easy mark. That's why your hear all the complaints from some of our allies. They're going to have to pay more. That will be good for American taxpayers.
If by interests of America have been straightened internationally since Trump you mean the whole world is laughing, then yes, you are correct! The whole world is laughing at Trump. Can you image the snickering he'll get next week at the G20? And he's gonna meet Putin and do what, try to sound tough?
There seems to be some dissonance between the Americans on this matter. When it comes to the international observers, they are also perplexed, like - how could all this have happened, and how much longer will it last?
-
There seems to be some dissonance between the Americans on this matter. When it comes to the international observers, they are also perplexed, like - how could all this have happened, and how much longer will it last?
Same feeling about Brexit?
I'm pretty sure a lot of this snuck on a lot of people and voters were lackadaisical about their civic duty and let a minority of voters sneak in and upset the apple cart. It's a major set back but hopefully it has been enough to engage people in political activities and discourse. Course it would be useful if the discourse wasn't so darn course...
-
Same feeling about Brexit?
Course it would be useful if the discourse wasn't so darn course...
I agree. Maybe you should be more civil too instead of using terms like this when you talk about the President: #BigOrangeButthead
-
I agree. Maybe you should be more civil too instead of using terms like this when you talk about the President: #BigOrangeButthead
I've been civil to you and others in this thread... but you are asking me to respect somebody as contemptible and despicable as Trump?
Naw, sorry the #BigOrangeDummy will only get my respect when he earns it...I'm sure expecting a very long wait!
-
I agree. Maybe you should be more civil too instead of using terms like this when you talk about the President: #BigOrangeButthead
He has demeaned the office of the President all by himself. He doesn't deserve any respect.
-
Imagine : and even reality;
The first president i can think of, that is not respected.
Not by me, not by many people, institutions and governments in and outside the USA.
-
I agree. Maybe you should be more civil too instead of using terms like this when you talk about the President: #BigOrangeButthead
Sorry, can't go along with this. He called Mexicans rapists, used "Pocohontas" to demean someone, called HC a "nasty woman", can't remember other instances right now. I understand why you want dignity and respect for the office, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Trump brought this on himself by his own undignified behaviour, no one else to blame but himself. Anyway, I thought you liked it when people are politically incorrect and "tell it like it is".
-
I've been civil to you and others in this thread... but you are asking me to respect somebody as contemptible and despicable as Trump?
Naw, sorry the #BigOrangeDummy will only get my respect when he earns it...I'm sure expecting a very long wait!
I understand how respectful you are by calling the President the #BigOrangeDummy. Now if the President could only be as respectful in return as you the world would be so much more civil.
-
Sorry, can't go along with this. He called Mexicans rapists, used "Pocohontas" to demean someone, called HC a "nasty woman", can't remember other instances right now. I understand why you want dignity and respect for the office, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Trump brought this on himself by his own undignified behaviour, no one else to blame but himself. Anyway, I thought you liked it when people are politically incorrect and "tell it like it is".
Well you're right. It is mature to get down into the mud like others. I'm sure that's exactly how your parents taught you to behave. How could I have expected anything less of you?
-
Well you're right. It is mature to get down into the mud like others. I'm sure that's exactly how your parents taught you to behave. How could I have expected anything less of you?
Goodnight.
-
So Trump sells more weapons to Taiwan pissing off China again, and squeezes China and South Korea about their trade policies that negatively impact America. He expressed that he's at the end of the line with North Korea and has given up pretty much on China helping. Meanwhile, the American press would rather talk about tweets and Mika's facelifts and make fun of Trump rather than discussing existential issues that are really important to America and the world. That's why the media has lower ratings then Trump, Congress and even the Democrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/world/asia/trump-south-korea-china.html
-
Donald Trump’s plan to encourage US companies to repatriate profits held offshore will allow the 50 biggest American corporations to save at least $300bn.
That should be an easy thing to do. Six months are gone, so when is he going to do it?
I would think, the sooner, the better to put that money to work in USA. And Apple might reduce prices on their products (at least in North America). The Apple stock price should also jump.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/12/trump-tax-holiday-us-companies-apple-oxfam-tax
-
So Trump sells more weapons to Taiwan pissing off China again, and squeezes China and South Korea about their trade policies that negatively impact America. He expressed that he's at the end of the line with North Korea and has given up pretty much on China helping. Meanwhile, the American press would rather talk about tweets and Mika's facelifts and make fun of Trump rather than discussing existential issues that are really important to America and the world. That's why the media has lower ratings then Trump, Congress and even the Democrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/world/asia/trump-south-korea-china.html
Uh... you just linked a New York Times article covering China and South Korea to illustrate the importance of the situation while complaining that the media isn't covering China and South Korea.
-
Maybe next time you will pick a real representative instead of a self appointed emperor with such great "new cloths."
Wait, who are you talking about, Trump or Clinton? Sorry, you lost me there :~)
-
Meanwhile, the American press would rather talk about tweets and Mika's facelifts and make fun of Trump rather than discussing existential issues that are really important to America and the world.
Well, maybe if the #BigOrangeButthead (not sure of I like butthead better than dummy, what do you all think?) would wake up in the morning and use Twitter to talk about something substantial rather than getting into a snit about TV talkshow hosts, then I'll betcha the media would pay attention to that.
After all, Spicey made it official; Tweets from Donald J Trump are officially statements by the President of the United States of America and Leader of the Free World™. And he hasn't had a press conference in months...so Tweets what the press has.
So, maybe you can get butthead to Tweet on something important? No?
(https://i1.wp.com/extracapsa.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/donald-trump-donkey-hotey-800.jpg?w=328&h=266&crop&ssl=1)
Well, ok then...
-
Don't tell me you voted for Clinton for her personal qualities; you've admitted that you did not already.
I voted for Clinton so I didn't have to cast a vote for Trump.
I honestly think Clinton would have been a better president even with a GOP House and Senate. Clearly she would not have been the disaster that Trump has been.
-
What disaster? Stock market is up, illegal border crossings are 40% down, (some) Muslims are banned, Supreme Court judge appointed, communism advance (a.k.a. Dems) slowed down...so, what disaster?
-
Uh... you just linked a New York Times article covering China and South Korea to illustrate the importance of the situation while complaining that the media isn't covering China and South Korea.
You don't see it on cable or discuss it here in the forum. I doubt if you saw more than a few seconds, if that, on broadcast TV news. Instead of us all focusing on what's really important, we get side tracked with nonsense like tweets because it sells better. It's all about looking for something to knock the president instead of paying attention to what he's doing that will really effect us.
-
Exactly! But don't tell me you voted for her because you liked it.
For me, a stanch fiscal conservative and capitalist first, my vote was for the same reason as your vote. If Anthony Kennedy retired this term, I would be more than happy to concede the next election to you.
Ginsberg or Breyer would be nice too.
-
Instead of tweets, here is a list of things Trump has done - both "positive" and "negative" depending on your viewpoint. How did these things ever get done between his tweets?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Donald_Trump_achievements
-
Instead of tweets, here is a list of things Trump has done - both "positive" and "negative" depending on your viewpoint. How did these things ever get done between his tweets?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Donald_Trump_achievements
The intro is mostly hot air, only thing missing is the "biggest crowd at the inauguration statement" but that would have really make it lose all credibility.
Most of the achievements are (in my eyes) either bad, insignificant or extensions of what was done before. Also signing work done by others takes very little time and still gives him plenty time for tweets and golf (and watching morning talk shows).
I found this the most funny "achievement" mentioned:
Trump's victory over political correctness
Trump has strongly and successfully challenged political correctness, particularly during his 2016 presidential campaign. He insisted on using the term "anchor baby" despite a reporter saying the term was offensive.[520] He uses the term "Islamic terrorism". He says he will use the words "Merry Christmas".
In June 2017, after an Islamic terrorist attack in the United Kingdom, President Trump used his social media platform to call for the end of political correctness.
So why does he get so mad and start lying more when others question his integrity by for instance calling him out on hanging fake Time covers at his golf resorts. So I guess in his mind the only one who can abandon political correctness is himself. Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
-
You don't see it on cable or discuss it here in the forum. I doubt if you saw more than a few seconds, if that, on broadcast TV news. Instead of us all focusing on what's really important, we get side tracked with nonsense like tweets because it sells better. It's all about looking for something to knock the president instead of paying attention to what he's doing that will really effect us.
It got covered in a lot of media, even the libertarian press you so despise, so you're playing "victim" again without due cause.
And to the real issue at stake how to "solve" North Korea, the conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouth: On the one hand they don't want to be the policeman of the world but that also means you have to work with your allies in the region and not go solo, which is what Trump is now implying to do. You can't do both.
-
It got covered in a lot of media, even the libertarian press you so despise, so you're playing "victim" again without due cause.
And to the real issue at stake how to "solve" North Korea, the conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouth: On the one hand they don't want to be the policeman of the world but that also means you have to work with your allies in the region and not go solo, which is what Trump is now implying to do. You can't do both.
This is great. You're actually discussing war and peace, things that are important. Me?, I'm ambivalent. I don't want to see another war. But I am concerned with a nuclear armed North Korea. What do others think how this situation should be handled??
-
Interview excerpt, short take on Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPTSqltiVk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPTSqltiVk).
-
I agree. Maybe you should be more civil too instead of using terms like this when you talk about the President: #BigOrangeButthead
Seriously, how you can talk about civility when the guy engages in nonsense like this: http://globalnews.ca/news/3569658/ny-post-trump-mika-brzezinski/ (http://globalnews.ca/news/3569658/ny-post-trump-mika-brzezinski/).
-
Seriously, how you can talk about civility when the guy engages in nonsense like this: http://globalnews.ca/news/3569658/ny-post-trump-mika-brzezinski/ (http://globalnews.ca/news/3569658/ny-post-trump-mika-brzezinski/).
So instead of discussing the important issues of the day like North Korea that Trump also talks about and is implementing policy, you'd rather get into the gutter and slash away? You seem more interested in tweets regarding Mika's face lifts than war and peace. Doesn't that say something about you?
-
So instead of discussing the important issues of the day like North Korea that Trump also talks about and is implementing policy, you'd rather get into the gutter and slash away? You seem more interested in tweets regarding Mika's face lifts than war and peace. Doesn't that say something about you?
You brought up civility.
You keep changing the subject.
What happened in North Korea or China overnight to cause this sudden overriding concern? But if you think that North Korea is a suddenly an existential threat, that's your prerogative.
-
This is great. You're actually discussing war and peace, things that are important. Me?, I'm ambivalent. I don't want to see another war. But I am concerned with a nuclear armed North Korea. What do others think how this situation should be handled??
I also don't want to see another war and I'm also worried about a nuclear armed North Korea. However I'm also worried about your president dropping a few stray bombs without real purpose and only making matters worse. The US has a serious history of screwing up by simply not understanding that some people think differently then they do. Remember Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan? Your current commander in chief is a bigger nutcase than any of his predecessors making those errors of judgement so I'm actually most worried about him taking some stupid decisions. I think the solution is putting much more real diplomatic pressure on China to solve it and give them both time, a way to save face (very important in Asia to get anything usefully done) as well as something in return (and I don't mean another bunch of bullying tweets) and secondly spend some time understanding Asian culture as well as why you need to be patient with such a process.
-
You brought up civility.
You keep changing the subject.
What happened in North Korea or China overnight to cause this sudden overriding concern? But if you think that North Korea is a suddenly an existential threat, that's your prerogative.
Bob (sorry), We've all spent 200+ pages attacking and defending Trump rather than discussing his policies that really will effect us all. Maybe that's his plan with the tweets. Distract us all while he goes about changing the world while we're asleep.
From the article I linked earlier:
"...The president reaffirmed the American security alliance with South Korea against the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea. But he showed little patience for Mr. Moon’s hope for engagement with the North — something analysts said could be a future source of friction between the leaders.
Mr. Trump’s decision on Thursday to impose sanctions on Chinese entities that do business with North Korea was interpreted by some as a shot across the bow not only to Beijing, but also to Mr. Moon, since it emphasizes pressure over diplomacy. And the president’s approval of a $1.4 billion weapons sale to Taiwan provoked a sulfurous reaction from the Chinese government.
Taken together, the measures signal that Mr. Trump has moved into an aggressive, unpredictable phase of his strategy for dealing with one of the world’s tensest regions. On trade, at least, the United States will now be at odds with its two key partners in confronting the rogue government in North Korea..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/world/asia/trump-south-korea-china.html?_r=0
-
Bob (sorry), We've all spent 200+ pages attacking and defending Trump rather than discussing his policies that really will effect us all. Maybe that's his plan with the tweets. Distract us all while he goes about changing the world while we're asleep.
The "Trump is secretly a soopergenius that acts like a deranged child on purpose to throw everyone off balance, but in reality is a coldly calculated, hyper competent manipulator of the media and the world around him just waiting for us all to wake up one day and see the Garden of Eden he's created while we slept" is ridiculous.
That said, I can concede that his change tone toward NK may be having, or could have, a positive effect given enough time and enough cooperation from China - certainly the status quo hasn't really solved the problem. We shall see. It could also blow up (literally) in his (and our) face.
-
What disaster? Stock market is up, illegal border crossings are 40% down, (some) Muslims are banned, Supreme Court judge appointed, communism advance (a.k.a. Dems) slowed down...so, what disaster?
Market was fine, border crossings were already trending down, racist paranoia isn't a positive, political hypocrisy shouldn't be rewarded, and authoritarianism is no substitute.
What else you got?
-
I also don't want to see another war and I'm also worried about a nuclear armed North Korea. However I'm also worried about your president dropping a few stray bombs without real purpose and only making matters worse. The US has a serious history of screwing up by simply not understanding that some people think differently then they do. Remember Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan? Your current commander in chief is a bigger nutcase than any of his predecessors making those errors of judgement so I'm actually most worried about him taking some stupid decisions. I think the solution is putting much more real diplomatic pressure on China to solve it and give them both time, a way to save face (very important in Asia to get anything usefully done) as well as something in return (and I don't mean another bunch of bullying tweets) and secondly spend some time understanding Asian culture as well as why you need to be patient with such a process.
Pieter: Thoughtful comments. Yes, we often jump the gun militarily. But Trump didn't get us into Vietnam or Iraq. I believe he was against Bush in Iraq. I disagree though about Afghanistan. Al Khaida launched their attack on 9-11 from there. That's where Bin Laden trained his forces. So we had to go into Afghanistan to eliminate Al Khaida there. The problem is trying to figure how to get out of there without allowing the Taliban to re-group and the place again becoming another breeding ground for terrorists. Maybe if the Taliban takes over again, we should just make a deal with them to be friends if they keep terrorists out. After what happened to them before, they may like that. Then we could leave Afghanistan.
By the way, calling Trump a nutcase doesn't lend itself to the conversation. He's a clever guy who knows how to use pressure and seeming irrationality and confusion to get his way. His toughness to date such as in Syria air field, MOAB, weapons to Taiwan, etc. have changed our adversaries view of America from one of weakness and fecklessness under Obama to one where they have to tread carefully. That's good for our side. And I consider you on our side. Ditto with Russia, although you wouldn't believe that reading the press.
I think China said a lot of nice things to him in Mar-a-lago to put us off. Trump went along hoping. But it didn't take him long to figure out they aren't going to help unless we really pressure them. Talk is cheap. The Chinese care most about money and trade. Anything that threatens those things concerns them because it will lead to unrest in China and they want to maintain power. The North Koreans made a deal with us years ago to not produce nuclear weapons. They lied. The only thing that effects them is pressure. I don't see Trump going to war. Frankly, that's something Congress should decide. But I see him using maximum pressure everything short of war against China and North Korea. He's not afraid to use America's economic and military power to get his way. He really knows how to leverage strength. Maybe that's what his handshakes are all about. To remind people he has the strength of America behind him.
-
...That said, I can concede that his change tone toward NK may be having, or could have, a positive effect given enough time and enough cooperation from China - certainly the status quo hasn't really solved the problem. We shall see. It could also blow up (literally) in his (and our) face.
You're right it's all dangerous. But it's dangerous regardless of what any president could do considering the circumstances. Would the situation be different for a President Clinton or Sanders? What would you do if you were president?
-
Pieter: Thoughtful comments. Yes, we often jump the gun militarily. But Trump didn't get us into Vietnam or Iraq. I believe he was against Bush in Iraq. I disagree though about Afghanistan. Al Khaida launched their attack on 9-11 from there. That's where Bin Laden trained his forces. So we had to go into Afghanistan to eliminate Al Khaida there. The problem is trying to figure how to get out of there without allowing the Taliban to re-group and the place again becoming another breeding ground for terrorists. Maybe if the Taliban takes over again, we should just make a deal with them to be friends if they keep terrorists out. After what happened to them before, they may like that. Then we could leave Afghanistan.
By the way, calling Trump a nutcase doesn't lend itself to the conversation. He's a clever guy who knows how to use pressure and seeming irrationality and confusion to get his way. His toughness to date such as in Syria air field, MOAB, weapons to Taiwan, etc. have changed our adversaries view of America from one of weakness and fecklessness under Obama to one where they have to tread carefully. That's good for our side. And I consider you on our side. Ditto with Russia, although you wouldn't believe that reading the press.
I think China said a lot of nice things to him in Mar-a-lago to put us off. Trump went along hoping. But it didn't take him long to figure out they aren't going to help unless we really pressure them. Talk is cheap. The Chinese care most about money and trade. Anything that threatens those things concerns them because it will lead to unrest in China and they want to maintain power. The North Koreans made a deal with us years ago to not produce nuclear weapons. They lied. The only thing that effects them is pressure. I don't see Trump going to war. Frankly, that's something Congress should decide. But I see him using maximum pressure everything short of war against China and North Korea. He's not afraid to use America's economic and military power to get his way. He really knows how to leverage strength. Maybe that's what his handshakes are all about. To remind people he has the strength of America behind him.
Alan, I'm not talking about the Afganistan you mentioned. I'm talking about the Afganistan where Bin Laden was the US ally and you armed and trained him. But after he had served his purpose the US dropped him like a stone and he turned. When you fight in those regions you need to understand that alliances take longer then just a war or a presidential term, they take generations and get it wrong you pay the price and in the end everybody will be against you (which is basically what's happening at the moment).
On your second point I disagree Trump is a clever guy. If he can't keep a level head when dealing with two reporters who are calling him out on fraud and straight lies (and rightfully so) how should we have confidence he will be any smarter dealing with real world problems. He might be a shrewd businessman but as a commander in chief he's way out of his league and both his temperament and ego are getting in the way of doing the right thing. He's only looking for quick/small wins and totally forgetting the longer term goals and the strategy needed to achieve them.
I hope Congress will stop him before he does anything stupid, but I'm not sure at all.
-
Alan, I'm not talking about the Afganistan you mentioned. I'm talking about the Afganistan where Bin Laden was the US ally and you armed and trained him. But after he had served his purpose the US dropped him like a stone and he turned. When you fight in those regions you need to understand that alliances take longer then just a war or a presidential term, they take generations and get it wrong you pay the price and in the end everybody will be against you (which is basically what's happening at the moment).
On your second point I disagree Trump is a clever guy. If he can't keep a level head when dealing with two reporters who are calling him out on fraud and straight lies (and rightfully so) how should we have confidence he will be any smarter dealing with real world problems. He might be a shrewd businessman but as a commander in chief he's way out of his league and both his temperament and ego are getting in the way of doing the right thing. He's only looking for quick/small wins and totally forgetting the longer term goals and the strategy needed to achieve them.
I hope Congress will stop him before he does anything stupid, but I'm not sure at all.
Bin Laden was not an ally. We supported the Taliban and other Afghanistan tribes against Russia in their war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden supported the Taliban and therefore got favor from them in setting up training and military camps. Bin Laden was always against the west, Jews, Israel and all those who oppose Arabs and Islam which is everyone who is not Muslim. He was also against the Saudi king. He never "turned".
But Trump is dealing with real-world problems. He's gotten back the respect for America from adversaries that Obama lost. Our friends are upset because it's not business as usual with America. We've become a tough friend, a first among equals, who expects to treated with deference. We won't be rolled. Of course, other nations don't like that. It's going to cost them money. They're going to lose influence. Nobody wants to be second fiddle. But Trump doesn't care because he's president of America unlike Obama who wanted to be liked and president of the world.
-
Bin Laden was not an ally. We supported the Taliban and other Afghanistan tribes against Russia in their war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden supported the Taliban and therefore got favor from them in setting up training and military camps. Bin Laden was always against the west, Jews, Israel and all those who oppose Arabs and Islam which is everyone who is not Muslim. He was also against the Saudi king. He never "turned".
But Trump is dealing with real-world problems. He's gotten back the respect for America from adversaries that Obama lost. Our friends are upset because it's not business as usual with America. We've become a tough friend, a first among equals, who expects to treated with deference. We won't be rolled. Of course, other nations don't like that. It's going to cost them money. They're going to lose influence. Nobody wants to be second fiddle. But Trump doesn't care because he's president of America unlike Obama who wanted to be liked and president of the world.
Bin Laden got money from the US (via ISI/Pakistan) in his fight against Russia, that's what I call an ally. He might not like the country he got it from but he still took and used it.
On your second paragraph I wholeheartedly disagree. Trump is not getting respect from around the world, he's too irrational and unpredictable to get (and deserve) that. Yes people might be more careful not to burn too many bridges for once he's gone and keep a low profile for now but whenever possible they will just ignore him and move on with their business. To be first among equals he really needs to do a whole lot better. The current stream of hot air is mainly counterproductive, he thinks it makes him (and the US) look good but that's just an illusion.
-
You're right it's all dangerous. But it's dangerous regardless of what any president could do considering the circumstances. Would the situation be different for a President Clinton or Sanders? What would you do if you were president?
A fair question. I'd almost certainly be a one-term president because I'm not ideological enough to shore up my base - I'm a fairly extreme pragmatist at heart. Let's start with positions that are more "conservative" in nature
I'd likely take a position similar to the just-stated approach to China and North Korea that was announced the other day.
I believe that, as a practical matter, entitlements should be means tested.
I believe that our corporate tax approach needs to be revisited (even though the language the current R leaders are using to make that point is pretty weaselly)
I think that the fact that some 50(ish)% of people eventually net out to close to a zero effective tax rate is bad, and to levy even more asymmetric taxes on the wealthy isn't the correct solution to federal revenue issues.
Most importantly, I'm a true civil libertarian. I support a strong defense of *all* of our elucidated and implied rights, including gun ownership, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and freedom of assembly and travel.
On the other hand, I think Obama was on the right track with his treatment of non-violent offenders. Sessions is screwing the pooch big time on this.
I strongly disagree with the rollback on environmental regulations. Robust energy company revenues, despite the decline in oil prices, indicates that regulations aren't harming our core industries.
I think we would save more American lives by investments in science and research than an increase in military spending.
I don't really give a damn if someone thinks we are "strong" so long as they think we are competent. The fact that the US is "strong" is pretty obvious, and we don't need to shove it in everyone's face 24/7.
Finally, the idea that acting the way we are now lessens everyone else's standing in the world because we are suddenly "scarier" is, IMHO, 100% flat dead wrong.
-
I don't really give a damn if someone thinks we are "strong" so long as they think we are competent. The fact that the US is "strong" is pretty obvious, and we don't need to shove it in everyone's face 24/7...
Power isn't obvious if you don't use it. In spite of American power, Obama let Russia take the Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, etc. and China to build up those islands into militarized bases. Trump's air base strike in Syria and MOAB among other things have again created caution in our adversaries. His recent "red line" threat to Assad is very believable because of it. Do you doubt he will bomb Syrian bases again if Assad uses chemical weapons on his people? Power has value only if people think you're willing to use it. The idea that foreign leaders don't respect him is nonsense. He is the President and commands America's economic and military power for the next four years. Their personal views of him as a person are beside the point.
But I agree a lot with most of your other ideas. I think Trump believes in many of them too and is trying to implement them.
-
The idea that foreign leaders don't respect him is nonsense.
Maybe you should expand your reading a bit...according to Pew Research Center Trump's not doing so hot.
U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership (http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/)
America still wins praise for its people, culture and civil liberties
Although he has only been in office a few months, Donald Trump’s presidency has had a major impact on how the world sees the United States. Trump and many of his key policies are broadly unpopular around the globe, and ratings for the U.S. have declined steeply in many nations. According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, a median of just 22% has confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. This stands in contrast to the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency, when a median of 64% expressed confidence in Trump’s predecessor to direct America’s role in the world.
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/23153951/PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-0.png)
And this is likely to irritate the Trumpster....he hates when Obama outdoes him!
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/23153955/PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-1.png)
Anybody who thinks Trump is respected by other leaders in the world is not really dealing with reality. The current "leader of the free world" mantle has, I think, been passed to Merkel.
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/23154008/PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-4.png)
But here's some news that might brighten Trump's day...
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/23154032/PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-9.png)
But when it comes to Trump character, well...
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/23161859/PG_2017.06.26.US_Image-00-6.png)
Any objective evaluation of America's position, status and leadership in the world shows we have taken a nose dive...not a good thing if something bad happens and we need the help of our allies. America First is starting to sound more like America Worst.
And this doesn't take into effect the juvenile behavior and Trump's tendency to throw his friends and allies under the bus if it suits him. Ask Paul Ryan how it feels under the bus of his "mean" healthcare bill. He invited all the GOP Senators to the WH to try to negotiate a GOP Senate healthcare bill but was so uninformed about the specifics of the bill be didn't even realize that the tax breaks for the wealthy were tucked into the healthcare bill. He thought is was part of the separate tax bill. Ooooh...the Senators were so impressed.
Naw, sorry, Trump's presidency is an unmitigated disaster...and heck, I didn't even mention Trump's tweets (didn't need to–it's all over the Fake News).
-
Power isn't obvious if you don't use it. In spite of American power, Obama let Russia take the Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, etc. and China to build up those islands into militarized bases. Trump's air base strike in Syria and MOAB among other things have again created caution in our adversaries. His recent "red line" threat to Assad is very believable because of it. Do you doubt he will bomb Syrian bases again if Assad uses chemical weapons on his people? Power has value only if people think you're willing to use it. The idea that foreign leaders don't respect him is nonsense. He is the President and commands America's economic and military power for the next four years. Their personal views of him as a person are beside the point.
But I agree a lot with most of your other ideas. I think Trump believes in many of them too and is trying to implement them.
So on the one hand you don't want the US spending money defending other places, but on the other you complain about foreign nations taking military acting against other foreign nations. Which is it? Do you want to act militarily around the world to support your interests or not (and if the examples given aren't against your interests, why do you care)?
-
So instead of discussing the important issues of the day like North Korea that Trump also talks about and is implementing policy, you'd rather get into the gutter and slash away? You seem more interested in tweets regarding Mika's face lifts than war and peace. Doesn't that say something about you?
I am coming back to this, but don't want to beat this to death since it's not that interesting. Your question is not unfair, but shouldn't it be directed at Trump? I mean, at one level it is silly that people should be discussing his Twitter wars, but the fact that I (and many others) spent time discussing this nonsense is far less important that the fact that Trump is wasting HIS time on them, it seems to me.
-
...I mean, at one level it is silly that people should be discussing his Twitter wars, but the fact that I (and many others) spent time discussing this nonsense is far less important that the fact that Trump is wasting HIS time on them, it seems to me.
Precisely. Hasn't he got better things to do?
-
Precisely. Hasn't he got better things to do?
You would think so huh? But reports have Trump watching upwards of 5-6 hrs of TV each day and the Oval Office to be Disorganized Chaos and incredible inefficiency. It's gotten to the point that the admin can't find more people to work in the WH because of the tendency of Trump to demean and belittle everybody around him...
Seriously we have a disaster on our hands in Washington DC.
-
Maybe you should expand your reading a bit...according to Pew Research Center Trump's not doing so hot.
Anybody who thinks Trump is respected by other leaders in the world is not really dealing with reality. The current "leader of the free world" mantle has, I think, been passed to Merkel.
Any objective evaluation of America's position, status and leadership in the world shows we have taken a nose dive...not a good thing if something bad happens and we need the help of our allies. America First is starting to sound more like America Worst.
And this doesn't take into effect the juvenile behavior and Trump's tendency to throw his friends and allies under the bus if it suits him. Ask Paul Ryan how it feels under the bus of his "mean" healthcare bill. He invited all the GOP Senators to the WH to try to negotiate a GOP Senate healthcare bill but was so uninformed about the specifics of the bill be didn't even realize that the tax breaks for the wealthy were tucked into the healthcare bill. He thought is was part of the separate tax bill. Ooooh...the Senators were so impressed.
Naw, sorry, Trump's presidency is an unmitigated disaster...and heck, I didn't even mention Trump's tweets (didn't need to–it's all over the Fake News).
Being President isn't a popularity contest. Obama played that game. He wanted to be President of the world. Trump is interested in being President of America. To Make America Great Again. What citizens think in other countries is beside the point. The President is suppose to defend American interests. The leaders of those countries understand power. Regardless of what they personally think of the occupant of the office of the President, he is the Executive and Commander-in-Chief.
-
Meanwhile, Trump's people are managing to get some things done.
WASHINGTON — In the four months since he took office as the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, Scott Pruitt has moved to undo, delay or otherwise block more than 30 environmental rules, a regulatory rollback larger in scope than any other over so short a time in the agency’s 47-year history, according to experts in environmental law.
Mr. Pruitt’s supporters, including President Trump, have hailed his moves as an uprooting of the administrative state and a clearing of onerous regulations that have stymied American business. Environmental advocates have watched in horror as Mr. Pruitt has worked to disable the authority of the agency charged with protecting the nation’s air, water and public health.
But both sides agree: While much of Mr. Trump’s policy agenda is mired in legal and legislative delays, hampered by poor execution and overshadowed by the Russia investigations, the E.P.A. is acting. Mr. Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who built a career out of suing the agency he now leads, is moving effectively to dismantle the regulations and international agreements that stood as a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s legacy.
I really don't see how this "administration" could be any more backward thinking.
No, wait...
-
Obama played that game. He wanted to be President of the world. Trump is interested in being President of America.
Your constant belittling of Obama is besides the point, he's no longer your commander in chief and secondly what you say about him isn't even true.
Also Trump isn't interested in being President of America and making America great again. He's only there to favour his cronies and deepen the swamp so more rich people can hoard more money. Don't kid yourself he's doing anything for the middle or lower classes except blowing lots of hot air without substance.
-
He's only there to favour his cronies
Exactly. See my EPA post above. :(
-
So on the one hand you don't want the US spending money defending other places, but on the other you complain about foreign nations taking military acting against other foreign nations. Which is it? Do you want to act militarily around the world to support your interests or not (and if the examples given aren't against your interests, why do you care)?
Phil, I think I was referring to NATO that the European countries there have to spend more of their own money defending themselves rather than relying on America to pay to do it for them.
Regarding why we should do it is actually a very important question. Many Americans feel we have extended ourselves too far for too long. They want us to pull back, become Fortress America, spend our resources on ourselves. Many of us see ourselves as having to be policemen of the world. That every time something happens, we wind up having to go in to stop problems. If we don't take the lead, other countries won't. I remember Croatia/Serbia. Until President Clinton acted, murder and mayhem had it's day. Where was Europe? It was in their back yard and they did nothing. Curious. Would you want America to pull back, leave the Pacific to China? Would you want Australia to face China by itself? Would it be better for Japan to develop it's own nuclear arsenal? Trump raised these issue early in his term., Then backed off to more traditional positions of projecting American power. I'll tell you though. If another recession happens, America could well re-trench. In retrospect if that happens, people might feel things were better when America was the policeman. Leaving the world open to all the crazies like ISIS, Russia, China, North Korea, etc. probably won't turn out too well for the world.
-
Being President isn't a popularity contest. Obama played that game. He wanted to be President of the world. Trump is interested in being President of America. To Make America Great Again. What citizens think in other countries is beside the point. The President is suppose to defend American interests. The leaders of those countries understand power. Regardless of what they personally think of the occupant of the office of the President, he is the Executive and Commander-in-Chief.
Alan, count slowly from ten to zero. As you come out of trance... you will notice how relaxed and comfortable you are going to feel - as long as you keep your eyes closed.
-
President Trump posted a short video to his Twitter account on Sunday in which he is portrayed wrestling and punching a figure whose head has been replaced by the logo for CNN.
In a statement on Sunday, CNN wrote: “It is a sad day when the president of the United States encourages violence against reporters.” The network added: “Instead of preparing for his overseas trip, his first meeting with Vladimir Putin, dealing with North Korea and working on his health care bill, he is involved in juvenile behavior far below the dignity of his office. We will keep doing our jobs. He should start doing his.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/business/media/trump-wrestling-video-cnn-twitter.html
-
Trump is interested in being President of America.
Actually that's not true...Trump is interested in being president to his base, not the rest of America. Make America Great Again? You mean make America white again? That's really why Trump hated Obama so much and why he clung to the birther movement for so long...if he wants to be president of the American people where's the outreach to non-whites?
-
Donald Trump Is Testing Twitter’s Harassment Policy (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-president-of-the-united-states-is-testing-twitters-harassment-policy/532497/)
The president’s latest outbursts suggest the social-media platform imposes no editorial standards. But should it?
The rules are simple, okay? No threats of violence. No targeted abuse or harassment. No inciting anybody else to engage in targeted abuse or harassment. No hateful conduct.
Now think about Donald Trump’s the tweeting habits. Is he breaking those rules, which come from Twitter’s terms of service?
Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.
Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:
if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;
if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;
if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and
if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.
Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.
Trump has long been criticized for his impulsiveness, but less than six months into his presidency, alarm over his Twitter conduct has hit fever pitch.
On Sunday morning, Trump tweeted a short video clip showing him pummeling another person outside of a wrestling ring—with the other person’s face blocked out by the CNN logo. If that’s not a direct threat of violence against the American citizens who work for CNN, it’s certainly a celebration of violence.
The president is not only aware of the firestorm he’s ignited, he appears to be relishing it. “My use of social media is not Presidential,” Trump tweeted on Saturday. “it’s MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL.”
It's grotesque and hideous and should be banned from Twitter...if the same tweet came from a CEO of a company, the president of a university or even a local school board president, they would likely be fired if not severely sanctioned...and yet this behavior is acceptable for the President of the United States of America?
I don't think so...
-
‘I’m President and They’re Not’: Trump Attacks Media at Faith Rally (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-tweets-stoke-voter-fraud-claim-and-attack-news-media.html?_r=0)
WASHINGTON — President Trump used the first part of his holiday weekend getaway to issue more denunciations of the news media, using a celebration of American veterans and freedom at an evening rally to thunder that he would not allow the “fake” media to stop his agenda.
Speaking to raucous supporters at a faith rally at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington Saturday night, Mr. Trump brought the crowd to its feet by condemning news organizations.
“The fake media is trying to silence us,” Mr. Trump told the crowd at the concert hall, after returning to Washington briefly from his weekend getaway at his golf club in New Jersey. “But we will not let them. Because the people know the truth. The fake media tried to stop us from going to the White House. But I’m president and they’re not.”
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/902f9f7c1532174f2d7fe96bc0de03004236a017/160_353_3680_2209/master/3680.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=92a50bab8f81947ff0de8c3883249243)
He may be president at the moment but...
Nationwide Impeachment March seeks to build support for ousting Donald Trump (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/07/nationwide_impeachment_march_s.html)
If you believe President Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office, this day is for you.
July 2 heralded the arrival of the Impeachment March.
"Donald Trump has been in blatant violation of the Constitution from the day he was sworn into the office of President," the national event's website states (http://www.impeachmentmarch.org/).
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/c47.0.867.456/s526x296/18301176_321165751634545_1401726250524930718_n.jpg?oh=2b4913fb594cb46c63d1ebe30e6eb4d7&oe=5A07900D)
This is a reference to the president's refusal to follow modern-day presidential tradition and divest his personal business holdings, thus creating untold financial conflicts of interest. Trump, a billionaire real-estate developer who has business dealing in countries around the world, faces lawsuits over the U.S. Constitution's emoluments clause, which forbids any person in federal office from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."
The impeachment march's website adds:
"We believe president Trump has committed constitutional breaches, consistently lied, cheated, and enforces laws that primarily benefit him and his billionaire friends at the expense of the country."
Then there's this...
13 Predictions on How Long Trump’s Presidency Will Last (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/13-predictions-on-how-long-trumps-presidency-will-last.html)
How long will President Trump survive? Nobody knows, but everyone’s guessing.
It’s a basic principle of psychology that the defenses we erect to defend our value always end up producing exactly what we are trying to avoid. In Trump’s case, the relentless insistence that he didn’t do it feeds the case that he did do it. I don’t know what the “it” will turn out to be, but I know Trump well enough to know that there are countless potential “its.”
I believe the end for Trump is much closer than most people imagine. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking, and I recognize I’m not particularly trustworthy. I always feared Trump could win the presidency, but I never truly believed he would. I do believe Trump will self-immolate. The more convinced Trump becomes that he will be caught, the more desperately he will deny what will turn out to be indisputably true. Is there anyone rational who doesn’t believe he has already obstructed justice several times over? In the end, I don’t believe Trump will be impeached, or found guilty of a crime. My gut tells me that when the fire gets hot enough, he will make a deal to save himself, resign the presidency, and declare victory. —Tony Schwartz, co-author of The Art of the Deal
The other 12 are all over the map...but I honestly think Trump will self-destruct. I actually like Tony Schwartz's phrase of Trump will self-immolate. It's a bit more descriptive...
-
Yeah. All us deplorables are racists too.
Actually that's not true...Trump is interested in being president to his base, not the rest of America. Make America Great Again? You mean make America white again? That's really why Trump hated Obama so much and why he clung to the birther movement for so long...if he wants to be president of the American people where's the outreach to non-whites?
-
Yeah. All us deplorables are racists too.
Well, if the hat fits...but it's not me that's saying it...
HOW DONALD TRUMP’S NATIONALISM WON OVER WHITE AMERICANS (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-nationalism-racism-make-america-great-again-521083)
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/lg/public/2016/11/14/trump-merchandise.jpg)
Donald Trump "Make America Great Again" hats are sold at a rally on November 4 in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Some of Trump's supporters interpreted his slogan as "Make America White Again."
The election of Donald J. Trump as 45th president of the United States came as a shock to many—perhaps even to the billionaire himself. Across the U.S. and around the world, people asked the same question: What just happened?
Here was a man with no political nor military experience; who had angered just about every minority group ; whom a dozen women had accused of sexual assault —and yet millions of people had just elected him to the highest political office in the United States.
As exit polls showed, Trump didn’t win among poor Americans, as was expected; the majority of voters (52 percent) with a total family income of less than $50,000 in 2015 actually voted for the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
Trump voters tended to be older (53 percent of people aged 45 and over voted for him), well-off and white. According to the exit polls, 58 percent of all white voters chose Trump at the voting booth, while just 21 percent of non-white voters cast their ballots for the Republican nominee.
The biggest issue for Trump voters—ahead of foreign policy, the economy or terrorism—was immigration, exit polls showed, with 84 percent of Trump voters saying that the government should deport undocumented migrants rather than give them the chance to apply for legal status.
Analysts say Trump’s success among white voters is partly attributable to his tapping into concerns about immigration and a feeling among many voters that the U.S. should be a white, Christian country. “It’s like everything he said hit the right nationalistic buttons,” says Allyson Shortle, assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma.
Like other experts who spoke to Newsweek , Shortle explained that the concept of nationalism is complex, and not easy to define. “It’s important to note that racism and nationalism are these related but distinct components,” she says. A person can strongly identify with their nation but not along ethnic lines.
“Some people think about it as an ideology, a movement, or an attitude—but some research, including my own, views nationalism as part of a person’s social identity,” writes Kathleen Powers, assistant professor in the department of international affairs at the University of Georgia, in an email to Newsweek . “When people identify with a nationality, they have an idea about what defines the prototypical or archetypal group member. In short, they carry a picture of what it means to be an American.
“That prototypical American,” Powers adds, “might be defined in relatively inclusive terms, like a person who respects political institutions, or in more exclusive terms, like someone who is part of a Judeo-Christian religion, speaks English, or is a member of a certain racial group. Certainly, some people define the prototypical American as white, Christian, and/or born in the U.S.”
And if that’s your conception of what it is to be an American, Powers writes, then anyone who deviates from the norm is either not a true American, or is a poor version of one.
#MakeAmericaGreatAgain=DogWhistleForWhiteNationalists
-
Pieter: Thoughtful comments. Yes, we often jump the gun militarily. But Trump didn't get us into Vietnam or Iraq. I believe he was against Bush in Iraq. I disagree though about Afghanistan. Al Khaida launched their attack on 9-11 from there. That's where Bin Laden trained his forces. So we had to go into Afghanistan to eliminate Al Khaida there. The problem is trying to figure how to get out of there without allowing the Taliban to re-group and the place again becoming another breeding ground for terrorists. Maybe if the Taliban takes over again, we should just make a deal with them to be friends if they keep terrorists out. After what happened to them before, they may like that. Then we could leave Afghanistan.
By the way, calling Trump a nutcase doesn't lend itself to the conversation. He's a clever guy who knows how to use pressure and seeming irrationality and confusion to get his way. His toughness to date such as in Syria air field, MOAB, weapons to Taiwan, etc. have changed our adversaries view of America from one of weakness and fecklessness under Obama to one where they have to tread carefully. That's good for our side. And I consider you on our side. Ditto with Russia, although you wouldn't believe that reading the press.
I think China said a lot of nice things to him in Mar-a-lago to put us off. Trump went along hoping. But it didn't take him long to figure out they aren't going to help unless we really pressure them. Talk is cheap. The Chinese care most about money and trade. Anything that threatens those things concerns them because it will lead to unrest in China and they want to maintain power. The North Koreans made a deal with us years ago to not produce nuclear weapons. They lied. The only thing that effects them is pressure. I don't see Trump going to war. Frankly, that's something Congress should decide. But I see him using maximum pressure everything short of war against China and North Korea. He's not afraid to use America's economic and military power to get his way. He really knows how to leverage strength. Maybe that's what his handshakes are all about. To remind people he has the strength of America behind him.
Vincente Fox in his recent message to Trump said that sometimes the best leaders are the ones who don't drop the bombs. Good video, BTW.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-mexican-president-shows-trump-how-to-avoid-nuclear-war-in-hilarious-video_us_595680c9e4b0da2c73232e97?section=us_theworldpost
-
You know, it's funny.
I got in an argument with my brother, who is extremely liberal, because he was saying I was being mildly racist in supporting charter schools.
The funny thing, in polling, the majority of blacks and minorities in major cities support charter schools. So, regardless of the fact that I was supporting what most of my fellow Philadelphians, who happen to be black, support, I was still being racist.
This whole argument has run it's corse, and is becoming nothing more then another empty tactic on the Dems part to separate and concur.
It would be nice if we all were Americans that happened to disagree on the role of government instead of the Anglo-Saxon vote, and the Irish vote, and the Black vote, and the Hispanic vote, and the Eastern European vote, and the right vote, and the poor vote, and the ...
It's interesting. My wife and I both voted for Trump but are split regarding charter schools. She is a retired NYC school teacher and supports the union's position that charters are "bad". She can't stand Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. I worked for the NYC school system for 14 years in construction and feel charters are "good". I've done work in about 250 of the 1200 schools. Whenever I've been in Harlem and other areas which have predominantly black kids, I've noticed that the kids in charter schools seem to be better behaved, quieter, and the staff works longer hours. Schools are failing and charters stiffen competition and make all schools better. There are about 50,000 black kids on waiting lines to get into charters in NYC. That's how much black parents want them. The whole debate really comes down to money and power. Charters lessen the amount of money union teachers get and the power of the unions. Politicians are drawn between the power of the union who don't want the charters and the black voters who do.
I don't know if in NYC, like in your Philadelphia, whites are still considered racist if they believe in charters because so many blacks are in favor of them. I'll have to check that out. As an aside, I live about an hour and a half from Philly in mid-New Jersey. We moved here to leave NYC and retired.
-
Vincente Fox in his recent message to Trump said that sometimes the best leaders are the ones who don't drop the bombs. Good video, BTW.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-mexican-president-shows-trump-how-to-avoid-nuclear-war-in-hilarious-video_us_595680c9e4b0da2c73232e97?section=us_theworldpost
That was pretty funny Les. I liked the part about putting cookies in the Nuclear Suitcase to calm yourself down so you don't press the button.
-
How should Trump deal with China's military buildup of the South China Sea islands that are nearing completion? How should it effect US Naval build-up?
https://amti.csis.org/chinas-big-three-near-completion/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/02/exclusive-pentagon-sails-destroyer-near-disputed-island-in-south-china-sea-officials-say.html
-
How should Trump deal with China's military buildup of the South China Sea islands that are nearing completion? How should it effect US Naval build-up?
https://amti.csis.org/chinas-big-three-near-completion/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/02/exclusive-pentagon-sails-destroyer-near-disputed-island-in-south-china-sea-officials-say.html
I'm afraid that battle is already lost, USA missed the opportunity to stop those projects when they started in 2014.
As a matter of fact, China has now already seven such bases. Unless USA drops some MOABs on those bases (however, that could kill a lot of fish), they will continue building and enlarging those islands.
-
I'm afraid that battle is already lost, USA missed the opportunity to stop those projects when they started in 2014.
As a matter of fact, China has now already seven such bases. Unless USA drops some MOABs on those bases (however, that could kill a lot of fish), they will continue building and enlarging those islands.
This is why Trump has pulled out of Paris. He hopes that rising sea levels will "sink" the Chinese bases.
-
I'm afraid that battle is already lost, USA missed the opportunity to stop those projects when they started in 2014.
As a matter of fact, China has now already seven such bases. Unless USA drops some MOABs on those bases (however, that could kill a lot of fish), they will continue building and enlarging those islands.
How could the USA stop them in 2014? War? How do they speak to the issues of American military power? If not America, who? Phil, you're Australian and closest to the situation? What do Australians think about when they see China expand? People here joke about Trump's "dropping bombs" seemingly disconnected from what's going on in the world. Making jokes about him but showing no responsible analysis other than mocking him. That's the point I was making. We spent 200+ pages knocking and defending Trump without really discussing important issues he is addressing. I suspect someone is going to respond to my post here with something very derogatory about President Trump. But I wonder if we could start some reasoned dialogue on what he does rather than going nyah nyah.
-
There are literally dozens upon dozens of discussions within this thread about better ways to handle many of things (and even some that agree with the general line of some of what Trump wants to do). But every single time it's not as per Trump, the Trumpsters shoot it down or simply don't listen. When facts and figures are presented showing why Trump's wrong or not doing what he says, it's ignored.
The lack of discussion is simply your blinkers.
What does Australia think about China's expansion? Most people criticise it.
-
I suspect someone is going to respond to my post here with something very derogatory about President Trump. But I wonder if we could start some reasoned dialogue on what he does rather than going nyah nyah.
Ok...how about this?
The Perfect American Storm: Incivility, Anti-Intellectualism, Tribalism (http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/07/perfect-american-storm-incivility-anti-intellectualism-tribalism-10838)
By Alex Berezow — February 7, 2017
Americans don't agree on much these days. But one thing upon which we do agree is that something is deeply broken in our society.
Consider the right track/wrong track poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html), as aggregated by RealClearPolitics. This is perhaps the simplest gauge of how Americans feel about their country. The numbers aren't just negative; they are overwhelmingly and embarrassingly negative. And it's been that way for years. Americans, internationally renowned for being an optimistic people, have been uncharacteristically pessimistic for quite some time. Why?
It's difficult to escape the conclusion that our culture has changed, both dramatically and for the worse. I believe three factors are to blame: Incivility, anti-intellectualism, and tribalism. And at the center of that perfect storm is social media.
Incivility. Honorable disagreement appears to be the exception rather than the rule. Depending on the day, I have been called a left-winger, a right-winger, a corporate shill, a "sniveling little demon," and (my personal favorite (http://www.acsh.org/news/2016/11/22/mean-tweets-acsh-edition-10466)) "another Jew liar and deceiver [who] writes for Monsatan." These insults are usually directed at me after I write an article supporting GMOs or vaccines. Of course, I'm hardly the only recipient of such vitriol. Just look at how people talk to each other on cable news or on social media.
Anti-Intellectualism. "Alternative facts" may very well be the term-of-the-decade. Expert opinion has been thoroughly rejected as "elitist." Scientific consensus has been mocked. And indisputable facts are undermined with conspiracy theories. It is for these reasons that I believe anti-intellectualism is the single biggest threat (http://acsh.org/news/2016/06/26/anti-intellectualism-is-biggest-threat-to-modern-society) to modern society. There is a cure, however. It begins by implementing what I call CRRREST Education (http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/01/13/crrrest-education-how-fix-americas-illiteracy-problem-10736).
Tribalism. Tribalism is an "us vs. them" mentality, and it has two primary manifestations: (1) Ideological purity, so that any deviation from orthodoxy is considered heretical; and (2) Hypocrisy, because people will accept/condemn behavior that they otherwise would not if the behavior had been done by a person from the other team.
Social media feeds off of and amplifies all three factors. As the years have gone by, we have become more uncivil, more anti-intellectual, and more tribal.
To be sure, I'm not an alarmist. I refuse to insist that societal conditions are worse now than ever before in American history. After all, we did fight a bloody Civil War. I do not think we are headed in that direction.
But I do believe we are facing a particularly potent set of circumstances that threaten trust, which is the most basic feature of any society, especially of a democracy. Without trust, it is difficult to imagine how America retains its position as the world's leading economic and scientific power.
And at the center of it all is social media. Ironically, a tool meant to unite us has become the primary means to divide us.
Here's the illustration that went with the essay...
(http://www.acsh.org/sites/default/files/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-07%20at%207.54.05%20PM.png)
I wouldn't be so anti-Trump if he wasn't the embodiment of everything I see wrong with American society right now. If we allow alternative facts (aka fake news) to void our common knowledge and understanding, there's no way to communicate. If the fundamental facts of our society are so tied up with partisan ideology and if both sides refuse accept the underlying framework of our government we'll never see anything accomplish democratically.
Mitch McConnell spent the last 7 years being as much of an obstructionist as he possibly could in a blatant partisan to block anything the democrats and or Obama tried to do initially to try to make Obama a 1 term president and went that failed,to block ANYTHING in the Senate that might possibly be seen as beneficial to the democrats regardless of whether it was a good idea. The term "not invented here" applies as nothing, regardless of the benefits to the American people, could possibly get done. That's why the democrats were forced to employ the nuclear option for Senate confirmation for everything other than Supremes. Then Mitch finished the deal to get Trump's pick confirmed. And don't even mention the GOP House...
The problem is that Mitch and the GOP have no experience in actually governing. They did the GOP Senate healthcare bill in total secrecy od 13 old white guys deciding how much of a tax break people who don't need it get and how many Medicaid people get kicked out.
And now we have Trump, who is clearly way, WAY out of his depth and handling everything poorly. He's under multiple investigations and it's taking a toll on his mental ability to focus on things that are important for the people as apposed to his personal ego.
What was last weeks WH focus? Was it energy (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/339452-trump-administration-marks-energy-week)? I think I read something about that...
The Trump administration is designating this week as “Energy Week” in an attempt to promote the president’s energy agenda.
At a handful of events during the week, President Trump and his administration will push their quest for “energy dominance,” a term officials are using for their goal to become the world’s energy superpower.
“President Trump is committed to utilizing our abundant domestic energy resources both to create jobs and a growing, prosperous economy at home and to strengthen America’s global influence and leadership abroad,” a White House spokeswoman said Monday.
Energy Week is one of numerous designations that the White House has made in recent weeks to try to focus on particular pieces of Trump’s agenda, such as infrastructure and technology.
In each of those weeks, other policy news dominated national headlines, including healthcare reform and the investigations into Russian involvement in last year’s election.
Did Trump even do one tweet about energy all week? I just checked and yes he did 3 weeks about energy...on Thursday..with boiler plate language like:
"Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump Jun 29
Our new American Energy Policy will unlock MILLIONS of jobs & TRILLIONS in wealth. We are on the cusp of a true energy REVOLUTION.
Then the next morning it was back to:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump Jun 30
Watched low rated @Morning_Joe for first time in long time. FAKE NEWS. He called me to stop a National Enquirer article. I said no! Bad show
Can nobody in the White House get Trump to quit watching TV and get on with the job of being President?
-
But then I had to post this:
White House Releases Long-Awaited “Donald Trump Glossary of Terms” (https://extranewsfeed.com/white-house-releases-long-awaited-donald-trump-glossary-of-terms-7fc357c99cf1)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/1*q95cU6whKirh51jSZY69rw.jpeg)
Donald Trump didn’t understand what you just said, but in his own mind it was about him. (Credit: Politico)
Having a full understanding of the president’s substitute vocabulary may help Americans better grasp his alternate universe
By Allan Ishac
With Donald Trump operating in a world of his own making, The White House thought it would be useful to release a glossary of alternate Trump terms.
This glossary of substitute definitions may help you better comprehend our inscrutable leader. Forty common terms appear on the left with Donald Trump’s alternate definitions on the right:
Necktie: Tape dispenser
Book: Coaster/trivet
Nukes: Toys
Daughter: Mistress/paramour
Illegal: Legal
Defeat (as in popular vote): Victory
Media: Covfefe
Liberals: Leftafefe
Promise: Suggestion
Oath: Suggestion
Pledge: Suggestion
Cats: Furry germs
Dogs: More furry germs
People: Fur-less germs
Charity: Slush fund
Casino: Slush fund
University (as in Trump University): Slush Fund
America: Russia
Coffee: Joefefe
Not Grabbable: Grabbable
Democracy: Dictatorship
Sons: Sacrificial lambs
Advisers: Sacrificial lambs
Vice-President: Sacrificial lamb
Congress: Sacrificial lamb
Chief-of-Staff: Sacrificial lamb
Everyone Else: Sacrificial lambs
Money: Muchofefe
Conversation: Monologue
Negotiation: Command
Paunch: Six-pack
Failure (as a president): Success
Forefathers: Yokels
Philanthropist: Sucker
Cheetos: Spinach
Allies: Enemies
Enemies: Allies
Women: Femifefes
Greet (as with a handshake): Arm wrestle
Hairpiece: Hair
-
How could the USA stop them in 2014? War? How do they speak to the issues of American military power? If not America, who? Phil, you're Australian and closest to the situation? What do Australians think about when they see China expand? People here joke about Trump's "dropping bombs" seemingly disconnected from what's going on in the world. Making jokes about him but showing no responsible analysis other than mocking him. That's the point I was making. We spent 200+ pages knocking and defending Trump without really discussing important issues he is addressing. I suspect someone is going to respond to my post here with something very derogatory about President Trump. But I wonder if we could start some reasoned dialogue on what he does rather than going nyah nyah.
Well, short of dropping the bombs, the only other alternative is to talk about it with other countries and impose an international moratorium to build such bases and structures. Unfortunately, because how Trump behaves and treats other countries, he lost in a very short time all respect, trust and cooperation from the previous US partners.
-
What does Australia think about China's expansion? Most people criticise it.
What do they propose to do about it? How should America be involved if at all?
-
We've engaged with them diplomatically and we participate in FONOPs (sea and air), and support US ships in the area (port operations in Australia and land-based aircraft).
The sentiment I see and hear expressed is that a combination of diplomatic, trade, and FONOPs (and similar) are appropriate, along with support for other nations in the area. One of the key criticisms of the US is that in leaving places like the Philippines (lack of support and engagement), it's provided a window for China to enter, which effectively removed the value of the recent international legal decisions in favour of PI against CN, which wasn't ideal.
No one in Asia/Pacific takes the US seriously, really (or at least not Trump). People listen to Mattis and general US businesses and people, but not the leadership. So it's a tough future on that front.
-
The Philippines and other Pacific countries made eyes at China during the last administration because of Obama weakness there. That's one of the reasons China got away with militarizing the islands. Obama thought the world Court would stop them. China laughed at him and the court. Leading from behind is not easy to show strength. Pacific allies lost faith in us and rightfully so.
Trump and Mattis are trying to reverse that view with more naval presense and exercises and also more arms to our allies there. We're also re-establishing stronger ties with our friends in the middle east where we also lost credibility during the last administration.
-
Obama was dealt a virtually unplayable hand. It's nothing short of amazing that he was able to remain in the game at all.
Consistent myopic blaming of Obama for all of America's ills does nothing to advance the conversation.
Schewe's mention of McConnell's obstructionist tactics is particularly germane. It will, I predict, be ignored.
-
Obama was dealt a virtually unplayable hand. It's nothing short of amazing that he was able to remain in the game at all.
Consistent myopic blaming of Obama for all of America's ills does nothing to advance the conversation.
Schewe's mention of McConnell's obstructionist tactics is particularly germane. It will, I predict, be ignored.
Joe mentioned the economic issues above. But Obama really created a lot of problems on the international scene as well. When he pulled out of Iraq in 2011, he created a vacuum for ISIS. He lost all respect when he erased the red line he drew in Syria. That created a massive problem there and the refugee problems in Europe. His reducing American naval forces in the Pacific in addition to the red line debacle gave the Chinese the green light to militarize the islands and for North Korea to double down on nuclear tests and missile research.
Trump has done a lot to reverse that image of America in the few months he's been president. The calculations out of Peking, Moscow, Tehran etc. have taken a turn. The leaders there know they won't have a free hand any longer. Our allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan and other Pacific nations feel America has their back again. Europeans might have their doubts because of NATO and Paris Accord. But Trump has actually added troops and missiles there annoying the Russians even more. His missiles in Syria hasn't made them feel warm either.
-
The whole Benghazi debacle I attribute to Obama too; I never thought it was Hillary's fault. More then likely Obama's fecklessness kept HRC, and the rest of the administration, from sending in reinforcements. This is why I believe HRC left as secretary of State soon afterwards. Of course, since she wanted to run for president herself, she needed Obama's support and just could not throw him under the bus.
With that being said, I really wish we would decrease our roll military world wide. It's bankrupting us, and I could care less what happens across either ocean so long as Americans are not targeted.
Benghazi happened because it occurred right before the 2012 presidential elections. Obama didn't want it to seem like the terrorists were on the move again because he was running on how he pulled out of Iraq and stopped terrorism. All part of his never acknowledging Islamist terrorists. They're just criminals.
I agree with you and would like to decrease our military roll. We can't afford it any more. That's why Trump wants our allies to pay more. He understand we can't afford it anymore either in money or blood. But then all the crazies will use the vacuum for more adventurism. We tried that after WWI and got WWII as the result. It's a real predicament. Damned if we do and damned of we don't. On the other hand, Europe is rich. They could finance their own defense without us. After all they are the European Union. France and England have nukes too. In the Pacific, we could ignore North Korea. They aren't really going to do anything. Let them be happy in their middle kingdom. But if we reduce our presence, China will move out which may encourage Japan to nuke up, others too. Do we save in money and blood by up-fronting some rather than waiting for the whole thing to blow up again? For now, Trump's made the decision to show some muscle and keep the status quo. That might change after the next recession.
-
I saw a great article on CNBC a couple of days ago. Turns out nearly directly after Seattle's minimum wage went from $11 to $13 per hour, the average family income of low wage workers went down about $125 per month due to a decease in hours and layoffs. Turn's out raises in minimum wage really does hurt low income workers.
Seattle Wage Study (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/02/seattles-minimum-wage-hike-may-have-cut-wages-and-jobs-study-author.html)
Of course the author can not say for sure, since there is no control group, as is the case in all economic studies, but the correlation is pretty high. It's policies like these, that Obama supported, that stagnated the economy.
In that case, maybe they should re-introduce feudalism or slavery, thus dropping the minimum wage to zero. :)
Be wary of statistical correlations.
-
I agree with you and would like to decrease our military roll. We can't afford it any more.
If you can't afford it the first thing is to reduce spending, but Trump is doing the contrary (big time). You're currently spending enough without the need for increase vs. any other block. The US needs to look at efficiency, not increasing the military budget. That will still allow you the muscle you would like to have while at the same time reduce filling the coffers of the military industry. It's the latter point that disturbs me most, I think Trump wants to increase spending to help his "friends", but he should know that what is being spent today is more then enough to do anything he needs/wants and then some.
-
The US military is bigger than the next x-number of countries combined. It has over 700 military bases in over 120 countries. If Trump is telling you that you need to increase your military spending, you're being sold swampland. If, even with all that firepower, you still feel existentially threatened, you need to do a re-think, imo.
How much bigger does your military need to be before you will feel safe? What will the larger military be able to do that the existing one cannot? What is lacking? If you cannot obtain an answer to those questions, why would you spend more?
Why is government bad but military spending (when yours is already orders of magnitudes larger than other countries) is good? It's your tax money, you need answers to these questions.
-
Clinton faced nothing like what Obama faced. Namely an imminent complete economic collapse following the theft of about $2T from the global economy. Mostly due to financial sector deregulation by previous administrations.
The Iraq power vacuum mentioned was generated by a previous administration, not by Obama. It was well established when he took office. Things were quite stable in Iraq before 2003. Not pleasant, possibly. Maybe indefensible in the light of western democracy, but stable. Just ask the Iraqis.
That wages haven't kept pace with inflation is an old, old story. This is a capitalism and regulation issue, not an Obama issue. It predates him by decades.
I do sympathize, however. It's incorrigible corporations that have done this to the American worker. Again, permitted by deregulation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/opinion/trump-hijacked-american-presidency.html?ref=opinion
-
I have to start any reply on this thread with a disclaimer:
For the second time in my life I didn’t vote for any major candidate, Not DT, not HRC, so I don’t want to talk about impeachment, tweets, Russia, obstructionism etc. so other than loving my country, I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
What I really don’t get about the government on all levels is how quickly dangerous and important issues get tossed out and signed without anyone thinking of the consequences.
Look at Iraq. Yea Bush had a lot to do with it, but 82 dems signed on so nobody has really clean hands.
Man, before i signed a piece of paper to send anyone in front of a bullet, especially in that part of the world I would have to see live, proven, undoctored footage of Saddam loading real WMD's into the trunk of his Gold S class.
I understand going after Bin Laden, of course he turned up in a country we wrote huge checks to, so we we’re looking in the wrong place for a long time and being lied to by the minute.
Think about it . . . nearly 7,000 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1 million wounded at a cost to date of 6 trillion dollars.
We could have saved most of those lives, rebuilt Detroit, put police on the South Side of Chicago, raised the quality of our public or charter schools, and maybe had some money left over to pay down the debt.
As far as healthcare, all I know is my coverage goes down, but my rates go up (a lot) without any claims whatsoever. I just doesn’t go up on healthcare it goes up on personal liability, housing, cars, all because they have a rider attached to health liability and I have zero confidence it won’t continue, no matter who comes out on top.
Now the last thing I don’t get is congress. These guys take an oath to serve the country, not call names, not obstruct each other, not get in front of a camera, not fake it like they care, cause if they did, they’d compromise, walk across the isle pour each other a drink (they do it at night anyway) and start working.
Not take the summer off and do the blame thing. That’s my biggest gripe. Live to their promise.
As far as the public if we would stop fighting each other and turn our attention to all of congress, these guys would wake up and get to work, but they don’t have to because most are in districts or states that give them a lock on another term and most people don't vote.
This hate that is tearing the country apart has to stop. I know it burns with the public, but the fuel comes from our government and the press, from both sides.
I don’t blame the public, at least not 100% because most of us work our arses off trying to keep the wheels running and don’t have a lot of time for in depth study.
We need to turn off the the tv or the I pad, send an e-mail to congress and say I’m not fighting with my neighbors, friends, or people online. I’m just going to vote you out of office unless you get to work. If 35% of the populace did that not everything would get fixed, but it would be a hell of a lot better.
I don’t expect much from the feds but they are suppose to protect us and that includes our jobs.
I’ll end this with a story (and don’t take this as I politically lean one way or the other because I don’t).
We landed late in Detroit one night and I jumped on an Avis bus. The driver, a very nice, polite, gentleman was driving and it was just us the two pf is on the bus. I said I’ve heard Detroit is doing better. In a non confrontational tone he said, “not for me, I use to work for one of the auto companies for 15 years and one day they came in and said they’re moving the plant out of country. We asked would there be other jobs and they said not on the asembly line. So now I drive this bus at night, work in a big box store during the day and make less than 1/2 I made prior.” “He said last month I finally gave up and sold my house for $9,000, 1/3 of what I paid for it”. He said he had always voted one party without fail and now he doesn’t know what to do. He doesn’t think the other side is any better but he’ll give it a try.”
Those stories are in the center of the country by the millions. I have no anger, just disappointment.
I haven’t read every word of this thread, (who could?) but all I have to do is see the name of the respondent and I know what’s coming, or at least the tone. I think they’re are only two or three people here who have open minds and are willing to listen. Bummer.
So let’s show some compassion to each other, open our minds to different ways of thinking and peacefully write your congressperson and senators and tell them the next vote goes the other way, unless things get better FAST.
It’s the only thing that gets their attention, unless your carrying a bag of gold.
Peace out.
IMO
BC
Clinton faced nothing like what Obama faced. Namely an imminent complete economic collapse following the theft of about $2T from the global economy. . . . snip . . .
I do sympathize, however. It's incorrigible corporations that have done this to the American worker. Again, permitted by deregulation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/opinion/trump-hijacked-american-presidency.html?ref=opinion
I agree, but Clinton singed in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which would have protected us from a lot of what happened in the end of 2007.
He did so in 1999 because of the trouble he faced in 1998 and both sides we're guilty cause the repubs, wanted it ended also.
From NPR so I’m not cherry picking information.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis
And this cause it came up on google first when I type in "who owns congress?".
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/congress-corporate-sponsors/
__________________________________________
-
...Now the last thing I don’t get is congress. These guys take an oath to serve the country, not call names, not obstruct each other, not get in front of a camera, not fake it like they care, cause if they did, they’d compromise, walk across the isle pour each other a drink (they do it at night anyway) and start working.
Not take the summer off and do the blame thing. That’s my biggest gripe. Live to their promise.
As far as the public if we would stop fighting each other and turn our attention to all of congress, these guys would wake up and get to work, but they don’t have to because most are in districts or states that give them a lock on another term and most people don't vote.
This hate that is tearing the country apart has to stop. I know it burns with the public, but the fuel comes from our government and the press, from both sides.
I don’t blame the public, at least not 100% because most of us work our arses off trying to keep the wheels running and don’t have a lot of time for in depth study.
We need to turn off the the tv or the I pad, send an e-mail to congress and say I’m not fighting with my neighbors, friends, or people online. I’m just going to vote you out of office unless you get to work. If 35% of the populace did that not everything would get fixed, but it would be a hell of a lot better.
I don’t expect much from the feds but they are suppose to protect us and that includes our jobs.
I’ll end this with a story (and don’t take this as I politically lean one way or the other because I don’t).
We landed late in Detroit one night and I jumped on an Avis bus. The driver, a very nice, polite, gentleman was driving and it was just us the two pf is on the bus. I said I’ve heard Detroit is doing better. In a non confrontational tone he said, “not for me, I use to work for one of the auto companies for 15 years and one day they came in and said they’re moving the plant out of country. We asked would there be other jobs and they said not on the asembly line. So now I drive this bus at night, work in a big box store during the day and make less than 1/2 I made prior.” “He said last month I finally gave up and sold my house for $9,000, 1/3 of what I paid for it”. He said he had always voted one party without fail and now he doesn’t know what to do. He doesn’t think the other side is any better but he’ll give it a try.”
Those stories are in the center of the country by the millions. I have no anger, just disappointment.
I haven’t read every word of this thread, (who could?) but all I have to do is see the name of the respondent and I know what’s coming, or at least the tone. I think they’re are only two or three people here who have open minds and are willing to listen. Bummer.
So let’s show some compassion to each other, open our minds to different ways of thinking and peacefully write your congressperson and senators and tell them the next vote goes the other way, unless things get better FAST.
It’s the only thing that gets their attention, unless your carrying a bag of gold...
__________________________________________
You said a lot of good things from the heart. Unfortunately we the American citizens are to blame for our Congress. They do what we tell them to do. When Ryan brought up a few years ago to reduce Social Security, Medicare, etc to balance the budget and reduce the debt, he was castigated by his own republicans. The third rail of politics, they called it. While the Republicans claimed for 7 years they were gong to eliminate Obamacare, they found out they couldn't. Why? because the people want free stuff and won't take reductions in health care or any other government program for that matter. Republicans would lose their seats. Democrats support welfare for the poor for votes. They don't want to lose their seats either. It goes on and on. So when the money isn't there, they borrow or the Fed prints and we go into more and more debt. Inflation takes it's toll in reduced dollar value of pay checks and savings so we become poorer.
I told my wife (we're both retired collecting Social Security and Medicare) that I would take a 10% cut in those benefits if we could get a guarantee that Congress would balance its budget and start reducing the debt. When I mention my plan to some of my retired friends, they laugh at me. It'll never happen.
There was a cartoon strip in the newspapers for many years called "Pogo" about an opossum in the Okefenokee Swamp and his animal friends. Political in nature. His most famous line was, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
-
You said a lot of good things from the heart. Unfortunately we the American citizens are to blame for our Congress. They do what we tell them to do. When Ryan brought up a few years ago to reduce Social Security, Medicare, etc to balance the budget and reduce the debt, he was castigated by his own republicans. The third rail of politics, they called it. While the Republicans claimed for 7 years they were gong to eliminate Obamacare, they found out they couldn't. Why? because the people want free stuff and won't take reductions in health care or any other government program for that matter. Republicans would lose their seats. Democrats support welfare for the poor for votes. They don't want to lose their seats either. It goes on and on. So when the money isn't there, they borrow or the Fed prints and we go into more and more debt. Inflation takes it's toll in reduced dollar value of pay checks and savings so we become poorer.
I told my wife (we're both retired collecting Social Security and Medicare) that I would take a 10% cut in those benefits if we could get a guarantee that Congress would balance its budget and start reducing the debt. When I mention my plan to some of my retired friends, they laugh at me. It'll never happen.
There was a cartoon strip in the newspapers for many years called "Pogo" about an opossum in the Okefenokee Swamp and his animal friends. Political in nature. His most famous line was, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Alan, I think you truly advocate for what you think is best not just for you, but for the country, and I absolutely believe you'd do what you said above. We definitely don't agree with a lot of what those best practices are, but I can tell you come to your conclusions from an honest place. That's ok by me :)
-
Jim, thanks. We all want what's best for our country. We just come at it from different ways. Maybe Pogo was right.
-
Well, now that we've had our Kumbaya moment...we still have the problem that the President of the United States is not, uh, well presidential and so far has proven to be a less than stellar leader. The following article by David Frum who is a conservative leaning senior editor at The Atlantic and was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush. So, it's not like he's a screaming wild-eyed liberal left-wing wing nut.
The Souring of American Exceptionalism (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/the-sunset-of-american-exceptionalism/532548/)
Commitment to liberalism once distinguished the United States—now, it’s the disdain of American elites for the troubles of their fellow citizens that sets the nation apart.
Tomorrow, the Fourth of July, Americans will celebrate their independence, the birth of a free nation. Leading the celebrations will be a president mysteriously dependent on a foreign power—a president who lavishly praises dictators (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin/index.html) and publicly despises the institutions of freedom, not only the free press (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680) but also an independent judiciary (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827867311054974976) and other constitutional restraints on his will.
This is a Fourth tinged with sad ironies. Can we put the occasion to any good use? Near the end of a much more terrible national ordeal, Abraham Lincoln urged Americans: "Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this, as philosophy to learn wisdom from.” Good advice. We should try.
A traditional theme of the rhetoric of the Fourth is the celebration of “American exceptionalism.” That phrase has acquired a boastful overtone, which is why President Obama famously handled it so diffidently. "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
“American exceptionalism" began its career, however, not as a boast, but as a question.
“Why is there no socialism in the United States?” asked a Marxist German in 1906. According to Marxist ideology, the United States—as the most highly developed capitalist nation—should have led the way toward proletarian class-consciousness. When that did not happen, Marxists squirmed to explain the deficiency away. Non-Marxists took up the inquiry after World War II. With a Labor government nationalizing railways and steelworks in Britain—Germany shattered by Nazism—and communism holding Russia, China, and half of Europe in its grip, the United States stood out as a lonely beacon of liberalism. Again America seemed a special case that needed explaining. This time the explanations came from fellow-liberals who admired the American exception, which is how the phrase acquired its secondary and more positive meaning.
Over the next decades, however, as both democracy and market economics became accepted facts across the developed world, the question changed form. Even pre-Trump, it was hard to argue that the United States was a consistently more liberal society than Germany or Britain, let alone Denmark or Canada. In some ways, yes: Free speech is more protected in the United States than other places. In some ways, no: The right to vote is better protected almost everywhere else in the democratic world than in the United States.
But most of the compliments Americans paid themselves half a century ago ring hollow in the 21st century. In 2010, as a rising star in the Tea Party movement, Marco Rubio delivered the keynote address at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. He told his own inspiring personal story and credited it to the unique opportunities of the United States. "The result is an America where—which is the only place in the world where it doesn't matter who your parents were or where you came from. You can be anything you are willing to work hard to be. The result is the only economy in the world where poor people with a better idea and a strong work ethic can compete and succeed against rich people in the marketplace and competition.” None of that is true, and in important ways it is the opposite of the truth. Who your parents were and where you came from matters probably more in the United States than in most other advanced economies, at least if statistics on upward mobility are to be believed.
America’s uniqueness, even pre-Trump, was expressed as much through negative indicators than positive. It is more violent than other comparable societies, both one-on-one and in the gun massacres to which the country has become so habituated. It has worse health outcomes (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/29/15830970/women-health-care-maternal-mortality-rate) than comparably wealthy countries, and some of them most important of them are deteriorating further even as they improve almost everywhere else. America’s average llevels of academic achievement lag (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/) those of other advanced countries. Fewer Americans vote—and in no other democracy does organized money count for so much in political life. A century ago, H.L. Mencken observed the American “national genius for corruption,” and (again pre-Trump) Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index (https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016) ranks the U.S. in 18th place, behind Hong Kong, Belgium, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany—never mind first-place finishers Denmark and New Zealand.
As I said: pre-Trump. Now the United States has elected a president who seems much more aligned with—and comfortable in the company of—the rulers of Turkey, Hungary, Uzbekistan, and the Philippines than his counterparts in other highly developed countries.
That result forces a reshaping of the question of American exceptionalism.
“Why was the United States vulnerable to such a person when other democracies have done so much better?” Part of the answer is a technical one: The Electoral College, designed to protect the country from demagogues, instead elected one. But then we have to ask: How did Trump even get so far that the Electoral College entered into the matter one way or another?
Thinking about that question forces an encounter with American exceptionalism in its most somber form. If, as I believe, Donald Trump arose because of the disregard of the American political and economic elite for the troubles of so many of their fellow-citizens, it has to be asked again: How could the leaders of a democratic country imagine they could get away with such disregard?
Nor has that elite learned its lessons. Look at the progress of the Republican health-care bill through the House and Senate. The authors of the bill are acutely aware of how despised it is, how much more despised it will be once it goes into effect: That’s precisely why they have broken through all normal legislative processes, why they do not hold hearings, why they conceal its elements, why they outright lie about its effect. Even so, only fewer than one in five Americans support what they wish to do. Rather than make any attempt to build consensus—never mind to make adjustments that could gain broader consent—a small leadership group is pushing through. Some of those leaders are dogmatically sure that they are correct, no matter what anybody else thinks. Others are heedless of consequences for anyone but their supporters and donors. Still others feel cynically certain that if they can prevail now against the numbers, they can use the inertia of the American system to prevent the large majority who opposed them from reversing their actions.
Only in America, as the saying goes. This Fourth of July, however, it is harder to say with pride.
Yeah, sorry...I thought the essay was good enough to copy the whole darn thing here...
I'm feeling patriotic today which means I reject accepting the current situation as the new normal. This is not what I want for our country...I would hope we could regain American exceptionalism...
-
I agree with you and would like to decrease our military roll. We can't afford it any more. That's why Trump wants our allies to pay more. He understand we can't afford it anymore either in money or blood. But then all the crazies will use the vacuum for more adventurism. We tried that after WWI and got WWII as the result. It's a real predicament. Damned if we do and damned of we don't. On the other hand, Europe is rich. They could finance their own defense without us. After all they are the European Union. France and England have nukes too. In the Pacific, we could ignore North Korea. They aren't really going to do anything. Let them be happy in their middle kingdom. But if we reduce our presence, China will move out which may encourage Japan to nuke up, others too. Do we save in money and blood by up-fronting some rather than waiting for the whole thing to blow up again? For now, Trump's made the decision to show some muscle and keep the status quo. That might change after the next recession.
North Korea fired a ballistic missile Tuesday in the direction of Japan.
The reclusive nation claimed to have test-launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile, contradicting South Korean and U.S. officials who earlier said it was an intermediate-range missile.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/07/05/world/05Nkorea2/05Nkorea2-master768.jpg)
Photographically, it's an impressive picture. Great timing, nice composition with pleasing and complementary colours, however no humans in the frame.
-
Well, it is a little too centered. As far as ignoring them, what do you propose?
-
If, as I believe, Donald Trump arose because of the disregard of the American political and economic elite for the troubles of so many of their fellow-citizens, it has to be asked again: How could the leaders of a democratic country imagine they could get away with such disregard?
Hallelujah!
-
Well, it is a little too centered. As far as ignoring them, what do you propose?
I strongly disagree. A rocket that can travel 6,000 miles all the way to Los Angeles, deserves the central placement.
As to the next course of action in the surrounds of the depicted launch, I would suggest first cataloguing accurately all such sites in that country. That could be used in cooperation with North Korea for conducting photo workshops and shooting the big rockets with flames or failing such cooperation for a different activity on the said sites.
One day later, USA and South Korea have shown their little rocket, while staying in the same colour palette.
(http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-1161939-900_breitwand_180x67-hygu-1161939.jpg)
-
This hate that is tearing the country apart has to stop. I know it burns with the public, but the fuel comes from our government and the press, from both sides.
I agree. It will be the cancer that will eventually destroy our country as we know it. Empires like ours are not defeated externally, but are eroded from within. I truly believe that we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. All empires have an end. We had a pretty good run though.
-
Hallelujah!
Indeed, but how's the current administration really any different? The only difference is in even more partisanship and disdain for the middle and lower classes, disruption of international partnerships, and announced tax breaks for those who didn't need them, to begin with.
It looks like the American electorate settled a score, with/against itself (!).
And I'll repeat, The USA is Lesterland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
Cheers,
Bart
-
Indeed, but how's the current administration really any different? The only difference is in even more partisanship and disdain for the middle and lower classes, disruption of international partnerships, and announced tax breaks for those who didn't need them, to begin with.
It looks like the American electorate settled a score, with/against itself (!).
And I'll repeat, The USA is Lesterland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
Cheers,
Bart
The current administration is different because it has instituted processes that begin to redress the economic, social and political loses of the regular American rather than exclusively favoring the elite politician or businessman and crony capitalist. These elite groups didn't suffer under the last Administration as you indicate. Rather, they made out much better during the recession than the average guy.
Whatever changes happen won't be perfect; nothing is. And one man doesn't have that power, especially in the USA. But you ought to give him a little time. He's done a lot already setting the table, but still, it's only been 6 months.
-
The current administration is different because it has instituted processes that begin to redress the economic, social and political loses of the regular American rather than exclusively favoring the elite politician or businessman and crony capitalist. These elite groups didn't suffer under the last Administration as you indicate. Rather, they made out much better during the recession than the average guy.
My impression is that the current administration is doing this even more (maybe not for the politicians, but surely for the rich businessman and capitalists) and that the average and lower class guy will be bleeding even harder then before. Both the new tax plan as well as the new health plans favour the rich and take from the average and poor.
-
We have been in England and Ireland for two weeks and have yet to find any local who thinks Trump is any good. They all seem dumbfounded that he won the election. Just what we have observed.
-
We have been in England and Ireland for two weeks and have yet to find any local who thinks Trump is any good. They all seem dumbfounded that he won the election. Just what we have observed.
Well, Trump wants to help Americans not Irish and English citizens. Obama and Hillary on the other hand wanted to help everyone but Americans.
-
Obama and Hillary on the other hand wanted to help everyone but Americans.
Yeah, ya know, that dog don't hunt. If you honestly think Obama cared less for Americans than he did others in the world you have a perverted perspective of reality. Sure, Obama had a great deal of empathy for others but to to say he wanted to help everybody but Americans is, well, horseshyte, pure GOP talking point horseshyte (and I question whether you honestly believe this or are just trying to be provocative).
Hum, I wonder, do you believe Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya?
-
Well, Trump wants to help Americans not Irish and English citizens.
In case you hadn't noticed, the world outside the USA is much larger than inside its borders alone. A huge market for selling stuff awaits, no more.
Today, Europe and Japan signed the precursor to a new Free Trade Agreement (tomorrow the formal signing will be done by Japan's PM before the G20 meeting) as the TPP trade deal members are moving ahead without the USA, and the European Union agreed to intensify the trade relations with Cuba (567 parliamentarians voted in favor, 65 against, 31 withheld their vote), pending ratification by the member states.
And last month:
The European Union and China will boost their research and innovation cooperation with a new package of flagship initiatives targeting the areas of Food, Agriculture and Biotechnologies, Environment and Sustainable Urbanisation, Surface Transport, Safer and Greener aviation, and Biotechnologies for Environment and Human Health.
This is one of the outcomes of the 3rd EU-China Innovation Co-operation Dialogue, organised today in the margins of the 19th EU-China Summit, and co-chaired by Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, and Wan Gang, China's Minister of Science and Technology.
The train goes on, without the USA. How that helps 'Americans' escapes me.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In case you hadn't noticed, the world outside the USA is much larger than inside its borders alone. A huge market for selling stuff awaits, no more.
Today, Europe and Japan signed the precursor to a new Free Trade Agreement (tomorrow the formal signing will be done by Japan's PM before the G20 meeting) as the TPP trade deal members are moving ahead without the USA, and the European Union agreed to intensify the trade relations with Cuba (567 parliamentarians voted in favor, 65 against, 31 withheld their vote), pending ratification by the member states.
Cheers,
Bart
As it happens, Airbus just signed a deal to sell 140 planes worth $23 billion to China.
And Volvo which today announced that it will stop producing new gasoline-only engines from 2019 and shift to a variety of hybrid and all-electric models just gave a shock to Tesla and caused its stock drop by 7%.
Neither of these news will help America.
-
We have been in England and Ireland for two weeks and have yet to find any local who thinks Trump is any good. They all seem dumbfounded that he won the election. Just what we have observed.
It seems that this very same sentiment is reflected in all European countries. With the exception of Russia.
-
Pressure builds on Trump at home over pledge for closer Moscow ties
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN19P0J8
QUOTE Tue Jul 4, 2017 | 11:11am EDT "During his presidential campaign, Republican Donald Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "strong leader" with whom he would like to reset tense U.S.-Russian relations.
But as Trump heads to his first face-to-face meeting as president with Putin on Friday at the G20 summit in Germany, he is under pressure at home to take a tough line with the Kremlin.
Allegations of Russian meddling in last year’s U.S. election have alarmed both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who are pushing to extend tough sanctions placed on Russia following its 2014 annexation of Crimea, a peninsula belonging to Ukraine.
Lawmakers including Republican Senator Cory Gardner are also concerned Russia has prolonged the civil war in Syria by backing its President Bashar al-Assad, a strongman whose forces have used chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians. The chaos has fueled instability in the region and a flood of migrants to Europe."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yeah, ya know, that dog don't hunt. If you honestly think Obama cared less for Americans than he did others in the world you have a perverted perspective of reality. Sure, Obama had a great deal of empathy for others but to to say he wanted to help everybody but Americans is, well, horseshyte, pure GOP talking point horseshyte (and I question whether you honestly believe this or are just trying to be provocative).
Hum, I wonder, do you believe Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya?
Well, I suppose they wanted to help themselves more than anyone. Obama protected all the Wall Street crooks. None of them went to prison. His first paycheck after leaving the presidency after his $60 million book deal was to get a $400,000 speaking engagement from, well, Wall Street. Now he vacations with the billionaires in Tahiti and the Bahamas. What a phony.
Of course he was only continuing the tradition of Hillary and her husband Bill who got millions from Wall Street for speaking engagements. Remember in the campaign when she refused to provide the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches? You could only imagine what assurances she gave them. I'm sure she was thinking of the deplorables when she spoke. I'm sure she had Americans in mind when she sold 20% of America's uranium to who was it? Oh yes. It was the Russians. And all that money she collected selling political influence to the Saudis, Qatarians, and other terrorist supporting countries. That really helped Americans a lot too.
-
As it happens, Airbus just signed a deal to sell 140 planes worth $23 billion to China.
And Volvo which today announced that it will stop producing new gasoline-only engines from 2019 and shift to a variety of hybrid and all-electric models just gave a shock to Tesla and caused its stock drop by 7%.
Neither of these news will help America.
I don't understand what point you're making? Airbus and Boeing are both fine aircraft companies. I think Boeing sold $7 billion to the Chinese but did better overall than Airbus recently at the Paris Air show. Boeing did better but that changes from time to time. Boeing is leaving the show with orders and commitments for more than 571 new aircraft worth $74.8 billion at list prices. Airbus secured 346 new orders worth $42.2 billion.
What does Volvo wanting to make only electric or hybrids have to do with Trump? What does Trump have to do with Tesla?
-
Well, I suppose they wanted to help themselves more than anyone. Obama protected all the Wall Street crooks. None of them went to prison. His first paycheck after leaving the presidency after his $60 million book deal was to get a $400,000 speaking engagement from, well, Wall Street. Now he vacations with the billionaires in Tahiti and the Bahamas. What a phony.
Of course he was only continuing the tradition of Hillary and her husband Bill who got millions from Wall Street for speaking engagements. Remember in the campaign when she refused to provide the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches? You could only imagine what assurances she gave them. I'm sure she was thinking of the deplorables when she spoke. I'm sure she had Americans in mind when she sold 20% of America's uranium to who was it? Oh yes. It was the Russians. And all that money she collected selling political influence to the Saudis, Qatarians, and other terrorist supporting countries. That really helped Americans a lot too.
This argument is and always has been utterly bizarre. Hillary and Obama are in the tank for Wall St. because they accept speaking fees either before or after their times in office, but Trump is an innocent despite the fact that he selected the very same Wall St. guys to *run the government* and has been actively trying to hinder media oversight at every turn. Makes my head explode :/
-
This argument is and always has been utterly bizarre. Hillary and Obama are in the tank for Wall St. because they accept speaking fees either before or after their times in office, but Trump is an innocent despite the fact that he selected the very same Wall St. guys to *run the government* and has been actively trying to hinder media oversight at every turn. Makes my head explode :/
The Clintons and Obama personally profited from Wall Street. When he was President, Bill Clinton did away with Glass-Stiegel Act which caused a good part of the collapse of the financial industry in 2008. After it was removed from the law, corporate banks could act as investment banks and vice versa. Wall Street was behind getting rid of the Act. Wall Street continued to pay the Clintons with all those speaking engagements for millions and millions. It was a pay off!!!! A quid pro quo. Do you really think she was giving them investment advice with those speeches or what? When didn't she release the transcripts if they were so innocent. And then during the recession after 2008, not only did none of the wall street crooks go to jail, Obama got them their money back plus billions of extra dollars. Meanwhile the Clintons were collecting more money under the guise of the Clinton Foundation. Not only wall street, but hoards of foreigners, sovereigns, and other contributed to make them hundred millionaires. It was all for political favors. Meanwhile, the average schnook American lost their jobs and had to accept part time or lower paying jobs if they got a job at all. Bernie Sanders said the same thing. Is he lying too?
Trump ran to clean up the swamp where politicians and business and wall street types like the Clintons and Obamas slime together. Sure Trump hired smart financial people to implement his plans to help the country and the average worker. But you're denigrating them ahead of time instead of seeing what they and Trump do. You've already tried and convicted them before they even did anything.
-
I don't understand what point you're making? Airbus and Boeing are both fine aircraft companies. I think Boeing sold $7 billion to the Chinese but did better overall than Airbus recently at the Paris Air show. Boeing did better but that changes from time to time. Boeing is leaving the show with orders and commitments for more than 571 new aircraft worth $74.8 billion at list prices. Airbus secured 346 new orders worth $42.2 billion.
What does Volvo wanting to make only electric or hybrids have to do with Trump? What does Trump have to do with Tesla?
No point getting upset. The Airbus deal shows that there is a plenty of business, especially in the BRICS countries, specifically in India and China, and that's where the European companies will concentrate their efforts.
When it comes to Volvo announcement about their electric and hybrid cars, it is very likely that a few more European manufacturers will follow the suite, which will make it more difficult for US car makers. Maybe it doesn't faze you, but the 7% drop in Tesla stock value in one day shows the concerns of its investors.
And these are just two examples in one day. I'm afraid we will hear more such news if Trump doesn't turn around. You might remember that Trump promised last year that he will keep the automotive jobs in USA, but right now, it doesn't seems to be the case, and many US car manufactures are planning workforce reductions.
There is one thing you don't seem to be aware of. As Alan Goldhammer mentioned in his recent post, most Europeans are not exactly enamored with Trump (and consequently and unfortunately also with USA), and that will be reflected also in tourism numbers to US and in purchasing US goods. Although Trump had surely good intentions to protect US manufacturers and employees, such isolationist approach may backfire and cause the exact opposite. This is a stark contrast to our own Justin Trudeau who just recently met with his Irish counterpart Leo Varadkar and pledged to push the free-trade agenda forward as both countries deal with increasingly isolationist neighbours.
Now, don't take me wrong. I wish for the growth of the US economy, not the least from the selfish reason that if USA does well, Canada benefits from increased trade with US, too.
But I think, the answer is in lowering the trade barriers, not in the isolationism.
-
No point getting upset. The Airbus deal shows that there is a plenty of business, especially in the BRICS countries, specifically in India and China, and that's where the European companies will concentrate their efforts.
When it comes to Volvo announcement about their electric and hybrid cars, it is very likely that a few more European manufacturers will follow the suite, which will make it more difficult for US car makers. Maybe it doesn't faze you, but the 7% drop in Tesla stock value in one day shows the concerns of its investors.
And these are just two examples in one day. I'm afraid we will hear more such news if Trump doesn't turn around. You might remember that Trump promised last year that he will keep the automotive jobs in USA, but right now, it doesn't seems to be the case, and many US car manufactures are planning workforce reductions.
There is one thing you don't seem to be aware of. As Alan Goldhammer mentioned in his recent post, most Europeans are not exactly enamored with Trump (and consequently and unfortunately also with USA), and that will be reflected also in tourism numbers to US and in purchasing US goods. Although Trump had surely good intentions to protect US manufacturers and employees, such isolationist approach may backfire and cause the exact opposite. This is a stark contrast to our own Justin Trudeau who just recently met with his Irish counterpart Leo Varadkar and pledged to push the free-trade agenda forward as both countries deal with increasingly isolationist neighbours.
Now, don't take me wrong. I wish for the growth of the US economy, not the least from the selfish reason that if USA does well, Canada benefits from increased trade with US, too.
But I think, the answer is in lowering the trade barriers, not in the isolationism.
I'm not upset. At least not until I lost tonight in my poker game. But seriously, I don't think what you see happening is really happening. If Modi hugged Trump any harder at their recent meeting, Melania would have been jealous. Countries see the US as a huge market for their products. They're not going to cut their noses off to spite their faces. Even Xi is not stupid. If America put up barriers to China trade, the Chinese people might overthrow the Communists.
Regarding Volvo, I don't think their decision about producing electric cars had anything to do with Trump. It's a business decision. Maybe they feel Tesla is the prophet. They may be right. Or wrong. Time will tell.
The truth is Trump can only do certain things. The rest is up to businesses. What Americans want to see Trump do is create a level playing field internationally so we can have free but fair trade. But, he's not supporting isolationism. Where are you getting that wrong info from? He'll make a deal with anyone, even North Korea, if it's not unfair and we can sell stuff.
Also, I doubt if Europeans and others will stop coming to America to visit. At least photographers will keep coming so they can buy cheaper camera stuff at B and H Photo. :) Americans will keep going to Europe especially now that the EU is depressed. On the other hand, my wife is concerned about terrorism there because Europe doesn't seem to know what's good for them. They have allowed terrorists to become rampant there what with the Middle East refugees and all. So, many Americans are vacationing instead in America. Or Canada. It's still safe up there. :)
-
I'm sure she had Americans in mind when she sold 20% of America's uranium to who was it? Oh yes. It was the Russians.
I won't bother to fact check each of your over the top allegations but this one I had to track down...guess what? Much like I suspect the rest of your allegations, this one is false...
Russian to Judgment (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/)
Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.
CLAIM:
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. See example (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/#examples)(s)
RATING: False!
ORIGIN:
In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities.
May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.
A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, Schweizer claims in Clinton Cash, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million. Among those who followed him in citing the transaction as an example of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City: Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Trump’s campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton “gave American uranium rights to the Russians”: TV ad (https://youtu.be/epbmHco8sF0)
An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, “So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?”
Problem is, it's false....and you've been duped Alan.
From the article above:
The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve
Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.
Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.
A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
The timing of most of the donations does not match
Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman: His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.
So, should I bother to research the rest of your other allegations?
If I do, will I find them so lacking in facts?
BTW, if you want to read a bit of dirt on the book Clinton Cash that was responsible for launching the allegation, this article from Bloomberg is enlightening...
‘Clinton Cash’ Book Got Most of Its Funding From One Hedge Fund Star (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/-clinton-cash-book-got-most-of-its-funding-from-hedge-fund-star)
The nonprofit group behind the bestseller “Clinton Cash,” whose investigation of dealings by Hillary Clinton and her family furnished ammunition for Donald Trump in last year’s presidential campaign, got two-thirds of its funding from a single hedge-fund manager.
Robert Mercer provided $1.7 million of the group’s $2.6 million of revenue in 2015, according to Internal Revenue Service documents obtained by Bloomberg News. The group, the Government Accountability Institute, was co-founded by populist firebrand Stephen Bannon, now the president-elect’s chief strategist.
As co-chief executive officer of Long Island-based Renaissance Technologies, Mercer helps run one of the world’s most profitable hedge funds. The information about the contributions comes from a tax return filed by the Mercer Family Foundation late last year, which reported total grants of $24.5 million in 2015. Mercer declined to comment through a spokesman, and representatives of GAI didn’t respond to inquiries.
“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer is president of Tallahassee, Florida-based GAI, which also helped him research and promote the book. It was published in 2015 by HarperCollins Publishers.
The book debuted at No. 2 on the New York Times bestseller list as Clinton’s presidential campaign was getting underway. It scrutinized the speaking fees and charitable contributions she and her family collected from corporations and wealthy individuals around the world, many of whom stood to gain or lose by decisions she made as secretary of state.
Weaponizing Stories
While some of Mercer’s links to GAI were previously known, the new documents show an increasing reliance on his support. His foundation provided $1 million to the nonprofit group in 2013 and again in 2014. It didn’t report any contributions to GAI in 2012, the year the group was created. Mercer’s daughter Rebekah served on the GAI board for its first three years but wasn’t listed as a director in 2015.
Bannon, who was also executive chairman of Breitbart News, has described GAI as part of his strategy to “weaponize” stories by investigating them, then handing them off to members of the mainstream media such as the Times and “60 Minutes” to maximize their impact.
A close adviser to the Mercers, Bannon produced a film version of “Clinton Cash” last year before joining the Trump campaign. Rebekah Mercer is a member of the executive committee of the president-elect’s transition team. During the election, the Mercers spent more than $2 million on pro-Trump advertising through a super-PAC they controlled.
Ok then...it seems that Clinton Cash book might not be the bastion of honest hard hitting journalism that Trump and his Minions™ seemed to make it out to be. I suspect a lot of Alan's other allegations probably fall under a similar dubious pedigree...
Maybe that's where Trump/Bannon came up with the concept of fake news? Weaponize stories and feed them to main stream media in the hopes they take the bait? If nothing else, the Minions take it as gospel and speed the news in their own echo chambers to the point where the Minions believe it's the truth...
-
Also, I doubt if Europeans and others will stop coming to America to visit. At least photographers will keep coming so they can buy cheaper camera stuff at B and H Photo. :) Americans will keep going to Europe especially now that the EU is depressed. On the other hand, my wife is concerned about terrorism there because Europe doesn't seem to know what's good for them. They have allowed terrorists to become rampant there what with the Middle East refugees and all. So, many Americans are vacationing instead in America. Or Canada. It's still safe up there. :)
Hi Alan - tell your wife no to worry too much about coming to Europe. I just checked and the murder rate in the US is three times that of the European Union. Sad though terrorism is - here in the UK you are highly unlikely to be shot by your neighbour at least.
Jim
-
Also, I doubt if Europeans and others will stop coming to America to visit. At least photographers will keep coming so they can buy cheaper camera stuff at B and H Photo. :) Americans will keep going to Europe especially now that the EU is depressed. On the other hand, my wife is concerned about terrorism there because Europe doesn't seem to know what's good for them. They have allowed terrorists to become rampant there what with the Middle East refugees and all. So, many Americans are vacationing instead in America. Or Canada. It's still safe up there. :)
Of course, the international tourism won't stop altogether, but very likely, there will be a reduction in both directions.
I know there are some Canadian snowbirds who used to overwinter in southern USA, but now they go to Cuba, Mexico or other countries. For some of them it is the antipathy for Trump, but also the high cost of travel medical insurance, especially for seniors. I have a rather active photographer friend who had several surgeries in the past, and now the Canadian insurance companies won't even insure him for international travel, because of his pre-existing conditions and exceedingly high US hospital costs and drug prices. So now, he travels exclusively in Canada.
Yeah, Canada is relatively safe, although about ten years ago, there was a tragic case in Newfoundland when Mark Harshbarger, an American hunter from Pennsylvania was shot by his wife. She thought it was a bear. Fortunately, the couple had increased their life insurance just before the hunting trip and Mary Beth Harshbarger collected $550,000US on life insurance policies.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/u-s-hunter-not-guilty-in-husband-s-shooting-death-1.887645
-
Seeing Trumps behaviour up until now i wonder what his response will be when North Korea continues its missile tests.
According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40518287);
“US President Donald Trump has warned North Korea that he is considering a "pretty severe" response following the country's long-range missile test.”
I am afraid that at some point he will feel personally insulted by North Korea’s response and i can imagine that losing face for him is worse than starting a war in North Korea.
Hope this will not happen of course, but with this president i can imagine it is possible without any serious need.
It would be a human disaster for North Korea and its neighboring countries.
-
The Atlantic magazine had a good article on the possible solutions with North Korea:
U.S. has four broad strategic options for dealing with North Korea and its burgeoning nuclear program.
1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang’s arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea’s standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.
2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea’s capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.
3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.
4. Acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim’s developing the weapons he wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.
There is a comprehensive analysis for each of the above options, but the conclusion is that all of them are bad.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/
-
The Atlantic magazine had a good article on the possible solutions with North Korea
living in a world with the certain country that nuked civilians twice and meddled for centuries in other countries internal affairs sometimes just to get cheap bananas means that every other country, including NK, has the right to develop nuclear weapons ;D
-
living in a world with the certain country that nuked civilians twice and meddled for centuries in other countries internal affairs sometimes just to get cheap bananas means that every other country, including NK, has the right to develop nuclear weapons ;D
Yeah, despite all our bloviating about the risks of other nations having nuclear weapons, we are still the only country that used them.... twice.
But we can be trusted with nuclear weapons but no one else can be trusted. After all, they may use them. :o
-
The Clintons and Obama personally profited from Wall Street. When he was President, Bill Clinton did away with Glass-Stiegel Act which caused a good part of the collapse of the financial industry in 2008. After it was removed from the law, corporate banks could act as investment banks and vice versa. Wall Street was behind getting rid of the Act. Wall Street continued to pay the Clintons with all those speaking engagements for millions and millions. It was a pay off!!!! A quid pro quo. Do you really think she was giving them investment advice with those speeches or what? When didn't she release the transcripts if they were so innocent. And then during the recession after 2008, not only did none of the wall street crooks go to jail, Obama got them their money back plus billions of extra dollars. Meanwhile the Clintons were collecting more money under the guise of the Clinton Foundation. Not only wall street, but hoards of foreigners, sovereigns, and other contributed to make them hundred millionaires. It was all for political favors. Meanwhile, the average schnook American lost their jobs and had to accept part time or lower paying jobs if they got a job at all. Bernie Sanders said the same thing. Is he lying too?
Trump ran to clean up the swamp where politicians and business and wall street types like the Clintons and Obamas slime together. Sure Trump hired smart financial people to implement his plans to help the country and the average worker. But you're denigrating them ahead of time instead of seeing what they and Trump do. You've already tried and convicted them before they even did anything.
Hold on... so your contention is that the Clintons (and Obama) were essentially being bribed by Wall Street. I assume that's so that the evil bank guys could bend them to their will and get favorable legislation or executive action. I assume you think that's bad.
But at the same time, you're ok with putting *those very same people* DIRECTLY in positions of power in the Trump administration, where they need not influence legislation or executive action, *because they can now do it themselves*?????
Seriously, that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.
-
Hold on... so your contention is that the Clintons (and Obama) were essentially being bribed by Wall Street. I assume that's so that the evil bank guys could bend them to their will and get favorable legislation or executive action. I assume you think that's bad.
But at the same time, you're ok with putting *those very same people* DIRECTLY in positions of power in the Trump administration, where they need not influence legislation or executive action, *because they can now do it themselves*?????
Seriously, that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.
They were put there to institute actions and help create legislation that Trump proposed in his campaign platform. They weren't put there to institute their own policies to enrich themselves. If they pad their pockets, Trump will fire them and/or he will be voted out of office. If they institute his policies, and things get better economically for the country, then he will be re-elected. That's how it works. You're creating a straw man with Trump that doesn't exist.
But that's a lot different when legislation is instituted by contributions to the elected officials like what happened with Hillary. Isn't that what the liberals were complaining about all these years? Isn't that one of the reasons corrupt Hillary was defeated? Hillary and Bill lined their pockets with hundreds of millions of "pay-to-play" dollars because they controlled levers of political power. They sold influence.
-
I won't bother to fact check each of your over the top allegations but this one I had to track down...guess what? Much like I suspect the rest of your allegations, this one is false...
Russian to Judgment (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/)
Problem is, it's false....and you've been duped Alan.
From the article above:
So, should I bother to research the rest of your other allegations?
If I do, will I find them so lacking in facts?
BTW, if you want to read a bit of dirt on the book Clinton Cash that was responsible for launching the allegation, this article from Bloomberg is enlightening...
‘Clinton Cash’ Book Got Most of Its Funding From One Hedge Fund Star (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/-clinton-cash-book-got-most-of-its-funding-from-hedge-fund-star)
Ok then...it seems that Clinton Cash book might not be the bastion of honest hard hitting journalism that Trump and his Minions™ seemed to make it out to be. I suspect a lot of Alan's other allegations probably fall under a similar dubious pedigree...
Maybe that's where Trump/Bannon came up with the concept of fake news? Weaponize stories and feed them to main stream media in the hopes they take the bait? If nothing else, the Minions take it as gospel and speed the news in their own echo chambers to the point where the Minions believe it's the truth...
You're the only person in the world who thinks Hillary wasn't corrupt. That some Russian gave her $145 million dollars for charity. Give me a break.
-
That some Russian gave her $145 million dollars for charity. Give me a break.
Well, that alleged $145 million was to the Clinton Foundation which even Trump viewed as doing good works because even he gave it $100K (and we all know Trump is a cheapskate). If one compares what the Clinton Foundation has done vs what the Trump Foundation has done I don't think even you would claim that Trump's Foundation did much good for anybody other than Trump.
And of that $145 million allegedly given to the foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
So, what sort of quid pro quo are you alleging?
By the way, Frank Giustra is Canadian not Russian...another little factoid you seem to have wrong.
-
I take issue with the USA being judged for using nuclear weapons in Japan, especially with 70+ years of hindsight.
what a nice position for perpetrators - so let us wait 70 years and then judge Assad too, with a hindsight ...
-
in comparison to a dictator that bombed his own people.
you nuked civilians ... it does not matter whether they were your people or not... and then you spend 70 years inventing reasons why Unites Fruit of Marines was moved by some noble intentions ;D
-
The point is that if it is/was acceptable for the US to use nuclear weapons, then it stands to reason that it is acceptable for other countries to have the same capability.
It is the position that we can have nukes but other countries can't that I find indefensible.
Especially when it is pretty difficult to prevent a nation from developing or purchasing them.
-
The point is that if it is/was acceptable for the US to use nuclear weapons, then it stands to reason that it is acceptable for other countries to have the same capability.
It is the position that we can have nukes but other countries can't that I find indefensible.
Especially when it is pretty difficult to prevent a nation from developing or purchasing them.
First off, The United Nations made up of countries around the world has outlawed nuclear weapons in North Korea and imposed sanction against them because they have been developing them. So there is a world moral imperative that they don't have them. Same with other countries. Also, most nations are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that precludes them from having nuclear weapons. NK signed and then withdraw,
But leaving aside the legal arguments, is the fact that the world does not operate only legally but through strength and force by it's individual nations. You may not approve of it. But that's the way it is. Regarding America's ownership of nuclear weapons, would you prefer that America wasn't around and the world had to deal with a nuclear armed North Korea or Soviet Union? I'm sure you understand that it's been America's nuclear and conventional armed military that has protected western democracy since the end of WWII.
Regarding the "fairness" point, I can agree with that intellectually. But America and others don't care about fairness but rather what is good for them. A lot of countries don't want a nuclear armed North Korea. They didn't want one in Iran either and have would up with a sort of agreement with them. Maybe the same will happen with NK with the help of China or not. But my point is that a nation can defend itself if it has the power to do so. The world isn't a democracy but is based on power politics. If America and others reach the point that a nuclear armed NK is unacceptable to them, war could happen. Then Kim would get what he hoped nuclear weapons in his country would avoid. I sure hope it doesn't come to that.
-
Western values increasingly endangered by terrorism and extremism, Trump warns Europe in speech in Poland. Trump’s speech here was also notable for its explicit commitment to Article 5, the collective security provision of the NATO treaty: “The United States has demonstrated not merely with words, but with its actions, that we stand firmly behind Article 5, the mutual defense commitment,” Trump said.
Central and Eastern European nations, which are particularly concerned about the threat of growing Russian influence in the region, view Trump's presence here as a reassuring sign that the United States remains committed to the security of the region."
He also reminded Europe about their need for the 2% defense expenditure to help protect themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/06/in-poland-trump-reaffirms-commitment-to-nato-chides-russia/
-
So, Alan, if the UN ruled that the US had to adhere to Paris, you'd support it?
-
So, Alan, if the UN ruled that the US had to adhere to Paris, you'd support it?
No.
-
So you are using the UN as an authority when it suits you only?
-
So you are using the UN as an authority when it suits you only?
Yes and no. The UN charter grants every country the right to defend itself. It's nice to have the UN support. But beyond that if we need to do something, we will do it. The president and all members of Congress are beholden to our Constitution only. In fairness, that goes for NK also. But beyond that, the world isn't fair, never has been. It operates on power politics. To think otherwise is dangerous and suicidal.
-
Yes, but it was you who called on the authority of the UN with regard to NK.
-
First off, The United Nations made up of countries around the world has outlawed nuclear weapons in North Korea
First of all, it was not the UN but the UNSC which is a small representation of the world's countries and, through the veto rule, dominated by the nations that already have nuclear weapons.
Secondly, do we allow the United Nations to dictate what the United States can or can not do?
No. We maintain our sovereignty rights. Why is our sovereignty better than another country's sovereignty? Well, because it is OUR sovereignty of course. Well other countries value their sovereignty also.
In effect, we want the UN to have power over countries we don't like but at the same time we don't want the UN to have power over countries we do like (including our country). Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?
Do you not remember the crap storm in this country about the UNODA Arms Trade Treaty? How dare the UN tell the US what it can and can't do! The UN is gonna take away our guns!
-
Yes, but it was you who called on the authority of the UN with regard to NK.
The purpose of the UN is to pressure countries to comply or work out international deals so the world can avoid war. Sanctions are imposed, etc. It often doesn't work. That leads to war. Or nothing happens. China lost the international law suit regarding the islands in the South China Sea that they claimed were theirs. They ignored the court and the world and militarized them.
Many Americans don't like the UN. It limits our sovereignty. It gets us involved with other countries and may push us into wars or international agreements we have no business being involved in. The Constitutional requirement for the Senate to approve treaties is skirted. This gives even more unilateral power to a president for overseas adventures. The Congress approved American involvement in the Korean war in the 1950's after a UN Security Counsel vote. It was called a "UN police action" by many to avoid arguments hat we got into a war through the back door. That's why many Americans oppose our involvement in the UN.
Over the years, we've tended to learn how to use the UN and ignore it when its not in our interest. Most countries do that as well. That's why the UN and world courts are limited in their power to resolve major issues. Sovereignty rules.
-
First of all, it was not the UN but the UNSC which is a small representation of the world's countries and, through the veto rule, dominated by the nations that already have nuclear weapons.
Secondly, do we allow the United Nations to dictate what the United States can or can not do?
No. We maintain our sovereignty rights. Why is our sovereignty better than another country's sovereignty? Well, because it is OUR sovereignty of course. Well other countries value their sovereignty also.
In effect, we want the UN to have power over countries we don't like but at the same time we don't want the UN to have power over countries we do like (including our country). Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?
Do you not remember the crap storm in this country about the UNODA Arms Trade Treaty? How dare the UN tell the US what it can and can't do! The UN is gonna take away our guns!
I already agreed with your points in my post #4212. Every nation can ignore the UN based on its power to do so. All nations are sovereign.
-
Forgotten workers. The job losses in the retail industry are indeed staggering, and ignored by Trump.
Retailers have announced over 60,000 job cuts in the first half of this year, according to consultant Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
But President Donald Trump hasn’t had much to say about the retail job losses, even though its labor force cuts just this year alone surpass the total number people employed in the entire coal industry, which Trump has pledged to save and grow.
The coal industry, which employs about 50,000, has received large support from Trump, including an executive order unwinding climate policies from the Obama administration and a decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Almost 500,000 layoffs have hit retailers since 2009, according to Challenger, with many of the layoffs due to fundamental industry shifts in the way consumers shop, particularly in the “e-commerce era” of Amazon (AMZN) where online spending is taking a larger share of consumer wallets, currently making up 8% of total US retail sales versus close to 3% a decade ago. “We’ve tracked over 5,000 announced store closings this year, as retailers continue to focus operations online. It is likely we’ll continue to see cuts in the retail sector going forward,” according to the Challenger report.
And the stakes may be higher for retail than coal. Retail salespeople and cashiers represented the two largest job categories in the country as of 2016, with 4.5 million and 3.5 million workers.
The less known fact is that beside Amazon, many online sellers come and ship directly from China. They have a direct access to cheap (and often counterfeit) goods made in China, and subsidized shipping costs by Chinese postal system, thus facilitating export of many importer and retail jobs from USA and many other countries to China. For example, you can buy a lens cap for a 52mm Nikon or Canon lens on eBay for 77 cents, including international shipping (compared with $6.95, plus shipping fee from B&H Photo). Sadly, many US or Canadian based sellers have to pay high shipping costs by unionized postal systems, and even if they buy the goods from China, there is no way they can offer low or free shipping as the Chinese sellers.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-dwarfs-coal-yet-trump-said-little-massive-job-losses-103253089.html
-
Forgotten workers. The job losses in the retail industry are indeed staggering, and ignored by Trump.
The less known fact is that beside Amazon, many online sellers come and ship directly from China. They have a direct access to cheap (and often counterfeit) goods made in China, and subsidized shipping costs by Chinese postal system, thus facilitating export of many importer and retail jobs from USA and many other countries to China. For example, you can buy a lens cap for a 52mm Nikon or Canon lens on eBay for 77 cents, including international shipping (compared with $6.95, plus shipping fee from B&H Photo). Sadly, many US or Canadian based sellers have to pay high shipping costs by unionized postal systems, and even if they buy the goods from China, there is no way they can offer low or free shipping as the Chinese sellers.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retail-dwarfs-coal-yet-trump-said-little-massive-job-losses-103253089.html
This is all part of the free and "fair" trade that Trump is complaining about. On the other hand, it gives purchasers cheaper goods raising their standard of living. He said he intends to correct the unfairness part. We'll see. It's a complicated economic situation. If you have a job, cheaper imports raises your standard of living. Of course if cheaper imports causes you to lose your job, well, then it's considered unfair trade practices. The trick is to let cheaper goods enter the country while providing better jobs to those who have been displaced by cheaper production overseas. It's a conundrum that has political and economic considerations.
-
Oh, another issue is minimum wages going up. That has eliminated some of the jobs as well. I was in a Burger King in NYS the other day. I was surprised to see three machines taking orders. Only one human was assisting. Before there would be two or three humans taking orders. I've seem similar "robots" in Panera Bread stores. I use to tip more with the people so I save with robots too.
-
However I don't think it will end well if NK gets the bomb.
it will end well - US will just have to learn to live deterred by one more country ;D ... just like USSR deterred USA with few nukes and few means to deliver.
If we end getting another feckless president, the North might very well test him/her with a small scale attack on the South.
What a stupid fantasy :o ! Did US military left SK territory already ? Why in the world Kim will decide to attack first w/o US provocation with conventional forces ?
-
If America and others reach the point that a nuclear armed NK is unacceptable to them, war could happen.
more reasons for sovereign nations like NK or Iran to have n-tipped IBCMs as soon as possible...
-
You need to brush up on your history my friend. It is commonly accepted that the North invaded the South and started the Korean War.
and you need to understand that calculus is different today that it was back then - there are no uncles or chairmans behind Kim's back ...
Not to mention the North has engaged in single missile attacks on Southern locations, killing South Koreans, and also has kidnapped its fair share of South Koreans too, without provocation I might add.
so ? it seems you lack the understanding of the difference between the war and such behavior ...
They would invade because they want to control the entire peninsula, not just the North, that's why.
I want to have extra $1m ... am I going to rob the bank or so ?
If you don't agree, ask yourself why has the North refused to sign a pease treaty.
I 'd not sign it myself - just like USSR/Russia still does not have a peace treaty w/ Japan ... because of the opposing parties pre-conditions on both sides ... tell us what is the other side offering to NK in the peace treaty as of today ?
Are they just lazy? Or maybe they want an excuse for the invasion, because they are technically still at war.
USSR/Russia (with thousands of nukes) is technically still at war with Japan ... watch out ;D
-
Oh, another issue is minimum wages going up. That has eliminated some of the jobs as well. I was in a Burger King in NYS the other day. I was surprised to see three machines taking orders. Only one human was assisting. Before there would be two or three humans taking orders. I've seem similar "robots" in Panera Bread stores. I use to tip more with the people so I save with robots too.
That's nothing. At least 2 of the most abundant jobs in the US, cashiers and heavy truck drivers, are doomed to be replaced by robots sooner rather than later. More jobs to follow. It's not realistic to think that all those people can shift towards another industry so easily.
Look at all those coal towns, how many of those workers have found something as good as what they had? if they actually found anything at all. And those jobs are not coming back, no matter what Trump says. Even if coal were somehow to be fashionable again, the coal companies are the first ones using new technologies that require less and less workers each time, from what I hear they can pulverize half a mountain with 5 guys. No need to dig anymore.
On another country one could hope to get some sort of subsidy from the government, but here they called that socialism so if your industry dies, most likely you die too.
-
Once again you are either ignoring the point I was making in order to back up some straw man argument or you did not take the time to try and understand the meaning of my post.
My comment about it not ending well had nothing to do with attacks on USA territory. The USA had the technology to shoot a falling piece of space debris, moving much faster then a ICBM, with a missile more then 10 years ago. I am sure the technology has advanced significantly since then, although the military would never admit to it for obvious reasons. Unless NK releases a plethora of missiles all at once, which I doubt they have, I don't think any will reach the USA before they are shot out of the sky.
However, it would be a disaster for Seoul if NK decides to nuke the city in an invasion they suddenly realize they can not win. And I would not put it past Kim to do so.
did I say anything about attacking __USA territory__ in this text "just like USSR deterred USA with few nukes and few means to deliver." ? you have a wild imagination about the situation in the first half of 1950s with USA having technology to shoot down few medium range propeller driven bombers that USSR had (flying one way at best)
-
Calculus has remained the same since the 1950s in the areas that existed. However, it has advanced into other fields of study. ;)
only in paranoid minds of some people... Kim is not - he is just doing his best with cards he was dealt
And what is the difference between war and such behavior as you put it. Is killing of only a handful of SKs in a single missile strike acceptable because it was just a single missile?
sure - just like USA does not mind to annihilate more than a handful civilians to achieve certain goals... war is in NK case as you present means invasion and calculus is different, no matter what you try to imagine on Kim's behalf
You seem to be missing the point the point though. The North was doing these things to test the South's resolve and whether or not we would be there. Fortunately we were, otherwise the North could have very well decided it was time to invade again.
US is not "were", US is "are"... US forces are in SK - so no invasion to SK under current circumstances with NK forces ... but of course if Kim decides that US really wants to take him out then by all means he will be right to nuke Seoul first ... he can't afford not to.
Your comment about wanting an extra million dollars is a red herring by the way, another argument that is a fallacy. Your mental and moral capacity have nothing to do with Kim's.
how do u know ? do I need anything more than pen and paper to take on a bank ? and I am not more smart in the matters of survival than Kim (neither is you) - I bet we both long 'd be gone in NK, and he rules ...
In order to determine whether to not Kim would invade, we need to look at Kim's actions, not yours.
sure, I see only reasonable actions to deter the potential agressor ;)
Insofar as your comments about the USSR and Japan, technically they are not true. The USSR no longer exist, so therefore it can not be at war with Japan.
you tried to omit Russia from that :) ... and USSR was technically at war with Japan till the last day it formally existed
Not to mention, it is pretty obvious that Putin is a rather shrewd leader that makes well thought out decisions, which I accept even if I don't agree with some of them. Kim I am not so sure about. He seems either unstable or power hungry; neither are good qualities for a leader of a nuclear nation.
it takes more to rule, survive and deter USA in NK for Kim that for Putin to do the same in Russia ...
-
So the lower court and appeals court that originally shot down Trumps travel ban have just dealt another blow to the original complainants who the Supreme Court ruled against 9-0. They're letting stand Trump limiting relatives to only those very close but not including more distant relatives like grandparents. So they've been burned once and want to defer to the Supreme Court. It seems Trump knew more about the US Constitution then many people here.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hawaii-judge-travel-ban-20170707-story.html
-
It seems Trump knew more about the US Constitution then many people here.
Lol...that's pretty funny...wait, that's a joke right? I mean you don't honestly think Trump has ever even read the US Constitution?
I'll admit I haven't in years, but I have read it for a class once.
But to accuse Trump of knowing the Constitution is simply mean. Clearly even the people around him don't really know it either because Thump and the admin have been trying since the first travel ban was signed Jan 27th...and what, it's now July 7th and the travel ban will be keeping grandparents out of the USA.
Excellent job Trump!
-
Lol...that's pretty funny...wait, that's a joke right? I mean you don't honestly think Trump has ever even read the US Constitution?
I'll admit I haven't in years, but I have read it for a class once.
But to accuse Trump of knowing the Constitution is simply mean. Clearly even the people around him don't really know it either because Thump and the admin have been trying since the first travel ban was signed Jan 27th...and what, it's now July 7th and the travel ban will be keeping grandparents out of the USA.
Excellent job Trump!
Grandparents and 99.9% of the people who live in those 6 countries, some of who may be terrorists. Look, you may disagree with the policy. But he was right and you were wrong about it's constitutionality.
-
the Supreme Court ruled against 9-0.
Alan, it's been explained to you so many times that at this point you can't only be deliberately telling lies. The SCotUS has not ruled against anyone (or in favour of anyone).
-
But he was right and you were wrong about it's constitutionality.
I think you are confused...
Kindly point to any post where I said the travel ban was unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure I never said that...I'm pretty sure I said something about the fact that the first travel ban was so poorly written and implemented and that it was a terrible idea and would be used by radical jihadists as a recruitment tool...but I'm pretty sure I never said it was unconstitutional.
-
It seems Trump knew more about the US Constitution then many people here.
(http://www.evilenglish.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/roflmfao.jpg)
I think the only conclusion can be that Trump did get some advisors the second time that wrote something that for the time being seems to be upheld after a considerable struggle.
Anything more is just a plain overstatement.
-
I think the only conclusion can be that Trump did get some advisors the second time that wrote something that for the time being seems to be upheld after a considerable struggle.
Anything more is just a plain overstatement.
The Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor 9-0.
-
No. They. Did. Not. For crying out loud, Alan. Stop telling lies.
-
The Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor 9-0.
Only that he has the power to make a rule, not that the rule itself is right. They even restricted the rule to some extent so it's not even a full "win". The full verdict is still to come in a couple of month's. But you already knew that, but I understand it feels good to keep repeating yourself ;)
Also having to go to the surpreme court indicates it hasn't been an easy and quick ride.
-
Only that he has the power to make a rule, not that the rule itself is right. They even restricted the rule to some extent so it's not even a full "win". The full verdict is still to come in a couple of month's. But you already knew that, but I understand it feels good to keep repeating yourself ;)
Also having to go to the surpreme court indicates it hasn't been an easy and quick ride.
You don't believe SCOTUS will reverse themselves, do you? They were very clear that the lower courts' ruling to block Trump was a bridge too far and allowed him to proceed with 99.9% of his plan. Sure, it was not an ""easy and quick ride". But the process affirmed that he has been acting legally. Supreme Court decisions, which are normally respected even if you lose, are very important in our society because it stops arguments and reduces the animal instincts of the people to rebel and blow up things. I'm sure it's the same in your country. We need a way of settling things without killing each other and go on in life.
-
You don't believe SCOTUS will reverse themselves, do you?
Time will tell, but saying that now they ruled 9-0 in his favour on the actual content of the rule is simply far besides the truth.
And if you're so sure they will not reverse and grant him the content they will most probably also not reverse the restrictions they put on it, so in their eyes it wasn't fully legally justified.
-
Time will tell, but saying that now they ruled 9-0 in his favour on the actual content of the rule is simply far besides the truth.
And if you're so sure they will not reverse and grant him the content they will most probably also not reverse the restrictions they put on it, so in their eyes it wasn't fully legally justified.
Nice try. The ban blocks 99.9% of the people who have no relations with America or Americans. If there are terrorists, they will come from the 99.9% group not the 0.1% of the people who do have relations. The latter "relationship" group have been pretty much vetted anyway since they have a job in America, or have been accepted by a university or have family in the country already. There's a paper trail.
It's the 99.9% who we can't easily vet that is the reason the ban was instituted. There's no paper trail on these people. These 6 states do not allow a reliable way to vet. 5 of them are failed states. How do you check government records if there are none? The other, Iran, is on America's list of terrorist states.
-
Nice try. The ban blocks 99.9% of the people who have no relations with America or Americans. If there are terrorists, they will come from the 99.9% group not the 0.1% of the people who do have relations. The latter "relationship" group have been pretty much vetted anyway since they have a job in America, or have been accepted by a university or have family in the country already. There's a paper trail.
It's the 99.9% who we can't easily vet that is the reason the ban was instituted. There's no paper trail on these people. These 6 states do not allow a reliable way to vet. 5 of them are failed states. How do you check government records if there are none? The other, Iran, is on America's list of terrorist states.
Obviously only a small number of people without "relations" will come to the US anyway, so claiming these very high percentages is meaningless and a pyrrhic victory.
The point is the Surpreme Court
-1- Did not yet rule on the "content", despite your wishful thinking
-2- It did find a problem with the rule that they already corrected, so it wasn't as spanky clean as some claimed
-
Obviously only a small number of people without "relations" will come to the US anyway, so claiming these very high percentages is meaningless and a pyrrhic victory.
The point is the Surpreme Court
-1- Did not yet rule on the "content", despite your wishful thinking
-2- It did find a problem with the rule that they already corrected, so it wasn't as spanky clean as some claimed
I never said it was "spanky clean". And it's very possible the SCOTUS will tweak it even further, especially regarding who makes up "close family members".
But it was not a "pyrrhic" victory. Your argument that only a small number would try to come in is just a diversion to try to diminish the all encompassing block of the ban.
The ban blocks 99.9% of people who cannot be vetted which is ALL the people who do not have relationship to America. It's from the 99.9% group where the concern is that a terrorist may try to sneak in.
-
I never said it was "spanky clean". And it's very possible the SCOTUS will tweak it even further, especially regarding who makes up "close family members".
But it was not a "pyrrhic" victory. Your argument that only a small number would try to come in is just a diversion to try to diminish the all encompassing block of the ban.
The ban blocks 99.9% of people who cannot be vetted which is ALL the people who do not have relationship to America. It's from the 99.9% group where the concern is that a terrorist may try to sneak in.
Alan, I'm not trying to diminish the ban, just putting it in perspective. ;)
-
Alan, I'm not trying to diminish the ban, just putting it in perspective. ;)
Well now that the appeals court has kicked the can back up to SCOTUS, we will get a final review and decision regarding the whole thing. My guess is it'll stay as is except they might let the grandmother in. How could anyone be against grandmothers? :)
-
My guess is it'll stay as is except they might let the grandmother in. How could anyone be against grandmothers? :)
How about the grandsons? ;)
-
How about the grandsons? ;)
Oh no. Those are the dangerous ones.
-
I see the Netherlands was the only country to oppose banning nuclear weapons. You guys are pretty dangerous. :)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-us-skip-vote-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons/
-
I see the Netherlands was the only country to oppose banning nuclear weapons. You guys are pretty dangerous. :)
Hum did you bother to read why?
"The Netherlands deputy U.N. ambassador Lise Gregoire-Van-Haaren told delegates her country couldn't vote for a treaty that went against its NATO obligations, had inadequate verification provisions or that undermined the NPT - and "this draft does not meet our criteria."
So they were honoring their NATO obligations... and that's a bad thing?
-
Hum did you bother to read why?
"The Netherlands deputy U.N. ambassador Lise Gregoire-Van-Haaren told delegates her country couldn't vote for a treaty that went against its NATO obligations, had inadequate verification provisions or that undermined the NPT - and "this draft does not meet our criteria."
So they were honoring their NATO obligations... and that's a bad thing?
I was making a joke. :)
-
I see Ivanka is straightening those G20 guys out. I guess she needed something to do while Jared fixes the Middle East.
-
She's being groomed for future political office
It'll all look good on her resume.
-
Hum did you bother to read why?
"The Netherlands deputy U.N. ambassador Lise Gregoire-Van-Haaren told delegates her country couldn't vote for a treaty that went against its NATO obligations, had inadequate verification provisions or that undermined the NPT - and "this draft does not meet our criteria."
So they were honoring their NATO obligations... and that's a bad thing?
Correct, we are hosting a number of nuclear warheads for the USA on our military airfields (I won't disclose where, but most of us in the Netherlands all know where). You know, closer to the potential target, means quicker response times to protect the USA.
What Alan's joke also suggests, is the total ignorance about what the NATO partners are doing to protect American interests. Hence the brainless remarks about the USA pulling back support if the European partners do not spend enough (or waste equal amounts on defense as the USA does).
We are not allowed to deploy them ourselves, so they offer no deterrent protection to us (besides the Article 5 pledge that an attack on Any NATO member state is an attack on All), but only benefit the USA as a now unreliable partner for us, despite shared objectives.
Since we stock them on our soil, we cannot sign an agreement that prohibits us from stationing nuclear weapons on our soil.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Correct, we are hosting a number of nuclear warheads for the USA on our military airfields (I won't disclose where, but most of us in the Netherlands all know where). You know, closer to the potential target, means quicker response times to protect the USA.
What Alan's joke also suggests, is the total ignorance about what the NATO partners are doing to protect American interests. Hence the brainless remarks about the USA pulling back support if the European partners do not spend enough (or waste equal amounts on defense as the USA does).
We are not allowed to deploy them ourselves, so they offer no deterrent protection to us (besides the Article 5 pledge that an attack on Any NATO member state is an attack on All), but only benefit the USA as a now unreliable partner for us, despite shared objectives.
Since we stock them on our soil, we cannot sign an agreement that prohibits us from stationing nuclear weapons on our soil.
Cheers,
Bart
The nukes are not there to "only benefit the USA" as you say but to protect Europe and your country. They were installed during the Cold War to protect you against a land invasion by the Soviets and kept communism out of Western Europe after WWII. They are tactical field nukes used to destroy advancing armies. That's why they are kept there so close to Russia. They are not city busters that we can deliver with ICBM's from submarines thousands of miles away. Their installation in the Netherlands effectively make you a nuclear power without spending a dime. No one is going to roll over you with tank divisions when they might face a tactical nuclear response controlled by American forces in your land and defending you. They afford no protection for America unless those attacking Russian armored divisions figure out a way of sailing 3000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean.
I have to say your ingratitude and putdown of America in your post while America has protected you and kept the peace in Europe for 70 years is not lost on many Americans who feel we should pull our armies entirely out of Europe including our nukes and let you defend against the Russians on your own. We'll see how quickly you'll get your defense spending up to 2% and probably 5%.
-
The nukes are not there to "only benefit the USA" as you say but to protect Europe and your country. They were installed during the Cold War to protect you against a land invasion by the Soviets and kept communism out of Western Europe after WWII. They are tactical field nukes used to destroy advancing armies. That's why they are kept there so close to Russia. They are not city busters that we can deliver with ICBM's from submarines thousands of miles away. Their installation in the Netherlands effectively make you a nuclear power without spending a dime. No one is going to roll over you with tank divisions when they might face a tactical nuclear response controlled by American forces in your land and defending you. They afford no protection for America unless those attacking Russian armored divisions figure out a way of sailing 3000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean.
If that's what you have been spoon-fed, I can only point out that you've been misled by your government (or you are gullible), but then what's new. We can't launch the nuclear heads ourselves, only the USA can (should they see fit to do so, apparently for their own benefit). So it's not a deterrent, especially since the USA has recently been unclear about their commitment to enforcing Article 5 of the NATO treaty. You yourself have suggested a pullback by the USA, so Russia has been emboldened.
I have to say your ingratitude and pulldown of America in your post while America has protected you and kept the peace in Europe for 70 years is not lost on many Americans who feel we should pull our armies entirely out of Europe including our nukes and let you defend against the Russians on your own. We'll see how quickly you'll get your defense spending up to 2% and probably 5%.
Exactly, the USA has become an unreliable partner in achieving a mutual goal. Our advanced tactical positions for American benefits, apparently don't mean squat. Which is duly noted.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If that's what you have been spoon-fed, I can only point out that you've been misled by your government (or you are gullible), but then what's new. We can't launch the nuclear heads ourselves, only the USA can (should they see fit to do so, apparently for their own benefit). So it's not a deterrent, especially since the USA has recently been unclear about their commitment to enforcing Article 5 of the NATO treaty. You yourself have suggested a pullback by the USA, so Russia has been emboldened.
Exactly, the USA has become an unreliable partner in achieving a mutual goal. Our advanced tactical positions for American benefits, apparently don't mean squat. Which is duly noted.
Cheers,
Bart
American arms paid for by American blood and treasure have kept Western Europe peaceful and prosperous for 70 years. They kept the Soviets and Communism and now the Russians out of your lands. They helped free Eastern Europe and helped break the Communist economy and destroy the USSR freeing up their non-Russian republics as well. A little gratitude would be appreciated.
-
Really, NATO should work out the rent that would be due for using their facilities for US operations that are not NATO related.
-
Really, NATO should work out the rent that would be due for using their facilities for US operations that are not NATO related.
That's a fair observation and important point. However, I don't believe it's part of the NATO agreement of 2014 where Europe agreed to meet the 2%. So the "rent" would have been inputted in the 2014 deal. The 2% is though a very important part of 2014. If there are hostilities, the individual countries have to be capable of having enough forces so NATO can defend itself and Europe overall. Hence the 2% requirement to be spent on each country's military. It's not right that America should have to somehow make up for lack of basic European forces. The Europeans themselves agree that their armed forces are not ready, unprepared for major hostilities. Ever since 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union, countries have allowed their armed forces to disintegrate. (So have we for that matter).
-
I'm not talking about 2014 (which you constantly misinterpret anyway, since it provided a time period over which to achieve 2% - it's not required as of today). I'm talking about the entire time.
-
This report pretty much has all the highlights and lowlights...
(https://www.tvnz.co.nz/content/dam/images/news/2017/07/08/8638e62dd72c4e09ba977310c41cfe7b.jpg.hashed.f61bf32a.desktop.story.inline.jpg)
Is there any question who won this round?
Trump: Putin ‘vehemently denied’ election meddling after I ‘strongly pressed’ him (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-putin-vehemently-denied-election-meddling-strongly-pressed-150617623.html)
President Trump says that he “strongly pressed” Russian President Vladimir Putin on Moscow’s alleged meddling in the U.S. election during their their highly anticipated meeting at the G-20 summit (https://www.yahoo.com/news/smiles-small-talk-trump-putin-finally-meet-145723509.html) over the weekend — and that Putin “vehemently denied it.”
“I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election,” Trump tweeted early Sunday, hours after returning to Washington from the summit in Hamburg, Germany. “He vehemently denied it. I’ve already given my opinion…..”
In Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday, Trump said Russia “could” have interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election — which was the conclusion of the four U.S. intelligence agencies that investigated it (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/us/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-agencies-cia-fbi-nsa.html) — but that “nobody really knows for sure.”
“I think it very well could be Russia, but I think it could very well have been other countries,” Trump said during a news conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda. “I think a lot of people interfere.”
Trump also tweeted Sunday that he and Putin “negotiated a ceasefire in parts of Syria,” and that the two “discussed forming an impenetrable” cybersecurity unit to prevent future election-related hacking.
The president asserted that U.S. sanctions against Russia were not discussed during his sit-down with Putin, adding that “nothing will be done until the Ukrainian & Syrian problems are solved!”
On Friday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — the only other senior U.S. official present during Trump’s— talks with Putin, told reporters that the president “pressed” the Russian leaders, (https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-side-says-trump-pressed-putin-election-meddling-now-wants-move-forward-194124227.html), only to be rebuffed.
At a separate briefing, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Trump described the multiple investigations into Moscow’s interference as “strange and bizarre” because thus far, “not a single fact has been presented” to prove the charge. Lavrov added that Trump accepted Putin’s denial that Russia was involved.
Tillerson said that Trump is ready to “move forward” from the seemingly “intractable” dispute.
Back at the White House, Trump revived questionable claim that the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to turn over its email server to federal investigators (https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-side-says-trump-pressed-putin-election-meddling-now-wants-move-forward-194124227.html) was a hot topic among G-20 attendees.
I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election. He vehemently denied it. I've already given my opinion.....
Wow, strongly pressed Putin, not once but twice? And we're surprised he denied it? Like he had any reason to admit it...he probably had that Putin grin on his face while denying it. And Trump has giving his opinion? Which opinion? The "witch hunt" opinion or the "400 lbs guy on a bed" opinion or the could be Russia or could be others opinion?
"Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded"
So, after Russia pulled off the greatest hijacking of our election last year, Trump is now interested in working with Russia to somehow keep it from ever happening again?
...and safe. Questions were asked about why the CIA & FBI had to ask the DNC 13 times for their SERVER, and were rejected, still don't....
So, again blame the victim huh...it was the DNC's fault that they got hacked...and it was Obama's fault nothing was done and Putin denied interfering so Trump is ready to move on.
Ok Donny, you move on...in the meantime, at least 3 separate investigations will continue looking under every rock and behind every roadblock you try to put up...oh, and if you think Donny did so good at the G20, there's this guy who thinks otherwise:
Australian reporter tears into Trump’s performance at G-20 (https://www.yahoo.com/news/australian-reporter-tears-trumps-performance-g-20-173512831.html)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/kNXJl1LQynYVXt297y2uMQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzQ0O2g9NDk2/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/b558bd9a971cc82b32edd794f8a0794d)
President Trump declared his trip to the G-20 summit a “great success.” Chris Uhlmann, the political editor for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, saw it a bit differently.
“We learned that Donald Trump has pressed fast-forward on the decline of the United States as a global leader,” Uhlmann said on air in a segment that has gone viral. “He managed to isolate his nation, to confuse and alienate his allies, and to diminish America.”
Uhlmann described Trump as “an uneasy, lonely, awkward figure” at the gathering of world leaders in Hamburg, Germany.
“And you got the strong sense that some of the leaders are trying to find the best way to work around him,” Uhlmann said.
Link to the Twitter feed of the video (https://twitter.com/InsidersABC/status/883829926993862656)
Oh, and if you think this guy is a leftwing wing-nut, he's actually known as a conservative journalist...
-
I'm not talking about 2014 (which you constantly misinterpret anyway, since it provided a time period over which to achieve 2% - it's not required as of today). I'm talking about the entire time.
You're right that there was a time period to get to the 2% - 2024. But not wait and do nothing until 2024 and then miraculously raise it to 2%. Not only aren't the countries not increasing it year by year, but actually decreasing it. That wasn't the intent and NATO countries are acknowledging it even if you aren't and said they will increase in regularly. We'll see. If they don't than Trump should pull out a division of troops.
Here's a chart showing how spending is going down, not up as required.
https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2017/02/blogs/graphic-detail/20170225_woc986_0.png
-
Here's a chart showing how spending is going down, not up as required.
First of all the graphs are starting in 1991, not in 2014 when the agreement was made, so the reductions would look a lot more dramatic then when they would start in the year the agreement was made. Secondly there is nothing in the agreement on the rate/pace/direction of the budgets in the years between 2014 and 2024. So when you say "required" it's simply a figment of your imagination (or your desires).
-
And, now for something completely different...
Old Man Makes Entire World Watch Vacation Slideshow (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/09/donald_trump_s_home_movie_reviewed.html)
President Donald J. Trump astounded the world again on Sunday, revealing that, in addition to mastering trade policy, real estate, and golf, he is also a visionary filmmaker. Eschewing Hollyweird traditions of trailers and trailers for trailers, the auteur in chief released his masterpiece directly to the people, 100 percent free. So crank the volume, because this film should be played LOUD:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884033889613828096)
(click to see Tweet's video)
President Trump Attends G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany
5:57 AM - 9 Jul 2017
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/09/donald_trump_s_home_movie_reviewed/170709_browbeat_trumpframeone.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
Wow. While Trump has always worn his influences on his sleeve—D.W. Griffith, Leni Riefenstahl, Veit Harlan, the list pretty much ends there—his latest work exceeds them all from Frame 1. Has any single image captured the modern condition of despair better than Trump’s opening shot?
A still photo of the president of the United States angrily explaining something to his wife, who is not paying attention, badly compressed so that it looks pixelated beyond belief, with audio that has been carefully miscued to allow a full second of sheet-music rustle before the brass comes in: David Lynch couldn’t fit that much unease on screen if you gave him two TV shows and a feature film. Our authority figures are crumbling as digital technology scrambles and distorts our feeble attempts to connect with each other, Trump seems to be saying, and for the rest of his film, he pokes and prods at the disconnect between the country’s traditional conceptions of leadership, heroism, and happiness and the all-consuming black hole occupying the White House.
What can I say other than ick!
-
Collusion?
If There Was No Collusion, It Wasn’t for Lack of Trying (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/if-there-wasnt-collusion-it-wasnt-for-lack-of-trying/533070/)
(http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/trump-jr-new-york-governor-0.jpg)
Donald Trump Jr. made clear he was willing to receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton from a Russian lawyer in a June 2016 meeting.
Since his presidential campaign was first alleged by critics to have colluded with the Russian government to undermine Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump has been consistent—and unusually so—in steadfastly denying it. Now it seems clear that if his denials are true, it isn’t because Trump’s advisers were unwilling to collude. And that confirmation comes, surprisingly, from Trump’s own son and namesake, Donald Trump Jr (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting/533061/?utm_source=feed).
On Saturday, The New York Times reported (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html) that Trump Jr. met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer at Trump Tower in early June 2016. Trump Jr. initially told the paper that the meeting had covered only a dispute over adoption related to the Magnitsky Act, an American law meant to punish the current Russian regime for human-rights abuses. But three unnamed White House aides briefed on the meeting later told the Times that Trump Jr. had taken the meeting after being promised damaging information about Clinton (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html?_r=0).
Trump Jr. then changed his story, claiming he’d been promised only information relevant to the campaign, by an intermediary he met at the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, owned by his father and hosted in Moscow. (The Washington Post later identified (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/presidents-son-met-with-russian-lawyer-during-presidential-campaign-after-being-promised-information-helpful-to-fathers-effort/2017/07/09/90c0e3e8-64e9-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html) him as Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who said he was working on behalf of an unnamed Russian client.) Trump Jr. brought his brother-in-law Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to the meeting. He said that attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya offered him damaging information about Hillary Clinton, but that when it became clear she did not have the goods, he ended the meeting.
Oooops...
-
So, after Russia pulled off the greatest hijacking of our election last year, Trump is now interested in working with Russia to somehow keep it from ever happening again?
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-10/how-trump-got-putin-wrong-on-cybersecurity
-
Collusion?
If There Was No Collusion, It Wasn’t for Lack of Trying (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/if-there-wasnt-collusion-it-wasnt-for-lack-of-trying/533070/)
Oooops...
It seems Trump was an amateur when it came to getting dirt on his competition. You're suppose to use intermediaries, not your family. That way you can claim deniability such as Clinton hiring the British spy who worked with the Russians to prepare a phony dossier on Trump. Then they released it through their friends in the media.
That's how you get Russian dirt on someone. What amateurs!
-
That way you can claim deniability such as Clinton hiring the British spy who worked with the Russians to prepare a phony dossier on Trump. Then they released it through their friends in the media.
Pretty sure we covered this...the company that hired the MI-6 opperative was first hired by a GOP competitor of Trump, not the democrats. Once the company was let go they shopped the info around. But the MI-6 operative was so worried about what he learned he kept working pro bono and ended up passing the dossier to Senator McCain who passed it off to the FBI.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...(it's the Trump & Minions way)
-
Pretty sure we covered this...the company that hired the MI-6 opperative was first hired by a GOP competitor of Trump, not the democrats. Once the company was let go they shopped the info around. But the MI-6 operative was so worried about what he learned he kept working pro bono and ended up passing the dossier to Senator McCain who passed it off to the FBI.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...(it's the Trump & Minions way)
Naturally, you failed to mention that after Trump won the primaries, the Democrats took over working with the spy and then dumped the info through CNN to smear Trump. So it seems that the anti-Trump Republicans conspired with the Democrats to defeat Trump with made-up dirt.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whos-visiting-the-us-from-the-6-countries-on-trumps-travel-ban-we-break-it-down-2017-03-29
-
What nobody's mentioning regarding the British spy, is that he worked with the Russians and many many years. So maybe the Russians were providing dirt on Trump for Hillary. So it could well be that Hillary was the one who colluded with the Russians, not Trump.
Now wouldn"t that be something?
-
You had us at "It seems Trump was an amateur"
-
So it seems that the anti-Trump Republicans conspired with the Democrats to defeat Trump with made-up dirt.
It is very important not to conflate political "opposition research" by Trump's Republican primary election opponents or the Democrats — legal in the United States unless the information was collected using methods prohibited by a U.S. criminal statute (which, it's fairly clear, the Christopher Steele dossier, created by a British national based on information provided to him by Russian Federation sources, was not) — and collaboration by a person within the jurisdiction of the United States with attempted foreign espionage or other hostile clandestine activity.
As far as I am aware, there's no publicly-available evidence yet that Trump or any of his campaign staff actually engaged in this kind of criminal activity. However, several of his close advisors failed to disclose information required by laws relating to representation of foreign governments or in their applications for national security clearances. We now know that some Trump associates and at least one family member considered an offer by a possible Russian government agent to provide derogatory information about Hillary Clinton. And we also know that Russian government operatives attempted to intervene in the election using methods that are per se illegal under U.S. law (i.e., computer intrusions) and also a violation of U.S. sovereignty (i.e., hostile activity by a foreign power).
-
Reminds me of the line in the movie Casablanca when the chief of police was told by a bystander that there was illegal gambling going on in his friend's Bar and Cafe.
"I'm shocked," he retorted. "Simply shocked."
-
Naturally, you failed to mention that after Trump won the primaries, the Democrats took over working with the spy and then dumped the info through CNN to smear Trump. So it seems that the anti-Trump Republicans conspired with the Democrats to defeat Trump with made-up dirt.
Well, this is the timeline from Donald Trump–Russia dossier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier):
The dossier was produced as part of opposition research during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The research was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump to be the Republican Party nominee for president. After Trump won the primaries, a Democratic client took over the funding; and, following Trump's election, Steele continued working on the report pro bono and passed on the information to British and American intelligence services.
You need to get your facts straight on who did what with what. On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN stated that it would not publish specific details on the memos because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations."
This was the first meeting between James Comey and the Donald...when Comey decided to start writing down his recollections in memos. This was the meeting on Jan 6th where Comey pulled Trump aside to warn him about the existence of the dossier.
It was BuzzFeed who actually published a 35-page dossier that it said was the basis of the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him. As far as I know, BuzzFeed isn't CNN, right? So blaming CNN is wrong. BTW, CNN broke the story but was clearly not the only media outlet reporting the story.
As for who commissioned the original investigation and subsequent continued investigation is anybody's guess. This NYT article sums up when was known and not known then: What We Know and Don’t Know About the Trump-Russia Dossier (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trump-intelligence-report-explainer.html?_r=0)
We do also know that the FBI got the report and used it for the purpose of helping get a FISA warrant from this April 2017 article: We just got a huge sign that the US intelligence community believes the Trump dossier is legitimate (http://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-fbi-dossier-fisa-warrant-case-2017-4)
You also assume the whole dossier is a fabrication, which is not true. There are aspects of the report that have been confirmed...Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified' (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786) and this Comey's cryptic answer about the infamous Trump dossier makes it look likely it could be verified (http://www.businessinsider.com/comey-steele-trump-russia-dossier-will-be-verified-2017-6)
Shoes keep dropping, shoes will keep dropping...
-
Uh oh...Donny Jr better hire an attorney (oh, he has Trump Jr. hires lawyer for Russia probes (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/341325-trump-jr-hires-lawyer-for-russia-probes))
Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/07/11/us/11dc-trumpmeeting-1/11dc-trumpmeeting-1-master768.jpg)
Donald Trump Jr. spoke at a rally in May in Bozeman, Mont. Credit William Campbell/Corbis, via Getty Images
WASHINGTON — Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.
The email to the younger Mr. Trump was sent by Rob Goldstone, a publicist and former British tabloid reporter who helped broker the June 2016 meeting. In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was interested in receiving damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, but gave no indication that he thought the lawyer might have been a Kremlin proxy.
Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information. It does not elaborate on the wider effort by Moscow to help the Trump campaign.
There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails. The meeting took place less than a week before it was widely reported that Russian hackers had infiltrated the committee’s servers.
Wonder what was really talked about in that meeting...
-
So, it seems there actually is some there there....
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Good morning
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
Best
Rob Goldstone
This iphone speaks many languages
This e-mail message, and any attachments to it, are for the sole use of the intended recipients, and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email message or its attachments is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, while the company uses virus protection, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email
Donny Jr replied:
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Best,
Don
Sent from my iPhone
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 12:40 PM
To: Donald Trump J
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
Hi Don
Let me know when you are free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary info - you had mentioned early this week so wanted to try to schedule a time and day Best to you and family Rob Goldstone
This iphone speaks many languages
On Jun 6, 2016, at 15:03, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Rob could we speak now?
d
Donald J. Trump Jr.
Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions The Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue | New York, NY | 10022 | trump.com
From: Rob Goldstone
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 3:37 PM
To: Donald Trump Jr.
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
Let me track him down in Moscow
What number he could call?
This iphone speaks many languages
On Jun 6, 2016, at 15:38, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
My cell [REDACTED] thanks
d
Donald J. Trump Jr.
Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions The Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue | New York, NY 10022 | trump.com
On Jun 6, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Ok he's on stage in Moscow but should be off within 20 Minutes so I am sure can call Rob
This iphone speaks many languages
On Jun 7, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Don
Hope all is well
Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.
I believe you are aware of the meeting - and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?
I assume it would be at your office.
Best
Rob Goldstone
This iphone speaks many languages
On Jun 6, 2016, at 16:38, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Rob thanks for the help.
D
On Jun 7, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
How about 3 at our offices? Thanks rob appreciate you helping set it up.
D
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 7, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Perfect won't sit in on the meeting, but will bring them at 3pm and introduce you etc.
I will send the names of the two people meeting with you for security when I have them later today.
best
Rob
On Jun 7, 2016, at 18:14, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Great. It will likely be Paul Manafort (campaign boss) my brother in law and me, 725 Fifth Ave 25th floor.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rob Goldstone
Sent: Wednesday June 08, 2016 10:34 AM
To: Donald Trump Jr.
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
Good morning
Would it be possible to move tomorrow meeting to 4pm as the Russian attorney is in court until 3 i was just informed.
Best
Rob
This iphone speaks many languages
On Jun 8, 2016, at 11:15, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Yes Rob I could do that unless they wanted to do 3 today instead... just let me know and ill lock it in either way.
d
Donald J. Trump Jr. Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions The Trump Organization 725 Fifth Avenue | New York, NY 10022
From: Rob Goldstone
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:18 AM
To: Donald Trump Jr.
Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
They can't do today as she hasn't landed yet from Moscow 4pm is great tomorrow.
Best
Rob
This iphone speaks many languages
From: Donald Trump Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:03 PM
To: Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort
Subject: FW: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential
Meeting got moved to 4 tomorrow at my offices.
Best,
Don
Donald J. Trump Jr. Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions The Trump Organization 725 Fifth Avenue | New York, NY | 10022 n | trump.com
Comment posted by Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter on July 11, 2017
To everyone, in order to be totally transparent, I am releasing the entire email chain of my emails with Rob Goldstone about the meeting on June 9, 2016. The first email on June 3, 2016 was from Rob, who was relating a request from Emin, a person I knew from the 2013 Ms. Universe Pageant near Moscow. Emin and his father have a very highly respected company in Moscow. The information they suggested they had about Hillary Clinton I thought was Political Opposition Research. I first wanted to just have a phone call but when that didn't work out, they said the woman would be in New York and asked if I would meet. I decided to take the meeting. The woman, as she has said publicly, was not a government official. And, as we have said, she had no information to provide and wanted to talk about adoption policy and the Magnitsky Act. To put this in context, this occurred before the current Russian fever was in vogue. As Rob Goldstone said just today in the press, the entire meeting was “the most inane nonsense l ever heard. And I was actually agitated by it.”
So, Donny Jr. got this: "The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first."
And Donny Jr says: "Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer."
Additional info from the #FailingNYTimes
Russian Dirt on Clinton? ‘I Love It,’ Donald Trump Jr. Said (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.®ion=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&moduleDetail=undefined&pgtype=Multimedia)
(http://www.hollywoodnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Donald-Trump-Jr-600x307.jpg)
-
"crown prosecutor" ;D
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-11/trump-s-low-level-russian-connection
-
It seems sleazy. But its not illegal. The democrats got a dossier from a British spy who also got info from Russian spies. Worse. But not illegal.
What's interesting is the Russians were probably playing both sides of the street collecting dirt on both candidates to use against either of them regardless of who won. The Russians had Hillary's private emails with all the corruption to use against her. Don't know what they have on Trump. Maybe he wasn't so fastidious as he said he would be in that Moscow hotel. :)
-
the Russians were
we are amused at the circus ;D
we have an expression "пожар в публичном доме" ~= a fire in a brothel ... very applicable
-
I'm surprised at this Four Corners episode has not not been picked up by major broadcasters. It may be blocked overseas.
Trumps business dealings in Indonesia (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/07/03/4693993.htm)
Very bad,
-
I'm surprised at this Four Corners episode has not not been picked up by major broadcasters. It may be blocked overseas.
Trumps business dealings in Indonesia (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/07/03/4693993.htm)
Very bad,
That show appears to be another "hit" job for Trump haters to watch and advertisers to spend their money on ads. Nothing new. They argue in the show that he somehow works with Islamists in his business. Then people like you on the other hand call him a bigot for instituting the Travel Ban against 6 Muslim countries. Which is it? It seems you want it both ways.
The main point is that the people who elected him knew that he is a successful businessman who develops properties around the world including Indonesia. That's why they voted for him. They wanted him to bring his life-time business experience to the US government to help make our economy better, produce more jobs and make trade fairer for our country. If he succeeds, he'll get re-elected. If he fails, then he'll be booted. Everything else is just conversation.
-
Andy Serkis Becomes Gollum To Read Trump's Tweets (at approx. 3m43s into the interview):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64mWOoj68qo
It does sound much better coming from a professional actor.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That show appears to be another "hit" job for Trump haters to watch and advertisers to spend their money on ads. Nothing new. They argue in the show that he somehow works with Islamists in his business.
So, reporting actual facts is a "hit job" for Trump haters? If the news is bad news, it's a hit job or fake news?
You do realize this report came from Australia not the USA. The ABC that referred to in the article is the Australian Broadcasting Commission (the ABC) not the USA based ABC. So, the article in question is about an area in the Australian region that has suddenly become much more important to Australia since the USA dropped the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) leaving Australia and China struggling to deal with a region that has a great deal of turmoil–particularly in Indonesia since it has the largest concentration of Muslims of any country in the world. So, yes, if the USA president getting involved in Indonesian business and being cosy with corrupt officials, yes, Australia is bound to be concerned...
As far as the Speaker of the House of Indonesia, if that is Setya Novanto then he's a sleaze-ball of the highest order–just the kind of people Trump likes to deal with. Indonesia's parliament reappoints scandal-hit speaker (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-parliament-idUSKBN13P1CO)
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Indonesia's parliament on Wednesday reappointed Setya Novanto as its speaker, reinstating him despite a scandal last year when he was accused of trying to extort $1.8 billion of shares from the local unit of U.S. mining giant Freeport McMoran Inc.
Novanto resigned as speaker in December after an inquiry was launched when the head of Freeport Indonesia Maroef Sjamsoeddin told parliament's ethics panel he secretly recorded a meeting with Novanto and alleged the speaker asked for a stake of 20 percent in the company.
Novanto denied the allegations.
The main point is that the people who elected him knew that he is a successful businessman who develops properties around the world including Indonesia. That's why they voted for him. They wanted him to bring his life-time business experience to the US government to help make our economy better, produce more jobs and make trade fairer for our country.
Yeah, ya know that's what the Trump Minions™ seem to believe but in fact Trump is not really a successful businessman, he's a successful crooked businessman who screws the little guy is willing to declare bankruptcy when the situations turn toxic yet still seems to come out smelling like a rose. 6 times he had companies go under...Fact Check: Has Trump declared bankruptcy four or six times? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.1e1843b40925) Is that a mark of a successful businessman or a crook?
Heck, even Trump's hotel in DC just down the road from the White House has liens against it...Trump’s DC Hotel Tagged With $5 Million in Unpaid Worker Liens (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-05/trump-s-dc-hotel-tagged-with-5-million-in-unpaid-worker-liens)
Donald Trump’s new Washington hotel, located just blocks from the White House, owes electricians, wood workers and a plumbing and heating business more than $5 million for unpaid labor, according to liens filed against the property with the District of Columbia.
The 263-room hotel, located on the historic site of the city’s former main post office, opened in October following a $212 million renovation of the 1899 structure. The liens were filed in November and December, according to public records.
Trump has acknowledged not always paying all his bills, saying it’s often a negotiating tactic when work is subpar. His companies have been sued numerous times over unpaid work. Among them were landscapers at Riverside South Park in Manhattan, who sued in 2001 seeking $111,000. Contractors at Trump Park Avenue sued in 2003 seeking $206,000. And in 2010 a painter in Chicago sued a Trump entity developing a high-rise claiming to be owed more than $4 million.
A year ago this USA Today article outlines how often Trump has been sued...Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/)
Donald Trump is a fighter, famous for legal skirmishes over everything from his golf courses to his tax bills to Trump University. But until now, it hasn’t been clear precisely how litigious he is and what that might portend for a Trump presidency.
An exclusive USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits.
The sheer volume of lawsuits is unprecedented for a presidential nominee. No candidate of a major party has had anything approaching the number of Trump’s courtroom entanglements.
Just since he announced his candidacy a year ago, at least 70 new cases have been filed, about evenly divided between lawsuits filed by him and his companies and those filed against them. And the records review found at least 50 civil lawsuits remain open even as he moves toward claiming the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in seven weeks. On Tuesday, court documents were released in one of the most dramatic current cases, filed in California by former students accusing Trump University of fraudulent and misleading behavior.
The legal actions provide clues to the leadership style the billionaire businessman would bring to bear as commander in chief. He sometimes responds to even small disputes with overwhelming legal force. He doesn’t hesitate to deploy his wealth and legal firepower against adversaries with limited resources, such as homeowners. He sometimes refuses to pay real estate brokers, lawyers and other vendors.
As he campaigns, Trump often touts his skills as a negotiator. The analysis shows that lawsuits are one of his primary negotiating tools. He turns to litigation to distance himself from failing projects that relied on the Trump brand to secure investments. As USA TODAY previously reported, he also uses the legal system to haggle over his property tax bills. His companies have been involved in more than 100 tax disputes, and the New York State Department of Finance has obtained liens on Trump properties for unpaid tax bills at least three dozen times.
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/toc.h-cdn.co/assets/17/11/1600x800/landscape-1489437485-gettyimages-652911474.jpg?resize=768:*)
Heck, he's continued his hit streak since being sworn in: Here's What You Need to Know About Donald Trump's Lawsuits
He's been sued more than 100 times since his inauguration. (http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a9962852/lawsuits-against-donald-trump/)
• President Trump has been sued at least 135 times since taking office.
• The most recent lawsuit was filed by Twitter users blocked by the president.
• Many of the lawsuits pertain to his presidency, with cases regarding the Emoluments Clause, the travel bans, and his executive order threatening sanctuary cities.
• Others, including the litigation over Trump University and a libel suit brought by a former contestant on The Apprentice, stem from Trump's behavior as a private citizen before taking office.
Don't let anyone tell you the Trump administration isn't setting records. The president has been sued more than 100 times in federal court since his inauguration.
This week, a group of Twitter users filed a lawsuit against the president after he blocked them on the social media platform. The legal complaint is just the most recent in a dizzying array of lawsuits that have been brought against the president since he took office on January 20, 2017.
While it's not uncommon for a president to accumulate some lawsuits over the course of his administration, what is happening now is unlike anything we've seen in recent history. According to the Boston Globe, by May 5, President Trump had been sued a remarkable 134 times in federal court since his inauguration.
To put things in perspective, Obama had acquired 26 suits against him at that point in his presidency per the Globe; George W. Bush, seven.
So...is this the sign of a successful businessman that will bring his life-time business experience to the US government to help make our economy better, produce more jobs and make trade fairer for our country.
If you think Trump is an example of a successful businessman you must be hanging around with a lot of slime dogs...Trump is a perfect example of everything wrong about capitalism in America today. And no, Australia doesn't want his sort of business practices in their region of the world. Pretty sure they aren't trying to get click-bait ad revenue...at least not down under :~)
-
So, reporting actual facts is a "hit job" for Trump haters? If the news is bad news, it's a hit job or fake news?
You do realize this report came from Australia not the USA. The ABC that referred to in the article is the Australian Broadcasting Commission (the ABC) not the USA based ABC. So, the article in question is about an area in the Australian region that has suddenly become much more important to Australia since the USA dropped the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) leaving Australia and China struggling to deal with a region that has a great deal of turmoil–particularly in Indonesia since it has the largest concentration of Muslims of any country in the world. So, yes, if the USA president getting involved in Indonesian business and being cosy with corrupt officials, yes, Australia is bound to be concerned...
As far as the Speaker of the House of Indonesia, if that is Setya Novanto then he's a sleaze-ball of the highest order–just the kind of people Trump likes to deal with. Indonesia's parliament reappoints scandal-hit speaker (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-parliament-idUSKBN13P1CO)
Yeah, ya know that's what the Trump Minions™ seem to believe but in fact Trump is not really a successful businessman, he's a successful crooked businessman who screws the little guy is willing to declare bankruptcy when the situations turn toxic yet still seems to come out smelling like a rose. 6 times he had companies go under...Fact Check: Has Trump declared bankruptcy four or six times? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.1e1843b40925) Is that a mark of a successful businessman or a crook?
Heck, even Trump's hotel in DC just down the road from the White House has liens against it...Trump’s DC Hotel Tagged With $5 Million in Unpaid Worker Liens (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-05/trump-s-dc-hotel-tagged-with-5-million-in-unpaid-worker-liens)
A year ago this USA Today article outlines how often Trump has been sued...Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/)
Heck, he's continued his hit streak since being sworn in: Here's What You Need to Know About Donald Trump's Lawsuits
He's been sued more than 100 times since his inauguration. (http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a9962852/lawsuits-against-donald-trump/)
So...is this the sign of a successful businessman that will bring his life-time business experience to the US government to help make our economy better, produce more jobs and make trade fairer for our country.
If you think Trump is an example of a successful businessman you must be hanging around with a lot of slime dogs...Trump is a perfect example of everything wrong about capitalism in America today. And no, Australia doesn't want his sort of business practices in their region of the world. Pretty sure they aren't trying to get click-bait ad revenue...at least not down under :~)
This is why it's a "hit job". 3500 law cases was the headline number. But if you drill down, you get this: "Close to half the court cases — about 1,600 — involved lawsuits against gamblers who had credit at Trump-connected casinos and failed to pay their debts. About 100 additional disputes centered on other issues at the casinos. Trump and his enterprises have been named in almost 700 personal-injury claims and about 165 court disputes with government agencies." Trump owned gambling casinos in Atlantic City and elsewhere.
Also you get this: "Among those cases with a clear resolution, Trump's side was the apparent victor in 451 and the loser in 38". So out of 500 cases that were resolved he won 95% of them, not mentioned in the headline.
I'm not saying Trump isn't litigious, he is. But the article tries to create the impression that there were 3500 suits all because he didn't pay his bills. Also, many of his businesses are ones where they just use his name but he doesn't own or manage the property. It's not clear if the any of the lawsuits include those properties as well.
Look, I worked for NYC real estate owners and developers and they're all the same - cheap and litigious. And rich. I've gotten burned by them too and would probably not work for Trump. But a bunch a lawsuits, 95% of which he won that were settled does not make him a bad businessman, but rather a good one. 95% is a good win number. So his being President with that experience could be an advantage for America. If he doesn't do for America what he promised, your can fire him in 2020.
-
This is why it's a "hit job".
So anything you think is critical of Trump is a "hit job"? I mean the first article by an Australian media outlet was a hit job and now the USA Today is a hit job...what about the article about how often he's been involved with bankruptcies, hit job?
So, anything that says nice things is good journalism, anything that write actual stories about actual facts that show Trump is a bad light is a hit job...do I have that right?
So, what about these recent stories, good journalism or hit job/fake news?
'Paralyzed' by chaos at home, Trump sets off for Paris (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/politics/trump-white-house-mood/index.html)
Trump's FBI pick vows independence, says Russia probe no 'witch hunt' (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-idUSKBN19X1WQ)
Trump: I'll be 'very angry' if the GOP health care bill fails (http://Trump: I'll be 'very angry' if the GOP health care bill fails)
Trump unloads on Hillary over double standard, amid reports Dems also got foreign help (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/12/trump-unloads-on-hillary-over-double-standard-amid-reports-dems-also-got-foreign-help.html)
Inside Trump's West Wing: Fear, Recriminations, and No More “Conspiracy Bullshit” (http://Inside Trump's West Wing: Fear, Recriminations, and No More “Conspiracy Bullshit”)
Peyton Manning kept a close eye on Donald Trump while playing golf, confirmed he didn't cheat (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/07/donald-trump-golf-cheating-peyton-manning-jimmy-kimmel-video)
Comparing Donald Trump Jr. to Fredo Corleone Is Grossly Unfair. To Fredo. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/07/12/everyone_s_comparing_donald_trump_jr_to_fredo_corleone_quit_it.html)
Donald Trump: Vladimir Putin Wanted Hillary Clinton to Win (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/12/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-wanted-hillary-clinton-win/)
-
and advertisers to spend their money on ads.
There are no ads on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It's the national public broadcaster. But don't let facts get in the way as usual.
-
And, this isn't "fake news"...
Trump Impeachment Odds Spike After Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia Emails (http://fortune.com/2017/07/12/donald-trump-impeachment-odds/)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/blogs/flagtrump2.jpg?itok=lEBTRSsw)
Donald Trump Jr. left many speechless when he shared his full email exchange with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya that led to a meeting during his father’s presidential campaign in 2016.
While some are accusing Trump Jr. of collusion, others are getting out their wallets: PaddyPower, an Ireland-based betting site, has seen more users placing bets on President Trump being impeached before the end of his first term, bringing the site's total odds of the President being shuffled out of the White House by 2021 up to 60%—the highest it’s ever been, according to company spokesperson Lee Price.
"[President Donald Trump] had gone quiet over the last month, and we were starting to wonder if he might have ridden out the initial controversies – but he’s back with a bang today,” Price wrote in an email to Fortune Wednesday.
Not only are PaddyPower bettors increasingly putting their money on Trump being impeached before his first term is over, but they are also betting on him being impeached as soon as this year, bringing those odds up to 33.3%. That's despite the fact that impeachment proceedings are usually lengthy.
"Everyone is betting on the 'yes' side of impeachment," Price said, saying hundreds of thousands of pounds had been placed on that bet.
-
Well, it's official...very unlikely to go anywhere now but perhaps after the midterm elections?
Democratic lawmaker files articles of impeachment against President Trump (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/12/rep-brad-sherman-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-donald-trump/473495001/)
(http://warmonitor.net/news/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/trump.jpg)
Well, it's happened: Despite the unlikelihood that Donald Trump would be impeached by a Republican-majority House, a Democratic lawmaker on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump.
Rep. Brad Sherman of California contended that the president should be impeached for his alleged interference with the FBI investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. According to former FBI director James Comey's testimony before a Senate panel, the president said he "hoped" Comey would drop the probe into Flynn during a one-on-one meeting.
"I believe his conversations with, and subsequent firing of, FBI Director Comey constitute obstruction of justice," Sherman said in a statement. "...The Constitution does not provide for the removal of a president for impulsive, ignorant incompetence. It does provide for the removal of a president for high crimes and misdemeanors."
-
Ooooh, this is interesting...
Trump Campaign Is Sued Over Leaked Emails Linked to Russians (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/us/politics/trump-campaign-and-adviser-are-sued-over-leaked-emails.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/07/13/us/politics/13dc-collude/merlin-to-scoop-119009027-438521-master768.jpg)
Roger J. Stone Jr. at the La Quinta Resort and Club in La Quinta, Calif., in March. He is accused in an invasion of privacy lawsuit.
Credit Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Two Democratic Party donors and a former party staff member have filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit against President Trump’s campaign and a longtime informal adviser, Roger J. Stone Jr., accusing them of conspiring in the release of hacked Democratic emails and files that exposed their personal information to the public.
The case was organized by Protect Democracy, a government watchdog group run by former Obama administration lawyers. It filed the claim just short of a deadline under a one-year statute of limitations for privacy invasion lawsuits: WikiLeaks published the first archives of stolen Democratic National Committee emails, which intelligence agencies say Russia hacked to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and help Mr. Trump, last July 22.
Mr. Trump and his political advisers, including Mr. Stone, have repeatedly denied colluding with Russia, and the 44-page complaint, filed on Wednesday in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, does not contain any hard evidence that his campaign did. But it is seeking to depose witnesses and obtain campaign emails and other documents during the discovery process that is a standard part of lawsuits.
If a judge permits the case to reach that stage, the lawsuit would become a new and independent fact-finding investigation into the Trump-Russia issue — one that is overseen by a judge rather than by congressional Republicans, like the oversight inquiries conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, or by the Trump administration, like the criminal inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
-
White House Denies Any Ties to United States (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/white-house-denies-any-ties-to-united-states)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59097fa61c7a8e33fb3909de/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-Latest-White-House-Scandal-1.jpg)
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a fiercely defiant statement on Tuesday, the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, denied that any member of the White House staff has ever worked "in any way, shape, or form" for the benefit of the United States.
Angrily addressing the press corps, Spicer said that any allegations that members of the Trump Administration have ever acted in concert or collusion with the United States are "unequivocally false."
"At no time during the transition or afterward did any member of the Trump team have meetings, conversations, or any other contacts that furthered the interests of the United States of America," Spicer said. "In the thousands of communications that took place, the United States never came up even once."
Drawing a stark contrast with the Administration of former President Barack Obama, Spicer said that many members of Obama’s staff were “clearly and flagrantly working for the United States government at all times.”
“President Trump has put an end to that,” he said.
In closing, Spicer said that the recent effort to pass the Republican health-care bill should silence “once and for all” those trying to link the Trump Administration to the United States government. "If you look at the interaction between the White House and congressional Republicans, there is absolutely no evidence of coördination,” he said.
It's satirical...(in case anybody took it seriously–actually, maybe it's not complete fiction)
-
White House Denies Any Ties to United States (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/white-house-denies-any-ties-to-united-states)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59097fa61c7a8e33fb3909de/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-Latest-White-House-Scandal-1.jpg)
It's satirical...(in case anybody took it seriously–actually, maybe it's not complete fiction)
Jeff, nothing surprises me anymore.
BTW: good satire.
-
And some people think Trump is a really smart guy?
President Trump talks off the record on Air Force One, wonders why it wasn't published (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/13/donald-trump-wants-off-the-record-talk-to-be-on-the-record/475988001/)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/6c7eac4397ecfcfc6f9def28b887beb98da39a2e/c=0-2-2906-1644&r=x329&c=580x326/local/-/media/2017/07/13/USATODAY/USATODAY/636355475963043877-AP-TRUMP-FRANCE-92337853.JPG)
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive on Air Force One at Orly Airport in Paris, Thursday, July 13, 2017.
(Photo: Carolyn Kaster, AP)
Well, this is confusing.
President Trump had an off-the-record conversation on Wednesday with reporters aboard Air Force One. According to pool reports, Trump spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders declared that it was off the record.
And then, on Thursday, Trump asked why his comments weren't used.
From the pool report:
"Your pooler reminded him last night was off the record. POTUS asked if I had heard him say it could be on-record; your pooler replied truthfully no (co-poolers also were not under impression it was on-record, since Sarah Sanders had declared it off record)."
Off the record means OFF THE FRIGGIN' RECORD...
DOOOOH
(https://www.spreadshirt.com/image-server/v1/designs/1010065082,width=178,height=178/trump-dunce-createthecool-t-shirts.png)
-
DONALD TRUMP’S DEFENSE? OBAMA IS TO BLAME FOR RUSSIA, SYRIA, MICHAEL FLYNN AND EVERY OTHER DISGRACE (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-plays-blame-game-636282)
(http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/trump_screenshot__2.jpg)
NOT MY FAULT!
Never in American political history has there been a figure as thoroughly blameless as Donald J. Trump. Nothing is ever his fault. In all matters, he is blameless. Others may err, but he remains without blemish in his gilded penthouse
Speaking in Paris on Thursday, the president made clear who was to blame for his son Donald Jr.’s troubling meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya: Loretta E. Lynch, who was President Barack Obama’s attorney general.
“Somebody said that her visas or her passport to come into the country was approved by Attorney General Lynch, now maybe that’s wrong. I just heard that a little while ago. But, was a little surprised to hear that, she was here because of Lynch," Trump said.
But of course. How wrong we all were, to think that the 39-year-old Trump Jr.was responsible for his own actions, or that Trump Sr. was responsible for everything that went on in his political campaign.
I’d go even further: it was Obama who picked Lynch as his attorney general, which makes this whole fiasco over Trump’s less-than-brilliant son his fault. Mr. Obama, why did you force the Trump campaign into colluding with Russia? Have you no decency, sir?
Blaming may be Trump’s most finely-honed skill. Someone else is always wrecking our country: undocumented immigrants from Latin America, refugees from Syria, liberal Democrats, the Japanese, the Chinese, the French with their silly theories about melting ice caps. And only Trump can fix it. Unless, of course, those opposing forces somehow confound him. Which, if they do, he will let you know very clearly.
Some may have thought that in assuming the office of the presidency, Trump would also assume the responsibilities that come with being the most powerful man on Earth. No such luck, for while the power of the presidency is great, the man who now has the presidency is small.
-
Wait, wait, there's more!!!!
Today's Impeach-O-Meter: Most Americans Already Know Trump Is Not Great (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/13/trump_impeachment_odds_don_jr_polling_edition.html)
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/13/trump_impeachment_odds_don_jr_polling_edition/813988460.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
Eating dinner in the Eiffel Tower, as Trump did on Thursday, is perhaps the only undeniably
good thing he has done as president. If you were in France and could do anything you
wanted, wouldn't it be "eat a baguette in the Eiffel Tower"? Hats off.
In the tradition of the Clintonometer (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_clintometer/1998/12/_2.html) and the Trump Apocalypse Watch (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/04/today_s_trump_apocalypse_watch_generalized_dishonesty_edition.html), the Impeach-O-Meter is a wildly subjective and speculative daily estimate of the likelihood that Donald Trump leaves office before his term ends, whether by being impeached (and convicted (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/how-the-impeachment-process-works-trump-clinton.html)) or by resigning under threat of same.
Donald Trump Jr.'s admission that he, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met last June with a woman who they believed to be offering them Russisan government support has eliminated whatever was left of the Trump administration's credibility in re: the Russia scandal (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/12/trump_jr_and_russia_what_does_it_mean.html). It's also in itself evidence of bad judgment—and not to get all Internet Patriot-y on you, but it's pretty dang disloyal to the United States! Pretty darn disloyal, folks.
The thing is, HuffPost/YouGov has done some polling on the subject, and a wide majority of Americans more or less agree with the above take ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEooqO6XYAEnTGS.jpg)
Trump's approval rating, meanwhile, has held at 39 percent or so for two months (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo). And so while I do think this week's Fredo Fiasco is significant news, I am going to bow to numerical reality and lower the meter to reflect the fact that the polling plunge that is a necessary condition for impeachment is not taking place. Consider this a devaluation of our currency, as it were.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/05/impeach-chart/170518_Chart_ChanceImpeach-50.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
Photo illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo.
-
Donald J Trump, President of the United States of America is...well kinda stupid.
Trump Wants Border Wall “Transparency” So Drug Traffickers Don’t Hit Anyone Throwing Bags of Drugs Over (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/13/trump_wants_border_wall_transparency_so_drug_traffickers_don_t_hit_anyone.html)
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/13/trump_wants_border_wall_transparency_so_drug_traffickers_don_t_hit_anyone/A-man-walks-along-the-glass-wall-of-the.jpeg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpeg)
A man walks along a glass wall that is not on the southern U.S. border, but in eastern France.
Ever since Donald Trump Jr. released a series of incriminating Russia emails this week, moments before the New York Times was set to publish a story about said emails, the Trump clan congratulated itself and rallied around its own self-professed transparency on the matter. Extreme transparency!
Because Trump thinks and speaks in monosyllabic word loops, words often appear over and over and over again, sometimes over the course of the same presidential sentence, until Trump has tumbled dried every last drop of meaning out of them. Clearly President Trump wasn't ready to let “transparency” go just yet and still had it on the brain Wednesday night when he spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to a meeting with French President Macron in Paris.
Like a toddler learning new words, Trump synthesized his new zeal for saying "transparency" with his tried-and-true dedication to all things “the wall.” If you were thinking that Donald Trump wants to ensure the financing and bidding processes for his hypothetical wall are going to be “transparent,” think again. He’s so into transparency these days he wants the wall to be transparent.
Your president of the United States:
"One of the things with the wall is, you need transparency," Trump said. "You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can't see through the wall—so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what's on the other side of the wall."
Confused? Give him a moment. Let him explain (https://twitter.com/katherinemiller).
"And I’ll give you an example. As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them—they hit you in the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It's over," Trump said. "As crazy as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall."
I know. This is really happening. Still.
-
Well, this is kinda creepy...
'You're in such good shape! Beautiful!' What Trump told Brigitte Macron, 64, after awkward embrace when he refused to let her go (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4691300/Donald-Melania-Paris-talks-Macron.html)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/13/18/424CC77800000578-4691300-image-a-97_1499965809724.jpg)
'You're in such good shape': An official French videographer was close to Trump as he delivered the awkward complement to the French First Lady
Donald Trump made a notable addition to his long list of questionable comments about women on Thursday as he told France's 64-year-old first lady: 'You know, you're in such good shape.'
The compliment to Brigitte Macron was made in front of her husband Emmanuel, the 39-year-old French president, and Trump, 71, repeated it to him before turning back to Mme Macron and saying to her: 'Beautiful.'
The exchange was captured on a French official Facebook live stream. What was not captured was Melania Trump's reaction, as her back was to the camera.
However the American first lady, 47, seemed to move closer to Mme Macron and put her hand around her protectively as Trump spoke to her.
The awkward exchange came after an also-awkward lingering embrace with Mme Macron as she and her husband welcomed him and Melania to Paris on the eve of Bastille Day.
Trump kissed Mme Macron Parisian-style, once on each cheek, before taking both her hands for a prolonged grip, in which he appeared to jerk her left arm towards him as she appeared to be struggling to get him to let go.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/13/15/424B55DF00000578-4691300-image-a-26_1499956770072.jpg)
It was an off-script start to a carefully-choreographed visit to Paris which on Friday will see Trump and Macron together for the Bastille Day celebrations, as well the couple dining together on Thursday evening at the Eiffel Tower.
Trump spoke to Mme Macron as she and Melania left Les Invalides - the complex of buildings that serve as a monument to the French military in central Paris - for a tour of other site of the French capital.
-
And this from Fox News...
Krauthammer: Trump Jr.'s 'Attempted Collusion' Completely Undermines WH Narrative (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/13/krauthammer-donald-trump-jr-russian-lawyer-meeting-obama-admin-letting-her-us)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/07/13/780/438/694940094001_5506831787001_5506814697001-vs.jpg)
On "Special Report" tonight, Charles Krauthammer said the new story about the Obama administration allowing Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya to enter the U.S. is a "red herring the size of a whale."
Veselnitskaya is the attorney thought to have damaging information on Hillary Clinton who met with Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch reportedly signed off on granting the attorney special "parole" to be in the U.S.
Krauthammer said the real "scandal" is that Trump Jr. - through an intermediary - arranged a meeting with a Russian government lawyer in order to get dirt on Clinton.
He added that the email chain released earlier this week by Trump Jr. also confirms that the Kremlin was supporting the Trump campaign.
-
I guess Kellyanne Conway thought Fox views needed visual aids to understand the topic of Collusion
Kellyanne Conway Just Used Flashcards to Teach Americans about ‘Collusion Delusion’ (http://fortune.com/2017/07/13/kellyanne-conway-flashcards-americans-collusion-delusion/)
(https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/screen-shot-2017-07-13-at-9-45-37-am1.jpg?w=720&quality=85)
During an interview on Wednesday, Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway used flashcards to emphasize that the Donald Trump campaign didn't collude with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election.
“This is to help all the people at home. What’s the conclusion? Collusion? No. We don’t have that yet,” Conway said, while showing flashcards to the camera during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. “I see illusion and delusion,” she said, while holding up large cards with the words written on them.
She continued:
"So, just so we’re clear everyone. Four words: Conclusion? Collusion. No. Illusion. Delusion. Yes,” she said. “I just thought we would have some fun with words. Sesame Grover’s word of the day."
Conway's appearance comes after Donald Trump Jr. revealed earlier this week that he met with a Kremlin-linked lawyer last June after he was informed that the lawyer had damaging information about former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Conway's appearance served as a way to defend Donald Trump Jr.
Shortly after the interview, Conway's interview turned into the latest meme craze.
Did she actually think this through?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DElf9AEXUAACwJJ.jpg)
Persistent Woman @PixMichelle (https://twitter.com/PixMichelle/status/885344309192642561/photo/1)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DElcnFQXcAMZ0gs.jpg)
SeriouslyUS? @USseriously (https://twitter.com/USseriously/status/885340643698118656/photo/1)
-
Get a life, Jeff!
-
Get a life, Jeff!
Thanks for the note...yes, I do have a life and part of my therapy is to find stories that tell a little bit about the person that is president and what it might mean for the rest of us.
BTW, you don't have to read this thread...you know :~)
-
I'm sorry to hear you are in therapy.
-
I'm sorry to hear you are in therapy.
Sorry to hear you aren't, perhaps you might find it useful-it's one of the reasons I'm a happy guy...
Reading and commenting on current events keeps you aware of your surroundings-both good and bad...it's empowering and provides an avenue to vent, as long as you don't take too serious...are you taking it too serious?
-
Get a life, Jeff!
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-QHXJgSH/0/db15c9f5/O/i-QHXJgSH.jpg) (https://pegelli.smugmug.com/Other/My-Smug-Mug/n-SzsWG/i-QHXJgSH/A)
-
I just simply ignore most of your posts since it's obvious you really don't care for responses to them and almost all have become nothing but cut and paste, not too original.
I would be more than happy to discuss anything with you (and we have as I recall). But I understand how frustrated Trump supporters must be with all the negative news (#FAKENEWS) that is flowing out of mainstream media, but it wouldn't be flowing if Trump and his Minions™ weren't screwing the pooch so badly ya know?
I mean it's not like the #Failing NYT made up Donny Jr.'s emails right? It's not like the media puts words in Trump's mouth when he does interviews and the extremely rare sudo-news conferences or Tweets...(as an aside, who is Jim that Trump was referring to in relationship to Paris?).
I mean a lot of Trump supporters are finding all this very entertaining just like a Reality TV Show where Trump gets to give it to the swamp but they haven't caught on yet how much of a screwing THEY are gonna get if the GOP healthcare pan passes or heaven forbid, Trump's plan for the budget goes through. The super wealthy are still holding out hope that they can hold their noses long enough to wait out some rumored tax break for the .5% (looks like that got cut from the GOP healthcare plan–which is ok with Trump because he was too stupid to realize there WAS a tax cut in the healthcare plan).
But as for this thread, I'm treating it like a gallery wall that I can post interesting, entertaining or scathing news items all about Trump and his Deplorable™. I kinda see myself as the curator...I've gotten real good at mining all the Trump stories–it really doesn't take long with Google and MSN and BING news searches...I'm sorry you don't like my copy/pastes but I like to conserve my time and find it more efficient to point people to the stories. I do it as a service to save the viewers of the thread from having to do their own news aggregation.
As for how I have the time and energy to do all these posts? Well, I don't have to work for a living and I'm in the fortunate position of only doing those things I find fun, entertaining or enriching. As I said, I find researching and being on top of the news therapeutic and gives me a place to vent about the idiots running the insane asylum formerly know as the White House. I know Trump supporters find that irritating...good. That's gratifying :~)
Sorry Jeff, this sounds like a lame middle school response.
Wow, that's the best ya got dooode?
A "lame middle school response"...well, hopefully this response will be more to your liking, is it?
Otherwise I can resort to (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3c/6f/cc/3c6fccc6de2055cae131966656b87a8e.jpg) is that better?
(Note to Moderator: Don't worry Chris, I quit taking anything personally in this thread a long time ago so I just let stuff roll off and refuse to attack back :~)
-
Russian-American lobbyist met with Trump Jr., Russian lawyer: NBC News
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-agent-idUSKBN19Z189
QUOTE: July 14, 2017 / 1:47 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A lobbyist who was once a Soviet counter-intelligence officer participated last year in a meeting with senior aides to U.S. President Donald Trump, including his son, and a Russian lawyer, NBC News reported on Friday, adding to allegations of possible connections between Moscow and the November election.
NBC News, which did not identify the Russian-American lobbyist, said some U.S. officials suspected him of having ongoing ties to Russian intelligence, something he denied to the network.
The Associated Press said the lobbyist, whom it identified as Rinat Akhmetshin, confirmed that he had attended the June 2016 meeting in New York's Trump Tower. Despite intense media focus on the meeting, his presence had not been reported or disclosed until Friday. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
Back on track....
Who is Jim: The internet has a lot of ideas about the president’s mysterious friend (http://www.kcra.com/article/who-is-jim-the-internet-has-a-lot-of-ideas-about-the-presidents-mysterious-friend/10304743)
(http://www.schewephoto.com/misc/Tour-eiffel-paris.jpg)
For all things Paris, President Donald Trump's go-to guy is Jim.
The way Trump tells it, Jim is a friend who loves Paris and used to visit every year. Yet Jim doesn't appear to be accompanying Trump on his first trip as president to the City of Lights. In fact, Trump has said repeatedly that Jim doesn't go to Paris at all anymore. Trump says that's because the city has been infiltrated by foreign extremists.
Whether the enigmatic Jim exists is unclear. Trump has never given his last name. The White House has not responded to a request for comment about who Jim is or whether he is on the trip.
Trump name-dropped Jim again and again on the campaign trail, but his friend didn't receive widespread attention until Trump became president. For Trump, Jim's story serves as a cautionary tale — a warning that even a place as lovely as Paris can be ruined if leaders are complacent about terrorism.
Asked about Jim's criticisms during a press conference Thursday, Trump dodged.
Instead he praised his host, French President Emmanuel Macron. Paris was "going to be just fine," Trump said, because France now has a "great" and "tough" president. He joked that Macron had better do a good job, "otherwise you're going to make me look very bad."
Jim's biggest moment in the spotlight was during a high-profile Trump speech in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland. Trump explained that Jim "loves the City of Lights, he loves Paris. For years, every year during the summer, he would go to Paris. It was automatic, with his wife and his family."
Trump one day asked Jim: "How's Paris doing?"
"'Paris?" Jim replied, as relayed by Trump. "'I don't go there anymore. Paris is no longer Paris.'"
And of course, the internet is there to offer suggestions...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DElsqmTUMAA_mkD.jpg)
Chris White @Chris66uk
Will the real Jim please stand up #jim #whoIsjim
11:40 PM - 12 Jul 2017 (https://twitter.com/Chris66uk/status/885358284177260544/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kcra.com%2Farticle%2Fwho-is-jim-the-internet-has-a-lot-of-ideas-about-the-presidents-mysterious-friend%2F10304743)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEo0m3UUwAAGAC4.jpg)
harleyb @harleyb11
#whoisjim Nobody knows but @realDonaldTrump says he's in great physical shape and has a lean body.
2:14 PM - 13 Jul 2017 (https://twitter.com/harleyb11/status/885578122833342464/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kcra.com%2Farticle%2Fwho-is-jim-the-internet-has-a-lot-of-ideas-about-the-presidents-mysterious-friend%2F10304743)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5cjp8YWUAASNxd.jpg)
Anne Hidalgo ✔ @Anne_Hidalgo
À Donald et son ami Jim, depuis @LaTourEiffel nous célébrons l'attractivité de #Paris avec Mickey et Minnie.
11:12 AM - 24 Feb 2017 (https://twitter.com/Anne_Hidalgo/status/835175467271475200/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmashable.com%2F2017%2F07%2F12%2Fdonald-trump--imaginary-friend-jim%2F)
(the above was posted by the mayor of Paris)
-
They are not about looking up articles, then posting them verbatim, often with little to no posted opinions or personal commentary, as if this is your personal gallery.
Well, I did start this thread (a really long time ago) so I kinda think I can post anything here that doesn't violate the LuLa Terms of Service (right Chris & Kev?)...so, yeah it is kinda like my own personal gallery of all things disturbing or humorous regarding the Trumpster...
8)
-
The Associated Press said the lobbyist, whom it identified as Rinat Akhmetshin, confirmed that he had attended the June 2016 meeting in New York's Trump Tower. Despite intense media focus on the meeting, his presence had not been reported or disclosed until Friday. "[/i]
And, it's interesting that Rinat Akhmetshin was sued for allegedly committing corporate espionage on behalf of Russian oligarch and industrialist Andrew Melinchenko. The suit was brought by International Mineral Resources (IMR) filed in July 2015 with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The filings regarded a sophisticated data breach by Russian hackers that compromised gigabytes of IMR corporate data. In the filings, sworn statements by private investigator Akis Phanartizis stated that Akhmetshin boasted that the hacking of IMR's computer system was organized by him.
So, on June 9, 2016 Donny Jr. meets with a guy who has bragged that he has organized and worked with Russian hackers in the past. Here's the timeline from a CNN post 2016 Presidential Campaign Hacking Fast Facts (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html):
June 3, 2016 - Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr. receives an email from Rob Goldstone, a music publicist whose clients include Russian singer, Emin Agalarov. Goldstone offers Trump Jr. official documents and information that incriminate Hillary Clinton. He explains that Russia and its government want to support Trump by passing along compromising information about Clinton. Minutes later, Trump Jr. indicates he is interested in seeing the information, "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." Trump Jr. suggests arranging a conference call.
June 7-8, 2016 - Goldstone sends Trump Jr. another email about setting up an in-person meeting with a "Russian government attorney" who will be flying from Moscow to New York on June 9 to talk to representatives from the Trump campaign at Trump Tower in New York. Trump loops in campaign manager, Paul Manafort and campaign adviser, Jared Kushner.
June 9, 2016 - Manafort, Kushner and Trump Jr. meet with Russian attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya. It is unclear what is discussed during the meeting, which was set up as a discussion of Russian-sourced opposition research on Clinton. Trump Jr. later says that Veselnitskaya did not present any valuable information during the meeting. She changes the subject and talked about a human rights law called the Magnitsky Act, according to Trump Jr. The elder Trump is at his office in Trump Tower on the day of the meeting but he does not participate, according to his legal team.
June 12, 2016 - During an interview on British television, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says that the website has obtained and will publish a batch of Clinton emails.
June 14, 2016 - The Washington Post reports hackers working for the Russian government accessed the DNC's computer system, stealing oppositional research on Donald Trump and viewing staffers' emails and chat exchanges. The Kremlin, however, denies that the government was linked to the hack, and a US official tells CNN that investigators have not yet concluded that the cyberattack was directed by the Russian government.
June 15, 2016 - A cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC posts a public notice on its website describing an attack on the political committee's computer network by two groups associated with Russian intelligence. According to the post, two Russian-backed groups called "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear" tunneled into the committee's computer system. In response, a blogger called Guccifer 2.0 claims that he alone conducted the hack, not the Russians. As proof, he posts internal DNC memos and opposition research on Trump. Furthermore, Guccifer 2.0 claims to have passed along thousands of files to WikiLeaks. Trump offers his own theory on the origins of the attack: suggesting in a statement that the DNC hacked itself to distract from Clinton's email scandal.
July 22, 2016 - Days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks publishes nearly 20,000 emails hacked from the DNC server. The documents include notes in which DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz insults staffers from the Bernie Sanders campaign and messages that suggest the organization was favoring Clinton rather than remaining neutral. Wasserman Schultz resigns in the aftermath of the leak.
July 25, 2016 - The FBI announces it has launched an investigation into the DNC hack. Although the statement doesn't indicate that the agency has a particular suspect or suspects in mind, US officials tell CNN they think the cyberattack is linked to Russia.
July 27, 2016 - During a press conference, Trump declares Russia may have hacked the State Department. He connects the suspected Russian cyberattack on the DNC to Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," says Trump. Newt Gingrich, a Trump surrogate, defends Trump in a Tweet, dismissing the comment as a "joke."
Nice joke Donald...
But do we honestly believe that in the 20 minutes only Russian child adoptions were discussed? And it's just a coincidence that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says that the website has obtained and will publish a batch of Clinton emails on June 12th, 2016-three days later? Maybe...maybe not.
Fortunately we have Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate and he will get to the bottom of everything (unless Donny Sr fires him).
-
Why didn't we get the same coverage from the liberal press about the Trump dossier? It was paid for by both anti-Trump Republicans and then after Trump won the nomination, Democrats picked it up and continued the smear using it. The British spy who prepared the dossier worked with Russian spies who supposedly got him true or phony information he put in it. So it seems that the Russians were playing both ends. Why wouldn't they? It would be to their advantage to have something on the president whether it became Trump or Clinton. So the Russians were busy helping with bad stuff for a dossier on Trump while releasing bad stuff about emails from the Clinton campaign organization. Putin is in nobody's corner except his own.
But the point I'm making is that the liberal press makes the issue with a meeting where nothing apparently happened worse than the Democrats working with British and Russian spies to create a smear dossier against Trump. The Republicans in Congress are schmucks. They don't know how to fight dirty like the Democrats. Why don't they have hearings on that too instead of just going along with the Democrat smear campaign?
-
Keep it up Jeff! I appreciate your efforts and fully support you! You are not alone.
-
Well, the Travel Ban is back in the news. The Hawaii judge says grandparents have to be let in. That they're close enough family members.
It's interesting that when the original SCOTUS ruling was issued, three of the SCOTUS justices in a supporting ruling at the time said this would happen. That SCOTUS opened a Pandora's box of lawsuits by allowing close relatives or others thinking they're in a "close" relationship to America. How would anyone decide? So now it's happened. That SCOTUS should not get involved deciding this. The very lower court who the Supremes overruled would be deciding on this after SCOTUS spanked them.
I think the Appeals Court will "punt" and send it back up to SCOTUS.
So now SCOTUS is thrown back into the fray deciding on minor issues that the government should decide. While one could support that Grandparents should be included, I think for their own sanity, they're going to let the government list of who can enter be left as the government decides. They're apparently using a standard list for other purposes so I don't see why they have to change it. Otherwise, SCOTUS is going to face an never-ending list of complainants (cousins, uncles once removed, etc.) who think they're "close" enough to be on the list.
-
I disagree. You merely continued a previous thread that was started by BernardLanguillier and closed because a few posters went off the rails. :P
Right! He should have called it "The Longest Lula Tread" or "Trump thread with a lot of content".
Actually, I like most of Jeff's images and posts in this thread. It takes an effort (and also a disapproval of Trump) to research and collect all those pictures and information.
-
What disaster? Stock market is up, illegal border crossings are 40% down, (some) Muslims are banned, Supreme Court judge appointed, communism advance (a.k.a. Dems) slowed down...so, what disaster?
+1
-
Right! He should have called it "The Longest Lula Tread" or "Trump thread with a lot of content".
Actually, I like most of Jeff's images and posts in this thread. It takes an effort (and also a disapproval of Trump) to research and collect all those pictures and information.
All that material just proves that the press is out to get Trump. You think they would have stopped after the election. It's the new job of the Washington's Post, NY Times and others like them to beat down the president. It's a disgrace that these former great news organs have resorted to yellow journalism to push their political viewpoints.
I can understand MSNBC, CNN, and other cable news of those type. They're really not honest news media but rather take a political viewpoint because that's what their viewer's "pay" for. But for the NY Times especially who's byline is 'All the News that's Fit to Print", they should hang their heads in shame.
-
Keep it up Jeff! I appreciate your efforts and fully support you! You are not alone.
Me too.
I don't have the energy or time to look up all these items, so I depend on Jeff to find them for us.
Thank you, Jeff! And my thanks also to the others who have added spice to this "emperor has no clothes" thread.
-
The point of posting other links/items/etc. is that people can discuss them if they want (as in discuss those items, not whether Jeff should post them).
-
It's the new job of the Washington's Post, NY Times and others like them to beat down the president.
Change that "beat down" to "report on" and you got it 100% correct. What we are seeing is a major resurgence in journalism-particulary what used to be called the print media. Their subscriptions for thier web sites are exploding...
Just because it's news that makes Trump look bad doesn't make it fake... Trump is taking a play out of Nixon's playbook and look how that worked out :-)
-
Interesting podcast here (http://freshairnpr.npr.libsynfusion.com/following-the-man-who-created-president-trump) mostly about Roger Stone but also about some of Trump's other advisors. It's interesting to hear about their background and how far back the roots go. There is a connection to Roy Cohn of the McCarthy era.
-
All that material just proves that the press is out to get Trump. You think they would have stopped after the election. It's the new job of the Washington's Post, NY Times and others like them to beat down the president. It's a disgrace that these former great news organs have resorted to yellow journalism to push their political viewpoints.
I can understand MSNBC, CNN, and other cable news of those type. They're really not honest news media but rather take a political viewpoint because that's what their viewer's "pay" for. But for the NY Times especially who's byline is 'All the News that's Fit to Print", they should hang their heads in shame.
The press is not (and should not be) the marketing department of the government.
-
While we're all being entertained fighting about Trump Jr.'s attempt to get the "goods" on Hillary to win the election, major issues of war and peace are being ignored by the media and the public. Mosul has fallen, Raqqa soon, and ISIS is on the run as Trump is making good his campaign promise to destroy the Islamist State.
Are we discussing how that affects the Travel Ban, refugees fleeing to Europe and how that effects the west's stability, what plans we should have about leaving American troops in Iraq to keep the lid on, etc? Not really. These are the important issues. And they're being ignored as everyone is caught up in domestic politics in the race to see who can win in 2018 and 2020.
-
While we're all being entertained fighting about Trump Jr.'s attempt to get the "goods" on Hillary to win the election, major issues of war and peace are being ignored by the media and the public. Mosul has fallen, Raqqa soon, and ISIS is on the run as Trump is making good his campaign promise to destroy the Islamist State.
Are we discussing how that affects the Travel Ban, refugees fleeing to Europe and how that effects the west's stability, what plans we should have about leaving American troops in Iraq to keep the lid on, etc? Not really. These are the important issues. And they're being ignored as everyone is caught up in domestic politics in the race to see who can win in 2018 and 2020.
That's nothing new is it? US politics has been like that for a while now so far as I can tell. You're in permanent campaign mode, seems like.
-
That's nothing new is it? US politics has been like that for a while now so far as I can tell. You're in permanent campaign mode, seems like.
No, this is different. In the past, hot issues were discussed, debated, thought about, cared about. Sure, domestic politics always is in the background. But now it's front, center and in the background.
Trump has passed the baton to Mattis to run the campaign to defeat ISIS. That's OK in itself. He seems to be doing a superb job in assisting the Iraqis getting the job done. But what happens next? What are our ultimate goals? How many troops are we going to leave there, if any? Will we support the Kurds in getting a homeland? How will we help the Iraqis keep the peace between Sunni and Shia so hostilities don't break out again? Are we going to move forces to get Assad? No one is discussing these things. We'd rather be divining Trump's tweets like tea leaves. It's more entertaining apparently.
-
Keep it up Jeff! I appreciate your efforts and fully support you! You are not alone.
+1
-
OK. So instead of ragging on Trump or defending him for another 200 pages, let's discuss what he should do next. He still is President after all.
What should Trump do in Iraq?
How should Trump get involved with Assad?
What should Trump do with a nascent Kurdish state?
Should Trump leave forces in Iraq?
-
Les, I see you just had the thread on Omar Khadr removed. I didn't know you can have a thread removed. Is that normal? Why is that being allowed? I can understand stopping a thread or deleting one or two posts that were vile or cursing. But a whole thread. It's as if you as a Canadian don't like to see Canada take controversy. Is that what happened?
-
Les, I see you just had the thread on Omar Khadr removed. I didn't know you can have a thread removed. Is that normal? Why is that being allowed? I can understand stopping a thread or deleting one or two posts that were vile or cursing. But a whole thread. It's as if you as a Canadian don't like to see Canada take controversy. Is that what happened?
You tell us, Alan. You've already decided on a narrative and started preaching it, as usual without any actual facts.
-
So what are the facts?
-
In the past, hot issues were discussed, debated, thought about, cared about.
Yes, now is different thanks to Trump and his Minions™.
Rather than meet with the press and talk about issues, Trump hides in the White House gorging on Tivo'ed TV shows and Tweeting to his base. He sends out his surrogates to talk for him and then often immediately counteracts what they say. Then he continues his attack on the media and then wonders why, when reporters are told his "gaggle" on AF1 was off the record, nobody writes about what he said...
Rather than getting out and meeting real people, Trump holds campaign style rallies that cater to his base. Rather than trying to be inclusive and try to expand his base, he lashes out at anybody who doesn't agree with him–often on the afore mentioned Twitter.
He goes to Europe for the G19+1 and is the "Ugly American", boorish and completely undisciplined and unpracticed in diplomacy. Then he goes to France and talk's about Macron's wife's figure.
He tries to take credit for getting Qatar attacked by the other counties in the region because Qatar supposedly financed terrorists then seems to remember they are an important partner with a huge navel base and has to send Tillerson to try to fix the mess he (Trump) made in the middle east. BTW, Trump and Tillerson are also doing cleanup for the cluster*ck Jared Kushner produced while trying to deal with Israel and the Palestinians.
So, how did cozying up to China's President Xi Jinping work out...North Korea launched a successful long range ballistic missile, but don't worry, Trump told off that "guy" off...
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life? Hard to believe that South Korea.....
7:19 PM - 3 Jul 2017
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
....and Japan will put up with this much longer. Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!
7:24 PM - 3 Jul 2017
That's the President of the United States doing Twitter Diplomacy™...this is how hot issues are now discussed, debated, thought about, cared about–thanks to Donald J Trump.
So, no, we've never been in this situation before in our lifetimes...and no, none of this is "normal" or acceptable...
-
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programing...more from the #FAKENEWS/MainStreetMedia
Oh, wait, this is from Breitbart (who doesn't seem to like Jared)
REPORT: Jared Kushner Failed to Disclose 100+ Foreign Contacts Because Staff Accidentally Hit ‘Send’ Too Early (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/14/report-jared-kushner-failed-to-disclose-100-foreign-contacts-because-staff-accidentally-hit-send-too-early/)
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevenbertoni/files/2016/11/1121_jared-kushner_650x455.jpg)
President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser Jared Kushner reportedly omitted from his initial security clearance form at least 100 contacts that he made with foreign government officials.
According to a Friday Yahoo News report, Kushner’s lawyers have claimed that Kushner’s initial filing of his SF-86 form did not mention any meetings with foreign officials whatsoever because an unnamed “member of his staff had prematurely hit the ‘send’ button for the [form] before it was completed.”
Kushner initially submitted his SF-86 form on January 18, but, as the New York Times noted in a Wednesday report, he “supplemented the list of foreign contacts” and added “more than 100 names” since then.
Kushner reportedly notified the FBI within 12 hours that he would add amendments, but it took him another four months to amend the document, which he reportedly submitted on May 11.
Yahoo’s report immediately raised questions about 1) whether Kushner was required to print out the initial security clearance form and sign it himself or sign the form electronically and 2) why it took him nearly four months to amend the SF-86 form after an unnamed staffer supposedly accidentally hit the “send” button.
The first big meeting Kushner omitted was a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya during the general election campaign. He attended that meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort, as Trump Jr.’s emails with publicist Rob Goldstone indicated.
The second big meeting that Kushner reportedly did not disclose was his meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. In that meeting, which former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn attended, Kushner reportedly tried to establish “backchannel” communications with Russia. Flynn was reportedly not forthcoming about this meeting with Vice President Mike Pence, which led Trump to fire Flynn and eventually replace him with H.R. McMaster.
The third big meeting Kushner reportedly omitted was his December 2016 meeting with Russian banker Sergey Gorkov. It is still unclear whether Kushner met with the Vnesheconombank chief as a representative of Trump’s transition team or as a representative of the Kushner family business.
Oh, yeah, did we almost forget he wanted to set up secret communications to Russia using Russian communications gear and met with a banned Russian banker?
And this guy still has a top secret security clearance?
Hum, I wonder who wins/looses when son vs son in law gets their asses in a jam?
-
Yes, now is different thanks to Trump and his Minions™.
Rather than meet with the press and talk about issues, Trump hides in the White House gorging on Tivo'ed TV shows and Tweeting to his base. He sends out his surrogates to talk for him and then often immediately counteracts what they say. Then he continues his attack on the media and then wonders why, when reporters are told his "gaggle" on AF1 was off the record, nobody writes about what he said...
Rather than getting out and meeting real people, Trump holds campaign style rallies that cater to his base. Rather than trying to be inclusive and try to expand his base, he lashes out at anybody who doesn't agree with him–often on the afore mentioned Twitter.
He goes to Europe for the G19+1 and is the "Ugly American", boorish and completely undisciplined and unpracticed in diplomacy. Then he goes to France and talk's about Macron's wife's figure.
He tries to take credit for getting Qatar attacked by the other counties in the region because Qatar supposedly financed terrorists then seems to remember they are an important partner with a huge navel base and has to send Tillerson to try to fix the mess he (Trump) made in the middle east. BTW, Trump and Tillerson are also doing cleanup for the cluster*ck Jared Kushner produced while trying to deal with Israel and the Palestinians.
So, how did cozying up to China's President Xi Jinping work out...North Korea launched a successful long range ballistic missile, but don't worry, Trump told off that "guy" off...
That's the President of the United States doing Twitter Diplomacy™...this is how hot issues are now discussed, debated, thought about, cared about–thanks to Donald J Trump.
So, no, we've never been in this situation before in our lifetimes...and no, none of this is "normal" or acceptable...
No, the media looks for "gotcha" stuff like his comment about Macron's wife because it's more interesting to their viewers. Plus it fits into their agenda of "getting" Trump. Competition is driving some of that; politics is driving the rest.
But, the fact is that rather than talk about his comments about Macron's wife, they could have focused on his position on important issues. Those things were discussed. He does talk about those things. But frankly, no one wants to hear that. So the press tends to ask inconsequential questions. It's probably as much our fault as the press. They're giving us what we want to hear, read, and view otherwise we'll shut off cable TV and posts to this thread would end.
-
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programing...more from the #FAKENEWS/MainStreetMedia
Oh, wait, this is from Breitbart (who doesn't seem to like Jared)
REPORT: Jared Kushner Failed to Disclose 100+ Foreign Contacts Because Staff Accidentally Hit ‘Send’ Too Early (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/14/report-jared-kushner-failed-to-disclose-100-foreign-contacts-because-staff-accidentally-hit-send-too-early/)
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevenbertoni/files/2016/11/1121_jared-kushner_650x455.jpg)
Oh, yeah, did we almost forget he wanted to set up secret communications to Russia using Russian communications gear and met with a banned Russian banker?
And this guy still has a top secret security clearance?
Hum, I wonder who wins/looses when son vs son in law gets their asses in a jam?
This is what I'm talking about. We're discussing this crap over and over because politics appears to be more interesting than national and foreign policy and war and peace.
-
This kinda says it all...“The Trump Show.”
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/screen_shot_2016-07-26_at_5.51.14_pm.jpg)
‘The Trump Show,’ Season 1, Week 25, reviewed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/07/14/the-trump-show-season-1-week-25-reviewed/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.09235249d509)
A common reaction to Donald Trump’s presidency has been a sense that reality has outstripped even the most feverish fiction. The only thing to do when the world has come to feel like the implausible output of an ambitious but not particularly talented television writer is to cover it that way. Welcome to our recaps of “The Trump Show.”
It’s become all too common for prestige dramas to blow past the hour mark simply because tolerant executives are willing to give them the leeway to do so, whether the episode requires it or not. “Sons of Anarchy” set a precedent, bloating out of control in its later seasons, while “Game of Thrones” has managed its sprawling ensemble cast and multiple locations by occasionally venturing over 60 minutes. Though “The Trump Show” has plenty of structural flaws, this week’s episode was a reminder that though this approach has pitfalls, it can also produce substantial narrative rewards.
--snip--
[in deference to Joe, I'll skip to the end conclusion and let the reader decide if they want to read the whole article–which is kinda good]
For all of the distractions, “The Trump Show” sometimes seems fundamentally simple. It’s a show about mirrors, and about what the characters see when they look into them and what makes them turn away. If any of the characters were honest with themselves, they might be destroyed. Fortunately for them, they live in a funhouse. Fortunately for us, we can see the distortions that seem invisible to them, and avoid these flaws in ourselves even if we can’t save the characters and the country.
So, you might think that would be the end to this post, right? But no...we actually have another look The Trump Show from a different source, Al Jazeera from back in April...(sorry I missed this before)
The Trump Show
A look at the blurred lines between Donald Trump, reality TV star and Donald Trump, President of the United States. (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2017/04/trump-show-170410080214061.html)
From his long, unwieldy press conferences to the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice in prime time, Donald Trump delivers on spectacle.
There is conflict, there is humiliation, and there is supreme confidence - dramatic elements pulled straight out of a reality TV playbook that for Trump has been years in the making. The Apprentice, a show fronted and co-produced by Donald Trump, established him as a gospel of success, despite being plagued by bankruptcy and scandal.
Building on this image, and through similar projects, Trump has arguably become a brand unto himself, endearing himself to a segment of the American public that supported him all the way to the White House.
Now in the early days of his presidency, the showmanship continues, as 24-hour news channels race to cover his every move. Is Donald Trump in his own reality show? And what does it mean for the United States?
Josh Rushing explores Trump's reality TV rise from a C-list New York celebrity to the most powerful office in the world.
Click here for The Trump Show video (http://fw.to/QAKSftc)
25:19
He's an authentic fake, I think he really is. He has taken the role on so much that Donald Trump is always playing Donald Trump.
Dan McAdams, psychology professor, Northwestern University
It's actually an insightful look at the way Trump is running his presidency–as though he's being an executive producer of a reality tv show...
-
I don't have the energy or time to look up all these items, so I depend on Jeff to find them for us.
Thanks Eric and the other Trump II thread supporters...yes, this is exactly why I bother to take the time and effort to dig down and find and read the many, many stories that are essentially attacking what we used to think our country was about. What I post is a subset of what I find–usually either the funniest or lamest or scariest things about Trump, his Minions™ and the disaster that the 45th president has been so far (with little or no hope for redemption on the horizon).
-
This is what I'm talking about.
Well, you didn't bother to post about my response to you in Reply #4337 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116264.msg987781#msg987781)
You realize Jared Kushner is a pretty important person in the White House...I kinda find it important to know that before assuming his various jobs, he met with Russians and failed to disclose that on his papers to get a security clearance. I meant the doodle is doing like almost everything for Trump, right?
Here's a list: Here Are All the Jobs Jared Kushner Is Doing at the White House (http://fortune.com/2017/03/27/jared-kushner-white-house-roles/)
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/Jared-Kushner-Iraq-April-4-2017-Getty.jpg)
President Trump has appointed his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner to head the White House Office of American Innovation, designed to rework the government using inspiration from the private sector.
This is quite a big task for a 36-year-old with no former governing experience. But it's not the first one added to his portfolio. Kushner has been given a litany of tasks, from international diplomacy to daily White House operations.
Here's a look at everything Kushner has been tasked with in the White House.
[I'll just post the bullet points, you can read the explanations in the article]
Advising Trump
Reinventing government
Being a 'shadow diplomat'
Brokering peace in the Middle East
[ok, that didn't work out too well]
Now, if he can just keep his security clearance (and stay out of jail). Maybe he should get his own flak jacket for use here at home :~)
Sorry if you don't think this is an important topic...I do.
-
So, about that “Election Integrity” Commission, yeah, maybe not such a good idea giving them sensitive personal information...
The White House just posted the emails of critics — without censoring sensitive personal information (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/14/15973464/white-house-election-integrity-doxx)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Id5zq6zjDXfFvKRdhY-kbrbXSRo=/0x0:4455x2970/920x613/filters:focal(2926x971:3638x1683)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55716709/624688908.0.jpg)
(duffis 1 and 2) President Donald Trump and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who’s heading the “election integrity” commission.
The White House just responded to concerns it would release voters’ sensitive personal information by releasing a bunch of voters’ sensitive personal information.
Last month, the White House’s “election integrity” commission sent out requests (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/30/15900478/trump-election-integrity-commission) to every state asking for all voters’ names, party IDs, addresses, and even the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, among other information. The White House then said this information would be made available to the public.
A lot of people did not like the idea, fearing that their personal information could be made public. So some sent emails to the White House, demanding that it rescind the request.
This week, the White House decided to make those emails from concerned citizens public through the commission's new website (https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/07/13/presidential-advisory-commission-election-integrity). But the administration made a big mistake: It didn’t censor any of the personal information — such as names, email addresses, actual addresses, and phone numbers — included in those emails.
In effect, the White House just released the sensitive personal information of a lot of concerned citizens giving feedback to their government. That’s made even worse by the fact that the White House did this when the thing citizens were complaining about was the possibility that their private information would be made public.
As of Friday afternoon, the emails are still uncensored and available on the White House’s website. They include all sorts of feedback, from concerns about privacy to outright insults of the Trump administration. One email just links to an image of the Goatse. (Do not Google this if you value your eyes.)
“DO NOT RELEASE ANY OF MY VOTER DATA, PERIOD,” said one person whose full name and email address were subsequently released in the collection of emails.
But, a fun aside to this story is that number of funny emails people sent off to the commission...
‘My Voter Info Is at Goatse’ and Other Emails to Trump’s Election-Fraud Commission (http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/funny-emails-sent-to-kobachs-election-integrity-commission.html)
The White House yesterday released a batch of public comments sent to its Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, the committee established by Donald Trump with the explicit purpose of examining long-debunked claims of voter fraud, and the implicit purpose of disenfranchising large swaths of the American voting population. To further this aim, commission leader Kris Kobach requested detailed data from the voter rolls of every state, most of which rejected the request as baseless and an invasion of people’s privacy.
The majority of public comments released by the White House are unsparing in their criticism of Kobach and his program, though there are a few concerned citizens asking how they can help (and about half a dozen pages that are like the Republican version of Pizzagate). When you can submit a comment via email, it’s pretty easy to write, well, anything. Here are some of the messages that caught our eye.
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/selectall/2017/07/14/kobachemails/kobachemails_01.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpg)
Beau, thank you for coming clean.
Not sure if these two are being sarcastic.
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/selectall/2017/07/14/kobachemails/kobachemails_06.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpg)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/selectall/2017/07/14/kobachemails/kobachemails_08.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.jpg)
Ok, so maybe that Election-Fraud Commission wasn't such a great idea...
BTW, you seriously don't want to Google 'goatse'...really you don't!
(I know because, well, of course I did).
-
Ok, Trump Supporters (and friends of Putin) probably don't want to watch this video from Pussy Riot...just warning you :~)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/pussyriot.jpg)
Pussy Riot - Make America Great Again (https://youtu.be/s-bKFo30o2o)
(4:56 music video)
-
#NOTFAKENEWS from https://www.rt.com (https://www.rt.com)
Judge tosses out jury conviction of protester who laughed at Jeff Sessions (https://www.rt.com/usa/396383-desiree-fairooz-laughed-jeff-sessions-conviction/)
(https://cdn.rt.com/files/2017.07/original/596921b9dda4c8d0548b4567.jpg)
A DC judge has slammed the government’s case against Desiree Fairooz, 61, who was arrested at Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Senate confirmation hearing after she laughed at a compliment made about Sessions. The judge ordered a new trial.
A jury delivered a guilty verdict against Fairooz in May after prosecutors argued that “laughter is enough” to merit criminal charges of disorderly and disruptive conduct, and that Fairooz’s statements during her arrest in January amounted to “parading, demonstrating, or picketing within the Capitol.”
Chief Judge Robert E. Morin of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia called the government’s theory about laughter being sufficient for criminal charges “disconcerting.”
Morin tossed out the jury verdict and ordered a new trial, setting a court date for September 1.
(https://img.rt.com/files/2017.05/thumbnail/590ba210c36188e9428b45b9.jpg)
“At the time of my arrest, we were seated, the hearing had begun, and Senator Richard Shelby [R-Alabama] was tasked with making compliments about Senator Sessions, and one of them seemed ridiculous to me and I involuntarily laughed,” Fairooz told RT in May.
Her laughter was prompted by Shelby’s assertion that Sessions had a “clear and well-documented” history of “treating all Americans equally under the law.” In 1986, Sessions had been denied a federal justice post because of a history of racially charged remarks.
At the hearing, Fairooz was with the Code Pink protest group, holding up signs critical of Sessions.
-
Yeah, sorry Trumpsters, the Jared Kushner stories keep coming...
Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html)
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/Kushner%202_4.JPG)
WASHINGTON
Investigators at the House and Senate Intelligence committees and the Justice Department are examining whether the Trump campaign’s digital operation – overseen by Jared Kushner – helped guide Russia’s sophisticated voter targeting and fake news attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Congressional and Justice Department investigators are focusing on whether Trump’s campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump’s digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton, according to several people familiar with the parallel inquiries.
Also under scrutiny is the question of whether Trump associates or campaign aides had any role in assisting the Russians in publicly releasing thousands of emails, hacked from the accounts of top Democrats, at turning points in the presidential race, mainly through the London-based transparency web site WikiLeaks.
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told McClatchy he wants to know whether Russia’s “fake or damaging news stories” were “coordinated in any way in terms of targeting or in terms of timing or in terms of any other measure … with the (Trump) campaign.”
The rest of the story talks about how unlikely it would be that Russian social media trolls would know how to drill down to the precinct level in the decisive states:
THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANT COOPERATION BETWEEN RUSSIA’S ONLINE PROPAGANDA MACHINE AND INDIVIDUALS IN THE UNITED STATES WHO WERE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT WHERE TO TARGET THE DISINFORMATION.
Mike Carpenter, former senior Pentagon official who specialized on Russia matters
-
Now the last thing I don’t get is congress. These guys take an oath to serve the country, not call names, not obstruct each other, not get in front of a camera, not fake it like they care, cause if they did, they’d compromise, walk across the isle pour each other a drink (they do it at night anyway) and start working.
Not take the summer off and do the blame thing. That’s my biggest gripe. Live to their promise.
As far as the public if we would stop fighting each other and turn our attention to all of congress, these guys would wake up and get to work, but they don’t have to because most are in districts or states that give them a lock on another term and most people don't vote.
I wonder how the entire pol. system could be made more reasonable, more attentive of facts and less on big-$$ manufacturing facts and access and ... .
When one applies for a job, it's not w/t.v. broadcasts denouncing your competitors, and doing whatever you want; the employer sets the rules, in the main. Now, how could that be effected in selecting gov. employees?These days, it seems so much w/$$$ --and whom the candidate must kiss behind to so to get the $$$.
It is also dismayingly sad to see the state of the Fourth Estate, where "news" --"fake" or otherwise-- is so much eye-ball catching, entertainment-oriented, lame hype. And at a greatly heightened frequency, courtesy of hi-tech.
:(
-
(Emphasis mine)
“Europe’s Afghan crime wave.” The piece is notable not just for its content, but for its author. Cheryl Benard has worked sympathetically with refugees and was a subject-matter expert at the RAND corporation. In other words, this piece isn’t from the anti-Muslim fever swamps but from the heart of the elite national-security establishment.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449526/afghan-refugees-rape-jihad-europe?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=french&utm_content=afghan
In the aftermath of sexual assaults in Cologne, Stuttgart, and Hamburg at the end of 2015, my colleague Andrew McCarthy coined the term “rape jihad” to describe the systematic, large-scale, and public attacks on women at the hands of Muslim migrants. It’s a reminder that jihad — even violent jihad — is about more than car bombs, random stabbings, or nightclub shootings. It’s also manifested through a ground-up assault on Western values, taking advantage of Western sympathies, to create fear and confusion. Europe is teaching America a sad lesson. Our compassion must never make us fools.
...
they are motivated by a deep and abiding contempt for Western civilization. To them, Europeans are the enemy, and their women are legitimate spoils, as are all the other things one can take from them: housing, money, passports.
...
Finally, the Left has to do a bit of hard thinking. It’s fine to be warm, fuzzy and sentimental about strangers arriving on your shores, but let’s also spare some warm, fuzzy and sentimental thoughts for our own values, freedoms and lifestyle. Girls and women should continue to feel safe in public spaces, be able to attend festivals, wear clothing appropriate to the weather and their own liking, travel on trains, go to the park, walk their dogs and live their lives. This is a wonderful Western achievement, and one that is worth defending.
-
Just noted this...it seems others at Fox News are getting tired of the Trump & Minions™ refusal to come clean...
Fox’s Shep Smith on Trump Jr. meeting: ‘Mind-boggling’ deception (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox’s-shep-smith-on-trump-jr-meeting-‘mind-boggling’-deception/ar-BBEpY6m)
(http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBEpPfD.img?h=410&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=465&y=194)
Fox News anchor Shep Smith went off on the "mind-boggling deception" in the Trump administration following Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer.
Smith on "Shepard Smith Reporting" urged the Trump administration to "come clean" about all of their ties to Russia, pointing out the repeated "lies" that members of the Trump team have told about who was at the meeting and what they discussed.
Trump Jr. originally denied that he met with any Russian officials, but eventually admitted to the meeting and released an email chain of him setting up the meeting. He revealed that he had been at the meeting with White House adviser Jared Kushner and Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
"If there's nothing there, and that's what they tell us, why all these lies?" Smith said. "The deception is mind-boggling and there are still people out there who think we're making it up. And one day they are going to realize we are not."
Chris Wallace paused for a moment after Smith's speech and added, "I don't know what to say."
‘Why is it lie after lie after lie’: Shep Smith and Chris Wallace on Trump Jr. Russia meeting lies (https://youtu.be/Q5LftyJmNtA)
7:15 YouTube video
So, Fox News isn't "#FAKENEWS" right? I mean Chris Wallace & Shep Smith are actual journalists not news talk show hosts, right? So this is actually getting to the TrumpNation not just the liberals of the #FAKENEWS viewers.
-
(Emphasis mine)
Sorry...it's kinda hard to figure out the story and the references...but it doesn't surprise me that refugees that come from a culture of the oppression of women's rights and treating women as property (ala Saudi Arabia) would have a hard time integrating into a liberal European culture...
But I don't think this is a Muslim problem per se, it's something radical Jihadists seem to be trying to use to justify aberrant and deviant behavior according to this article. ISIS: We Thank Allah for Letting Us Rape Non-Muslim Women (http://www.israelislamandendtimes.com/isis-we-thank-allah-for-letting-us-rape-non-muslim-women/) but this is about radical Jihadists in ISIS not all Muslim immigrants/refugees.
Note, that's an article that is from a near far right wing nut website called Israel, Islam and End Times (http://www.israelislamandendtimes.com/about-iiandet/).
So, what was your point for posting that?
-
Wow, it really sucks to be a Republican...
Pew: Most Republicans View Higher Education as Bad for America (http://www.thedailybeast.com/pew-most-republicans-view-higher-education-as-bad-for-america)
Fifty-eight percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, according to a new Pew Research Center study. This marks a 45 percent increase from last year's study. Comparatively, 72 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents say higher education has a positive impact on the country. Fifty-five percent of the general population was also found to think positively of higher education. The research center surveyed 2,504 adults across the country last month.
READ IT AT PEW RESEARCH CENTER (http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/)
This kinda tells the story of our partisan divide...
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/07/10093953/PP_17.06.30_institutions_lede_party.png)
It seems the GOP hates the national news media and higher education. Think about that for a moment and let that sink in...and think about the wing nut Trump put into as Secretary of Education. Also consider the impact on state funded higher education where GOP state government may make it more difficult or expensive to get a college education. From a Bloomberg article: Most Republicans Say Colleges Hurt America (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/most-republicans-say-colleges-hurt-america)
Donald Moynihan, a professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said he worries that Republican-dominated legislatures could act on their low regard for public colleges and universities by slashing their funding, resulting in tuition increases that would swell levels of student debt already at record levels.
The nation's roughly 7,000 colleges rely on elected officials at all levels of government for assorted subsidies, loans, grants and preferential tax treatment that allow some of them to amass billion-dollar endowments while their students borrow to make ends meet. Republicans control most state legislatures, governorships, both houses of Congress and the White House, though Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, has focused much of her first five months in office on making life easier for the nation's colleges by eliminating "burdensome" rules developed by the Obama administration.
Pew spokeswoman Bridget Johnson said the report's authors couldn't speculate on why Republicans' views had shifted so dramatically in just two years. But Moynihan pointed to a steady diet of headlines making hay of controversies such as protests against campus speakers. "This is a consequence of cultural and political messaging," he said.
So, attack science, attack higher education, attack facts, attack normal...this is right out of Steve Bannon's playbook...ya gonna let him win? I'm not...
-
Pew: Most Republicans View Higher Education as Bad for America (http://www.thedailybeast.com/pew-most-republicans-view-higher-education-as-bad-for-america)
‟I love the poorly educated.”
—Donald J. Trump, Feb. 23, 2016
-
Calling most American colleges "higher education" is an insult to... education. They are more like Mao Tsedong's re-education camps.
-
#NOTFAKENEWS from https://www.rt.com (https://www.rt.com)
Glad to see you are colluding with Russians, Jeff :)
-
Glad to see you are colluding with Russians, Jeff :)
Хорошо, спасибо.
Я вам отвечу по-горбачевски. Вы знаете, что это будет сложнее, чем простой ответ.
Я правильно написал это заявление?
:~)
-
Well, not to worry - apparently Theresa May is going to fix Trump's unfair reporting problem:
http://news.sky.com/story/president-donald-trump-urged-theresa-may-to-fix-better-uk-reception-for-him-10950212
Too funny - imagining that a useless lame duck PM who can't even fix her own majority can do anything to alter the perception that Trump is a total douchebag!
-
Trump campaign paid lawyer now representing son $50,000 in June
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-son-idUSKBN1A00QZ
QUOTE: July 15, 2017 / 9:58 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump's campaign paid $50,000 to the law office now representing Donald Trump Jr. a little more than a week before news surfaced of an unreported meeting with a Russian attorney that has prompted new accusations of collusion.
The payment to the Law Offices of Alan S. Futerfas, dated June 27, was disclosed in a filing with the Federal Election Commission on Saturday. It was described as covering "legal consulting" fees."
QUOTE: July 15, 2017 / 9:58 PM "Separately, the campaign also paid more than $538,000 to Jones Day, the law firm that represented Trump's campaign during the election. The campaign also paid $89,561 for "legal consulting" to The Trump Corporation, which is owned by the president. The payment was dated June 30th. "
QUOTE: July 15, 2017 / 9:58 PM "In the second quarter of 2017, Trump's re-election campaign raised about $8 million and spent $4.4 million, according to Saturday's disclosures.
Much of the money raised from individuals came in the form of "small dollar" donations, classed as donations of less than $250. Trump and his campaign have frequently touted the number of small-dollar donors as proof of his widespread support.
Trump filed for re-election the day after taking office - allowing his campaign to continue to raise and spend money while he is in office. "
I'm sure that many "small dollar" donators are happy to learn that their money is well spent on lawyer's fees, including Trump Organisation's (I didn't know they offered legal services). :(
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wasn't Jared going to fix the Middle East? We should stop distracting him and let him get on with the job. ;)
-
Wasn't Jared going to fix the Middle East? We should stop distracting him and let him get on with the job. ;)
Yeah, well, that didn't work out so well.
WILL TRUMP PULL OUT OF MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS AFTER REPORTS OF ABBAS KUSHNER RIFT? (http://www.newsweek.com/kushner-trump-middle-east-peace-628859)
(http://www1.cbn.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_xl_640x480/public/media/standard/images/jaredkushnerabbas_si.jpg?itok=LLd7swhJ)
A U.S. official denied reports that President Donald Trump was considering pulling out of peace negotiations between Israel and Palestinians after a rift opened up in the first meeting between Trump aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat reported Saturday that the meeting between Kushner and Abbas had been “tense.” Abbas was allegedly furious when Kushner relayed a set of demands from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to a translation of the report by the Jerusalem Post. (http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Trump-may-exit-out-of-Peace-talks-after-tense-KushnerAbbas-meeting-497795).
Israeli daily Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.797566) reported that Palestinian officials were “greatly disappointed” following their Wednesday meeting with Kushner and Jonathan Greenblatt, Trump’s Middle East envoy.
"They sounded like Netanyahu's advisers and not like fair arbiters," a senior Palestinian official told the publication. "They started presenting Netanyahu's issues and then we asked to hear from them clear stances regarding the core issues of the conflict."
According to the report, Kushner and Greenblatt criticized Abbas for failing to condemn a terrorist attack in Jerusalem last week that left one dead, and for refusing to meet Trump’s appointee as U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, over his support for the settlement program.
A Palestinian official told Al-Hayat that Kushner will now report back to Trump, who will decide whether there are grounds for continuing talks.
Apparently Kushner may have been put in the back seat while the US ambassador to Israel steps in...
US ambassador to join meeting with Palestinian negotiators (http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-ambassador-to-join-meeting-with-palestinian-negotiators/)
In policy change, David Friedman reportedly to accompany envoy Greenblatt to Jerusalem talks on restarting peace process
US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process Jason Greenblatt was scheduled Tuesday to meet with Palestinian negotiators, and in an unusual development, US Ambassador David Friedman will also attend.
The meeting was to be held in Jerusalem and is aimed at negotiating a restart of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. US Consul General in Jerusalem Donald Blome, who is in charge of ties with the Palestinians, will also reportedly be at the talks.
Friedman, as envoy to Israel, is responsible for ties with the Jewish state and his presence at the table marks a change in US diplomacy said to have been ordered by Trump himself.
A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to Haaretz that Friedman will be at the meeting and noted that Trump has made it clear he wants the ambassador to be a key member of the US negotiating team, along with Trump’s son-in-law and special adviser Jared Kushner.
Meanwhile Jared & Ivanka are kinda laying low...from Variety:
Sun Valley: Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump Keep Low Profile During Talks on Political Divisions, Mid-East Peace (EXCLUSIVE) (http://variety.com/2017/film/news/sun-valley-ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-1202495235/)
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who are fleeing a wave of negative headlines currently enveloping the White House, are the oddball star attraction at Allen & Co.’s annual media and technology conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. But the members of the First Family are trying to maintain a low profile among the moguls and billionaires.
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
The couple arrived at the mountain resort on Wednesday evening. The week-long conference unfolds at the Sun Valley Lodge, a bucolic retreat, adorned with pools, tennis courts, and rolling hills. Kushner and Trump had dinner at the hotel’s ice rink, where they mingled with such high profile guests as CBS chief Leslie Moonves, according to attendees.
The annual conference draws a number of big names from Hollywood and Silicon Valley — Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Time Warner chief Jeff Bewkes, ICM Partners’ Chris Silbermann, and producer Brian Grazer are among the guests. While Kushner and Trump have been attending conference sessions, the news cycle has been dominated by stories related to a Kremlin-connected lawyer’s offers to help Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The scandal, and the release of emails from Donald Trump Jr. providing proof of the exchange, is raising questions about the role that Russia played in the recent presidential election.
Nice place to go hide out in huh?
I guess the Donald is facing the reality that the Middle East, kinda like Healthcare in the US is very, very difficult. After all, wasn't it Trump himself that said thought being president “would be easier”? Exclusive: Trump says he thought being president would be easier than his old life (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA)
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/trump%20face%203_5.jpg)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - He misses driving, feels as if he is in a cocoon, and is surprised how hard his new job is.
President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.
"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."
-
Not really sure what you are implying here. Every administration have had a plethora of so called "experts" that "will" fix the middle east and nothing has happened yet. So it's not like he could do any worse.
In all seriousness though, the Middle East will never be fixed unless we, the USA, stop providing all help to Israel until they end their apartheid governance of the Palestinians. I don't see any political will strong enough in this country for that to happen though; not even Obama had the grit to vote against Israel last fall.
Sorry, I was being cute. My comment was based on a statement that Trump made during a public talk, press conference or something, I'm not sure where it was. But John Oliver showed the short clip on his rant about Jared having too many jobs. Trump said something like, 'I'm sending Jared to the middle east. If Jared can't fix the middle east, then nobody can' (that's not an exact quote). If you're curious to see the clip, best bet is to watch Oliver's rant.
-
So, this is getting creepy when Sun Tzu's Art of War is being quoted relating to the whole #FAKENEWS open warfare from the White House...
‘Fake News Industrial Complex’: Dr. Seb Gorka Defines the Enemy ‘Opposition Party’ Media (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/16/fake-news-industrial-complex-dr-seb-gorka-defines-the-enemy-opposition-party-media/)
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/04/Sebastian-Gorka-pointing-scowl-getty-640x480.jpg)
Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to President Donald J. Trump, has taken the next major step in the war against the legacy, establishment media: He has now defined the enemy.
President Trump and White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon—who along with Gorka is a former Breitbart News official—earlier this year identified the media class as the “opposition party.”
That happened in late January, just after the inauguration. Bannon infamously teased the media alongside White House chief of staff Reince Priebus as reporters lined an area of the White House at one point, saying there’s “the opposition party, all lined up.”
Trump then, in mid-February, further drew a line in the sand against the media, noting that their continued publication of fake news makes them an “enemy of the American people.”
CNN and others like the New York Times and MSNBC and so many more continue to publish demonstrably fake news without correction, apology, or consequences—unless they come under serious pressure as CNN was forced to have three of its editorial staff resign over the very fake news scandal engulfing the network. But since the media continues to refuse to act appropriately, now President Trump’s and the American people’s battle against fake news is hitting a new level.
Gorka, in a series of television appearances this weekend, has come forward with a terminology to define the enemy in this war: The “Fake News Industrial Complex.” Defining the enemy—knowing the enemy—is critical to winning in war.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle,” Sun Tzu wrote in the Art of War, per a translation Lionel Giles published by MIT.
Having a clear definition of the terminology and structure of the fake news world—the “Fake News Industrial Complex” does that—makes it easier for Trump to win the ever-looming war with the media. Sources close to the president tell Breitbart News that a “filthy, bloody war looms” with the fake news media—something the media will lose when confronted directly, head-on, for the first time it has ever been challenged.
I find him creepy...he's a smart guy and very well spoken...just like what you would expect Satan to sound like. I wonder if his tongue is split? And he has fans, lots of rabid fans...well, ok, primarily one fan, Trump!
Trump's favorite new TV defender: Sebastian Gorka (https://www.axios.com/trump-is-loving-gorkas-tv-host-confrontations-2458611709.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twsocialshare&utm_campaign=organic)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/gorka.jpg)
In the more establishment-aligned parts of the White House, Sebastian Gorka is a figure of ridicule, with some staff believing he's an embarrassment when he represents the administration on TV.
But to Trump's nationalist base, and the one person who matters inside the White House, he's become a rock star in recent days. Gorka's stock has soared as President Trump has watched him on various cable channels fighting with the hosts and accusing them of being part of the "fake news industrial complex."
Before Trump left for Paris yesterday evening, he was asking West Wing staff, "Did you see Gorka? So great, I mean really, truly great." Trump loved, in particular, when Gorka told CNN morning host Alisyn Camerota that more people are interested in cartoons than CNN, and that the network's ratings are lower than "Nick at Nite."
Highlights from recent Gorka hits on cable news:
To MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle: "Would you like to talk about Mosul or continue talking about the nothing burger story? ... The Hillary Clinton campaign collects dirt on Bernie Sanders. Is that unusual?"
To CNN's Anderson Cooper: "I'm sad to see CNN fall to this ... I know you want salacious and sensational coverage for your ratings so your corporate sponsors and owners will have more money, but that's not media, that's not reportage. It's just fake news."
To CNN's Alisyn Camerota: "The amount of time you spend in desperation on a topic that has plummeted you to 13th place in viewership ranking across America — more people watch Nick at Nite cartoons than CNN today."
Gorka's favorite line: "Fake news industrial complex," which he said on Twitter was coined by Andy Surabian, a Bannon aide.
He's really fast on his feet and likes to slide his daggers in between your ribs with that cheshire cat grin on his face. And he apparently impresses Trump...well, at least at the moment. As we know, Trump's ratings can come and go and people's ratings can come and go like the tide.
But this guy is dangerous...which is I think why Trump & his Minions™ love Sebastian Gorka (for the moment)!
-
This is pretty self explanatory...
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/Presidential_Job_Approval_170714.png)
6 months in, a record low for Trump, with troubles from Russia to health care (POLL) (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/months-record-low-trump-troubles-russia-health-care/story?id=48639490)
Americans give President Donald Trump the lowest six-month approval rating of any president in polls dating back 70 years, punctuated by questions about his competence on the world stage, his effectiveness, the GOP health care plan and Russia’s role in the 2016 election.
Just 36 percent of Americans polled in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll approve of Trump’s job performance, down 6 points from his 100-day mark, itself a low. The previous president closest to this level at or near six months was Gerald Ford, at 39 percent, in February 1975.
See PDF with full results here. (http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1189a1TrumpatSixMonths.pdf)
-
...he's a smart guy and very well spoken...just like what you would expect Satan to sound like...
Who? Obama?
And to extend your metaphor, since, in your opinion, Trump is neither, does it make him sound like...God?
;)
-
And to extend your metaphor, since, in your opinion, Trump is neither, does it make him sound like...God?
Naw, Satan's Tool/Fool
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder145/500x/76613145/10564-when-a-russian-influence-operation-thinks-you-would-be-willing-to-be-a-.jpg)
(you know полезные дураки or useful idiot)
-
So, Trump and May might be breaking up...
(this is from the British press which can be vicious–does that make it #FAKENEWS?)
Donald Trump begs Theresa May to fix a ‘warm welcome’ for his state visit – and says he won’t set a date for it until he knows he’s going to get ‘a better reception’ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4027315/trump-may-tape-leak/)
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/588c9c011700002f001d0e41.jpeg)
The cover story image above is from May's visit to the White House, January, 2017...not related to the current story from The Sun below.
US President warns he will not visit until he can guarantee a good reception and pleas with Theresa May to help influence public
BRAZEN Donald Trump urged the PM to “fix it” for him to get a warm welcome in Britain. And he warned he won’t set foot here until the public start liking him. The US President made his shameless plea in a private conversation with Theresa May to plan his state visit — now postponed until next year.
Two million people signed a petition calling for Mr Trump’s proposed trip to be axed.
A transcript of the chat, seen by senior diplomats, reveals his touchiness. Mr Trump says: “I haven’t had great coverage out there lately, Theresa.”
She replies awkwardly: “Well, you know what the British press are like.”
He replies: “I still want to come, but I’m in no rush.
“So, if you can fix it for me, it would make things a lot easier.
“When I know I’m going to get a better reception, I’ll come and not before.”
-
“So, if you can fix it for me, it would make things a lot easier.
“When I know I’m going to get a better reception, I’ll come and not before.”
Poor snowflake Donald.
-
I find him creepy...
Is he still around? I thought he disappeared along with his Nazi medals?
-
Is he still around? I thought he disappeared along with his Nazi medals?
Nope...they don't let Conway out too much except on Fox but Gorka was the recent Trump White House spokesman to be unleashed on the MSM.
-
I'm sorry...I found this on my Facebook feed and couldn't pass it up.
Donald Trump’s Praying Hands White House Photo Backfires Beautifully (http://www.viralplague.com/donald-trumps-praying-hands-white-house-photo-backfires-beautifully/)
You can always count on the internet to deliver. A recent photo surfaced of alleged president Donald Trump being pawed at by a pastor and enthusiastic supplicants seeking to wipe some Jesus on his awkwardly fitting suit. Wasting absolutely no time, the Viral Plague staff got to work doctoring up some…alternative scenarios.
(https://i2.wp.com/www.viralplague.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/trump-hands.jpg?w=460)
The original
(https://i1.wp.com/www.viralplague.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/trump-cliff.jpg?w=432)
(https://i2.wp.com/www.viralplague.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Trump-toilet.jpg?w=431)
(https://i1.wp.com/www.viralplague.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/trump-grave.jpg?w=431)
(https://i1.wp.com/www.viralplague.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/trump-great-white.jpg?w=431)
(https://i2.wp.com/www.viralplague.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/trump-stairs.jpg?w=431)
They even have a blank template if you want to do your own...
(https://i1.wp.com/www.viralplague.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/trump-hands-transparent.png?w=432)
Sorry...late at nite, it really struck me as funny!
-
What? Trump is religious? Since when.
-
What? Trump is religious? Since when.
Since he decided to become president. Just like Obama. At least he didn't have to convert first ;)
-
Interesting sidebar about Carrier (https://vimeo.com/205947703).
-
Interesting video. It completely ignores those three little words that appear on nearly everything we buy these days.
-
Lyin' Donny Trump said:
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
The ABC/Washington Post Poll, even though almost 40% is not bad at this time, was just about the most inaccurate poll around election time!
7:10 AM - 16 Jul 2017
And from Politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/17/donald-trump/trumps-false-claim-his-presidential-approval-ratin/):
Our ruling
Trump said his six-month approval poll numbers are "not bad" relative to other presidents at this point in his presidency.
Not bad isn’t a scientific term, but by any sober measure Trump is performing relatively worse compared to his contemporaries, as well as any president since World War II.
We rate his claim False.
-------
Share The Facts
Donald Trump
President
Says his job approval poll numbers are "not bad" relative to other presidents at this point in his presidency.
Twitter – Sunday, July 16, 2017
(https://dhpikd1t89arn.cloudfront.net/rating_images/politifact/tom-false.jpg)
-
So, what else is new? Trump lies again...
Trump Says He Has Signed More Bills Than Any President, Ever. He Hasn’t. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/trump-laws-bills.html?_r=0)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/09dc-laws1-superJumbo.jpg)
President Trump signed two bills into law during a ceremony in the Diplomatic Reception Room
last month.CreditAl Drago/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — To hear President Trump tell it, his first six months in the White House should be judged in part by the legislation he has signed into law.
At rallies, in speeches and on Twitter, Mr. Trump repeatedly boasts of the bills he has signed (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation?field_legislation_status_value=0) — 42 as of this week. He has said no president has “passed more legislation,” conceding once earlier this year that he trails Franklin D. Roosevelt, who he notes “had a major Depression to handle.”
On Monday, he went even further, claiming to have bested all of his predecessors in turning bills into law.
“We’ve signed more bills — and I’m talking about through the legislature — than any president, ever,” Mr. Trump said at a “Made in America” event at the White House. “For a while, Harry Truman had us. And now, I think, we have everybody.”
Turning to Vice President Mike Pence, he added an aside about news media fact-checkers: “I better say ‘think’; otherwise they will give you a Pinocchio. And I don’t like Pinocchios.”
In fact, as he approaches six months in office on Thursday, Mr. Trump is slightly behind the lawmaking pace for the past six presidents, who as a group signed an average of 43 bills during the same period. And an analysis of the bills Mr. Trump signed shows that about half were minor and inconsequential, passed by Congress with little debate. Among recent presidents, both the total number of bills he signed and the legislation’s substance make Mr. Trump about average.
--snip--
A Breakdown of Trump’s Bills
President Trump has signed 42 bills since taking office.
15 reversing Obama regulations
14 ceremonial and routine lawmaking
5 bureaucratic tweaks
4 space and science bills
4 veterans bills
--snip--
But almost half the other bills Mr. Trump has signed into law are ceremonial or routine. The president includes in his count laws like the one to rename the federal courthouse in Nashville after Fred Thompson, the actor and former senator who died in 2015. Even the Republican leadership in the Senate does not count those kinds of bills when they tally their legislative achievements.
By contrast, Mr. Trump’s tally includes three laws to appoint members to the Smithsonian Board of Regents, another to seek research into better weather reports, and one to require the Department of Homeland Security to manage its fleet of vehicles more efficiently.
Marc Short, the president’s top legislative adviser, acknowledged that no one would try to claim that renaming a building should be considered “landmark legislation.” But he defended the president’s repeated promotion of the bills he has signed into law.
“It’s a response to a lot of media coverage that has tried to downplay what he’s accomplished,” Mr. Short said. “There’s an overarching coverage about what’s not been accomplished. The president is trying to point out what we actually have done.”
So, how's that TrumpCare legislation going Donny?
-
Such a busy, busy boy!
Trump’s ‘Made In America’ Week Is Already Backfiring Spectacularly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-made-in-america_us_596c391ce4b03389bb1878e1)
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-07/17/16/campaign_images/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-01/donald-trump-spent-the-first-day-of-made-in-ameri-2-22427-1500323060-2_dblbig.jpg)
Donald Trump enjoyed playing in a fire truck outside the White House on Monday as he kicked off a week showcasing products that were made in America.
"Where's the fire? Where's the fire? Put it out fast!" the president said as he climbed into the cab of a Wisconsin-built fire truck and pretended to be a firefighter.
The president and his family have relied heavily on foreign manufacturing.
President Donald Trump is set to declare this week “Made In America” week (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342235-white-house-announces-new-campaign-promoting-trumps-agenda) to help promote products manufactured in the United States, according to The Hill.
But he’s already coming under fire for the move, given that Trump-branded products are often manufactured overseas.
Many of Trump’s clothing items have been made in Mexico and China. During the campaign last year, his use of steel and aluminum from China became a campaign issue.
And just last week, The Washington Post reported on the fashion line of first daughter and White House aide Ivanka Trump, finding that much of it is made by low-wage workers in countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and China.
White House spokeswoman Helen Aguirre Ferre was asked on Sunday if the president would use “Made in America” week to push his daughter to make those products in the United States.
"We’ll get back to you on that" (http://traffic.pubexchange.com/a/c58811b4-27d9-46ab-907c-5f8ee624e840/26bb8b8a-5f5d-4a1e-80ce-6bcf0a385e49/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2017%2F07%2F16%2Fwhite-house-theme-weeks-240605) she said, according to Politico.
Critics on social media aren’t waiting for the response. They blasted Trump and his family for not practicing what they preach.
Hey Donny, here's where the fire is...
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Some guy caught his pants on fire and his aids can't seem to put the fire out...
-
So here is my contribution to this subject:
-
As hopeless & unpleasant as Trump is, if he's impeached or in some other way relinquishes the presidency, then the next in line is going to be worse. Pence is a scary-as-**** Dominionist a***hole, and equally as fascistic in outlook as Trump. If you get shot of him you get the inanely grinning Ryan, who's also an unpleasant right-wing a***hole. And frankly, thereafter it's a***holes all the way down. I'd stick with Trump.
-
I'd stick with Trump.
At least he is entertaining. I even subscribed to the Washington Post just to see what is happening over the pond. Trump, opioid epidemic, goodbye america.
-
So here is my contribution to this subject:
Fun...course now the Secret Service will come a knocking...
-
I'd stick with Trump.
Well, here's the problem with that...
Trump: ‘Let Obamacare Fail…I’m Not Going to Own It’ (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-lays-blame-health-care-bill-failure-n784006)
(https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/07/18/104592873-GettyImages-816565140.600x400.jpg?v=1500381869)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Tuesday he would let Obamacare "fail" in the aftermath of his party's botched efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
"I think we're probably in that position where we'll let Obamacare fail," Trump said at the White House. "We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you, the Republicans are not going to own it."
Once Obamacare collapses, Trump said Democrats would join Republicans so Congress would be able to “come up with new plan, really good for people.”
He thinks people will blame ObamaCare on the Democrats instead of the GOP and himself? The GOP had 7+ years of planning and Trump promised repeal and replace "on day 1" and of course couldn't do it...who knew healthcare was so difficult? Well, the Democrats did if anybody had bothered to ask them. The GOP Senate let 13 old white guys come up with a "plan" without even asking the rest of the GOP Senators (let alone any women). Plan B got killed when McCain went into the hospital, plan b got killed and even a straight clean repeal of ObamaCare dies today...
And Trump thinks it's a good idea to just let millions of Americans swing in the wind while ObamaCare dies?
#MAGA–WhoDidYouVoteFor?
-
Fun...course now the Secret Service will come a knocking...
Fun. Hmmm.
As much as I support free speech, it is saddening to see such a level of vulgar disrespect for the President of the United States. I know, I know, they were doing it to Obama as well, monkey references, noose, burned or hung effigies, etc. But those were done by mostly anonymous rednecks, and often secretly. Never have I seen such level of violent and public disrespect by Hollywood celebrities and, much more importantly, on this forum, frequented by highly educated, otherwise civilized, intellectuals and artists. Sad.
As for the argument that Trump deserves it, such an argument works in all other scenarios. There will always be some who would argue that Obama (or anyone else we disagree with) deserved it too. Just a matter of perspective and yardstick.
-
Trump has brought it upon himself, Slobo. That's how he treats people.
-
Trump has brought it upon himself, Slobo. That's how he treats people.
Actually, Trump is like an amplifying mirror...he started off being mean, rude and crude and rather than get punished for it, he experienced success. The worse he got, the more common, decent people were revolted but the Trump fans reveled in it. It became a feedback loop that kept getting worse and then, thanks to Putin and a poor democratic nominee, he ended up President of the United Sates of America...and, as he said ‘I’m President and They’re Not’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/us/politics/trump-tweets-stoke-voter-fraud-claim-and-attack-news-media.html)
WASHINGTON — President Trump used the first part of his holiday weekend getaway to issue more denunciations of the news media, using a celebration of American veterans and freedom at an evening rally to thunder that he would not allow the “fake” media to stop his agenda.
Speaking to raucous supporters at a faith rally at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington Saturday night, Mr. Trump brought the crowd to its feet by condemning news organizations.
“The fake media is trying to silence us,” Mr. Trump told the crowd at the concert hall, after returning to Washington briefly from his weekend getaway at his golf club in New Jersey. “But we will not let them. Because the people know the truth. The fake media tried to stop us from going to the White House. But I’m president and they’re not.”
The next day Trump posted the Trump vs CNN video on twitter...
And, this is the friggin' President...
At some point, the American public in general and the GOP in particular will need to reel him in. Trump isn't helping the GOP–hell, he's not helping anybody but himself and his family...nothing is getting better, so the GOP needs to figure out a way of working with the Democrats and save our country from Trump.
-
Ok, now we have another report of a Trump administration official meeting with a Russian government official that was previously undisclosed...it seems Trump himself met with Putin one on one with only a Russian translator while at a G20 dinner.
So, why is it Trump officials have a hard time disclosing meeting with Russians? Did Trump and the White House think this wouldn't leak out?
Donald Trump Had A Second Meeting With Vladimir Putin At G-20 Summit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-putin-second-meeting_us_596e840be4b00db3d0f3d45a)
The meeting was previously undisclosed.
President Donald Trump had a second, informal meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit earlier this month, White House officials confirmed Tuesday.
The July 7 meeting was undisclosed until Ian Bremmer, a political scientist and president of the Eurasia Group, told Charlie Rose in an interview released Tuesday that the two leaders met on the sidelines of the global summit in Hamburg, Germany, following a dinner with the heads of state attending the conference. That second, private meeting took place after Trump’s formal sit-down with the Russian president, which lasted more than two hours.
The White House then confirmed to NBC News and Reuters that the meeting had in fact taken place.
According to Bremmer, the second meeting lasted an hour, and the only person present aside from Trump and Putin was a Russian translator.
There is no official government record of the meeting.
The circumstances of the meeting as well as the initial decision by White House officials not to disclose it have again drawn scrutiny to Trump’s relationship with Moscow.
“You have an hour that evening that no one’s even heard of,” said Bremmer in an interviewing airing on Bloomberg and PBS. “We clearly know that Trump does not care what the media has to say about his desire to have a close, personal relationship with the Russian president, and what drives it.”
He continued: “Never in my life as a political scientist have I seen two countries, major countries, with a constellation of national interests that are as dissonant, while the two leaders seem to be doing everything possible to make nice and be close to each other.”
Maybe there's something else going on?
(http://images.mtvnn.com/3f4469ddca506f7c31d1f88a81e55949/200?fallback_id=59214d1fea6eb0f1fb6672384fc30844)
-
it is saddening to see such a level of vulgar disrespect for the President of the United States.
It's amazing that anyone should think he deserves otherwise!?
He has a long history of egregious bad behavior and dubious
associations. That doesn't change because of the ballot box.
And, egadz, what does he do first up? --try to brag about having
the biggest crowd?!? He is his own Tweeter, that's not fake news.
Gimme a break!
And let's see HIS tax returns,
and HIS 30_000 e-msg.s to compare to Hillary's!
)-:
-
Trump: ‘Let Obamacare Fail…I’m Not Going to Own It’ (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-lays-blame-health-care-bill-failure-n784006)
Trump and the GOP already own it. They assumed ownership when they destabilized insurance markets by promising "repeal and replace", repeal only, and other things not enforcing Obamacare's individual mandate. Insurance companies will not participate with all the variables unknown and the complete chaos Trump has caused, so they are pulling out. This was happening to a small extent already, but it was a surprisingly small and highly vocalized extent. Trump and the GOP started what they knew would be a self fulfilling prophesy with all of their rhetoric. So now they will let it spiral out of control while Americans suffer because of it. I'm sure Trump doesn't care as long as he gets his way.
-
As hopeless & unpleasant as Trump is, if he's impeached or in some other way relinquishes the presidency, then the next in line is going to be worse. Pence is . . . scary. . . .
Important point. Trump is as unhinged ideologically as he often seems psychologically. He is certainly not a conservative by any reasonable definition of the term (on either side of the Atlantic) and it requires a very liberal (sic) interpretation of his incoherent political philosophy to refer to him as an adherent to the traditional positions of the Republican Party (our side of the Atlantic).
Mike Pence has strong, consistent, right-wing (albeit, arguably, in American terms not genuinely conservative) opinions. He is experienced, disciplined and committed — all characteristics Trump lacks. As president, he would work cooperatively and probably competently with the majority in the House of Representatives, and I suspect would command support on most issues from the narrower Republican majority in the Senate. With Pence in the White House, many moderate members of Congress who are currently doing what they can to keep Trump under some semblance of control, fearful of being challenged from the right in state party primary elections, would probably fall in line under Pence.
The people who are hoping for Trump's impeachment, or removal because of disability pursuant to the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I know quite a few of them, should think twice about what they're asking for.
-
As much as I support free speech, it is saddening to see such a level of vulgar disrespect for the President of the United States.
it takes Trump to see Schewe for what he actually is ;D
-
Fun. Hmmm.
As much as I support free speech, it is saddening to see such a level of vulgar disrespect for the President of the United States. I know, I know, they were doing it to Obama as well, monkey references, noose, burned or hung effigies, etc. But those were done by mostly anonymous rednecks, and often secretly. Never have I seen such level of violent and public disrespect by Hollywood celebrities and, much more importantly, on this forum, frequented by highly educated, otherwise civilized, intellectuals and artists. Sad.
As for the argument that Trump deserves it, such an argument works in all other scenarios. There will always be some who would argue that Obama (or anyone else we disagree with) deserved it too. Just a matter of perspective and yardstick.
Although I'd argue that the "offensive" language directed towards Obama was much less "underground" that you believe it to be, I think you're absolutely right on the larger point.
-
Make America great again (http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/07/17/trumps-made-in-america-week-is-already-backfiring-spectacular_a_23033555/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage) NOT!
-
As much as I support free speech, it is saddening to see such a level of vulgar disrespect for the President of the United States.
As much as I support free speech, it is saddening to see such a level of vulgar disrespect from the President of the United States.
-
As much as I support free speech, it is saddening to see such a level of vulgar disrespect from the President of the United States.
This is undeniably true as well.
-
Important point. Trump is as unhinged ideologically as he often seems psychologically. He is certainly not a conservative by any reasonable definition of the term (on either side of the Atlantic) and it requires a very liberal (sic) interpretation of his incoherent political philosophy to refer to him as an adherent to the traditional positions of the Republican Party (our side of the Atlantic).
Mike Pence has strong, consistent, right-wing (albeit, arguably, in American terms not genuinely conservative) opinions. He is experienced, disciplined and committed — all characteristics Trump lacks. As president, he would work cooperatively and probably competently with the majority in the House of Representatives, and I suspect would command support on most issues from the narrower Republican majority in the Senate. With Pence in the White House, many moderate members of Congress who are currently doing what they can to keep Trump under some semblance of control, fearful of being challenged from the right in state party primary elections, would probably fall in line under Pence.
The people who are hoping for Trump's impeachment, or removal because of disability pursuant to the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I know quite a few of them, should think twice about what they're asking for.
What goes around comes around. Only a majority in the House is required to impeach. If one party in a majority in the House uses Impeachment against a president of the opposite party without real due course of high crimes and misdemeanors just to increase their power, then there will be payback when the parties are reversed. This is very dangerous to America. This is true even if conviction is unlikely because a 2/3 majority in the Senate must vote to convict. The president, pre-occupied with defending himself, is in a weakened state. His duties are not carried out properly. I believe that's what happened to Bill Clinton during his impeachment. He wasn't paying attention to get Bin Laden and Al Khaida which eventually led to 9-11 and all the subsequent wars in the Middle East that we still are fighting. The Republicans were wrong when they did it. But that doesn't mean we should do it again. Elections are the proper procedure for replacing president under all but extreme situations. Otherwise, we'll turn into a quasi-banana republic.
-
Believe all you like, Alan. The truth is the Clinton administration was anything but distracted before 911. They warned the Bush people specifically about impending attacks by Bin Laden, even mentioning aircraft as weapons.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KIz_4D5vli0
-
Wow...now it's starting to all make sense. The article is long but tells the interesting story about Trump's longstanding relationships with "Russians" (usually of the criminal kind).
Trump’s Russian Laundromat (https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/Trump-laundermat.png)
How to use Trump Tower and other luxury high-rises to clean dirty money, run an international crime syndicate, and propel a failed real estate developer into the White House.
In 1984, a Russian émigré named David Bogatin went shopping for apartments in New York City. The 38-year-old had arrived in America seven years before, with just $3 in his pocket. But for a former pilot in the Soviet Army—his specialty had been shooting down Americans over North Vietnam—he had clearly done quite well for himself. Bogatin wasn’t hunting for a place in Brighton Beach, the Brooklyn enclave known as “Little Odessa” for its large population of immigrants from the Soviet Union. Instead, he was fixated on the glitziest apartment building on Fifth Avenue, a gaudy, 58-story edifice with gold-plated fixtures and a pink-marble atrium: Trump Tower.
A monument to celebrity and conspicuous consumption, the tower was home to the likes of Johnny Carson, Steven Spielberg, and Sophia Loren. Its brash, 38-year-old developer was something of a tabloid celebrity himself. Donald Trump was just coming into his own as a serious player in Manhattan real estate, and Trump Tower was the crown jewel of his growing empire. From the day it opened, the building was a hit—all but a few dozen of its 263 units had sold in the first few months. But Bogatin wasn’t deterred by the limited availability or the sky-high prices. The Russian plunked down $6 million to buy not one or two, but five luxury condos. The big check apparently caught the attention of the owner. According to Wayne Barrett, who investigated the deal for the Village Voice, Trump personally attended the closing, along with Bogatin.
If the transaction seemed suspicious—multiple apartments for a single buyer who appeared to have no legitimate way to put his hands on that much money—there may have been a reason. At the time, Russian mobsters were beginning to invest in high-end real estate, which offered an ideal vehicle to launder money from their criminal enterprises. “During the ’80s and ’90s, we in the U.S. government repeatedly saw a pattern by which criminals would use condos and high-rises to launder money,” says Jonathan Winer, a deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement in the Clinton administration. “It didn’t matter that you paid too much, because the real estate values would rise, and it was a way of turning dirty money into clean money. It was done very systematically, and it explained why there are so many high-rises where the units were sold but no one is living in them.” When Trump Tower was built, as David Cay Johnston reports in The Making of Donald Trump, it was only the second high-rise in New York that accepted anonymous buyers.
In 1987, just three years after he attended the closing with Trump, Bogatin pleaded guilty to taking part in a massive gasoline-bootlegging scheme with Russian mobsters. After he fled the country, the government seized his five condos at Trump Tower, saying that he had purchased them to “launder money, to shelter and hide assets.” A Senate investigation into organized crime later revealed that Bogatin was a leading figure in the Russian mob in New York. His family ties, in fact, led straight to the top: His brother ran a $150 million stock scam with none other than Semion Mogilevich, whom the FBI considers the “boss of bosses” of the Russian mafia. At the time, Mogilevich—feared even by his fellow gangsters as “the most powerful mobster in the world”—was expanding his multibillion-dollar international criminal syndicate into America.
Since Trump’s election as president, his ties to Russia have become the focus of intense scrutiny, most of which has centered on whether his inner circle colluded with Russia to subvert the U.S. election. A growing chorus in Congress is also asking pointed questions about how the president built his business empire. Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has called for a deeper inquiry into “Russian investment in Trump’s businesses and properties.”
It's a long and complicated story but if you want a 4 minute video version with the author, Craig Unger. He appeared on the 11th Hour with Brian Williams.
Report: Russian mob money helped build Trump business empire (http://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/report-russian-mob-money-helped-build-trump-business-empire-1002228291948)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/Unger.jpg)
It's clear that Trump has been "helped" by the Russians for over 3 decades. It's not clear if Trump was a willing or knowledgeable participant in some of the underworld activities that took place in or around Trump's properties and casinos, if he was a really smart man, he would have to. Personally, I think he's really, really greedy and will do anything to win and make money but I honestly don't think he's really bright. I think it's possible Trump didn't "know" because he really didn't want to know. As long as Trump had no exposure or liability, he couldn't care less what mobsters did–if he could profit from them.
I think this is the real thing Trump is terrified of...that the Special Council will be able to go through all of his associations and business connections and find out all there is to find out about Trump's relationship with Russia...
I also think this explains why Trump, even with the evidence of Russia's interference still refuses to blame Russia and his now good friend Putin...
But hey, we''l see...maybe there is no there there...
-
Believe all you like, Alan. The truth is the Clinton administration was anything but distracted before 911. They warned the Bush people specifically about impending attacks by Bin Laden, even mentioning aircraft as weapons.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KIz_4D5vli0
Clinton did nothing. His terms were from 1992 - 2000. The World Trade Center was first attacked by Bin Laden and Al Khaida in 1994 when an explosion in one of the towers killed 6. I lived in NYC and remember it well. I think he sent a missile and that was it. That was 7 years before 9-11. Then there was the USS Cole attack in 2000 that killed a bunch of sailors, also under his watch. Warning the next president is a copout, an excuse to cover the fact he did nothing. He should have gone after Bin Laden during his term but he had more important personal issues to address. I will say the impeachment wasn't his only distraction what with all the bimbo eruptions he and Hillary had to deal with.
But I don't want to change the discussion and argue about what he did and didn't do. The point is that impeachment is a serious matter. It helped distract Clinton from his job. It's a terrible way to get rid of a President for political purposes. Look at all the distraction from the Russian problems. The whole political climate is in turmoil. None of this helps America deal with other very important issues. If you want to change the politics, then change Congress in the 2018 election to Democrat and then replace Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
-
Wow...now it's starting to all make sense. The article is long but tells the interesting story about Trump's longstanding relationships with "Russians" (usually of the criminal kind).
It's a long and complicated story but if you want a 4 minute video version with the author, Craig Unger. He appeared on the 11th Hour with Brian Williams.
Report: Russian mob money helped build Trump business empire (http://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/report-russian-mob-money-helped-build-trump-business-empire-1002228291948)
It's clear that Trump has been "helped" by the Russians for over 3 decades. It's not clear if Trump was a willing or knowledgeable participant in some of the underworld activities that took place in or around Trump's properties and casinos, if he was a really smart man, he would have to. Personally, I think he's really, really greedy and will do anything to win and make money but I honestly don't think he's really bright. I think it's possible Trump didn't "know" because he really didn't want to know. As long as Trump had no exposure or liability, he couldn't care less what mobsters did–if he could profit from them.
I think this is the real thing Trump is terrified of...that the Special Council will be able to go through all of his associations and business connections and find out all there is to find out about Trump's relationship with Russia...
I also think this explains why Trump, even with the evidence of Russia's interference still refuses to blame Russia and his now good friend Putin...
But hey, we''l see...maybe there is no there there...
There you go again with guilt by association. Dropping the "well, he must be a crook because he sold apartments to crooks." argument.
More fake news. Look, there are all kinds of people buying real estate apartments in NYC to hide their money. They're attracted to NYC because of the high value of apartments provide a good place to store and protect wealth. Russian Mafioso, rich mainland Chinese protecting their wealth from the Communist government should things go bad, etc. A real estate developer doesn't check the moral values and reasons people buy his apartments. What is Trump or any condo seller suppose to say? "Well, I don't think I can sell you those apartments until you prove to me that the money is from legit earnings?"
Did you check the financial credentials and moral turpitude of the buyer who bought your house? I doubt it. Your only concern was whether he could come up with the mortgage or cash payment. And when he did, you gladly accepted his check.
-
Expecting that the office of the President be treated with more dignity is a little beside the point now. Trump, Bannon, Roger Stone, etc., put an end to all that a long time ago. Complaining about it now is too late. That ship sailed.
It might be better not to add to that bonfire, but that's probably not going to happen. Anyway, if you look at the history of political satire, it's no worse now than it has ever been. If you want politics to be treated with dignity, then you will have to raise a new generation of dignified politicians.
Besides that, I have a clarifying question about Pence. I have read references about him refusing to have dinner with a woman who is not his wife. Is this real or does it stem from a comedy sketch that has morphed into something viral? Does anyone here know? Because if it's real, isn't that a little Taliban-like? Fundamentalists of all stripes seem to have some innate fear of women. It's very odd behaviour and I don't understand why more people aren't offended by it or afraid of people who think like that. It's way past normal.
-
Expecting that the office of the President be treated with more dignity is a little beside the point now. Trump, Bannon, Roger Stone, etc., put an end to all that a long time ago. Complaining about it now is too late. That ship sailed.
It might be better not to add to that bonfire, but that's probably not going to happen. Anyway, if you look at the history of political satire, it's no worse now than it has ever been. If you want politics to be treated with dignity, then you will have to raise a new generation of dignified politicians.
Besides that, I have a clarifying question about Pence. I have read references about him refusing to have dinner with a woman who is not his wife. Is this real or does it stem from a comedy sketch that has morphed into something viral? Does anyone here know? Because if it's real, isn't that a little Taliban-like? Fundamentalists of all stripes seem to have some innate fear of women. It's very odd behaviour and I don't understand why more people aren't offended by it or afraid of people who think like that. It's way past normal.
I think women appreciate what he does more than men. But let me ask. Do you go to dinner with women who aren't your wife? Do you dance with them? What would your wife think of that? Many people of different faiths believe that husbands shouldn't tempt fate so they don't put themselves in compromising situations. Maybe the divorce rate would be down if men aren't tempted to stray by engaging in these activities. He's trying to stay faithful to his wife. Maybe she asked him as well not to do it so he's respecting her concern. Maybe he's cheated before and this is his way of staying faithful. But it's not "past normal" because you don't believe in it.
-
Alan, I get a sense that if a GOP politician were caught strangling kittens whilst fellating a dead goat, you'd find a reason why it was perfectly acceptable behaviour.
-
I think women appreciate what he does more than men. But let me ask. Do you go to dinner with women who aren't your wife? Do you dance with them? What would your wife think of that? Many people of different faiths believe that husbands shouldn't tempt fate so they don't put themselves in compromising situations. Maybe the divorce rate would be down if men aren't tempted to stray by engaging in these activities. He's trying to stay faithful to his wife. Maybe she asked him as well not to do it so he's respecting her concern. Maybe he's cheated before and this is his way of staying faithful. But it's not "past normal" because you don't believe in it.
As it happens, I have all the bodily grace of a hydro pole so I don't dance, period, and the world is a better place for it.
But that's beside the point. This fear of women who aren't your wife is insane. I worked with women for decades, never bothered my wife at all. Why should it? Since when is having dinner with a woman "compromising" or "tempting fate"? Are you pulling my leg here and I'm missing the joke.
-
There's also a huge difference between going to dinner social and as a part of your work.
-
I suspect that having a meal with a woman who isn't your wife is likely to make the baby Jesus cry, in Mike Pence-land.
-
I suspect that having a meal with a woman who isn't your wife is likely to make the baby Jesus cry, in Mike Pence-land.
Ha, ha, probably true.
It would even be worse if you're bi-sexual, you can't go to dinner with any man or woman or something improper might happen :-[
O, but wait, in Mike Pence land homo- and bi-sexuals don't exist, they're just sick people who don't know what they really want and need to be "straightened out", just a minor knitting fault in the creation a few thousand years ago that is easily fixed :P
-
There's also a huge difference between going to dinner social and as a part of your work.
But neither should matter to your wife if you can trust each other.
"Ill doers are ill deemers".
-
As it happens, I have all the bodily grace of a hydro pole so I don't dance, period, and the world is a better place for it.
But that's beside the point. This fear of women who aren't your wife is insane. I worked with women for decades, never bothered my wife at all. Why should it? Since when is having dinner with a woman "compromising" or "tempting fate"? Are you pulling my leg here and I'm missing the joke.
Would you mind if i danced with your wife, after taking her to dinner of course? :)
-
Maybe Mike Pence so lacks self-restraint he daren't be alone with any woman but his wife?
-
Maybe Mike Pence so lacks self-restraint he daren't be alone with any woman but his wife?
Seems to be a problem with presidents too. Let's see. Roosevelt, Ike, Kennedy, Clinton, :)
-
Seems to be a problem with presidents too. Let's see. Roosevelt, Ike, Kennedy, Clinton, :)
You forgot Trump in your list ;)
-
You forgot Trump in your list ;)
I was only listing presidents who had affairs while they were president. I think it's only decent that we give Trump a little more time. :)
-
I was only listing presidents who had affairs while they were president. I think it's only decent that we give Trump a little more time. :)
I wasn't talking about having an affair, I was talking about the absence of self-restraint. Trump has shown tons of a total absence of self restraint during his (still very short) presidency.
-
I wasn't talking about having an affair, I was talking about the absence of self-restraint. Trump has shown tons of a total absence of self restraint during his (still very short) presidency.
That's what his voters wanted. Obama was too buttoned-down.
-
That's what his voters wanted.
If you say so, but it's for sure what the voters got.
Some voters might like his wrestling act, but I think some others are appalled by it.
-
Well it's kind of like going to a bar one night and getting good and drunk and then waking up the next morning and wondering what the name of that ugly girl is sleeping next to you.
-
There you go again with guilt by association. Dropping the "well, he must be a crook because he sold apartments to crooks." argument.
Well, if you do business with mobsters, you get their stink on you...I've seen it here in Chicago plenty.
But did you actually read the article? Trump Towers is one of the very few buildings that will sell to anonymous buyers or shell corporations. Money laundering using real estate is a big problem, something the Feds are cracking down on U.S. Will Track Secret Buyers of Luxury Real Estate (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/us-will-track-secret-buyers-of-luxury-real-estate.html?_r=0)
Concerned about illicit money flowing into luxury real estate, the Treasury Department said Wednesday that it would begin identifying and tracking secret buyers of high-end properties.
The initiative will start in two of the nation’s major destinations for global wealth: Manhattan and Miami-Dade County. It will shine a light on the darkest corner of the real estate market: all-cash purchases made by shell companies that often shield purchasers’ identities.
It is the first time the federal government has required real estate companies to disclose names behind cash transactions, and it is likely to send shudders through the real estate industry, which has benefited enormously in recent years from a building boom increasingly dependent on wealthy, secretive buyers.
The initiative is part of a broader federal effort to increase the focus on money laundering in real estate. Treasury and federal law enforcement officials said they were putting greater resources into investigating luxury real estate sales that involve shell companies like limited liability companies, often known as L.L.C.s; partnerships; and other entities.
So, you honestly think Trump didn't know what was going on in his own building? Heck, when David Bogatin bought his five luxury condos, Trump himself came to the closing...you don't think they became best bud and told Bogatin to have his friends by condos as well?
I guess I should have included this paragraph for your reading displeasure:
But even without an investigation by Congress or a special prosecutor, there is much we already know about the president’s debt to Russia. A review of the public record reveals a clear and disturbing pattern: Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia. Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, and even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties. Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money. Some ran a worldwide high-stakes gambling ring out of Trump Tower—in a unit directly below one owned by Trump. Others provided Trump with lucrative branding deals that required no investment on his part. Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics. “They saved his bacon,” says Kenneth McCallion, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Reagan administration who investigated ties between organized crime and Trump’s developments in the 1980s.
It’s entirely possible that Trump was never more than a convenient patsy for Russian oligarchs and mobsters, with his casinos and condos providing easy pass-throughs for their illicit riches. At the very least, with his constant need for new infusions of cash and his well-documented troubles with creditors, Trump made an easy “mark” for anyone looking to launder money. But whatever his knowledge about the source of his wealth, the public record makes clear that Trump built his business empire in no small part with a lot of dirty money from a lot of dirty Russians—including the dirtiest and most feared of them all.
So, that begs the question why won't Trump release his tax records? In the past he said he would if you ran for the Presidency, he expected Mitt Romney to release his when Mitt ran...but Trump claims he's under audit (I say claim because of course we have no proof his is, just his word for it–and we all know what Trump's word is worth).
It's clear from what few financials he had to file he does still owe a lot of money. A Guide to Donald Trump’s Huge Debts—and the Conflicts They Present (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/guide-donald-trump-debt/?fb_comment_id=1266979883358237_1298506353538923)
(http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/trumpdebt2000.jpg?w=990)
All of Trump’s top properties—including Trump Tower, the Trump National Doral golf course, and his brand new luxury hotel in Washington, DC—are heavily mortgaged. That means Trump maintains critical financial relationships with his creditors. These interactions pose a significant set of potential conflicts because his creditors are large financial institutions (domestic and foreign) with their own interests and policy needs. Each one could be greatly affected by presidential decisions, and Trump certainly has a financial interest in their well-being.
Below is a list of all the financial players that Trump owes money to and how much Trump directly has borrowed from each one. This roster is based on publicly available loan documents. According to his own public disclosure, Trump, as of May, was on the hook for 16 loans worth at least $713 million. This list does not include an estimated $2 billion in debt amassed by real estate partnerships that include Trump. One of those loans is a $950 million deal that was cobbled together by Goldman Sachs and the state-owned Bank of China—an arrangement that ethics experts believe violates the Constitution’s emolument clause, which prohibits foreign governments from providing financial benefits to federal officials.
What impact does that have on Trump's judgement? (and I say "judgement" in loose terms since I honestly don't think Trump has much in the way of judgement).
Read the article and remember when you are reading it, the article is referring to the President of the United States of America and the Leader of the Free World (although I think he's handing that mantle to Angela Merkel cause at least she doesn't have the stink of Russian Mobsters on her).
And remember, tell yourself, it's not fake news just because it makes Trump look bad...it's only fake news when the new isn't true. Pretty sure the article and Trump's association with Russian mobsters is true...so it's not fake, just uncomfortable...if you are a Trumpster Minion™
-
Well it's kind of like going to a bar one night and getting good and drunk and then waking up the next morning and wondering what the name of that ugly girl is sleeping next to you.
It isn't a girl...it's an ugly guy with bad hair and zero morals and honor. And nobody really thought they would end up in bed with him...and now that they are, they rue the day he won...
-
Jeff, people didn't vote for Trump because he was a monk. They understood that he was a businessman who finagled a lot. But they voted for him because he cared about them. Something Hillary didn't. And that his wide executive experience is important in a president especially following a weak one. And they felt and still feel that he's trying to do right by them.
-
Then the people who voted for him are idiots. He doesn't give a shit about anything other than Donald J Trump
-
Hey Bill, could you please ease up a tad.
-
Bill, How are the idiot Brits doing with Brexit?
-
But they voted for him because he cared about them. .................. And they felt and still feel that he's trying to do right by them.
I think they voted for him because they thought he cared about them, that's a big difference with what you are saying. However I think they've been robbed, just look at his very weak delivery on his promises and the hollow rhetoric on "made in America". Even his own and his daughters businesses choose for cheap labour and materials from developing countries. And then he threatens BMW with slapping import duties while they build their US cars in a US factory. Then he complains about "unfair" import duties in Europe and then looking at the numbers the average import duties of the US are higher then Europe. That's not fake news, just an inconvenient truth about a President that either doen't get it or is purpously deceiving his people (for his own good). He's got a good rhetoric for his followers, but if you even drill 1 mm deep all the veneer is gone and it's simply just a bunch of BS.
Since this thread is about Trump and not about Obama or Hillary I won't comment on your remarks on them other then to say that I don't agree with your analysis, but if it makes you feel good to try and talk up Trump by talking them down pls. continue, but in my mind it weakens your case.
-
And that his wide executive experience is important in a president especially following a weak one. And they felt and still feel that he's trying to do right by them.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03409/trump-5_3409706b.jpg)
His "wide executive experience"? Are you kidding me? He has almost zero executive experience outside of running a privately owned corporate kingdom. He has no idea how to deal with consensus building–which if you want to govern is required. You can't use a take it or leave it with people's lives...and he has given zero indication he's willing to learn.
As far as the voters feeling that he's still "trying to do right by them"? Yep, his voting base–which amounted about 27% of the eligible voters still seems to be holding out hope that he will help them...has Trump giving any clue that he cares? Not by actions, only by his words and actions speak louder than words.
He nominated a GOP approved Supreme...and he's taken a hacksaw and axe to a lot of regulations (which we'll pay for in the future) and pulled out of the Paris Accords (which we've already starting to pay for). But what else? Sent 59 million dollar cruise missiles to Syria and hit a air field that was operating the next day...and yes, his generals decided to drop a MOAB in Afghanistan that Obama put into theater so the general could use...
He's gone to Europe three and screwed up the trips because he didn't have a clue how to be a president. He went Saudi Arabia and created a spate between Qatar and the other Middle-east countries that Tillerson had to try to fix and he sent Jarad to meet with Israel and the Palestinians and got both of them angry with each other and the US.
So, what's he done other than stagger from crisis to crisis in the FBI investigation, yelled at the TV when the MSM displeased him, got to sit in a firetruck, put on a cowboy hat and swing an American made baseball bat and declare the coal industry has added 45,000 new jobs–which of course was a lie.
He's signed 42 "things" primarily trying to undo what Obama did because why? Just to get even for Obama making fun of him regarding the Birther campaign during the White House Press Association's Dinner? You know that what Trump has told friends that was Trump's motive to run for president...and he really didn't expect to or want to win.
6 months in and America is a disaster. Repeal and Replace? Uh, no...Muslin Ban? Uh no... How about that Wall? Not so much...yes he pulled out of the Paris deal and TTP–both of which handed supreme power to China...
Yeah, the Stock Market is doing pretty good...not thanks to Trump but inspire of him. Yes, big business is hope Trump will get around to tax breaks–but his proposed budget would be an unmitigated disaster for the economy and ultimately dangerous.
Trump is a fraud and a con man...that's all he ever was and it's all he'll ever be and his supporters have been had–they just don't know it yet.
Although the democrats that cross party lines and the independents are getting anxious and Trump's approval ratings keep going down and he does nothing except to pander to his base. He's not my president...
-
When I was growing up, in Tito's era, we used to sing (loosely translated):
"The more libels and lies,
Our President is dearer to us."
Who would have thought the song is going to be popular again, across the ocean ;)
-
Jeff, people didn't vote for Trump because he was a monk. They understood that he was a businessman who finagled a lot. But they voted for him because he cared about them. Something Hillary didn't. And that his wide executive experience is important in a president especially following a weak one. And they felt and still feel that he's trying to do right by them.
"A new Senate bill to repeal Obamacare would leave 32 million more people uninsured by 2026 than under current law, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Wednesday."
I guess these are the 32 million Trump is not trying to do right by.
But that's not all. Three-quarters of the nation would live in areas with no insurers participating in the individual market by 2026, leaving many without an option if they do not have employer-provided or government health insurance, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Premiums would about double by 2026, compared to current law.
It would be better to have Putin looking out for us than Trump, but maybe that was the plan all along. :o
-
"The more libels and lies,
Our President is dearer to us."
Point me to the lies and libels...lots of inconvenient truths but I really don't see the lies.
Oh, wait, you weren't talking about Tito's Vodka huh?
-
When I was growing up, in Tito's era, we used to sing (loosely translated):
"The more libels and lies,
Our President is dearer to us."
Who would have thought the song is going to be popular again, across the ocean ;)
Hi,
This is not uncommon, in fact, it is very (predictably) usual. Atack anybody and the reaction will be defense or offense (rarely retreat). So the attacked party will either anchor itself (and/or its supporters will) into position, even more unwilling to move, or it will retaliate (as in offense is the 'best' defense). This totally ignores that conceding to a loss in the short term, may be a better strategy in the longer term ..., but that requires intelligence and a slightly longer term perspective, not short term myopia.
The current administration seems to be totally out of control. This is a situation that the Democrats will want to endure, until new (maybe even Presidential) elections. So impeachment is out of the question, more damage can be done by keeping Trump in place. It will suck for the nation in the short term but, it will be beneficial in the longer term.
In my corporate career, I've experienced/learned that certain people create and thrive from enduring problems, it justifies their function. Problem solvers are among the first to become expendable after they caused things run smoothly. So inefficiency is rewarded.
Cheers,
Bart
-
When I was growing up, in Tito's era, we used to sing (loosely translated):
"The more libels and lies,
Our President is dearer to us."
Who would have thought the song is going to be popular again, across the ocean ;)
But at least Tito had distinguished himself as a wartime leader against Nazi Germany and by standing up to Stalin's USSR. And his economic policies were arguably less bonkers that those of his contemporary communist comrades.
-
Tito was elected president for life, so he didn't have to worry about the next quarter or year. Or media.
-
meanwhile McCain has a ~1.5 years to live ...
-
Bill, How are the idiot Brits doing with Brexit?
It will be a disaster. Brits have been lied to & fed anti-EU propaganda for decades and idiot Brits have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker
-
meanwhile McCain has a ~1.5 years to live ...
That is sad news indeed.
I did not always agree with McCain, but I always thought he was a good person.
I hope that he does not suffer much and can die with some dignity.
Who knows, he may be one of the 10% that can survive 5 years.
-
Do-over: 1 in 8 people who voted for Trump want to change their vote - Reuters/Ipsos poll
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-poll-idUSKBN1A5127
QUOTE: July 20, 2017 / 12:03 PM " NEW YORK (Reuters) - About one in eight people who voted for President Donald Trump said they would not do so again after witnessing Trump's tumultuous first six months in office, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of 2016 voters.
While most of the people who voted for Trump on Nov. 8 said they would back him again, the erosion of support within his winning coalition of older, disaffected, mostly white voters poses a potential challenge for the president. Trump, who won the White House with the slimmest of margins, needs every last supporter behind him to push his agenda through a divided Congress and potentially win a second term in 2020.
The poll surveyed voters who had told Reuters/Ipsos on Election Day how they had cast their ballots. While other surveys have measured varying levels of disillusionment among Trump supporters, the Reuters/Ipsos poll shows how many would go as far as changing the way they voted. The survey was carried out first in May and then again in July. "
Well, better late than never, but we'll have to see what happens in the three and a half years ahead.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That is sad news indeed.
I did not always agree with McCain, but I always thought he was a good person.
I hope that he does not suffer much and can die with some dignity.
Who knows, he may be one of the 10% that can survive 5 years.
Agree. Not my kind of political preference either, but he is a decent person and a relatively straight shooter (for a politician).
Hope he can enjoy his remaining time without too much discomfort.
Cheers,
Bart
-
For all opera lovers, check out these two YouTube videos ("Real Fake News - Opera vs. Trump" [Rossini Edition and Gilbert and Sullivan Edition].
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Hz7SfkhJe74 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Hz7SfkhJe74)
:D
-
Donald Trump: L’état, C’est Moi (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/donald-trump-ltat-cest-moi.html)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/20/20-donald-trump-louis-xiv.w710.h473.jpg)
Our Louis XIV. Photo-Illustration: Daily Intelligencer; Photos: Hyacinthe Rigaud, Louis XIV, Louvre Museum;
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images (Trump)
In his bizarre New York Times interview (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html), Donald Trump expresses his characteristic assortment of fever-dream assertions. The president believes Hillary Clinton “was totally opposed to any sanctions for Russia,” that a properly amortized health-insurance plan would cost “$12 a year,” that Napoleon’s “one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities,” and that Trump has somehow either carried out or reversed sweeping land reforms (“I’ve given the farmers back their farms. I’ve given the builders back their land to build houses and to build other things”). Yet a consistent idea manages to poke through the delirious rambling. Trump repeatedly affirmed his conviction that the entire federal government ought to be operated for his personal benefit.
Trump expressed this idea by returning several times to the phrase “conflict of interest.” Trump himself is of course the most personally conflicted president in modern American history. He has maintained a vast, undisclosed business empire and openly used his powers in office to enrich himself. But he does not mention this conflict of interest. Instead he applies the phrase to any law-enforcement official who might potentially get in his way.
The headline of the story was Trump’s anger that Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from an investigation into the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia. The cause of the recusal flows self-evidently from basic legal principles. Sessions played a key role in the Trump campaign, so obviously he can’t conduct an investigation into it. In Trump’s mind, though, it is obvious that managing the investigation into the Trump campaign is the very thing his handpicked Attorney General ought to do:
Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself. I then have — which, frankly, I think is very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, “Thanks, Jeff, but I can’t, you know, I’m not going to take you.”
It is not as if the job of overseeing the Russia investigation is not being done. What Trump objects to is the fact that he was deprived of the chance to choose the official who is overseeing it.
So, Trump thinks everybody should work for him...that the Attorney General is supposed to be his personal lawyer and that the Justice Department is his to dictate to...after all, all Trump knows how to do is dictate...he's alway and only been a dictator of his own personal empire.
If you read the NYT article, it comes across as some sort of whiny bitch complaining that everything is so unfair...the last paragraph says it all:
Six months into his presidency, foundational republican concepts remain as foreign as ever to Trump. He believes the entire federal government owes its personal loyalty to him, and that the office of the presidency is properly a vehicle for personal and familial enrichment. If the rule of law survives this era intact, it will only be because the president is too inept to undermine it.
This really sucks...
-
For all opera lovers, check out these two YouTube videos ("Real Fake News - Opera vs. Trump" [Rossini Edition and Gilbert and Sullivan Edition].
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Hz7SfkhJe74 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Hz7SfkhJe74)
:D
Brilliant!
Cheers,
Bart
-
Looks like the Clintons were the real colluders with the Russians. After helping them, Bill Clinton got paid $500,000 for a speech in Russia and was personally thanked by Putin. What's ironic is that the same players then seem to be some of the same players involved with Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/18/hillary-clinton-sided-with-russia-on-sanctions-as-bill-made-500g-on-moscow-speech.html
-
Excerpts From The Times’s Interview With Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html?_r=0)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/79f5922c0b9e436adcfcd53e30d19c6fbbd50f8f/c=434-233-2374-1329&r=x329&c=580x326/local/-/media/2017/07/14/USATODAY/USATODAY/636356670184663439-814369674.jpg)
And this is really weird...
TRUMP: I have had the best reviews on foreign land. So I go to Poland and make a speech. Enemies of mine in the media, enemies of mine are saying it was the greatest speech ever made on foreign soil by a president. I’m saying, man, they cover [garbled]. You saw the reviews I got on that speech. Poland was beautiful and wonderful, and the reception was incredible.
And then, went to France the following week, because it was the 100th year. [inaudible] The Paris Accord — I wasn’t going to get along with France for a little while, because people forget, because it is a very unfair agreement to us. China doesn’t get [garbled] until 2030. Russia goes back to 1994 as a standard — a much, much lower standard. India has things that are [garbled]. I want to do the same thing as everyone else. We can’t do that? We can’t do that? That’s O.K. Let me get out. Frankly, the people that like me, love that I got out.
After that, it was fairly surprising. He [President Emmanuel Macron of France] called me and said, “I’d love to have you there and honor you in France,” having to do with Bastille Day. Plus, it’s the 100th year of the First World War. That’s big. And I said yes. I mean, I have a great relationship with him. He’s a great guy.
HABERMAN: He was very deferential to you. Very.
TRUMP: He’s a great guy. Smart. Strong. Loves holding my hand.
HABERMAN: I’ve noticed.
TRUMP: People don’t realize he loves holding my hand. And that’s good, as far as that goes.
TRUMP: I mean, really. He’s a very good person. And a tough guy, but look, he has to be. I think he is going to be a terrific president of France. But he does love holding my hand.
See the video of "the hand shake" HERE (https://youtu.be/qRuDhVatrZw)
-
And this from across the pond: The Economist (https://www.economist.com/)
How Donald Trump is monetising his presidency (https://www.economist.com/news/business/21725303-six-months-mr-trumps-conflicts-interest-look-even-worse-how-donald-trump-monetising)
(http://esquireuk.cdnds.net/16/35/980x490/landscape-1472660781-trump.png)
“PRETTY close to a laughing stock.” That is Walter Shaub’s verdict on America’s standing in the world, at least from an ethics point of view, under President Donald Trump. Mr Shaub’s view counts: he stepped down this week as head of the Office of Government Ethics, a federal watchdog.
He is leaving his job six months early, frustrated at the president’s failure to separate himself from his businesses, at White House foot-dragging on disclosing ethics waivers for staff, at its failure to admonish a Trump adviser who plugged the family’s products in an interview, and more. “It’s hard for the United States to pursue international anticorruption and ethics initiatives when we’re not even keeping our own side of the street clean,” Mr Shaub told the New York Times.
No American leader has ever entered office with such wide business interests as Mr Trump. In the context of the country’s corporate landscape, his group is small, mostly domestic and rather mediocre, but encompasses hundreds of firms that run hotels, golf courses, licensing agreements, merchandise deals and more, in over two dozen countries. Keeping tabs on the potential for self-dealing is “a monumental task”, says Kathleen Clark, an ethics expert at Washington University. In some areas, particularly abroad, increased scrutiny appears to be making deals harder to pull off. But in others, such as his American hotels and golf clubs, Mr Trump already appears to be monetising the presidency.
So, is this what Trump voters were expecting when they voted for Trump? Did they honestly think a 70yr old who has NEVER done ANYTHING for the forgotten little people across America (other than refuse to pay their bills) would somehow get elected and go to Washington to look out for them? Didn't they realize Trump really only knows how to do good for Trump and his family and minion.
Here we are 6 months into a 4 year term–YES IT'S ONLY BEEN 6 MONTHS–and what has he done for his voters?
-
Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.42bdfaa0548c)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/WHITEHOUSEGLASS2004.JPG)
President Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members
and even himself in connection with the Russia probe, according to a person familiar with
the effort. (Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)
Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.
Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.
Trump’s legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller’s investigation.
“This is not in the context of, ‘I can’t wait to pardon myself,’ ” a close adviser said.
With the Russia investigation continuing to widen, Trump’s lawyers are working to corral the probe and question the propriety of the special counsel’s work. They are actively compiling a list of Mueller’s alleged potential conflicts of interest, which they say could serve as a way to stymie his work, according to several of Trump’s legal advisers.
A conflict of interest is one of the possible grounds that can be cited by an attorney general to remove a special counsel from office under Justice Department regulations that set rules for the job.
The president is also irritated by the notion that Mueller’s probe could reach into his and his family’s finances, advisers said.
Trump has been fuming about the probe in recent weeks as he has been informed about the legal questions that he and his family could face. His primary frustration centers on why allegations that his campaign coordinated with Russia should spread into scrutinizing many years of Trump dealmaking. He has told aides he was especially disturbed after learning Mueller would be able to access several years of his tax returns.
--snip--
Some note that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a president from pardoning himself. On the other side, experts say that by definition a pardon is something you can only give to someone else. There is also a common-law canon that prohibits individuals from serving as a judge in their own case. “For example, we would not allow a judge to preside over his or her own trial,” Kalt said.
A president can pardon an individual at any point, including before the person is charged with a crime, and the scope of a presidential pardon can be very broad. President Gerald Ford pardoned former president Richard M. Nixon preemptively for offenses he “committed or may have committed” while in office.
Which is interesting since Trump said this in his NYT interview:
SCHMIDT: Last thing, if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia — is that a red line?
HABERMAN: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge is?
TRUMP: I would say yeah. I would say yes. By the way, I would say, I don’t — I don’t — I mean, it’s possible there’s a condo or something, so, you know, I sell a lot of condo units, and somebody from Russia buys a condo, who knows? I don’t make money from Russia. In fact, I put out a letter saying that I don’t make — from one of the most highly respected law firms, accounting firms. I don’t have buildings in Russia. They said I own buildings in Russia. I don’t. They said I made money from Russia. I don’t. It’s not my thing. I don’t, I don’t do that. Over the years, I’ve looked at maybe doing a deal in Russia, but I never did one. Other than I held the Miss Universe pageant there eight, nine years [crosstalk].
SCHMIDT: But if he was outside that lane, would that mean he’d have to go?
[crosstalk]
HABERMAN: Would you consider——
TRUMP: No, I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia. So I think if he wants to go, my finances are extremely good, my company is an unbelievably successful company. And actually, when I do my filings, peoples say, “Man.” People have no idea how successful this is. It’s a great company. But I don’t even think about the company anymore. I think about this. ’Cause one thing, when you do this, companies seem very trivial. O.K.? I really mean that. They seem very trivial. But I have no income from Russia. I don’t do business with Russia. The gentleman that you mentioned, with his son, two nice people. But basically, they brought the Miss Universe pageant to Russia to open up, you know, one of their jobs. Perhaps the convention center where it was held. It was a nice evening, and I left. I left, you know, I left Moscow. It wasn’t Moscow, it was outside of Moscow.
HABERMAN: Would you fire Mueller if he went outside of certain parameters of what his charge is? [crosstalk]
SCHMIDT: What would you do?
[crosstalk]
TRUMP: I can’t, I can’t answer that question because I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Except it's already happened...
Can Mueller Do That? Inquiry Now Crosses Trump's ‘Red Line’ (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/can-mueller-do-that-inquiry-now-crosses-trump-s-red-line)
Despite what President Donald Trump and his lawyers say, the U.S. special counsel investigating possible ties between the 2016 campaign and Russia appears to have ample authority to examine a broad range of activities involving Trump’s businesses.
This became newly relevant this morning when Bloomberg News reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation also encompasses dealings such as Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial downtown New York hotel development with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008. The source was a person familiar with Mueller’s probe.
Well, it’s happening, and Mueller isn’t exceeding his mandate (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download).
interesting read if you are an attorney, otherwise it's deadly :~(
-
Had Trump refused to sell condos to Russians, he would be breaking the law, i.e., discriminating based on national origin 😉
-
Russians have been buying real estate all over. Not only from Trump. And so have the Chinese.
Interestingly, when it comes to Russians, it's not only the oligarchs. In 2011, a trust linked to the eldest daughter of potash fertilizer magnate Dmitry Rybolovlev paid $88 million for a four-bedroom penthouse at 15 Central Park West – the most expensive New York City apartment purchase ever.
The same year, composer Igor Krutoy also broke records when he bought a $48 million condo at the Plaza Hotel – one of three units he owns in the building.
That begs the question - how does a composer make that kind of money?
According to the Financial Times (£), well-to-do Russians – and Ukrainians too – "are trying to shift more cash into London property ... amid indications that eastern European oligarchs are using the capital’s housing market to conceal their assets from international sanctions".
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/may/09/rich-russians-buying-london-property-real-estate
The failing Russian economy, coupled with a badly performing stock market and real estate market has led wealthy Russians to look for safe havens abroad, in order to retain the value of their substantial savings. So, the Russian interest in the overseas property market is very much intact, and indeed, there is a rush to buy new properties before any further devaluation of the Rouble.
Here are the top 10 countries where Russians buy overseas property. Bulgaria features on the top of the list.
1. Bulgaria (14.5%)
2. Germany (8%)
3. Finland (7.9%)
4. Spain (7.8%)
5. USA (5.2%)
6. France (4.8%)
7. Czech Republic (4.6%)
8. Italy (4.3%)
9. Egypt (3.2%)
10. Turkey (3%)
http://worldwidegroup.eu/russian-investors-are-still-buying-houses-in-bulgaria
In Miami, while Latin Americans – especially Brazilians – have driven the recovery of the city’s once-battered real estate market, Russian millionaires made headlines with their taste for giant waterfront mansions.
“The Russians have elevated the Miami market quite a bit,” said Jill Eber, a local real estate broker whose agency caters to “high-end residential properties and the finest communities.”
https://www.voanews.com/a/russian-investors-seek-safety-in-us-real-estate/1901378.html
-
Interestingly, when it comes to Russians, it's not only the oligarchs.
but of course... by all means I am not, for example ;D
That begs the question - how does a composer make that kind of money?
that simply shows your ignorance about the matters in the country you try to talk about ... Igor Krutoy is not just a composer - he is a also well known (in Russia) producer and entrepreneur ( think Sean Combs ) since late 1980s / early 1990s...
-
Thank you for answering my question.
-
See the video of "the hand shake" HERE (https://youtu.be/qRuDhVatrZw)
It is funny, just like their first official handshake in the White House. It looks like Macron is protecting his wife from being grabbed (harder to do with only one free hand, even for Trump). Also clear are the attempts of Trump to pull Macron out of balance, but Macron doesn't relent and readjusts his balance to do some more white knuckle crunching.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thank you for answering my question.
Igor Krutoy = Igor The Cool
That should have answered your question right there 😊
-
White House spokesman Sean Spicer resigns: New York Times
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-spicer-idUSKBN1A6237
QUOTE: July 21, 2017 / 6:07 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House spokesman Sean Spicer resigned on Friday after U.S. President Donald Trump appointed Wall Street financier Anthony Scaramucci as his top communications official, the New York Times reported, citing a person with direct knowledge of the exchange.
Trump offered Scaramucci, a longtime supporter, the White House communications post. "
So far, this is the whole article from Reuters before further editing, but other sources reportedly say that Spicer said it was a big mistake to appoint Scaramucci, so that's why he quits. Reuters usually does more fact-checking before relying on a single source, so more info will follow.
This is the single source for the moment:
Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/us/politics/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Scaramucci): Anthony Scaramucci (born January 6, 1964) is an American entrepreneur, financier, political figure, and creepy guy.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Had Trump refused to sell condos to Russians, he would be breaking the law, i.e., discriminating based on national origin 😉
But...many if not most are bought by cutouts or by anonymous shell companies to hide the buyer's identity. So refusing to sell to shell company would break no law and in fact the feds are cracking down on real estate developers that do sell to shell companies because it's a current favorite way of laundering money.
-
Russians have been buying real estate all over. Not only from Trump. And so have the Chinese.
http://www.nreionline.com/finance-investment/foreign-buyers-us-real-estate-numbers
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi4gv6d5prVAhXGPT4KHTU1D04QFggwMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nar.realtor%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Freports%2F2016%2F2016-profile-of-international-home-buying-activity-06-06-2016.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE_i-0-tPHhQI4-UWLjyW38AwjQgg
but Les of course put Russians on the first place... and Chiese are just "so" ;D ...
-
But...many if not most are bought by cutouts or by anonymous shell companies to hide the buyer's identity. So refusing to sell to shell company would break no law and in fact the feds are cracking down on real estate developers that do sell to shell companies because it's a current favorite way of laundering money.
Do you check before you sell your photo processing book to see if they've been some sexual offender who wants to photoshop pictures for child pornography? You really should stop the holier than thou nonsense.. And hoe do you know if it's not some Chinese guy who's using a shell company to protect himself from communists who would steal his money if things went South on the mainland.
No matter what Trump does, you guys cry "wolf". That assault is going to come around and bite you on the a$$.
-
Best quote of the day.
"... you eat an elephant one bite at a time, and me and Sarah are doing it together."
God I hope SNL does something with that!
-
Typical Trump:
President Donald Trump plans to nominate his longtime campaign aide Sam Clovis to head science at the US Department of Agriculture, despite the fact that Clovis lacks a background in science and a congressional rule maintains that the role must be filled "from among distinguished scientists."
-
Typical Trump:
President Donald Trump plans to nominate his longtime campaign aide Sam Clovis to head science at the US Department of Agriculture, despite the fact that Clovis lacks a background in science and a congressional rule maintains that the role must be filled "from among distinguished scientists."
Trump doesn't like professors. He wants people who know how to execute. This guy seems to fit the bill plus he appears loyal, always a good trait in politics. Here's a short bio on him from the article:
"...Mr. (actually Dr.) Clovis holds a B.S. in political science from the U.S. Air Force Academy, an M.B.A. from Golden Gate University and a Doctorate in public administration from the University of Alabama. He is also a graduate of both the Army and Air Force War Colleges. After graduating from the Academy, Mr. Clovis spent 25 years serving in the Air Force. He retired as the Inspector General of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command and was a command pilot..."
The article also mention that the Weed Science Society of America appears satisfied with him. So if the Weed Science Society of America is satisfied, who are we to object? Tomorrow, no one's going to care in any case as Trump Jr. and Scaramucci are more interesting.
-
Trump doesn't like professors. He wants people who know how to execute. This guy seems to fit the bill plus he appears loyal, always a good trait in politics. Here's a short bio on him from the article:
"...Mr. (actually Dr.) Clovis holds a B.S. in political science from the U.S. Air Force Academy, an M.B.A. from Golden Gate University and a Doctorate in public administration from the University of Alabama. He is also a graduate of both the Army and Air Force War Colleges. After graduating from the Academy, Mr. Clovis spent 25 years serving in the Air Force. He retired as the Inspector General of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command and was a command pilot..."
The article also mention that the Weed Science Society of America appears satisfied with him. So if the Weed Science Society of America is satisfied, who are we to object? Tomorrow, no one's going to care in any case as Trump Jr. and Scaramucci are more interesting.
A non-scientist in charge of scientists can't possibly know what people who report to him are doing. It's something like a guy who knows nothing about government being President.
I think Trump doesn't like professors because they make him feel ignorant.
-
Do you check before you sell your photo processing book to see if they've been some sexual offender who wants to photoshop pictures for child pornography? You really should stop the holier than thou nonsense..
Ya know, you might want to put at least a LITTLE effort in coming up with scenarios where your attempts at drawing comparisons would make at least a little sense...this sort of thing makes your point incredibly easy to ignore–and I write this not to disparage you but to encourage you to do better.
And I'm very darn sure I'm holier than Trump...I've actually got a track record of doing nice things for other people and I've never been sued for non-payment. I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 43 (44 end of Aug) and I've never grabbed another woman by the pussy. I don't claim to be perfect, but I'm pretty darn sure I'm not a piece of crap like Donny boy, ya know?
-
"... you eat an elephant one bite at a time, and me and Sarah are doing it together."
Ironic choice of animal?
(https://seangallodesigns.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/one_bite1.jpg)
How do you eat the GOP?
-
Ironic choice of animal?
(https://seangallodesigns.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/one_bite1.jpg)
How do you eat the GOP?
Ahh, did not look at it that way. Certainly ironic.
To be honest, I had that interview on as background noise while working on pictures. That really stuck out; I can't remember anything else that was said.
-
A non-scientist in charge of scientists can't possibly know what people who report to him are doing. It's something like a guy who knows nothing about government being President.
I think Trump doesn't like professors because they make him feel ignorant.
Did you read his resume? Dr. Clovis holds a B.S. in political science from the U.S. Air Force Academy, an M.B.A. from Golden Gate University and a Doctorate in public administration from the University of Alabama. He is also a graduate of both the Army and Air Force War Colleges. After graduating from the Academy, Mr. Clovis spent 25 years serving in the Air Force. He retired as the Inspector General of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command and was a command pilot..."
The president wants him to run it and get things done and not to personally invent the next grain product. This is why past administrations and government in general failed. They confused book learning with management ability to get the job done. The president built buildings and golf course while never laying one brick or running a back hoe.
-
Ya know, you might want to put at least a LITTLE effort in coming up with scenarios where your attempts at drawing comparisons would make at least a little sense...this sort of thing makes your point incredibly easy to ignore–and I write this not to disparage you but to encourage you to do better.
And I'm very darn sure I'm holier than Trump...I've actually got a track record of doing nice things for other people and I've never been sued for non-payment. I've been married to the same wonderful woman for 43 (44 end of Aug) and I've never grabbed another woman by the pussy. I don't claim to be perfect, but I'm pretty darn sure I'm not a piece of crap like Donny boy, ya know?
Yeah Jeff it was a long stretch, best I could come up with. And I'm sure you are a nice person. 44 years. Wow.
The point I was making is you can't expect people selling condos to look into the history of the buyers. Plus, the reason some people use corporations to buy is to hide their identity from hostile governments. Of course some of it is just people hiding for illegitimate reasons. But how does the seller know? A person negotiates the purchase and after they settle on the price, forms have to be filled out. So he puts down the name of a corporation and tells the seller that's who he's buying it for. So what does the seller tell him, "Sorry I can't accept your $8 million because the corporation may be crooked?" Maybe he shouldn't sell to any Russian or person who has an accent. I mean aren't all of them crooked? He should only sell to people like the Clintons who made money the old-fashioned way by selling political access.
-
Did you read his resume? Dr. Clovis holds a B.S. in political science from the U.S. Air Force Academy, an M.B.A. from Golden Gate University and a Doctorate in public administration from the University of Alabama. He is also a graduate of both the Army and Air Force War Colleges. After graduating from the Academy, Mr. Clovis spent 25 years serving in the Air Force. He retired as the Inspector General of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command and was a command pilot..."
The president wants him to run it and get things done and not to personally invent the next grain product. This is why past administrations and government in general failed. They confused book learning with management ability to get the job done. The president built buildings and golf course while never laying one brick or running a back hoe.
I did read the resume and there is nothing in it to qualify him for that position. It's like putting a Civil Engineering PhD with an MS in physics and a BS in mathematics in charge of a neurosurgical hospital. The guy might be smart, but in areas that are completely irrelevant to what he should be doing.
-
I did read the resume and there is nothing in it to qualify him for that position....
Let's not get carried away: the full title of the position is: the Agriculture Department’s undersecretary for research, education and economics.
So, an MBA, a professor of economics, and a PhD in Public Administration is not qualified to lead a public administration department where 2/3 of its title are "education and economics"?
-
Let's not get carried away: the full title of the position is: the Agriculture Department’s undersecretary for research, education and economics.
So, an MBA, a professor of economics, and a PhD in Public Administration is not qualified to lead a public administration department where 2/3 of its title are "education and economics"?
You're being too logical.
-
Let's not get carried away: the full title of the position is: the Agriculture Department’s undersecretary for research, education and economics.
So, an MBA, a professor of economics, and a PhD in Public Administration is not qualified to lead a public administration department where 2/3 of its title are "education and economics"?
Qualified? Maybe by the letter of the description, but let's not pretend that there aren't people in a related field that are as qualified *and* have an actual background in a relevant field besides maybe crop dusting :/. And let's not pretend that a primary qualification to serve in Trumpland isn't loyalty to the King.
Seriously, This Trump administration literally does almost everything wrong.
-
Let's discuss something of more importance than some guy managing rice research. The State Dept just banned travel to North Korea under the guise that they don't want Americans to be mis-treated like the America Otto Warmier who died. I have a more dire prediction that it maybe a prelude to an attack on North Korea. We wouldn't want them to hold hostages afterwards to use as pawns in negotiations. What do you think?
-
Let's discuss something of more importance than some guy managing rice research. The State Dept just banned travel to North Korea under the guise that they don't want Americans to be mis-treated like the America Otto Warmier who died. I have a more dire prediction that it maybe a prelude to an attack on North Korea. We wouldn't want them to hold hostages afterwards to use as pawns in negotiations. What do you think?
Honestly? I think if Trump launches a preemptive strike of any consequence on North Korea he needs to be immediately deposed, hopefully avoiding WW3.
-
Let's discuss something of more importance than some guy managing rice research. The State Dept just banned travel to North Korea under the guise that they don't want Americans to be mis-treated like the America Otto Warmier who died. I have a more dire prediction that it maybe a prelude to an attack on North Korea. We wouldn't want them to hold hostages afterwards to use as pawns in negotiations. What do you think?
That's one possibility. The other is that maybe they just want the North Koreans to draw such conclusions and get them more receptive for some kind of negotiations.
-
Yes, it could be a head fake.
-
Let's not get carried away: the full title of the position is: the Agriculture Department’s undersecretary for research, education and economics.
So, an MBA, a professor of economics, and a PhD in Public Administration is not qualified to lead a public administration department where 2/3 of its title are "education and economics"?
That's fine if you forget the word "research, which he would know nothing about. It might also be hard to educate or determine economic impacts of new technologies he does not fully understand. There's also that pesky congressional rule that says the role must be filled "from among distinguished scientists." I was assuming there was actually a reason for that beyond the phrase just sounding good. Perhaps it's FAKE NEWS.
-
That's fine if you forget the word "research, which he would know nothing about. It might also be hard to educate or determine economic impacts of new technologies he does not fully understand...
By the same token, how would a scientist manage the other two roles, education and economics, he would know nothing about? As for the congressional rule, it's a rule, a suggestion, not a law. The most interesting aspect here is the original sin, i.e., whoever designed such a department, with such a disparate triple function.
-
Honestly? I think if Trump launches a preemptive strike of any consequence on North Korea he needs to be immediately deposed, hopefully avoiding WW3.
Why? Almost every American president had its war, why not Trump? Heck, even Secretaries of State had their wars (remember Madeleine Albright war?) why not a President?
-
Congress should approve any attack. We've gotten away from our Constitution and given too much power to our Presidents. Congress suffers from cowardice - they'd rather let the President make the decision and take the heat. So over the years they've abandoned the Constitution that gives them the responsibility to declare war. Personally, I'm not looking forward to Korean War II. On the other hand, missiles armed with nuclear weapons aimed at us is uncomfortable. But we lived with that with the Soviet Union. Frankly, we should just leave the North Koreans to live happy in their Middle Kingdom dump. I think they just want to be left alone to allow the leadership to remain in power. We don't have to get involved unless they start taking military action.
-
Russian election interference:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984833,00.html
RESCUING BORIS
THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND ALL THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP BORIS YELTSIN WIN
-
Russian election interference:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984833,00.html
Yeah, so you have a headline and the story isn't visible unless you subscribe...pretty sure the headline isn't the entire story, right? Did you read the whole story? If so, what did it say? Otherwise you only have a tantalizing headline.
And regardless, if the US did that then, does that make it ok for the Russians to do it to us last year? Tit for tat, eye for an eye? The end result is we have a big fat Cheeto as president instead of a raging alcoholic that Russia got. Not sure that's a fair trade...
-
Yeah, so you have a headline and the story isn't visible unless you subscribe...pretty sure the headline isn't the entire story, right? Did you read the whole story? If so, what did it say? ...
Most of Yeltsin’s confidants believed the President would be magically re-elected despite the Duma catastrophe, but Braynin thought otherwise. The President, he reasoned, could lose without the same kind of professional assistance U.S. office seekers employ as a matter of course. Braynin began a series of confidential discussions with Yeltsin’s aides, including one with First Deputy Prime Minister Oleg Soskovets, who at the time was in charge of the President’s nascent re-election effort. Finally, in early February, Braynin was instructed to “find some Americans” but to proceed discreetly. “Secrecy was paramount,” says Braynin. “Everyone realized that if the Communists knew about this before the election, they would attack Yeltsin as an American tool. We badly needed the team, but having them was a big risk.”
To “find some Americans,” Braynin worked through Fred Lowell, a San Francisco lawyer with close ties to California’s Republican Party. On Feb. 14, Lowell called Joe Shumate, a G.O.P. expert in political data analysis who had served as deputy chief of staff to California Governor Pete Wilson. Since Wilson’s drive for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination had ended almost before it began, Lowell thought Shumate and George Gorton, Wilson’s longtime top strategist, might be available to help Yeltsin. They were–and they immediately enlisted Richard Dresner, a New York-based consultant who had worked with them on many of Wilson’s campaigns.
So while Clinton was uninvolved with Yeltsin’s recruitment of the American advisers, the Administration knew of their existence–and although Dresner denies dealing with Morris, three other sources have told Time that on at least two occasions the team’s contacts with Morris were “helpful.”
Communicating in code — Clinton was called the Governor of California, Yeltsin the Governor of Texas — the Americans sought Morris’ help. They had earlier worked together to script Clinton’s summit meeting with Yeltsin in mid-April. The main goal then was to have Clinton swallow hard and say nothing as Yeltsin lectured him about Russia’s great-power prerogatives. “The idea was to have Yeltsin stand up to the West, just like the Communists insisted they would do if Zyuganov won,” says a Clinton Administration official. “By having Yeltsin posture during that summit without Clinton’s getting bent out of shape, Yeltsin portrayed himself as a leader to be reckoned with. That helped Yeltsin in Russia, and we were for Yeltsin.”
-
You quoted the article saying:
So while Clinton was uninvolved with Yeltsin’s recruitment of the American advisers, the Administration knew of their existence–and although Dresner denies dealing with Morris, three other sources have told Time that on at least two occasions the team’s contacts with Morris were “helpful.”
Interesting...but it doesn't answer my question of what's the point? Are you saying that the fact the US may have interfered in Russia's election in the past somehow gives Russia a pass on interfering on our 2016 election? So you think we should just accept what they did even if Russia and the Trump campaign colluded to help Trump win? That makes Trump an illegitimate president...heck, he's already arguably the worst president we've ever had it would be particularly galling if the big orange cheat got there by cheating.
I'm just hoping we can last long enough to get rid of him before some sort of massive screwup that causes the demise of the United States of America as we know it today.
-
... Are you saying that the fact the US may have interfered in Russia's election in the past somehow gives Russia a pass on interfering on our 2016 election?...
Yes, unless one is a hypocrite. As a minimum, it wipes off that righteous indignation smirk from certain people's faces.
... before some sort of massive screwup that causes the demise of the United States of America as we know it today.
Nothing is going to cause the demise of the U.S. as I know it like the loony left.
-
Yes, unless one is a hypocrite. As a minimum, it wipes off that righteous indignation smirk from certain people's faces.
Nothing is going to cause the demise of the U.S. as I know it like the loony left.
I know you don't actually see the two situations as analogous, do you? While there is concern that a foreign entity attempted to sway an internal election, the primary issue is that another American - one who is now President - collaborated with that entity in an attempt to sway the election.
Put another way, both Russia and the US did what you correctly believe every other nation does - attempt to bend foreign powers to favorable circumstances. Trump, on the other hand, looks to have collaborated with foreign powers against a fellow American. Not at all the same thing, and you know it.
As for the loony left, I'm not at all sure that a bunch of kids that get mad when they hear insensitive words are at all as frightening as a bunch of old white guys that think it's a great idea to make it hard for poor people to vote.
-
Yes, unless one is a hypocrite. As a minimum, it wipes off that righteous indignation smirk from certain people's faces.
Yeah, not so much...with your approach it would be Japan's right to drop a nuclear weapon on New York City and perhaps Chicago because, well the USA dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Tit for Tat and Eye or an Eye are poor rational for justifying the actions of another unless you wish to constantly be engaged in retribution. Heck, Putin was trying to get back at Hillary because as Sec State she was supportive of Russian dissident protests. Why go back all the way to Yeltsin’s election as justification?
I don't give a shyte what the USA may have done to others in the distant past and time...what I do care about is the fact that Putin is screwing with us now. And believe me, if that makes me a "hypocrite", so be it. I'm still gonna reject Trump as my president and resist all the bad shyte he's trying to do.
In the mean time I'm gratified that Congress had the balls to do something in a bipartisan manner to punish, even if only a small way, Russia for screwing with us and making harder for the Donald to suck up to his buddy Putin.
CONGRESS REACHES DEAL ON RUSSIA SANCTIONS, LEAVES DONALD TRUMP OUT OF THE LOOP (http://www.newsweek.com/congress-deal-russia-sanctions-leaves-donald-trump-out-loop-640714)
Congressional leaders reached an agreement on sanctions for Russia that punish Moscow for alleged election interference and limit Donald Trump’s ability to push back on the restrictions.
The new legislation, which also includes sanctions for Iran and North Korea, is seeking to bring sanctions on those suspected of human rights abuses and aims to penalise Russia for its aggression towards its neighbors as well as the ongoing election hacking saga, The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/congress-sanctions-russia.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=65606802&pgtype=Homepage) reported.
Embarrassingly for the president, given the legislation’s broad bipartisan support, it also ignored pleas from the White House to permit Trump more freedom to bend the sanctions for the sake of his freedom to conduct foreign policy, instead making it harder for Trump to intervene.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/022/643/gayputy.JPG)
So, screw you Puty!
-
Nothing is going to cause the demise of the U.S. as I know it like the retchid right
Fixed it for you. :)
-
Yes, unless one is a hypocrite.
Nothing wrong with pointing out a potential level of hypocrisy.
As a minimum, it wipes off that righteous indignation smirk from certain people's faces.
Not really, it's a huge error to compare the level of interference then and now. It's a typical case of comparing past situations in today's context. If we had known then what we do now, we'd have approached things differently, but we didn't know what we now do.
What also seems to be (conveniently?) overlooked, is the difference between unilateral influencing of opinion (AKA propaganda/influencing), and the possibilities nowadays by targeting the information used by individuals to make up their choice, and the possible cooperation(!)/collusion between opposing forces. Conspiracy or (what used to be called) high-treason is of a fundamentally different order than the earlier attempts (where social media and companies like Cambridge Analytica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica) hardly existed, to begin with).
Cheers,
Bart
-
.... I don't give a shyte what the USA may have done to others in the distant past and time...
Distant?! You gotta be kidding me. You think we've ever stopped interfering in other countries elections and internal affairs? Taste of you or own medicine is always a bitch.
-
... the primary issue is that another American Russian - one who is then became now President - collaborated with that entity in an attempt to sway the election....collaborated with foreign powers against a fellow American Russian. Not at all Exactly the same thing, and you know it.
The real difference is that Yeltsin apparently knew and actively participated... which is something yet to be proven for Trump. Other than that, I agree with you: "both Russia and the US did what you correctly believe every other nation does - attempt to bend foreign powers to favorable circumstances."
-
... it's a huge error to compare the level of interference then and now...
"This time it is different" - the oldest fallacy in the world.
-
"This time it is different" - the oldest fallacy in the world.
Wow, such an underestimation of 'improved' capabilities, is amazingly naive. It also totally ignores the criminal cooperation/collusion side.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wow, such an underestimation of 'improved' capabilities,...
Which is exactly the underpinning of the fallacy (the naive belief in "improved" capabilities).
-
Seems a fitting look at American culture from across the pond...in light of the fact major networks felt compelled to break into regularly scheduled programing to bring you OJ's parole hearing (like that was somehow something important).
How OJ Simpson paved the way for Donald Trump (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40683038)
(https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/180BD/production/_97039489_body.jpg)
Was OJ Simpson's arrest and trial the beginning of reality TV - and Donald Trump's rise?
It seems entirely fitting that OJ Simpson should reappear at this surreal juncture in American life because many of the trends that culminated in the election of Donald J Trump can be traced back to his arrest and trial.
Consider first of all the impact on the US media of that slow-motion car chase, as "The Juice" headed down the 405 freeway in the back of his white Ford Bronco pursued by a small armada of police cars and a squadron of news helicopters. With viewers glued to their televisions that day, Domino's recorded a record spike in pizza deliveries.
It was the moment arguably that real-time, rolling news truly came of age.
That chase and the gavel-to-gavel coverage of the 1995 trial on CNN and Court TV demonstrated a voracious appetite for cable news. The OJ "trial of the century", with its blend of tabloid sensationalism and serious analysis, established the formula for ratings success.
In last year's presidential election, the media fixation with Donald Trump demonstrated how that recipe still works now. His candidacy could almost have been tailor made to fit the requirements of real-time cable news and Twitter, its digital equivalent.
In ratings terms, his road to the White House became the political equivalent of that freeway chase, an improbable journey we couldn't take our eyes off partly because we were fascinated to learn how it would end. Donald Trump exploited this. The billionaire reality TV star, sensing immediately his media pulling power, became the ringmaster of an OJ-style circus.
America's celebrity culture predates OJ Simpson, but his trial unquestionably fuelled it. Johnny Cochran, Marcia Clark, Robert Shapiro. The attorneys became stars in their own right. So, too, did Judge Lance Ito. Kato Kaelin, a minor player, parlayed his witness stand limelight into various appearances on reality TV shows.
-
And the hits keep coming...least popular president EVER...well, at least he's "special"...
POLLS SHOW TRUMP, THE LEAST POPULAR PRESIDENT EVER, IS PLUNGING EVEN LOWER (http://www.newsweek.com/approval-polls-show-trump-least-popular-president-ever-plunging-even-lower-640700)
(http://www.schewephoto.com/misc/tr.jpg)
Things aren't looking up for President Donald Trump.
There's the growing investigation into his administration's connections to Russia, the country the intelligence community assesses hacked the election to get the Republican billionaire elected. There's the flailing attempt from the GOP, led by Trump, to gut Obamacare and replace it with a new health care system that the Congressional Budget Office has determined would leave tens of millions more Americans without coverage. There's his press secretary resigning over the president's latest hire and constant reports of infighting in the White House.
And the American people seem to be tired of the constant whirlwind of controversy that Trump has created. The latest polls of his approval rating have pretty much uniformly brought bad news for the president. Gallup pegged his approval (http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx) at just 37 percent Friday, while 58 percent of Americans disapproved. That's not quite the all-time low for Trump in the Gallup tracking poll—he sunk to just 35 percent in late March when the GOP's first health care plan flopped before the House could even vote—but it's getting close and earlier this month the president had briefly risen back to 40 percent.
Another poll from the American Research Group (http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/) put Trump's approval at a new low of 35 percent. That's down from 37 percent approval in the group's June poll and 39 percent in both May and April. Even Trump's favorite poll (http://www.newsweek.com/bad-news-trump-presidents-popularity-hit-all-time-low-favorite-poll-639312), Rasmussen Reports—which is often criticized for being right-leaning—found the president's approval rating had tied his all-time-low in a survey this week.
Trump is actually nearing his all-time low in most polls—the average from data-focused website FiveThirtyEight has his approval (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/) at just 38.4 percent, just 0.4 percentage points above his lowest average ever. Overall, Trump just completed his first six months in office and he completed that half-year sporting the worst approval rating for any president (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-ratings-low-worst-popularity-presidents-trouble-white-640222) in the history of modern polling.
But there does seem to remain a portion of Americans whose support for the president is unwavering despite the near-constant chaos from the White House. A poll this week found (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-republicans-overall-actually-dont-care-president-shoots-someone-638462) found a plurality of both Trump voters and Republicans overall would approve if the president walked onto Fifth Avenue in New York City and shot a person.
From that article:
It's a horrifying thought: A man walks down to Fifth Avenue in Manhattan—a bustling street full of New Yorkers and tourists alike—and fires a round at a passer-by.
But in the eyes of many American voters, as long as the shooter was President Donald Trump, that act would be just fine. At least that's what the findings indicate in a new poll released Tuesday by Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2017/PPP_Release_National_71817.pdf), a company that does polling for public surveys as well as for Democratic candidates.
The survey results hark back to a now-infamous claim Trump made on the campaign trail last January, when he raised his hand like a gun and said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still love him.
Wow, gotta love those 2nd amendment people huh?
-
Must be tough having so much money, you forget where it's all stashed :~)
Jared Kushner reveals 77 previously undisclosed assets in new filing (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/07/22/Jared-Kushner-reveals-77-previously-undisclosed-assets-in-new-filing/9641500736686/)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161116102240-03-ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-large-169.jpg)
"Oooops" but hey, they're a cute couple, right?
July 22 (UPI) -- Jared Kushner revealed nearly 80 previously undisclosed assets in a revised version of his personal financial disclosure released on Friday.
The revised disclosure showed that Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and a senior White House adviser, omitted 77 assets from his initial form that were later added during "ordinary review" by the government ethics office. His attorneys said it was an inadvertent mistake.
Emphasis mine...so it seems Jared can't remember either the money he has or the Russians he's met...but he's gonna fix the USA, right?
The story continues:
Kushner's financial disclosure has been updated 39 times since the first filing in March and the attorney to Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump, who is also a senior White House aide, said the couple "followed each of the required steps in their transition from private citizens to federal officials."
Of the 77 assets that were disclosed in the new filing 60 were related to a collection of bonds. The new disclosure also included a stake in Cadre, an online real estate investment platform, worth between $5 million and $25 million.
Kushner also previously omitted an art collection worth between $5 million and $25 million, which his attorney said wasn't included because it was for "personal enjoyment" and not investment purposes.
The new disclosure shows that Kushner and Ivanka Trump hold assets valued between $206 million and $760 million, after the previous filing placed the value between $240 million and $740 million.
Emphasis mine...so, Kushner's financial disclosure has been updated 39 times since the first filing in March? It took 39 times to get to this point? What are the odds both his foreign contacts and his financial disclosures will keep being "updated"?
According to this article, theses are all the things Trump has given Jared to do (bullet points only):
Here are all the duties Jared Kushner has in the Trump administration (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-jared-kushner-do-in-trump-administration-2017-4)
Jared Kushner has a hefty list of goals he's expected to accomplish within the next four-to-eight years.
Despite a lack of previous government experience, the 36-year-old senior adviser to President Donald Trump has been tasked by his father-in-law to solve some of the world's most complex and confounding political problems domestically and abroad.
He's taken on those tasks while also emerging as both a shadow secretary of state and point man for cleaning up Trump's gaffes.
The Washington Post noted at as of early February, Kushner was the point-of-contact for over two dozen countries, as many top foreign diplomats have come to view Kushner as a reasonable envoy.
Middle East peace:
Government reform/Opioid crisis management:
Criminal justice reform:
Liaison to Mexico:
Liaison to China:
Liaison to the Muslim community:
He's also gonna "innovate government"? So, how's he gonna do all that if he can't fill out his financial forms and without revising it 39 times and it takes 3 times to fill out national security questionnaire? Does anybody else sense something rotten in Denmark?
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/13/14-kushner.w710.h473.jpg)
-
Does anybody else sense something rotten in Denmark?
Sorry...didn't mean to imply Denmark has a lot of rotten stuff...it's just a line from Hamlet that came to mind :~)
-
Sorry...didn't mean to imply Denmark has a lot of rotten stuff...it's just a line from Hamlet that came to mind :~)
Oh, thanks for clarifying. We, the deplorables, low-information and low education voters, would not have gotten your Denmark reference otherwise ;)
-
We, the deplorables, low-information and low education voters, would not have gotten your Denmark reference otherwise ;)
I was actually apologizing to any of our LuLa members from Denmark, not the deplorables whom I really don't care about all that much...
8)
-
I think some American diplomat used that expression decades ago to make a point at the UN or some political place and got Denmark all upset. It's OK Jeff, you're not a diplomat, so you can say it. No one's really listening to you anyway.
-
Distant?! You gotta be kidding me. You think we've ever stopped interfering in other countries elections and internal affairs? Taste of you or own medicine is always a bitch.
And when the meddling doesn't work, invade and "save" the country by "converting" it to democracy ... so that it can be influenced :)
-
Must be tough having so much money, you forget where it's all stashed :~)
hahahaha :) I wonder if the IRS has someone keeping an eye on this? I mean if he can "forget" to mention things like this before taking up his position in the Whitehouse, what's the bet he "forgets" to mention something in his tax return?
Traditionally I thought it was only when people had to testify that they became forgetful :)
"I have no recollection of that, your honor."
-
Not really, it's a huge error to compare the level of interference then and now.
indeed... there was 9/11 once = (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vcntOoJnixE/VY5vSsvDFlI/AAAAAAAAqLg/TKcNaUmjTvQ/s640/Allende.jpg)
-
with your approach it would be Japan's right to drop a nuclear weapon on New York City and perhaps Chicago because, well the USA dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
absolutely... except Chicago shall be the first place ;D
-
Democrat Sen. Schumer, minority leader of the Senate, finally acknowledges it wasn't Comey or the Russians, it was Hillary and the Democrats who lost to a guy with 40% favorability rating. So now they'll copy Trump's approach. Populism Lite.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/343337-schumer-dems-not-russia-are-to-blame-for-loss-to-trump
-
Democrat Sen. Schumer, minority leader of the Senate, finally acknowledges it wasn't Comey or the Russians, it was Hillary and the Democrats who lost to a guy with 40% favorability rating. So now they'll copy Trump's approach. Populism Lite.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/343337-schumer-dems-not-russia-are-to-blame-for-loss-to-trump
"If you can't beat them, join them" ;)
-
It's OK Jeff, you're not a diplomat, so you can say it. No one's really listening to you anyway.
And yet, here you are, posting in this thread. Hum...if you are not listening, how do you know what I'm posting?
;D
-
Because it really might be a 400 lbs guy sitting on his bed...
Jake Tapper rains hell on Scaramucci for denying Russian hacking: ‘Don’t you owe a duty to the truth?’ (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/07/jake-tapper-rains-hell-on-scaramucci-for-denying-russian-hacking-dont-you-owe-a-duty-to-the-truth/)
(https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CNN_07-23-2017_09.04.42-F08440-800x430.jpg)
CNN host Jake Tapper on Sunday called out newly-appointed White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci for continuing to deny Russia’s interference in the U.S. election.
On Sunday’s State of the Union program, Tapper asked Scaramucci if President Donald Trump was prepared to sign a sanctions bill against Russia.
“There’s a lot of misinformation,” Scaramucci said, dismissing the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies. “Somebody said to me the other day — I don’t want to say who — if the Russian actually hacked the this situation and spilled out those emails, you would have never seen it. You would have never had any evidence of them. Meaning that they’re super confident in their deception skills and hacking.”
“Wait, wait, wait,” Tapper interrupted. “I don’t know who this anonymous person is.”
“How about it’s the president, Jake,” Scaramucci revealed. “He called me from Air Force One and basically said to me, ‘This is — maybe they did it, maybe they didn’t do it.'”
So, Scaramucci didn't want to name his source about the statement that "if the Russian actually hacked the this situation and spilled out those emails, you would have never seen it. You would have never had any evidence of them. Meaning that they’re super confident in their deception skills and hacking." but it turns out that it was Trump himself...and I suspect that Trump was prolly just parroting what Putin said to him.
-
For the #FailingNYTimes, it seems this lady gets under Trump's skin so easily–yet, Trump seems compelled to try to keep trying to convince her of, well, something. It seems he want her to accept him. Kinda weird actually–he keeps talking to the paper he claims is so terrible (but that he seems to read).
A Conversation with Maggie Haberman, Trump’s Favorite Foe (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-conversation-with-maggie-haberman-trumps-favorite-foe)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/597223ca0c7f8a4a9fe7bdc4/master/w_649,c_limit/Remnick-Haberman-Radio-Hour-Interview.jpg)
The Times correspondent Maggie Haberman, who covered Donald Trump long before he entered the White House and has received threats because of her reporting.
One of the saving graces of the Trump era is the journalism it has inspired. Maggie Haberman is a tireless, keen-eyed example. As part of the New York Times’ White House team, she has repeatedly added to the sum total of what we know about this President and the chaotic West Wing.
To hang around Haberman is to be ashamed of one’s indolence and inattention. She is a multitasker par excellence. A hummingbird effortlessly doing what she needs to do, which is everything at once. Even as she carries on a conversation in life, she is texting, fielding calls from the office and home, writing, taking edits—and when you finally get home in the evening and go to the Times Web site, you see her byline on two or three stories.
This week, after we spoke, Haberman and two of her colleagues spent nearly an hour talking with the President. He took the interview as an occasion not so much to think out loud about policy as to trash everyone within reach, including his own Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. Trump has called Haberman “third-rate,” and yet he is somehow obsessed with her, and the Times’, attention. Haberman first got to know Trump when she was a reporter for the New York Post; she also worked for the Daily News and Politico before joining the Times, in 2015. She is also a CNN political analyst. David Gregory, her colleague at CNN, rightly said on the air, “It’s striking that the President, who spends so much time trying to discredit the news media to convince his supporters simply not to believe outlets like the New York Times, in the end cannot quit Maggie Haberman, and that’s just the bottom line. Because he wants legitimacy and he knows you have to go to Maggie and her colleagues, who are really the journalists of record on this Trump Presidency.”
A couple of days before the Trump interview, I spoke with Haberman for The New Yorker Radio Hour, (http://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/a-rookie-reporter-covers-the-vietnam-war-and-maggie-habermans-white-house) which is broadcast nationally on public radio stations and available now on newyorker.com. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
I'll let you all decide if you want to read what she has to say about Donny boy. You can also listen to the podcast. She has a lot of insight about Trump which you might not like reading if you are a Trump supporter but everybody needs some input from outside their own echo chamber (heck I even watch Fox News and read Breitbart from time to time)!
-
Chuck Schumer just threw Hillary Clinton under the bus. And this is from liberal, anti-Trump CNN. Love it. Maybe Maggie Haberman will do an interview of Hillary to see what she says about Chuckie's comment. She had no message except "I'm not Trump."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/schumer-clinton-2016/index.html
-
Chuck Schumer just threw Hillary Clinton under the bus. And this is from liberal, anti-Trump CNN. Love it. Maybe Maggie Haberman will do an interview of Hillary to see what she says about Chuckie's comment. She had no message except "I'm not Trump."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/schumer-clinton-2016/index.html
No question Hillary was a bad candidate but we'll never know how she would have done as a president
However the election is over, this thread is about MFIC Trump and as far as I'm concerned he's doing really bad. Talking others down isn't going to make him look one bit better.
-
And yet, here you are, posting in this thread. Hum...if you are not listening, how do you know what I'm posting?
;D
I'm not reading your posts. You've got nothing to say except to knock Trump. They're just re-posts of media's fake news. But keep doing it. Maybe it will work in the 2020 election. If we can stop the Russians, maybe Clinton will win next time. "HILLARY IN 2020"
-
No question Hillary was a bad candidate but we'll never know how she would have done as a president
However the election is over, this thread is about MFIC Trump and as far as I'm concerned he's doing really bad. Talking others down isn't going to make him look one bit better.
I like it when a European says my President is doing bad. Europe only likes Presidents that kiss their butts; who let them get away with murder. So that means the President is standing up for America, looking after American interests, which is good. He's pulled out of Paris accord and told you to pay up the 2%. Sure you're unhappy. It's going to mean less money for Europeans and more for Americans.
-
I like it when a European says my President is doing bad. Europe only likes Presidents that kiss their butts; who let them get away with murder. So that means the President is standing up for America, looking after American interests, which is good. He's pulled out of Paris accord and told you to pay up the 2%. Sure you're unhappy. It's going to mean less money for Europeans and more for Americans.
You got it wrong Alan, that's not why I think he is bad. In the end pulling out of Paris will hurt the US more then it will the rest of the world and he'll get his 2% eventually (but not now, since that's not what the agreement said). He's doing bad in my book because he's letting his voters down, passing legislation that mainly favours the (very) rich, preaching "made in America" but letting his own company (and the one of his daughter) off the hook. He's only providing lip-service but for the rest only looking out for himself and his cronies. The swamp is not getting drained, it's filling up faster then ever before. He's a walking disaster for the US but his supporters are blind for his failings.
-
You got it wrong Alan, that's not why I think he is bad. In the end pulling out of Paris will hurt the US more then it will the rest of the world and he'll get his 2% eventually (but not now, since that's not what the agreement said). He's doing bad in my book because he's letting his voters down, passing legislation that mainly favours the (very) rich, preaching "made in America" but letting his own company (and the one of his daughter) off the hook. He's only providing lip-service but for the rest only looking out for himself and his cronies. The swamp is not getting drained, it's filling up faster then ever before. He's a walking disaster for the US but his supporters are blind for his failings.
I didn't know you love us so much. And care so much about us. You've touched my heart.
-
So the Germans have been screwing car buyers in Europe as well as in the US with phony emissions tests that was to protect the planet and reduce global warming. And Frau Merkle has been lying about it to protect German auto industries and German workers. And she has the nerve to complain about Trump who pulls out of Paris because everyone else is cheating. This is why Americans are against Paris and all the boosters who want America to spend money on clean energy.
The German car makers have been conspiring to suspend competition in everything from vehicle development and engines, to suppliers and diesel emissions systems.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/24/investing/german-carmakers/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom
-
I'm not reading your posts.
I see...
(Anybody else see it too?)
-
So the Germans have been screwing car buyers in Europe as well as in the US with phony emissions tests that was to protect the planet and reduce global warming. And Frau Merkle has been lying about it to protect German auto industries and German workers. And she has the nerve to complain about Trump who pulls out of Paris because everyone else is cheating. This is why Americans are against Paris and all the boosters who want America to spend money on clean energy.
The German car makers have been conspiring to suspend competition in everything from vehicle development and engines, to suppliers and diesel emissions systems.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/24/investing/german-carmakers/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom
Alan, to set you straight, there is no connection between Angela Merkel (for umpteenth time - it's Frau Merkel not Merkle) and German automakers. Although she always drove German cars.
Her first car happened to be a used bright red 1984 VW Golf, but don't even think about a possible collusion between her and VW, it wasn't a Diesel.
Her present transportation is a sleek government owned, gasoline powered BMW with a license plate G-1 (see below). As far as I know, she has avoided driving and backing diesels.
As you may know, the diesel emissions are the worst at low speeds. At higher speeds, the CO emission and smoke opacity markantly decrease (hardly noticeable on German autobahns), so the solution for the USA would be to stop bitching and increase the highway speed limit. Then those long drives from Toronto or NJ to Florida would be also much more fun.
(http://static9.bornrichimages.com/cdn2/683/384/91/c/wp-content/uploads/s3/2013/07/german_chancellors_car_aylx7.jpg)
-
The German car makers have been conspiring to suspend competition in everything from vehicle development and engines, to suppliers and diesel emissions systems.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/24/investing/german-carmakers/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom
So, CNN is a trustworthy journalistic source when it reports on something that agree's with Trump's World View, but if CNN reports something that pisses off Trump & Minions™ then it's #FAKENEWS!
Note, it was Volkswagen that had written to German antitrust officials last summer in which it admitted to possible anti-competitive behavior. So, it reported itself to government officials...how refreshing, a company that self reports (how very, very unAmerican huh?).
-
Alan can skip this story because it's from #FAKENEWS!
Trump's Mistake at the Boy Scout Jamboree (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trumps-mistake-at-the-boy-scout-jamboree/534774/)
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/07/RTX3CRGL/lead_960.jpg?1500955065)
The president addressed the quadrennial gathering like a campaign rally—talking to a group devoted to service as if it valued self interest.
Donald Trump continued his ongoing tour of cherished American institutions on Monday night, delivering yet another jarringly partisan speech to an apolitical audience—this one, comprised of tens of thousands still too young to vote.
During the campaign, his performance at the Al Smith dinner—where presidential candidates roast their rivals and themselves every four years—devolved into overt attacks on his opponent. Shortly after his election, he stunned CIA employees by delivering a campaign-style stump speech before the agency’s Memorial Wall. On Saturday, he surprised the crowd of uniformed personnel at the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford by imploring them to lobby Congress in support of his agenda.
So his speech on Monday night to the 2017 Boy Scout Jamboree ought to have been unsurprising. Trump, after all, seems to have only one mode, irrespective of the setting, or the nature of the audience he’s addressing; one familiar litany of triumphs and grievances to which he constantly returns, delighting his fans and galling his critics.
But he retains the capacity to surprise.
“As the Scout Law says: ‘A Scout is trustworthy, loyal’—we could use some more loyalty, I will tell you that,” Trump said, and paused there. The assembled scouts shouted the rest of it for him: “…helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”
Like millions of other boys, I grew up reciting that creed on weekends. I had always taken it to be a list of obligations; its lessons that the path to leadership lay in serving others, and that there are ideals greater than self-interest. The Scout Oath is a pledge to “do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law,” to subordinate self gratification to the pursuit of that litany of virtues.
So when Trump paused at “loyal”—when he interjected, “we could use some more loyalty”—I was stunned. This is the president who told James Comey, “I expect loyalty.” Over the weekend, he’d inveighed against Republicans who “do very little to protect their President.” And there he was, looking out at a sea of Scouts, telling them that “Boy Scout values are American values,” apparently unaware that his own definition of loyalty—something that he himself is owed—is precisely the opposite of the definition those Scouts are taught to embrace—something that we owe to others.
Just what the Boy Scouts would like to hear right? He president threatened to fire one of his Cabinet members, attacked former president Barack Obama, dissed his former rival Hillary Clinton, marveled at the size of the crowd, warned the boys about the “fake media,” mocked pollsters and pundits, and said more people would say “Merry Christmas” under his presidency.
He started his speech by saying: “Tonight we put aside all of the policy fights in Washington, D.C., you’ve been hearing about with the fake news. Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I’m in front of the Boy Scouts?"
Then went on and talked about politics because, well, he can't help himself...Trump whining, it's what he does.
Wonder if Trump has ever heard of the Boy Scout Law before his speech writers put it up on the teleprompter?
A Scout is:
Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and Reverent.
Well, Trump is clean...he's very, very clean. He's a germaphobe! The rest, well not so much. I doubt Trump was ever a Boy Scout...ya know what I mean?
Ironic since the Boy Scouts are too young to vote. Maybe he's campaigning for 2020?
-
Can you imagine working for this clown? Talk about getting the yips...
Donald Trump Is a Nightmare Boss (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449779/donald-trump-white-house-nightmare-boss)
by MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY
(http://truthfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/trumpheader-800x416.png)
And he can’t get the ‘best people’ to work for him: As a newcomer, he has neither the loyalty of the expert class nor a long list of political allies who want to be rewarded with jobs.
The alert came across my phone, with a buzz. “White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has resigned.” I don’t know Sean Spicer; I’ve only shared a room with him once. But I laughed at the alert. I noticed my own reaction to the news was little different from hearing an item about a coal miner being rescued from a disaster. Finally! Sean Spicer has reached safety. I imagined him emerging from the little press office on the side of the White House, covered in soot and looking like a man who newly appreciates freedom. Donald Trump is a nightmare of a boss. His inability to command loyalty from his political hirelings through insults and threats is not only degrading the functioning of his White House; it is threatening the very legitimacy of his administration.
--snip--
Trump’s “leadership” as a boss has created a White House that is notorious for its leaks, and for the way it constantly emits the stink of demoralization. Almost every story about dysfunction in the White House in the New York Times or the Washington Post is verified by so many anonymous sources close to the president that reporters are counting them by “dozens” now. Perhaps soon we’ll move on to “scores” of White House stool pigeons.
But the really dangerous effect of Trump’s mismanagement is that it further degrades his administration’s already compromised efforts at hiring staff for senior and sub-cabinet positions. It is literally preventing his administration from taking full possession of the executive branch of government Trump is supposed to lead.
Why would you go to work for him unless you were hard-up for work or needing to take a high-risk gamble with your career? No one in his right mind would respond to a Help Wanted ad that advertised the boss’s propensity to be angered by the trivial and the everyday, leading him to tweet angrily at colleagues or to say damaging things about his employees to the newspaper of record. No one would respond to that ad if it also mentioned that the boss would redirect all the blame below and spread most of the credit to himself and his family members. But this is the Help Wanted ad the executive branch of the United States has now.
--snip--
Trump is a third-rate boss, and he’s increasingly running a third-rate administration. How long until it changes the United States itself into a third-rate power?
#FAKENEWS? The liberal left biased media? Nope...the above is from the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com)
-
I didn't know you love us so much. And care so much about us. You've touched my heart.
I didn't know your memory was so short, we've covered this a few times before ;)
But since you're not commenting on my main point anymore I am glad you finally agree that talking others down (who are not the US president) doesn't make Trump's shaky presidency look one iota better.
-
I see...
(Anybody else see it too?)
Yeah, that was pretty strange. :D
Maybe he had someone else read your post to him?
-
So, CNN is a trustworthy journalistic source when it reports on something that agree's with Trump's World View, but if CNN reports something that pisses off Trump & Minions™ then it's #FAKENEWS!
Note, it was Volkswagen that had written to German antitrust officials last summer in which it admitted to possible anti-competitive behavior. So, it reported itself to government officials...how refreshing, a company that self reports (how very, very unAmerican huh?).
I used CNN because I thought it would impress you. Well, here's another newspaper's article. You can find thousands on the web. In any case, why would you defend German auto manufacturers when they screwed 1.2 million Americans with dieselgate and millions more European VW owners? VW diesel cars were polluting 40 times more than the permitted levels because of their collusion and lies. They've been ordered to pay tens of billions in fines to American owners (plus a $2.8 criminal penalty) and will pay billions more to European owners. They got caught with their pants down. The company officials are coming "clean" because they don't want to go to jail. So they're starting to get ahead of the curve for once to protect themselves. They're not doing it because they've been struck honest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/13/vw-faces-super-claim-dieselgate-uk-netherlands-motorists-join/
-
The Dieselgate affair is one issue, the suspected collusion another. Cartel authorities have yet to prove any automakers' collusion to the detriment of customers or suppliers. It’s a fairly recent allegation and investigations have just begun.
-
Alan, to set you straight, there is no connection between Angela Merkel (for umpteenth time - it's Frau Merkel not Merkle) and German automakers. Although she always drove German cars.
Her first car happened to be a used bright red 1984 VW Golf, but don't even think about a possible collusion between her and VW, it wasn't a Diesel.
Her present transportation is a sleek government owned, gasoline powered BMW with a license plate G-1 (see below). As far as I know, she has avoided driving and backing diesels.
As you may know, the diesel emissions are the worst at low speeds. At higher speeds, the CO emission and smoke opacity markantly decrease (hardly noticeable on German autobahns), so the solution for the USA would be to stop bitching and increase the highway speed limit. Then those long drives from Toronto or NJ to Florida would be also much more fun.
(http://static9.bornrichimages.com/cdn2/683/384/91/c/wp-content/uploads/s3/2013/07/german_chancellors_car_aylx7.jpg)
I worked with a guy for 7 years whose name was Merkle. Can't get it out of my head. Anyway Frau Merkel has been protecting the German auto industry. Well, she should as the German Prime Minister. And Trump is protecting America's oil, coal, gas, fracking, and other American carbon industries as he should. While America's pollution standards are higher than Europe's, Germany is polluting worse by not even meeting their lower standards but in fact allowing their German auto industry to cheat. Meanwhile they criticize Trump pulling out of the one-sided Paris accord that will damage America carbon production interests. (Canada and Australia too, eventually). Trump may be a lot of things. But he's not stupid. He can smell a bad deal.
-
The Dieselgate affair is one issue, the suspected collusion another. Cartel authorities have yet to prove any automakers' collusion to the detriment of customers or suppliers. It’s a fairly recent allegation and investigations have just begun.
What's to prove. VW has admitted to cheating in America. It is reimbursing tens of billions to VW owners here, billions in criminal fines. There are millions more VW's in Europe than in America so more Europeans have been screwed; apparently you're not one of them. As a German, I understand why you're protecting your auto industry. Just like Trump is protecting our carbon industry.
There are also American criminal conspiracy (collusion) charges: "On 7 January 2017, a former top emissions compliance manager for Volkswagen in the US was arrested by the FBI on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. On 11 January 2017 VW pleaded guilty to weaving a vast conspiracy to defraud the US government and obstructing a federal investigation and agreed to pay a US$2.8 billion criminal fine and US$1.5 billion in civil penalties. In addition, six executives have been criminally charged.
-
In any case, why would you defend German auto manufacturers when they screwed 1.2 million Americans with dieselgate and millions more European VW owners?
Hum...didn't think I was "defending" VW...I thought I was congratulating VW for self reporting potentially unfair and/or illegal collusion...
(I guess you didn't catch the irony about self reported "collusion", huh?)
-
Hum...didn't think I was "defending" VW...I thought I was congratulating VW for self reporting potentially unfair and/or illegal collusion...
(I guess you didn't catch the irony about self reported "collusion", huh?)
Congratulating Volkswagen for screwing up 8 million cars over 8 years illegally? Criminally violating US laws? Polluting the atmosphere 40 times more than they were supposed to? They didn't self report anything. They were caught red handed.
Regarding Trump, you've made a premature conclusion. Fake news. Nothing like VW.
-
What's to prove. VW has admitted to cheating in America. It is reimbursing tens of billions to VW owners here, billions in criminal fines. There are millions more VW's in Europe than in America so more Europeans have been screwed; apparently you're not one of them. As a German, I understand why you're protecting your auto industry. Just like Trump is protecting our carbon industry.
There are also American criminal conspiracy (collusion) charges: "On 7 January 2017, a former top emissions compliance manager for Volkswagen in the US was arrested by the FBI on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. On 11 January 2017 VW pleaded guilty to weaving a vast conspiracy to defraud the US government and obstructing a federal investigation and agreed to pay a US$2.8 billion criminal fine and US$1.5 billion in civil penalties. In addition, six executives have been criminally charged.
Alan, there are two issues: VW's diesel engines and their manipulated software created with Bosch; the recent accusations of German auto manufacturers colluding to their financial benefit at the cost of customers and suppliers. The two are separate topics - the first has been proven, then second not. "What's to prove?" is an absolutely wrong question!
And for your information: I'm an American citizen, not German. Born in Colorado. Served my country as a soldier for many years. A number of developments back home make me contemplate staying in Europe (Germany, Italy, Poland?) upon retirement in a tad under three years.
-
They didn't self report anything.
Hum..did you actually read the CNN article you quoted?
News magazine Der Spiegel dropped the bombshell on Friday, citing a letter it said Volkswagen (VLKAY) had written to German antitrust officials last summer in which it admitted to possible anti-competitive behavior.
VW wrote a letter to German officials that admitted to possible anti-competitive behavior...VW admitted to Germain officials that VW may have engaged in anti-competitive behavior, which I would call an act of self-reporting, wouldn't you?
That's what I was congratulating VW for doing...as far as using a software hack to cheat emissions reports, no, that was a pretty egregious and despicable act to cheat the system and they got caught and are paying the price.
-
Alan, there are two issues: VW's diesel engines and their manipulated software created with Bosch; the recent accusations of German auto manufacturers colluding to their financial benefit at the cost of customers and suppliers. The two are separate topics - the first has been proven, then second not. "What's to prove?" is an absolutely wrong question!
And for your information: I'm an American citizen, not German. Born in Colorado. Served my country as a soldier for many years. A number of developments back home make me contemplate staying in Europe (Germany, Italy, Poland?) upon retirement in a tad under three years.
I welcome you're an American. I thought you were German the way you were defending VW. Regarding the second issue, VW collusion, they admitted to it. Of course they admitted to it because it was about to come out anyway. There is such a huge trail of companies involved and executives. Worse then the collusion of Trump with Russia. Jeff wishes there was this much on Trump. :)
-
I welcome you're an American. I thought you were German the way you were defending VW. Regarding the second issue, VW collusion, they admitted to it. Of course they admitted to it because it was about to come out anyway. There is such a huge trail of companies involved and executives. Worse then the collusion of Trump with Russia. Jeff wishes there was this much on Trump. :)
My final remark on this topic: I did not and will not defend VW.
-
Oooops...HOT MIC (gotta love it)
Senators on hot mic: Trump is ‘crazy,’ ‘I’m worried’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/25/senators-on-hot-mic-trump-is-crazy-im-worried/?utm_term=.2b145e00ea77)
Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine) was unintentionally recorded talking about President Trump at the end of a Senate subcommittee hearing on July 25. Collins appears to have been speaking to Democratic senator Jack Reed. (Senate Appropriations Committee)
At the end of a Senate subcommittee hearing on Tuesday morning, someone sitting near Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine) didn’t switch off a microphone. Collins was recorded discussing the federal budget and President Trump’s lack of familiarity with the details of governing with a colleague — apparently Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies subcommittee.
After Reed praises Collins’s leadership of the hearing, she laments the administration’s handling of spending.
“I swear, [the Office of Management and Budget] just went through and whenever there was ‘grant,’ they just X it out,” Collins says. “With no measurement, no thinking about it, no metrics, no nothing. It’s just incredibly irresponsible.”
“Yes,” Reed replies. “I think — I think he’s crazy,” apparently referring to the president. “I mean, I don’t say that lightly and as a kind of a goofy guy.”
“I’m worried,” Collins replies.
“Oof,” Reed continues. “You know, this thing — if we don’t get a budget deal, we’re going to be paralyzed.”
“I know,” Collins replies.
You are not the only ones worried Susan. Considering what the Trumpeter was saying in Youngstown, Ohio, I'm thinking Trump is actually getting worse...
Trump: I can be the 'most presidential' president except Lincoln (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-other-administration/343774-trump-i-can-be-the-most-presidential)
President Trump said that he can be one of the “most presidential” presidents to hold office at a campaign rally Tuesday.
Trump told a crowd at a rally in Youngstown, Ohio that “with the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.”
And yet, psychiatrists are now free to diagnose the Big Orange One
(at least members of the American Psychoanalytic Association)
Go Ahead, Psychiatrists: Diagnose Donald Trump (http://time.com/4872558/donald-trump-goldwater-rule/)
Barry Goldwater wasn't crazy. He was exceedingly conservative by the standards of his time—and that sometimes got him into trouble. In 1964, when he was running for the Republican presidential nomination, he suggested that maybe it wouldn't be a terrible strategy to use just a few of the atomic bombs in the U.S. arsenal to defoliate forests in North Vietnam and give Americans a fighting edge. Was that extreme? Sure. Crazy? No. And, in the face of furious blowback, Goldwater was smart and sane enough to walk back his very bad idea.
That, however, didn't stop the ironically named Fact magazine from running a sensational story with the provocative headline, "1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to Be President!" The story was junk: A questionnaire had been sent to 12,356 psychiatrists, nearly 10,000 of whom had simply ignored it. Of the 2,417 who did respond, a majority of 1,228 pronounced then-Senator Goldwater perfectly sane. The minority said he wasn't — and the minority got the headline. Goldwater, who went on to win the GOP nomination only to get trounced by Lyndon Johnson, later sued the editor of Fact for libel, and he won. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association responded by adopting what it straightforwardly called the Goldwater Rule, forbidding members from offering a diagnosis of a public figure they have not themselves examined — and even then, not without that person's consent.
But that was then. And then was before the age of Donald Trump. It was before the early-morning tweetstorms, before the febrile conspiracy theories, before the grandiosity and impulsiveness and the serial counter-factualism. It was before, in short, Americans made a man who at least appears unstable to a great many observers the most powerful person in the world. That has led a lot of people to argue that we may have over-learned the lesson of the Goldwater Rule and that it's time to scrap or at least suspend it.
That is precisely the position another professional group, the American Psychoanalytic Association, has now taken. In an internal email, the association urged its 3,500 members to speak their minds on the matter of presidential mental health, and if they consider Trump unwell, to say so. According to the health and medicine website STAT, some members of the group have gone so far as to conclude that not only is it alright to weigh in on the matter of Presidential sanity, but that doctors have an affirmative "duty to warn." The American Psychiatric Association quickly made clear it stands by the Goldwater Rule.
"Lock Him Up, Lock Him Up" in a psych ward....
-
And then he said he won't say this....
Trump: 'I won't say' that I should be on Mount Rushmore (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343786-trump-i-wont-say-that-i-should-be-on-mount-rushmore)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/travel/2016/05/19/mount-rushmore-national-park-service-milestones-ma-drive-tourism/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/0/0/1463682290573.jpg?ve=1)
President Trump at a Tuesday evening rally floated the idea of someday being on Mount Rushmore before turning to attack the press corps.
During a rally in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump turned to a routine talking point, saying “every president on Mount Rushmore believed in protecting American industry.”
But the president quipped that if he jokingly suggested he should be on Mount Rushmore, the media would take him seriously.
“Now here’s what I do. I’d ask whether or not you someday think I will be on Mount Rushmore,” Trump explained.
“But here’s the problem, if I did it joking, totally joking, having fun, the fake news media will say ‘he believes he should be on Mount Rushmore.’ So I won’t say it. Okay? I won’t say it.”
Well, the joke's on you big orange one Photoshop (and twitter) to the rescue
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFowOLQWsAEZEZv.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFn7uDPXYAEZ1L0.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFo3tbNVoAAY8i-.jpg:large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLGVZ4eUYAAQJJC.png)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-m2l6nHVA51Q/Vq2PRbJxHII/AAAAAAAA6Is/rs-ASuzWYpE/s1600/CPJnOF0XAAA8yiK.png)
-
Imagine if you were serving in the military and you happen to be transgender...you find out you and your type are now banned from serving in the military–FROM A FRIGGIN' TWEET BY YOUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
Kinda surprised the Pentagon as it seems Trump didn't even bother to warn them he was gonna tweet this...
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/trump.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
The Cruelty and Cynicism of Trump’s Transgender Ban (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-cruelty-and-cynicism-of-trumps-transgender-military-ban)
The President’s tweets are a naked attempt to divert attention from his scandals.
Nearly a half century ago, young Donald Trump—a Wharton graduate, and an avid player of squash, football, and tennis—scored a 1-Y medical deferment. Hundreds of thousands of young men were being deployed to Vietnam. Trump had some bone spurs. He then limped happily into his father’s real-estate business without delay.
When Trump was interviewed by the Times about his deferment during the 2016 campaign, he admitted that the foot condition was “temporary” and “minor”—usually orthotics or stretching eased the pain—and yet, “I had a doctor that gave me a letter—a very strong letter on the heels.” He promised the paper that he would look for the letter. Amazingly, it never turned up. Later, however, his unforgettable physician, Dr. Harold N. Bornstein, assured the nation that Trump, if elected, “will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”
On Wednesday morning, the Commander-in-Chief declared by tweet-fiat that, “after consultation with my Generals and military experts,” he had decided to reverse an Obama Administration decision and bar transgender individuals from serving in the military “in any capacity.” Trump tweeted further, “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming . . . victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
Let’s begin with the retrograde cruelty. There are thousands of transgender people already serving among the 1.3 million active-duty members of the military. These are people who have volunteered their service and have potentially put their lives on the line, and yet their President, who managed to come up with a flimsy doctor’s note back in the day, denies them their dignity, their equality. He will not “accept or allow” them in the military. Imagine the scale of this insult.
However, today’s outrage—they seem to come at least once daily—is not merely one that reflects on Trump’s low character. It also reveals yet another layer of his political cynicism, and his willingness to use any tactical means available to try to emerge whole from his current predicament.
So, 15,000 active duty soldiers just got pink slip in their twitter feed, only wait, nobody in the Pentagon has a policy on this yet (since they didn't know Trump was gonna do this) so nobody knows if this ban grandfathers serving soldiers in while only banning new transgenders.
It is implausible that Trump paid much attention to his highest-ranking generals, or to experts, generally; Secretary of Defense James Mattis has supported transgender individuals joining the military. And the hardly radical Rand Corporation has published an in-depth study refuting the idea that transgender soldiers are somehow expensive, or that they undermine the morale and cohesion of the military over all. Trump’s decision to bar transgender people from the military is pure politics, cheap and cruel politics, a naked attempt to divert attention from his woes, to hold on to support from his base—a base that he believes will cheer his latest attempt to do battle with the secular-humanist coastal élites who are so obsessed with identity politics. (One Administration official told Axios’s Jonathan Swan that the move was intended to force Democrats from Rust Belt states to take “complete ownership of this issue.”) In other words, it is a decision straight out of the Steve Bannon playbook. Cue the organs of the alt-right press.
So, Secretary of Defense James Mattis supports transgenders but in Trump's tweet he says:
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
5:55 AM - 26 Jul 2017
So, Trump didn't bother to talk to Secretary of Defense James Mattis?
#Trump is a Train Wreck
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40731298
who needs Fancy Bear ?
-
According to a recent Rand study; around 4,000 transgender are currently serving.
Don
-
According to a recent Rand study; around 4,000 transgender are currently serving.
Don
Yep got my number wrong...but Rand actually said between 1,320 and 6,630 and more in the reserves.
Ironically, I'm pretty sure most of our NATO allies allow transgenders but of course, it would cost so much money–wait, not really–and it would impact readiness–no, wait, not so much...
Here's a write up about the Rand study Transgender Troops: Fit to Serve (https://www.rand.org/blog/rand-review/2016/08/transgender-troops-fit-to-serve.html) and the actual report. Read Online
Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html)
-
This is where I got the 4,000 number from Rand info.
It is difficult to estimate the number of transgender personnel in the military due to current policies and a lack of empirical data. Applying a range of prevalence estimates, combining data from multiple surveys, and adjusting for the male/female distribution in the military provided a midrange estimate of around 2,450 transgender personnel in the active component (out of a total number of approximately 1.3 million active-component service members) and 1,510 in the Selected Reserve.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-transgender-military-trump-ban-1.4222787
-
In the heat of the battle, when the going gets tough, and you need someone to cover your a$$, who's better to do it than gays and transgenders? ;)
-
In the heat of the battle, when the going gets tough, and you need someone to cover your a$$, who's better to do it than gays and transgenders? ;)
Ever been to a gay pride parade? There are some pretty tough looking people of all genders and persuasions that could kick your ass all around the block dooode. People who are trained to kill are trained to kill, ya know? If somebody is well enough trained and inclined to defend the USA, I say more power to them and thank you for their service...
-
Ever been to a gay pride parade? ...
God, no. I don't even like horror movies, let alone... ;)
-
The military only wants healthy youngsters ready to fight and die. If you have flat feet or don't have a high school education, they don't let you in. Of course it would be nice to train kids who don't have high school educations so when they get out they could get a job? Sure. But that's not what the military is for. Let civilian programs handle that. When the military has to fight, they shouldn't be side-tracked with some guy who's going through a sex transition. Let that guy serve the country in a civilian capacity. I'm all for that. Readiness and cohesion and they survival of the country are at stake. It's not a place to create difficult problems of any kind. It's not about morality or anything else other than keeping the focus on readiness, esprit de corps and killing.
-
Nor a place for social [engineering] experiments.
-
Nowadays, not too many soldiers fight in a combat theater anymore, so not every recruit needs to be a Rambo with a high sperm count. The most dangerous job in army is to drive a truck on foreign territory. More troops are killed by IDF and IEDS than with small arms fire. When it comes to enemy killing, skilled snipers and drone operators can be very effective regardless of their gender and physique.
-
When the military has to fight, they shouldn't be side-tracked with some guy who's going through a sex transition. Let that guy serve the country in a civilian capacity. I'm all for that. Readiness and cohesion and they survival of the country are at stake. It's not a place to create difficult problems of any kind. It's not about morality or anything else other than keeping the focus on readiness, esprit de corps and killing.
Well, this is what John McCain had to say (https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=80124D36-EF8B-4CBD-A75A-9C6C697CA235) about this...
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement today on President Trump’s tweet regarding transgender Americans in the military:
“The President’s tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter.
“The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military—regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so—and should be treated as the patriots they are.
“The Department of Defense is currently conducting a study on the medical obligations it would incur, the impact on military readiness, and related questions associated with the accession of transgender individuals who are not currently serving in uniform and wish to join the military. I do not believe that any new policy decision is appropriate until that study is complete and thoroughly reviewed by the Secretary of Defense, our military leadership, and the Congress.
“The Senate Armed Services Committee will continue to follow closely and conduct oversight on the issue of transgender individuals serving in the military.”
The Big Orange Dummy stepped on his dick again and had no idea what his tweet would result in...it seems that people in the Pentagon were kinda freaked out by Trump's first tweet and the 9 minutes of radio silence that followed until his 2nd tweet.
The Pentagon Was Just As Confused by Trump’s Ominous Tweet As You Were (http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/the-pentagon-was-just-as-confused-by-trumps-tweet-as-you.html)
Do you remember what you were doing at 8:55 this morning? On the East Coast, you might have been driving to your job; maybe you were already there, settling in at your desk with a hot cup of java. On the West Coast, you were probably asleep.
But if you were at the Pentagon, maybe you were preparing to launch a nuclear attack on a foreign power. And maybe the situation was slightly surreal because it all happened in a nine-minute gap between two tweets from our lumpen president, Donald J. Trump.
Can you see how this post might be menacing?
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
7:55 AM - Jul 26, 2017
It turned out that the disallowed thing was transgender members of the military, but Trump spent nine minutes trying to put together a sentence conveying as much. He finally followed up at 8:04. In the meantime, according to BuzzFeed:
At the Pentagon, the first of the three tweets raised fears that the president was getting ready to announce strikes on North Korea or some other military action. Many said they were left in suspense for nine minutes, the time between the first and second tweet. Only after the second tweet did military officials receive the news the president was announcing a personnel change on Twitter.
And this is the guy who has his finder on the nuclear trigger...how's that make you feel?
-
You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight. -- Barry Goldwater
-
It is laughable the Pentagon really thought Trump was talking about attacking North Korea.
-
And this is the guy who has his finder on the nuclear trigger...how's that make you feel?
The good news is that he really doesn't. He has his finger on the secure speed dial to the people who launch the missiles.
-
A new low, lame poof jokes.
-
Nowadays, not too many soldiers fight in a combat theater anymore, so not every recruit needs to be a Rambo with a high sperm count. The most dangerous job in army is to drive a truck on foreign territory. More troops are killed by IDF and IEDS than with small arms fire. When it comes to enemy killing, skilled snipers and drone operators can be very effective regardless of their gender and physique.
The issue is that in the middle of doing his or her duties of being a soldier, the soldier decides to go through a medical procedure to transition himself to a different sex. The military loses him as a causality at that point because he's not fit to serve. Will he recover in fact to even serve at all? Will he be able to handle the job they trained him at afterwards or will they lose him entirely and have to discharge him?
The military wants healthy soldiers to serve and die. Healthy and dying sounds ironic I suppose, but that's the way it is. I served over 4 years in the USAF and was almost denied my enlistment when they checked me medically because they found a slight scoliosis (curvature) in my back. They can't be bogged down with people who have medical issues, whether mental or physical. This is not the same as being gay where there aren't medical issues.
-
Well, this is what John McCain had to say (https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=80124D36-EF8B-4CBD-A75A-9C6C697CA235) about this...
McCain didn't approve letting in new recruits with this problem. He said Trump should allow the review process already underway to be completed. He did say that those already serving would be allowed to continue to serve. Trump's tweet didn't address that. I do agree that Trump should have allowed a formal release of military procedures from the Pentagon to avoid confusion. I suppose they'll clarify it now.
-
Hey, Alan, since you seem to have a bottomless pit of justifications for Trump's behaviour, what's your reaction to Trump's speech to the Boy Scouts of America?
-
Hey, Alan, since you seem to have a bottomless pit of justifications for Trump's behaviour, what's your reaction to Trump's speech to the Boy Scouts of America?
Alan's reaction to that speech is not so important (I don't mean it in a negative way, Alan), but the really worrisome thing is that most of the Scouts seemed to eat it up.
-
Alan's reaction to that speech is not so important (I don't mean it in a negative way, Alan), but the really worrisome thing is that most of the Scouts seemed to eat it up.
I dunno, Scouts are pretty good at identifying BS.
They were applauding because that is the expected behavior when you have a VIP speaker. We do the same thing in the military.
-
They were applauding quite enthusiastically.
But not as hard as they were clapping at George W. Bush's speech in 2005. But then Bush's speech was much better and classier.
https://bearingdrift.com/2017/07/25/2005-jamboree-president-george-w-bush-knew-address-boy-scouts/
-
Hey, Alan, since you seem to have a bottomless pit of justifications for Trump's behaviour, what's your reaction to Trump's speech to the Boy Scouts of America?
I didn't see the BSA speech or read about it. I was busy justifying other things he's doing. :)
-
Well, it seems the Boy Scouts were really sorry they had Trump give a speech...
Boy Scouts chief apologizes for Trump’s Jamboree address (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/344150-boy-scouts-chief-apologizes-after-trumps-jamboree-address)
The head of Boy Scouts of America has apologized following President Trump’s controversial speech earlier this week at the organization's National Jamboree, saying he regrets politics were brought into the event.
"I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree," Chief Scout Executive for the Boy Scouts of America Michael Surbaugh said in a statement on Thursday.
"That was never our intent. The invitation for the sitting U.S. President to visit the National Jamboree is a long-standing tradition ... It is in no way an endorsement of any person, party or policies.
"For years, people have called upon us to take a position on political issues, and we have steadfastly remained non-partisan and refused to comment on political matters. We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program."
Interesting that the president of BSA is the eco of ATT which is trying to merge with Time/Warner...
The president of the Boy Scouts needs the Trump administration to approve his mega-merger (https://qz.com/1038359/boy-scouts-president-randall-stephenson-has-been-lobbying-donald-trump-to-approve-the-att-time-warner-merger/)
But at least Randall Stephenson (prez of BSA and ATT CEO) had the balls to apologize even if it pissed off Trump.
We need more people to stand up to the incompetent behavior and demeanor of the #BigGoofyOrangeDummy...
-
By the way, if I was in the Boy Scouts, I would have missed the Trump speech because my parents wouldn't let me join the Boy Scouts. (How's that for a Trump malapropism?) It's true. My parents were afraid of bears or alligators or something. When they finally let me go to camp when I was 6 or 7, it was a three week sleep away camp, 21 days, they gave me 21 postcards, pre-stamped and pre addressed back to them so I could write them every one of those 21 days so they would know I'm still alive. All I had to do was write, Dear Mom and Dad, How are you. I am fine. Love, Alan and mail it. Well, they were disappointed they didn't get all 21 but were happy about the 6 I did mail. :)
-
Alan's reaction to that speech is not so important (I don't mean it in a negative way, Alan), but the really worrisome thing is that most of the Scouts seemed to eat it up.
The scouts' Mothers taught them to be gracious and polite. I doubt many of them know the term "BULLSHIT".
-
The scouts' Mothers taught them to be gracious and polite. I doubt many of them know the term "BULLSHIT".
They're teenagers. Didn't you curse when you were one?
-
The issue is that in the middle of doing his or her duties of being a soldier, the soldier decides to go through a medical procedure to transition himself to a different sex. The military loses him as a causality at that point because he's not fit to serve. Will he recover in fact to even serve at all? Will he be able to handle the job they trained him at afterwards or will they lose him entirely and have to discharge him?
I can agree with this logic, even commercial companies don't hire people they know for sure they will miss significant future time due to illness.
But what about a transgender that went through his/her operation, is now healthy, mentally stable and fit to serve? Reading Trump's tweets my understanding is that if (s)he applies (s)he still can't get into the military. I can't see an objective (non-prejudiced) reason to deny this application just because the person has undergone a successful sex change. There might be other reasons as they test him or her that (s)he doesn't qualify, but that is equally true for all other applicants.
-
Or transgenders who associate with a differnt sex but have no desire or need for gender confirmation surgery?
The money aspect is bogus...if they wanted to save money quit paying the $40 million the armed services pay for viagra each year...(like $6 mil is gonna make a difference to a budget of $600 billion)
The whole thing was another red herring tossed out by Trump's reality game show..."who gets pissed off or on today".
-
I can agree with this logic, even commercial companies don't hire people they know for sure they will miss significant future time due to illness.
But what about a transgender that went through his operation, is now healthy, mentally stable and fit to serve? Reading Trump's tweets my understanding is that if (s)he applies (s)he still can't get into the military. I can't see an objective (non-prejudiced) reason to deny his application just because the person has undergone a successful sex change. There might be other reasons as they test him or her that (s)he doesn't qualify, but that is equally true for all other applicants.
I can't believe, Pieter, that you agreed with my logic. I've circled the date in my calendar and will treasure the moment. :)
Regarding people who've had the surgery, my guess is that the military would reject enlistment anyway. They aren't going to accept anyone who had major surgery who might have subsequent medical issues because of it. The fact is the military, in peace-time anyway, can select the cream of the crop in mental and physical shape volunteers. They have enough challenges fulfilling their mission of protecting the country to select those who might become an issue. As citizens, we want them to do their best to protect us and to make sure they don't have side issues that could inflict harm on some soldiers because their comrades are not up to the task. We owe other members of the service to do what we can to assure their survival.
-
Or transgenders who associate with a differnt sex but have no desire or need for gender confirmation surgery?
The money aspect is bogus...if they wanted to save money quit paying the $40 million the armed services pay for viagra each year...(like $6 mil is gonna make a difference to a budget of $600 billion)
The whole thing was another red herring tossed out by Trump's reality game show..."who gets pissed off or on today".
It's not about the money. But even if the person doesn't want sex change operation, how do you deal with some guy or gal or wants to act and be like the opposite sex in combat or not?. How do you maintain orderly conditions? How do you deal with such distractions when your mind should be on protecting your ass from getting shot and you have to depend on your comrade for your life? These distractions will kill soldiers and maybe lose battles and wars. Don't the soldiers who are there and their families deserve the kind of organization where the focus is on military operations and keeping your rifle clean and not trying to figure out toilet arrangements in the field. The generals and the platoon sergeants have more important things to do. Leave that other stuff to civilian situations. Soldiering is a life and death situation.
-
White House divisions on display with Scaramucci's comments
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-scaramucci-idUSKBN1AC2XU?il=0
QUOTE July 27, 2017 / 8:44 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The rifts inside President Donald Trump's White House were on startling display on Thursday, as his new communications director urged Trump's chief of staff to state publicly that he does not leak information to the media.
Anthony Scaramucci, a New York financier who last week became the White House communications chief, also compared his relationship with Trump's chief of staff, Reince Priebus, to a pair of brothers from the Bible, one of whom killed the other.
Scaramucci said last week he and Priebus were friends and "a little bit like brothers, where we rough each other up once in a while, which is totally normal for brothers."
On Thursday, Scaramucci said in an interview with CNN: "When I said we were brothers from the podium, that's because we're rough on each other. Some brothers are like Cain and Abel. Other brothers can fight with each other and get along. I don't know if this is repairable or not. That will be up to the president."
Scaramucci appeared to suggest in a Twitter post late on Wednesday that Priebus may have had a hand in what Scaramucci described as a "leak" of his official financial disclosure documents to the U.S. news organization Politico.
Politico said the information was not a leak but was publicly accessible. "
It looks like this is only the beginning of more ugly things.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Top U.S. general says no changes yet to transgender policy
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-transgender-exclusive-idUSKBN1AC2FN?il=0
QUOTE July 27, 2017 / 5:05 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States' top general told the military on Thursday there had been no change yet to Pentagon policy on transgender personnel, after President Donald Trump's announcement of his plans to ban them appeared to catch senior officers by surprise.
Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, began his note to service chiefs, commanders and senior enlisted leaders by acknowledging the uncertainty that followed Trump's announcement.
"I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement on the transgender policy by the President," Dunford wrote.
"There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President's direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance," Dunford said in the message, first reported by Reuters.
Dunford then made the assurance that the U.S. military would "treat all of our personnel with respect." The message neither voiced support nor opposition to Trump's decision.
Trump made his announcement on Wednesday morning in a series of Twitter postings, saying he would ban transgender people from the U.S. military, a move appealing to some in his conservative political base but creating vast uncertainty for active-duty and reserve transgender service members, who say they number in the thousands.
The Trump administration on Thursday told a U.S. appeals court in New York that federal law does not ban discrimination against gay employees, a sharp reversal of the position Democratic former President Barack Obama took.
[...]
Trump's tweets stoked alarm among some senior military officers and Pentagon civilians, who were caught off guard by it, three general officers in two services said early on Thursday.
"I hope our commander in chief understands that we don't transmit orders via Twitter, and that he can't, either," one said by telephone, speaking on the condition of anonymity."
It's all a diversion from the hearings of Jared Kushner, Don Trump Jr, and Paul Manafort, and the failed repeal of the ACA.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So the New York Times in their continuing anti-Trump effort now uses a trans-gender soldier, Chelsea Manning, dishonorably discharged from the service for treason and who served 7 years in a brig to speak to why the service should allow trans-gender people into the service. Beside the insult of letting a traitor speak to this, she (he) only highlights the point that maybe trans-gender people are unstable enough mentally that they shouldn't be allowed in the military or any part of the government where security is involved. The NY Times so hates Trump, that they are apparently blind to their stupidity in using her to support trans-gender rights regarding the military. What buffoons. They actually make Trump seem reasonable in his position.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/opinion/trump-transgender-military-chelsea-manning.html?_r=0
-
I can't believe, Pieter, that you agreed with my logic. I've circled the date in my calendar and will treasure the moment. :)
Regarding people who've had the surgery, my guess is that the military would reject enlistment anyway. They aren't going to accept anyone who had major surgery who might have subsequent medical issues because of it. The fact is the military, in peace-time anyway, can select the cream of the crop in mental and physical shape volunteers. They have enough challenges fulfilling their mission of protecting the country to select those who might become an issue. As citizens, we want them to do their best to protect us and to make sure they don't have side issues that could inflict harm on some soldiers because their comrades are not up to the task. We owe other members of the service to do what we can to assure their survival.
Yup, I also made a note, it came totally unexpected ;)
So if having had major surgery makes you "unfit" for enlistment so be it. But then the criterion is "major surgery" and not because you're transgender.
But this subtle distinction is probably lost by Trump when he made his tweet
-
It's not about the money. But even if the person doesn't want sex change operation, how do you deal with some guy or gal or wants to act and be like the opposite sex in combat or not?. How do you maintain orderly conditions? How do you deal with such distractions when your mind should be on protecting your ass from getting shot and you have to depend on your comrade for your life? These distractions will kill soldiers and maybe lose battles and wars. Don't the soldiers who are there and their families deserve the kind of organization where the focus is on military operations and keeping your rifle clean and not trying to figure out toilet arrangements in the field. The generals and the platoon sergeants have more important things to do. Leave that other stuff to civilian situations. Soldiering is a life and death situation.
About 80 percent of the jobs in the military are non-combat occupations.
http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/military-myths.html
-
There seems to be a formula. Every few days or every week or so, they make mention of some antiquated prejudice, some shiboleth of the "lefties" or "urban elites", so that red-blooded former middle-class deplorable white guys can vent and make jokes, while the powers-that-be, public and private, shove them a little further under various buses. As if a few transgendered people affects the country in any way. As if there haven't always been gays in the military. As if the USA isn't one of the largest importer of illegal drugs and one of the world's largest producers of porn. Yeah, make your country great again, why don't you. I can't believe people fall for this third-rate con from a pussy-grabbing fake-religion-toting windbag.
I see that Arizona (I think) wants to enact some rule that women cannot have an abortion with the permission of the impregnating male (and the report I read said that the sex need not even have to have been consensual, but I don't know if that's true). Good going, make females chattel again. Next month, get rid of that evil minimum wage too. With some luck, you'll be able to hire people for food. Or buy slaves again. (That's hyperbole, calm down.)
How's that swamp-clearing going, guys? How's the wall building? Anybody know who Trump owes money to yet?
It's stomach-churning.
-
They're teenagers. Didn't you curse when you were one?
No I didn't curse nor swear. I was raised in a very religious family. Public profanity or even swearing was not acceptable.
No wonder your parents didn't allow you to join. You would have been an embarrassment to them. There's nothing worse than a 14 year old with the mouth of a sailor.
-
About 80 percent of the jobs in the military are non-combat occupations.
http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/military-myths.html
But you never know if the trans-gender will want surgery. Then what?
In any case, even if you're in a non-combat position right now, what about tomorrow? Suppose they have to transfer you to a position that requires you to be in a supporting role at a forward base? Do commanders then have to check to see if who they're sending are trans-gendered? They have more important things to worry about.
The 80% they are referring to doesn't mean you will not wind up in combat. It just means that your primary work classification is not tank driver or SEAL. If you're a radio operator or repairman, they can transfer you to a forward base of operations which is combat. You could wind up supporting a platoon out on reconnaissance operating the radio. I was an electronic technician in the USAF repairing crypto equipment in an air force station far from combat in Japan. Then, I wound up on a temporary assignment in a communication's van operating on the beach of an island. Fortunately it wasn't in combat but in Hawaii. :) But it could have just as well been in combat. Everyone in the military learns to shoot even if your main job is to type. You never know.
-
No I didn't curse nor swear. I was raised in a very religious family. Public profanity or even swearing was not acceptable.
No wonder your parents didn't allow you to join. You would have been an embarrassment to them. There's nothing worse than a 14 year old with the mouth of a sailor.
Yeah, that was me. A mouth of a sailor. When I joined the USAF, I found out that load of airmen had mouths of sailors too. We were all in the wrong service, I guess. Did you go into the Boy Scouts? You sound like you were qualified.
-
I didn't see the BSA speech or read about it. I was busy justifying other things he's doing. :)
Here ya go. The whole speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwoTegi72WI
-
But you never know if the trans-gender will want surgery. Then what?
In any case, even if you're in a non-combat position right now, what about tomorrow? Suppose they have to transfer you to a position that requires you to be in a supporting role at a forward base? Do commanders then have to check to see if who they're sending are trans-gendered? They have more important things to worry about.
The 80% they are referring to doesn't mean you will not wind up in combat. It just means that your primary work classification is not tank driver or SEAL. If you're a radio operator or repairman, they can transfer you to a forward base of operations which is combat. You could wind up supporting a platoon out on reconnaissance operating the radio. I was an electronic technician in the USAF repairing crypto equipment in an air force station far from combat in Japan. Then, I wound up on a temporary assignment in a communication's van operating on the beach of an island. Fortunately it wasn't in combat but in Hawaii. :) But it could have just as well been in combat. Everyone in the military learns to shoot even if your main job is to type. You never know.
Usage of drugs and opioid painkillers is rampant in US Army. Those users are a much bigger problem than the few gays and transgenders.
Prescriptions for painkillers also had increased for active-duty soldiers at Fort Bragg. In 2012, more than 18,000 soldiers -- about a third of the installation's active-duty population -- received a total of 46,870 opiate painkiller prescriptions through Womack. The same trend was happening throughout the federal VA system.
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA patients getting opioid prescriptions increased by nearly 77 percent between 2004 and 2012.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/01/18/rising-use-opioid-painkillers-and-efforts-curb-them-may-lead.html
-
A friend of mine wrote this (emphasis mine):
Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and is in the DSM V. Transgender people have very high rates of suicide, depression, etc. I also don't think taxpayers should pay for transition surgery. The US Army was telling female troops that they had to be ok with men showering and bunking with them - not ok. If a person has gender reassignment surgery before the joining the military, has been in their new gender for awhile, and can perform their duties, and has a psych eval, fine. The role of the military is the defense of the nation, period. It is not a social experiment. We're also talking about a really tiny number of people.
Tend to agree with all of it.
-
A new low, lame poof jokes.
OMG, how could you!? Using a homophobic slur in this civilized discussion, that is? ;)
-
Usage of drugs and opioid painkillers is rampant in US Army. Those users are a much bigger problem than the few gays and transgenders.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/01/18/rising-use-opioid-painkillers-and-efforts-curb-them-may-lead.html
Commanders do have major problems with troops who are alcoholics or addicted to drugs. Why do you want to complicate commander's problems with sexual identity issues and where everyone is going to crap and which shower to use? Aren't they busy enough? I applaud a trans-gender person for wanting to serve his or her country. But let's be sensible about it. Let them serve in a civilian capacity. After all, people with flat feet who want to serve are denied enlistment too. Let the military focus on killing people and destroying things.
-
...
-
Commanders do have major problems with troops who are alcoholics or addicted to drugs. Why do you want to complicate commander's problems with sexual identity issues and where everyone is going to crap and which shower to use? Aren't they busy enough? I applaud a trans-gender person for wanting to serve his or her country. But let's be sensible about it. Let them serve in a civilian capacity. After all, people with flat feet who want to serve are denied enlistment too. Let the military focus on killing people and destroying things.
I don't want to complicate commander's problems.
He may already know that a drunken or stoned straight soldier can't shoot straight whereas a person with sexual identity problems can be a much more accurate marksman.
No big deal to me either way, but there are much more serious and urgent problems which should be addressed first before tackling the shower problems.
-
Kristin Beck, transgender Navy SEAL hero: 'Let's meet face to face and you tell me I'm not worthy'
http://www.businessinsider.com/kristin-beck-trump-transgender-ban-2017-7
Now there's a meeting I'd like to see.
-
EU must retaliate if hurt by U.S. sanctions on Russia: German business group
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-germany-zypries-idUSKBN1AC0MV
QUOTE July 27, 2017 / 8:26 AM " EU must retaliate if hurt by U.S. sanctions on Russia: German business group
3 Min Read
BERLIN (Reuters) - Europe must be prepared to respond in kind if the United States' proposed new sanctions against Russia end up hurting its companies, an influential German industry association said on Thursday.
U.S. lawmakers reached an agreement on Wednesday paving the way for the U.S. Senate to pass a bill as early as this week to impose the new sanctions on Russia and bar President Donald Trump from easing them without Congress' approval.
The European Union fears the new U.S. restrictions could be an obstacle to its companies doing business with Russia and threaten the bloc's energy supply lines, but the 28-country bloc is divided over how to respond.
The head of the German Committee on East European Economic Relations said potential damage to European energy sector companies with business interests in Russia could justify counter-sanctions.
"It's the last thing we want, but we must keep the option open," Michael Harms told a news conference in Berlin.
"The sanctions they want against pipeline projects seem designed to boost U.S. energy exports to Europe, create U.S. jobs and strengthen U.S. foreign policy."
[...]
"Imposing sanctions that hit a third party, namely Europe, and at the same time promoting the American economy with the slogan 'buy American gas' - that's pretty striking," said Kurt Bock, chief executive of Germans chemicals giant BASF, which drills for gas in Russia.
[...]
German economy minister Brigitte Zyries complained on Thursday that Washington had abandoned the "common line" it has maintained with Europe over Russia."
The USA has become a liability to its former "friends". It's not a question of whether the European Community will respond, but how...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Kristin Beck, transgender Navy SEAL hero: 'Let's meet face to face and you tell me I'm not worthy'
http://www.businessinsider.com/kristin-beck-trump-transgender-ban-2017-7
Now there's a meeting I'd like to see.
Did it sever while it was he or when it already was a post op she ?
-
EU must retaliate if hurt by U.S. sanctions on Russia: German business group
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-germany-zypries-idUSKBN1AC0MV
QUOTE July 27, 2017 / 8:26 AM " EU must retaliate if hurt by U.S. sanctions on Russia: German business group
3 Min Read
BERLIN (Reuters) - Europe must be prepared to respond in kind if the United States' proposed new sanctions against Russia end up hurting its companies, an influential German industry association said on Thursday.
U.S. lawmakers reached an agreement on Wednesday paving the way for the U.S. Senate to pass a bill as early as this week to impose the new sanctions on Russia and bar President Donald Trump from easing them without Congress' approval.
The European Union fears the new U.S. restrictions could be an obstacle to its companies doing business with Russia and threaten the bloc's energy supply lines, but the 28-country bloc is divided over how to respond.
The head of the German Committee on East European Economic Relations said potential damage to European energy sector companies with business interests in Russia could justify counter-sanctions.
"It's the last thing we want, but we must keep the option open," Michael Harms told a news conference in Berlin.
"The sanctions they want against pipeline projects seem designed to boost U.S. energy exports to Europe, create U.S. jobs and strengthen U.S. foreign policy."
[...]
"Imposing sanctions that hit a third party, namely Europe, and at the same time promoting the American economy with the slogan 'buy American gas' - that's pretty striking," said Kurt Bock, chief executive of Germans chemicals giant BASF, which drills for gas in Russia.
[...]
German economy minister Brigitte Zyries complained on Thursday that Washington had abandoned the "common line" it has maintained with Europe over Russia."
The USA has become a liability to its former "friends". It's not a question of whether the European Community will respond, but how...
Cheers,
Bart
Bart: You might be supporting Trump pretty soon who appears "weak" on Russian sanctions. Pretty soon, all the EU leaders will be calling Trump "astute", a "fair trader unlike Congress" and "the only sensible politician in America." They'll all want to be photographed shaking his hand, including Merkel.
-
Bart: You might be supporting Trump pretty soon who appears "weak" on Russian sanctions.
No need to become insulting. I have not lost my faculties, and I do not intend to drop to Trump's (or his supporter's) level of incoherence.
Maybe I need to remind you of the vision from the more influential economies of our world?
U.S. no longer a 'friend' in Merkel election program
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-election-merkel-usa-idUSKBN19O1NS
QUOTE July 3, 2017 / 4:29 PM "BERLIN (Reuters) - In their campaign program for the German election, Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have dropped the term "friend" in describing the relationship with the United States.
Four years ago, the joint program of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), referred to the United States as Germany's "most important friend" outside of Europe.
The 2013 program also described the "friendship" with Washington as a "cornerstone" of Germany's international relations and talked about strengthening transatlantic economic ties through the removal of trade barriers.
But the words "friend" and "friendship" are missing from the latest election program - entitled "For a Germany in which we live well and happily" - which Merkel and CSU leader Horst Seehofer presented on Monday ahead of a Sept. 24 election.
Instead, the United States is described as Germany's "most important partner" outside of Europe. CDU officials were not immediately available to comment on the change in wording.
The change in wording underscores how relations between Berlin and Washington have deteriorated since U.S. President Donald Trump entered the White House in January."
The USA has become a second rate ally, a "partner" or now even less, a potential threat ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Did it sever while it was he or when it already was a post op she ?
That's an unintelligible (and probably irrelevant) question.
-
Did it sever while it was he or when it already was a post op she ?
You mean like - did they sever something from the body? I guess, in both cases they could.
-
Top Trump lieutenant Scaramucci lashes colleagues in obscene rant
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-priebus-idUSKBN1AC2L4?il=0
QUOTE July 27, 2017 / 6:07 PM (at this moment, a full quote) "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Open warfare erupted inside President Donald Trump's inner circle as his new communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, attacked senior White House colleagues in obscene comments published on Thursday.
Scaramucci blasted White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, in an article in The New Yorker based on a telephone conversation on Wednesday night between one of the magazine's correspondents and Scaramucci.
Amid a stream of vulgar language, the former Wall Street financier named to the communications post last Friday called Priebus a "fucking paranoid schizophrenic" and accused Bannon of trying to build his own brand "off the fucking strength of the president."
In a Twitter message after the article appeared online, Scaramucci said: "I sometimes use colorful language. I will refrain in this arena but not give up the passionate fight for @realDonaldTrump's agenda."
Asked about the article, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the administration was focused on healthcare and other items. "I don't have anything else to add," she said.
Priebus and Bannon had no comment. "
As I've predicted, "It looks like this is only the beginning of more ugly things". And Scaramucci is not even officially in function yet.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Scaramucci . . . called Priebus a "fucking paranoid schizophrenic" and accused Bannon of trying to build his own brand "off the fucking strength of the president."
I don't understand why you find this distressing. We finally have an authoritative if somewhat picante acknowledgement from what may be at the moment the most powerful official in the Trump Administration who is not a member of the Trump family (but only for the moment, given the mercurial moods of the Tweeter-in-Chief) that there is an epidemic of mental illness in the White House.
It's high time for a candid discussion of political pathology. Isn't that supposed to be the first step toward recovery?
-
I don't understand why you find this distressing. We finally have an authoritative if somewhat picante acknowledgement from what may be at the moment the most powerful official in the Trump Administration who is not a member of the Trump family (but only for the moment, given the mercurial moods of the Tweeter-in-Chief) that there is an epidemic of mental illness in the White House.
It's high time for a candid discussion of political pathology. Isn't that supposed to be the first step toward recovery?
Every organization needs a hatchet man. Scarramucci is Trump's. They're both from Queens, like to rattle people and take no prisoners. A perfect match.
-
No need to become insulting. I have not lost my faculties, and I do not intend to drop to Trump's (or his supporter's) level of incoherence.
Maybe I need to remind you of the vision from the more influential economies of our world?
U.S. no longer a 'friend' in Merkel election program
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-election-merkel-usa-idUSKBN19O1NS
QUOTE July 3, 2017 / 4:29 PM "BERLIN (Reuters) - In their campaign program for the German election, Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have dropped the term "friend" in describing the relationship with the United States.
Four years ago, the joint program of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), referred to the United States as Germany's "most important friend" outside of Europe.
The 2013 program also described the "friendship" with Washington as a "cornerstone" of Germany's international relations and talked about strengthening transatlantic economic ties through the removal of trade barriers.
But the words "friend" and "friendship" are missing from the latest election program - entitled "For a Germany in which we live well and happily" - which Merkel and CSU leader Horst Seehofer presented on Monday ahead of a Sept. 24 election.
Instead, the United States is described as Germany's "most important partner" outside of Europe. CDU officials were not immediately available to comment on the change in wording.
The change in wording underscores how relations between Berlin and Washington have deteriorated since U.S. President Donald Trump entered the White House in January."
The USA has become a second rate ally, a "partner" or now even less, a potential threat ...
Cheers,
Bart
Lighten up Bart. The Germans aren't going to leave us. What are they going to do? Stop selling us Mercedes and BMW's? Increase defense spending to 3% so they can stop a Russian invasion by themselves? Anyway, you've been the one complaining that Trump is in Russia's corner saying he's colluded with them. Now that our Congress agrees and has instituted strong sanctions, you're complaining that we shouldn't be so tough on the Russkies. Trump was trying to make nice with them. But you didn't let him. You reap what you sow.
-
Wow... Anthony Scaramucci hates Reince Priebus & Steve Bannon...
Get out the popcorn!
Scaramucci targets Priebus, Bannon in expletive-ridden call with reporter (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/scaramucci-targets-priebus-bannon-expletive-ridden-call-reporter/story?id=48896520)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/anthony-scaramucci-ap-mt-170727_12x5_992.jpg)
White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci responded this evening to an article detailing an expletive-ridden phone conversation New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza says he had with Scaramucci wherein he criticized key members of the Trump administration's senior staff.
“I sometimes use colorful language. I will refrain in this arena but not give up the passionate fight for @realDonaldTrump's agenda. #MAGA,” Scaramucci said in a tweet this evening after the article posted.
Anthony Scaramucci ✔ @Scaramucci
I sometimes use colorful language. I will refrain in this arena but not give up the passionate fight for @realDonaldTrump's agenda. #MAGA
5:23 PM - Jul 27, 2017
He later added, appearing to blame Lizza for publishing the exchange, "I made a mistake in trusting in a reporter. It won't happen again."
Anthony Scaramucci ✔ @Scaramucci
I made a mistake in trusting in a reporter. It won't happen again.
7:50 PM - Jul 27, 2017
Scaramucci was responding to an article posted on The New Yorker's website (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon) (warning: this article contains offensive language), in which Lizza detailed the call that Lizza says the two had about Scaramucci’s hunt for leakers within the administration and his frustration with certain key members of the Trump administration, including Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.
At one point, Scaramucci called Priebus a “f------ paranoid schizophrenic.”
Hum...if looks could kill they probably will...one of them is gonna be gone!
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/reince-priebus-anthony-scaramucci-rd-mt-170727_4x3_992.jpg)
The problem is that Scaramucci has a potential $180 million conflict of interest which might make his current job questionable.
The $180 million conflict that kept Scaramucci out of the White House in January has only gotten shadier (http://www.businessinsider.com/scaramucci-hna-business-sale-conflict-2017-7)
(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F4240c024-7094-11e7-83f1-667fddf1d78f.jpg?crop=2366%2C1331%2C17%2C135&resize=685)
Let's not be naive. If I told you that a firm with ties to a sometimes adversarial foreign power was trying to overpay a Trump administration official for their now struggling business, you might say, "Gee, that seems like a conflict the White House doesn't need right now." But here we are.
New White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci has joined the Trump administration with a $180 million conflict of interest hanging over his head. It's the same conflict that reportedly kept him out of the White House months ago, and it's only gotten stickier since then.
Scaramucci is selling his $5.6 billion financial firm, SkyBridge Capital, to a number of investors. Chief among them is a Chinese financial firm with strong ties to ruling Communist Party, called the HNA Group. Already, Bloomberg outlined that HNA and its fellow investors seem to be paying multiples more for SkyBridge (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-27/scaramucci-scores-millions-from-a-buyer-with-mystery-investors) than a firm like this would normally be valued at. But the sale has also been dragging on for months, and as it has we've seen the questions about HNA, its ownership structure, and its financing rise out of the murky world of big Chinese business.
Now, this all sounds pretty strange as is. But it gets even stranger when you understand what SkyBridge is, what HNA is, and what's been holding up the sale and Scaramucci's pay day. (Hint: It's the US government.)
When you understand that, you'll also understand why this sale to the Chinese was the reason why White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus didn't want Scaramucci too close to the president, according to some close to the administration. It's also why Priebus was cut out of the loop during Scaramucci's lightning fast hiring last week.
I do have to give The Mooch props and creds for coming up with a really interesting mental visual regarding Steve Bannon..
Anthony Scaramucci Accuses Steve Bannon of Self Fellatio in Wild Interview (http://www.thewrap.com/anthony-scaramucci-accuses-steve-bannon-self-fellatio-wild-interview/)
[can we say Fellatio on LuLa?]
File this in your TMI file: Trump’s newly-minted communications director isn’t into self-felatio.
Insisting he had no interest in media attention, Anthony Scaramucci took a shot at Trump’s chief strategist, telling the New Yorker: “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own c–.”
“I’m not trying to build my own brand off the f—ing strength of the president,” he added. “I’m here to serve the country.”
So, there ya go...this is the way Donald Trump's White House Communications Director talks...this is gonna make press briefing interesting from a censor's point of view. I guess Scaramucci will have to be on a time delay...
-
Donald Trump Continues to Attack Women Because He's a Fragile Dimwit (http://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-attacks-women-murkowski)
BY JAY WILLIS
(http://media.gq.com/photos/597a21af28df441a38579bda/3:2/w_800/alaska-murkowski.jpg)
Threatening Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski is just the latest example.
On Tuesday, 50 Republican senators and one vice president voted to open debate and force a vote on a health care reform bill that, even as I write this sentence, still isn't in anything resembling a final form. Lisa Murkowski, the senior senator from Alaska who was just elected to her third term in November, was one of only two Republican legislators to withhold their support from the measure, and because Donald Trump is an elementary school bully who learned everything he knows about leadership from watching clips of the Koba Kai dojo sensei from The Karate Kid, he reportedly responded by calling Murkowski and threatening to take revenge against her entire state. From the Alaska Dispatch News:
By that afternoon, each of Alaska's two Republican senators had received a phone call from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke letting them know the vote had put Alaska's future with the administration in jeopardy.
Uh-huh.
Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan said the call from Zinke heralded a "troubling message."
"I'm not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop," Sullivan said.
"I tried to push back on behalf of all Alaskans. … We're facing some difficult times and there's a lot of enthusiasm for the policies that Secretary Zinke and the president have been talking about with regard to our economy. But the message was pretty clear," Sullivan said. The Interior secretary also contacted Murkowski, he said.
And, of course:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!
6:13 AM - Jul 26, 2017
Murkowski, to her credit, responded to the president's latest spate of vacuous nonsense with a statement that translates loosely from Senate-speak as "I don't give a shit."
I am in a position where I’m not looking to reelection until 2022. That’s a long time away. And quite honestly, I don’t think it’s wise to be operating on a daily basis thinking about [how] a statement or a response causes you to be fearful of your electoral prospects. We’re here to govern. We’re here to legislate. We’re here to represent the people that sent us here. Every day shouldn’t be about campaigning. Every day shouldn’t be about winning elections. How about just doing a little bit of governing around here? That’s what I’m here for.
The Donald doesn't take to strong women very well...
-
Well, any time you have the words Dominatrix and Trump ya gotta look, right?
Donald Trump’s Dominatrix
(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/opinion/donald-trumps-dominatrix.html)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/07/26/opinion/26bruniSub/26bruniSub-blog427.jpg)
At this point I think it’s fair to say that Donald Trump has gone beyond taunting and demonizing Hillary Clinton to a realm of outright obsession.
He’s stalking her.
He can’t stop tweeting about her. Can’t stop muttering about her. On Monday he addressed tens of thousands of boy scouts at their Jamboree, and who should pop up in his disjointed thoughts and disheveled words? Clinton. He dinged her, yet again, for having ignored voters in Michigan, which he won.
--snip--
But Trump doesn’t meet his audiences on their terms. He uses each as a sounding board for his vanities, insecurities, delusions and fixations. Clinton factors mightily into all of these. She’s his psychological dominatrix.
At least they could if Trump would shut up about her. I understand that he misses her, but, sheesh, send some Godiva chocolates and move on.
I can wait to find out what Trump does when Hillary's book comes out in Sept.
Hillary Clinton lets her "guard down" in new memoir after stunning election defeat (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-new-book-what-happened-presidential-election-russia-james-comey/)
For the first time since her stunning 2016 presidential election defeat to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton reveals personal details of the unprecedented campaign through her tell-all book "What Happened."
Publisher Simon & Schuster says the memoir, due out Sept. 12, details Clinton's experience of becoming the first woman nominated for president by a major party during an historic election "marked by rage, sexism, exhilarating highs and infuriating lows, stranger-than-fiction twists, Russian interference, and an opponent who broke all the rules."
In the introduction of the novel, Clinton writes: "In the past, for reasons I try to explain, I've often felt I had to be careful in public, like I was up on a wire without a net. Now I'm letting my guard down."
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/27/13/42BD6CA800000578-0-image-a-11_1501159505971.jpg)
The ultimate Trump troll?
-
Evidently in her book she reveals why she lost the election
It was not because of her expensive but poorly run campaign
It was not because she has the charisma of a bowl of tapioca
It was not her demonstrated below average successes as a Senator and SoS
It was not because of her shady business dealings
It was not because of her pay to play shenanigans with foreign "contributions" to the CGI (that coincidentally faded away once she lost)
It was not because of her lack of being able to speak eloquently and be able to persuade people
It was not her lack of ability to make political deals even among her own party
It was not because she was generally disliked by citizens from both parties
It was not because she alienated large sectors of the voting population
It was not because she failed to appeal to the working classes
It was not because (insert multiple reasons)
The real reason she lost the election was
(drum roll)
She was too powerful a woman and the "system" was against her.
(facepalm)
She just does not get it. Hillary' legacy is that she was probably the only candidate that could possibly lose against Trump.
No hurry to order this book, I am sure it will be on the shelves for a long long time.
-
Lighten up Bart. The Germans aren't going to leave us. What are they going to do?
It's real simple. They will forge better deals with competitors to the USA. A Japanese Trade deal has been signed at the G20 summit, and the number of deals with China is growing fast. It's not the direct trade between Germany and the USA, unless Trump increase import duties, but it's more about the rest of the global economy. For example, China is already a larger importer of cars from Germany than from the USA. When the Chinese start buying even more German cars, they will buy proportionally fewer American cars.
Anyway, you've been the one complaining that Trump is in Russia's corner saying he's colluded with them.
Not true. We do not know if Trump or his Campain members have colluded with the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's high time for a candid discussion of political pathology. Isn't that supposed to be the first step toward recovery?
Well said, Chris.
-
Is this serious? Is she really writing a book stating how she feels she lost? And are you promoting it?
Wow you really hate her huh? What did she ever do to bring forth that level of hate? I mean at least Trump has a career of doing and saying hateworthy things...
And yes th book and title are real and no I'm not promoting it but pointing out the odds are Trump will become fixated by what she writes (well fixated by what people think ho read the book and go running to Trump to tell him).
You figure the Donald will EVER quit mentioning his election win over her?
Yeah me neither :-)
-
Well, aside from thinking repeal and replace would be easy piezy
Where Trump went wrong on healthcare (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40754257)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/9421/production/_97112973_e9ae2438-c095-48d7-96a3-acb822946e8a.jpg)
Hollywood script-writers couldn't have staged it any better.
At roughly 1:30 on Friday morning, John McCain approached the dais on the floor of the Senate. Votes on the latest Republican healthcare reform plan had mostly been recorded, and it was clear that the Arizona senator would be the difference between success and failure.
Mr McCain held his right arm out, palm down. It was his good arm, the one not crippled by the plane crash in Vietnam that left him a prisoner of war for more than five years.
After a pause he turned his hand, like a Roman emperor passing judgement at a gladiator match, and pointed his thumb toward the ground.
"No," he said, amid gasps and a smattering of applause by stunned - and jubilant - Democrats.
For the first time in a long while, politics in Washington weren't at Veep-level absurdity or House of Cards intrigue. It was high drama, with a decorated hero playing the leading role.
Off to one side, New York Senator Chuck Schumer - leader of the Senate Democrats - waved for his side to stay calm. The enormity of Mr McCain's move was obvious, but he didn't want his party to be accused of gloating.
The look in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's eyes, and the catch in his throat as he spoke after the gavel sounded the bill's death knell, said it all, however.
This wasn't just a glancing blow - a temporary setback for reform efforts akin to the countless others that had occurred during the Obamacare repeal's winding legislative course.
When Mr McCain lowered his thumb in the early hours of Friday, he was signalling the downward spiral of the president's legislative agenda.
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5978eb5c7d7eab58531e6ebc/master/w_727,c_limit/Singer-Will-John-McCain-Save-Obamacare.jpg)
An honorable man...karma's a bitch huh Donald?
The irony is that the man that lost to Obama just saved ObamaCare....perhaps now the Congress will take a cue from McCain and engage in actual nonpartisan discussions and debate on healthcare–which both the Democrats and Republicans should have done years ago...
-
It's real simple. They will forge better deals with competitors to the USA. A Japanese Trade deal has been signed at the G20 summit, and the number of deals with China is growing fast. It's not the direct trade between Germany and the USA, unless Trump increase import duties, but it's more about the rest of the global economy. For example, China is already a larger importer of cars from Germany than from the USA. When the Chinese start buying even more German cars, they will buy proportionally fewer American cars.
Not true. We do not know if Trump or his Campain members have colluded with the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
Regarding forging better deals, the whole argument that Germany will stop doing business with America or with anyone else is just silly. Do they like Communist China better? Why, because they're piqued over what Trump said about the 2%? That he doesn't feel trade arrangements are fair with the Eu and Germany? Germany will do what every country does. Make the best deal they can with anyone so they can sell their products or manufacturer products overseas because it's cheaper.
Regarding what the Congress did with Russian sanctions, I meant to say Russian interference in the American elections, not colluding. You and others have faulted them, and rightly so, for doing that. So now, the Congress has acted and imposed sanctions. So Europe may get hurt because of it. Reminder that Russia has also interfered with European elections. Why aren't you taking the same action as the American Congress? Because it comes down to money. You want to continue to buy cheaper gas and oil from Russia. You see it's easy to tell America what to do when you don't have to do it yourself and pay any penalties. Now that you're getting stuck with a bill, you don't like it. America as usual has to take the hard road and high road for you because Europe doesn't have the balls to stick their own necks out and take a hit by imposing their own sanctions for election interference.
-
Well, aside from thinking repeal and replace would be easy piezy
An honorable man...karma's a bitch huh Donald?
The irony is that the man that lost to Obama just saved ObamaCare....perhaps now the Congress will take a cue from McCain and engage in actual nonpartisan discussions and debate on healthcare–which both the Democrats and Republicans should have done years ago...
You're right, Jeff. It is Karma. It has nothing to do with health care or regular Senate order or the Republican agenda. That's all BS from McCain. This is McCain's revenge served as cold desert regarding Trump's stupid and insensitive comments during the campaign about McCain's patriotism during Viet Nam and his imprisonment by the vile North Vietnamese who tortured him. It's payback, pure and simple, against Trump.
-
It's payback, pure and simple, against Trump.
Or compassion towards the tens of millions of fellow Americans who would have lost medical care which he can (presumably) afford.
-
It's payback, pure and simple, against Trump.
It's Karma all right but it ain't payback. I guess you didn't hear McCain's speach when he returned the the Senate? If you had the you would have heard he telegraphed his vote. He said the Senate had to get back to the regular order and do things in a bipartisan manner-he slammed the dems for doing it in a partisan manner 7 years ago.
Hopefully the Senate will get the message and reach out the to the dems to do what's needed for America and not just the GOP.
This could be a pivotal point in McCain's career if they do before he dies...
-
You're right, Jeff. It is Karma. It has nothing to do with health care or regular Senate order or the Republican agenda. That's all BS from McCain. This is McCain's revenge served as cold desert regarding Trump's stupid and insensitive comments during the campaign about McCain's patriotism during Viet Nam and his imprisonment by the vile North Vietnamese who tortured him. It's payback, pure and simple, against Trump.
Regardless of the reason, it's hard to argue that it wasn't the right thing to do. Whether you are for or against the ACA, the "skinny repeal" - essentially leaving all the costs of the ACA while downsizing the risk pool - was about the stupidest "solution" that could have been attempted. It was a straight attempt at a political "win" - nothing more, nothing less - and the 49 that voted for it are lower than slime.
-
The Big Orange Dummy thought he could muscle his way to power in Washington...yeah, well, not so much.
Bully-in-Chief Gets Schooled in the Ways of Washington (https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-07-28/donald-trump-gets-schooled-in-the-ways-of-washington)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/85.jpeg)
President Donald Trump was hit with a major loss Friday morning, when the Senate failed to pass a partial
repeal of the Affordable Care Act. (WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES)
What worked with hotel workers and real estate developers was the wrong approach to upper-chamber pols.
He threatened. He tweeted. He lost.
President Donald Trump might be forgiven for thinking he could bully U.S. senators to vote for a measure even GOP lawmakers said they did not actually want to become law. They needed a win, the president needed a win and the bare-knuckled tactics had worked before, helping him to win the presidential election.
Instead, Trump was hit with a major loss in the wee hours of Friday morning, when three tough-as-nails Republican senators joined a united Democratic caucus to defeat a partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans promised that the so-called "skinny repeal," which would have eliminated the health insurance mandate of Obamacare, was just a vehicle to force a negotiating session with the House on a more comprehensive package.
That wasn't enough for GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and most dramatically, John McCain of Arizona, who didn't let an aggressive brain tumor or last-ditch, on-the-floor lobbying by Vice President Mike Pence stop him from giving a quietly defiant thumbs-down to the proposal.
"There is a reason why the famous political scientist Richard Neustadt said years ago that presidential power is the power to persuade. Not the power to command - to persuade," says Whit Ayres, a veteran GOP consultant and pollster. Trump, Ayres says, tried to bully lawmakers and suffered a backlash. And it was predictable to anyone who can do the math, he notes.
"Many of these senators are more popular in their states than Donald Trump is. Most of the senators who won re-election in 2016 ran ahead of Donald Trump in their states," Ayres adds. "That means that those senators tend to think the president owes them, rather than that they owe the president."
Trump crowed about being a master dealmaker, but "he's just proven that he's an amateur. He certainly doesn't understand how Congress works," says University of Akron political science professor David B. Cohen, who is co-authoring a book on the White House chief of staff position.
Maybe a retired Marine general as chief of staff might be able to make Trump become presidential...yea, prolly not :~(
-
Donald Trump's manic, fantastical and utterly disastrous week (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/politics/donald-trump-week/index.html)
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/58177a15150000d804530d10.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
So, how do you like me now folks?
(CNN)Quick: Think back to Monday. Can you remember what happened at the White House and in Congress?
Chances are that you can't. In fact, if you're like most of the political world, Monday feels as if it happened a month ago.
This is the nature of time in the Donald Trump presidency. There are so many storylines every single day that it's impossible to keep up with them even for a 24-hour news cycle. Some of this is, of course, strategy on the part of the President -- if you throw 1,000 balls in the air, any one person can only hope to focus on a few in hopes of catching them.
But, ascribing strategy to every ball Trump throws may be giving him and his White House too much credit. The truth is that this is a President who creates chaos in and around him. He acts, and then watches the wildness that ensues. The plan, seemingly, is that there is no plan.
He's the man knocking down the first domino in a massive chain that spiders in a thousand different directions. Or, maybe even more apt: He's smashing the ice on a thinly frozen pond and watching as the cracks spread out around him -- endangering both himself and anyone else unlucky enough to be sharing the ice with him.
Every week at the manic pace Trump keeps feels like a blur -- none more than this week, in which the President and his administration lurched from controversy to cataclysm to convulsion and back, all in the space of five days.
Let's go through the week that was:
To save some people eyes from having to read, here's the lowlights...
Monday: Tweets attacking the "Beleaguered Sessions" and Monday evening was the Boy Scouts of America political speech...
Tuesday: Tweets attacking Sessions again asking why Hillary isn't being investigated then back on the road to Youngstown, Ohio where he declares himself the 2nd most presidential president since Lincoln.
Wednesday: Tweets again getting the Pentagon in a tizzy by saying "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......" and waiting 9 minutes before banning transgender people from the military, without telling the military. Wed note was the dinner with Anthony Scaramucci, Sean Hannity and former Fox News executive Bill Shine. Scaramucci tweets about the leak and attacks Reince Priebus as a leaker then deletes the tweet.
Thursday: The day began with a 30-minute phone interview between Scaramucci and CNN's Chris Cuomo that was beyond odd. Scaramucci repeatedly insisted he had the confidence of the President, that he was acting and speaking at the President's behest and that he was on a mission to find and exterminate the leaks coming out of the White House. "Those are the types of leaks that are so treasonous that 150 years ago, people would have been hung for those types of leaks," Scaramucci told Cuomo in one of the many, many eye-popping quotes of the interview. Shortly after 5 p.m. ET, the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza posted a first person account of a phone conversation he had Wednesday evening with Scaramucci following a tweet revealing the dinner. Scaramucci was incensed, repeatedly insisting he would fire everyone in the communications department to get to the bottom of the leaks as well as blasting Priebus as a "paranoid schizophrenic" and describing an acrobatic act that it was hard to imagine chief strategist Steve Bannon pulling off. Scaramucci responded to it all by blaming the press: "I made a mistake in trusting in a reporter. It won't happen again."
Thursday was also apparently when Reince Priebus secretly resigned (was fired?) from the White House (as foretold by Scaramucci it seems).
Friday: Just hours into the day, three Senate Republicans -- Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and John McCain -- broke ranks with their 49 other colleagues, voting against the so-called "skinny repeal" of Obamacare. The dramatic vote in which McCain -- newly returned to the nation's capitol from Arizona after a brain cancer diagnosis -- cast the deciding vote was straight out of "West Wing."
Later in the day Trump delivered a humdinger of a speech to police officers in Long Island on the dangers posed by the MS-13 gang, which he derided as "animals." He also appeared to condone violence against criminals; "And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don't be too nice," Trump said.
Just before 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Trump announced -- via Twitter -- that he had fired Reince Priebus as chief of staff and replaced him with John Kelly, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Just another typical week on the reality show titled "Trump's White House". Hopefully, the show will be cancelled after the 2018 elections and the democrats get enough votes to take over the House and Senate and bounce Trump's big fat ass out of Washington...
-
File this under "what took her so long?"
Anthony Scaramucci's wife reportedly filed for divorce because he was 'hell-bent' on joining Trump (http://www.businessinsider.com/anthony-scaramucci-deidre-ball-divorce-2017-7)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/selectall/2017/07/24/24-anthony-scaramucci.w710.h473.jpg)
The New York Post reported Friday that incoming White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci's wife filed for divorce because of his political ambitions.
Citing "multiple sources," The Post's Page Six reported that Scaramucci's wife, Deidre Ball, filed for divorce after three years of marriage because of Scaramucci's efforts to get close to President Donald Trump.
Ball, who worked as a vice president for SkyBridge Capital, the firm founded by Scaramucci in 2005, reportedly "despises" Trump, according to the Page Six report.
Scaramucci and Ball were said to have started dating in 2011 and married in 2014.
Sadly they have two kids...
-
This is fun because the artist is a home town boy...
Alien Donald Trump appears on Mexico City billboard (http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/offbeat/alien-donald-trump-appears-on-mexico-city-billboard/ar-AAoZMpo#image=1)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/AAoZGwo.img.jpeg)
A giant billboard shows a drawing depicting U.S. President Trump in Mexico City
A massive image of U.S. President Donald Trump as an alien intruder now towers above one of the busiest roads in Mexico City urging motorists to "Make America Great Again."
The gaudy billboard sports a caricature of Trump with a blue and red fleshless face beneath his blond hair. It went up above the two-tier inner city ring road known as the Periferico last week after failing to find takers in the United States.
Backed with an American flag, the 13-by-7 meter (43-by-23 feet) placard of a finger-pointing Trump was originally intended to adorn a U.S. city, said its creator, Chicago-based artist Mitch O'Connell.
"America is afraid to put up this tongue-in-cheek billboard," O'Connell told Reuters by telephone. "Then Mexico came to mind because Trump started out his campaign by being cruel and mean to everyone in Mexico."
The White House had no comment on the sign.
Way to go Mitch!
(I don't know Mitch but happy to encourage him!)
-
Bye Reince, you and Sean are the lucky ones...
Reince Priebus, shortest-serving chief of staff in White House history (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/politics/reince-priebus-chief-of-staff-white-house-history/index.html)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/06/6-reince-preibus.w710.h473.jpg)
(CNN) - Reince Priebus's six-month stint in the White House landed in the history books on a rainy Friday afternoon: He became the shortest-serving chief of staff. Ever.
No White House chief of staff's term has ended more swiftly than the former GOP chairman's short 189 days on the job.
The widely anticipated announcement followed a series of public attacks on Priebus this week from new White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who boarded Air Force One with Trump and Priebus for a Friday afternoon event in New York.
Since the position was first created in 1946, the average tenure of the 29 chiefs of staff stretches nearly two and a half years, according to a CNN analysis of data from a Discovery Channel project called The Presidents' Gatekeepers.
All but seven chiefs of staff have lasted at least one year in the job.
The next shortest serving chief of staff, Kenneth Duberstein, worked 203 days for President Ronald Reagan from 1988 to 1989. And Jack Watson worked under Jimmy Carter for 223 days from 1980 to 1981.
So, can we now all agree that Trump isn't doing very well as president?
The only thing he accomplished of note was the Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch (and that took changing the Senate's super majority rule). Travel Ban? Nope... Build the wall? Nope... Repeal and replace ObamaCare? Nope... He's pissed off our allies (and our enemies) and our military. About the only group he hasn't pissed off (yet) is his hard core supporters but at a 36% approval rate he's likely to loose a lot of them (he's lost the independents). And his tweets are still sheer lunacy!
The only real thing he's done is to systematically try to undo EVERYTHING Obama has done and even that is largely undone...and his campaign and administration are still under investigation with the noose tightening it seems, daily.
-
Sorry...busy day in Trumpolitics™ today...
Struggling to govern, Trump faces growing Republican unease (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-analysis-idUSKBN1AD2PH)
(http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170728&t=2&i=1194931263&r=LYNXMPED6R1PR&w=1280)
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives aboard Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S. July 28, 2017.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As fellow Republicans labored to repeal Obamacare this week, U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly swerved off-topic, escalating concerns in his party about his ability to govern the country six months after taking office.
While senators grappled with healthcare, Trump banned transgender people from the military. He regaled a Boy Scout jamboree with a tale from a New York cocktail party. He indulged an obscene tirade by his flamboyant new communications director.
In the end, the Senate's efforts collapsed in a predawn vote on Friday, magnifying the ineffectiveness that often goes with the chaos around Trump, the constant storm of tweets, the White House infighting, the self-inflicted wounds.
"We're seeing clear evidence that all of these distractions are standing in the way of their ability to achieve legislative accomplishments," said Republican strategist Alice Stewart, a top aide to Senator Ted Cruz's presidential campaign last year.
In the latest twist, Trump late on Friday named U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly as his new White House chief of staff, replacing Reince Priebus, who has been in a feud with Trump's new communications director Anthony Scaramucci.
Among some establishment Republicans, there were signs that patience with Trump was wearing thin.
His national security team, seen as a bedrock of normality, increasingly is frustrated. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were described by sources as unhappy with their handling by the White House.
Defense Secretary James Mattis was coming to grips with Trump's abrupt decision on Wednesday, via a tweet, to ban transgender individuals from military service. The Pentagon said it would not execute the order without more guidance.
If he starts losing his cabinet members (including Sessions) Trump's presidency will be shut down by the GOP and they will fall into CYA mode and try to mitigate the disaster that the 2018 midterm election would be for the GOP.
Personally, I hope Trump keeps poking the GOP with a sharp stick...makes for a more interesting reality show :~)
After the healthcare debacle does anybody think Trump and Congress could possibly do tax reform? Yeah, me neither...
-
"Race-based attacks..." and the "tolerance and inclusion" of the left. Or reverse racism and self-inflicted segregation?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-boyle-heigts-huizar-coffee-20170729-story.html
-
"Hamburg supermarket attacker 'was known Islamist'"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40763369
"...asylum seeker...suffered from "psychological" issues...It is not yet clear what the suspect's motivations were."
So many crazies in Germany, so many possible motives ;)
-
"Hamburg supermarket attacker 'was known Islamist'"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40763369
"...asylum seeker...suffered from "psychological" issues...It is not yet clear what the suspect's motivations were."
So many crazies in Germany, so many possible motives ;)
Indeed, and yesterday in the USA 20 people were killed, and 42 were injured, all by crazies who were waving guns.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Now Trump is threatening not only ObamaCare, but Congress' own healthcare...
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
After seven years of "talking" Repeal & Replace, the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare!
11:19 AM - Jul 29, 2017
Followed by...
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!
11:27 AM - Jul 29, 2017
Wait, what? Does Trump think threatening Congress will force them into doing something that currently can't be done?
Separately, Trump is extolling the Senate to get rid of the super majority rule...
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Republican Senate must get rid of 60 vote NOW! It is killing the R Party, allows 8 Dems to control country. 200 Bills sit in Senate. A JOKE!
4:20 AM - 29 Jul 2017
Course, that had zero to do with the failed "TrumpCare" failure now did it?
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/581f0202dd089567548b4731-1190-625/lord-turner-donald-trump-is-a-racist-sexist-buffoon-and-a-threat-to-world-peace.jpg)
Does this buffoon have the slightest idea what he's doing? Nope...
-
And he thought this through?
Of course he didn't, he quit reading the friggin' teleprompter!
Police after Trump speech: We don't tolerate 'roughing up' prisoners (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/29/police-trump-speech-violence/522561001/)
(http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/730x420-c4e66f341a68240a90e6a6a3f7556d8a.jpg)
"don't be too nice" during arrests...
Law enforcement agencies condemned police violence Friday after President Trump advised New York officers "don't be too nice" during arrests.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a statement stressing that officers are extensively trained to ensure use of force is applied carefully.
"Law enforcement officers are trained to treat all individuals, whether they are a complainant, suspect, or defendant, with dignity and respect," the organization said. "This is the bedrock principle behind the concepts of procedural justice and policy legitimacy."
The assurance came after Trump's remarks to a group of officers on Long Island, N.Y.
“Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head, I said, ‘You can take the hand away, OK?’" the president said.
Wow...just wow. It's like we don't have enough problems with police and community relations, now our friggin' president is telling cops to "don't be too nice"?
(https://thetruthwithnorestriction.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/don.jpg?w=768)
How can anybody support this big orange buffoon?
-
...It's like we don't have enough problems with police and community relations...
We do not have problems with police. We have problems with communities and politicians pandering to them for votes.
-
Conservatives Are Turning On Trump As Wall Street Journal Calls Him Weak And Not A Real Man (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/07/28/conservative-murdochs-wall-street-journal-trump-weak-undermines-traditional-masculinity.html)
"Half his tweets show utter weakness. They are plaintive, shrill little cries, usually just after dawn," Peggy Noonan wrote in Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled "Trump Is Woody Allen Without the Humor."
This was written before the Trump Obamacare repeal fail and subsequent White House whines and tantrums.
It gets worse. The President’s primary problem as a leader isn’t that he is brash and stupid, “It is that he is weak and sniveling. It is that he undermines himself almost daily by ignoring traditional norms and forms of American masculinity.”
“He’s not strong and self-controlled, not cool and tough, not low-key and determined; he’s whiny, weepy and self-pitying. He throws himself, sobbing, on the body politic. He’s a drama queen. It was once said, sarcastically, of George H.W. Bush that he reminded everyone of her first husband. Trump must remind people of their first wife.”
Precisely because of the conservative view of women, which is none too attractive and involves using being feminine as a negative, this is damning criticism. For conservatives, Trump was supposed to be the BMOC, the Decider, Big Daddy in the White House, Clint Eastwood cleaning up crime with the heart of a vigilante. Instead, he is a whining little drama prince throwing tantrums on an hourly basis, in public, because someone won’t give him the candy he wants right now.
Conservatives elected this man; this is the end game of the values into which they have warped their party. Gone are the deep thinking intellectuals, the generous and caring patriarchs, the fiscally responsible adults… gone.
This is what they have become: Everything they loathe.
Everything Republicans assure themselves they are not, Trump is. He is entitled, spoiled, lazy, whining, immature, nasty, vulgar, obscene, and ignorant.
If you have access to the WSJ you can read the entire article here:
Trump Is Woody Allen Without the Humor (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-woody-allen-without-the-humor-1501193193)
By Peggy Noonan
July 27, 2017 6:06 p.m. ET
The president’s primary problem as a leader is not that he is impetuous, brash or naive. It’s not that he is inexperienced, crude, an outsider. It is that he is weak and sniveling. It is that he undermines himself almost daily by ignoring traditional norms and forms of American masculinity.
He’s not strong and self-controlled, not cool and tough, not low-key and determined; he’s whiny, weepy and self-pitying. He throws himself, sobbing, on the body politic. He’s a drama queen.
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/funny-donald-trump-queen-elizabeth-photohop-trumpqueen-66-584a76a391b83__700.jpg)
and then there's this...
Someone Is Photoshopping Trump’s Face On The Queen, And The Results Are Scary (http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-donald-trump-queen-elizabeth-photohop-trumpqueen/)
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/funny-donald-trump-queen-elizabeth-photohop-trumpqueen-35-584a7656c872c__700.jpg)
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/funny-donald-trump-queen-elizabeth-photohop-trumpqueen-43-584a766791462__700.jpg)
-
We do not have problems with police.
Yeah well you used to live in Chicago and you think there hasn't been major problems in the CPD?
Did you forget this?
Justice report rips Chicago police for excessive force, lax discipline, bad training (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-justice-department-report-20170113-story.html)
In perhaps the most damning, sweeping critique ever of the Chicago Police Department, the U.S. Department of Justice concluded Friday that the city's police officers are poorly trained and quick to turn to excessive and even deadly force, most often against blacks and Latino residents, without facing consequences.
The 164-page report, the product of more than a year of investigation, paints the picture of a department flawed from top to bottom, although many of the problems it cites have, for decades, been the subject of complaints from citizens, lawsuits by attorneys and investigations by news organizations.
To their credit, Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and the Major as well as the Inspector General Joseph Ferguson are taking the report seriously, but it doesn't help to have the Big Orange Buffoon saying it's ok to slam a suspect's head into the door...
-
Yeah well you used to live in Chicago and you think there hasn't been major problems in the CPD?..
Nope.
The report was written by Obama's loonies. The more they go after Chicago police instead of thugs, the more crime there is in Chicago. See the correlation?
When I am in Chicago, I approach police patrols and ask to shake their hands, white, black, yellow or brown, male of female, thank then for their service and tell them not everyone is against them.
-
When I am in Chicago, I approach police patrols and ask to shake their hands, white, black, yellow or brown, male of female, thank then for their service and tell them not everyone is against them.
Oh, I support good cops (the vast majority) but I'm not ok with shooting unarmed suspects rather than using nonlethal force... I'm not ok with physical abuse of suspects that are not resisting and I'm not ok with the "blue wall" of protecting bad cops just because they are cops.
So, you're ok with unnecessary force? You're ok with Trump advocating "not being nice to them"?
-
[...]
and then there's this...
Someone Is Photoshopping Trump’s Face On The Queen, And The Results Are Scary (http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-donald-trump-queen-elizabeth-photohop-trumpqueen/)
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/funny-donald-trump-queen-elizabeth-photohop-trumpqueen-35-584a7656c872c__700.jpg)
(http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/funny-donald-trump-queen-elizabeth-photohop-trumpqueen-43-584a766791462__700.jpg)
Frankly, I find that a bit of an insult to Elisabeth II, her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
She's also much cooler than Trump, and has a refined sense of humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AS-dCdYZbo#t=128.726562
Her sense of humor is also displayed by extending an invitation to an official reception, which Trump declined unless a guarantee was given that public protests would not occur. A big failure to actually draw huge crowds, IMHO.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. The Queen, age 91, apparently still drives her own car (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/08/queen-spotted-driving-jaguar-back-church/). Donny doesn't, can't be trusted.
-
Oh, I support good cops (the vast majority) but I'm not ok with shooting unarmed suspects rather than using nonlethal force... I'm not ok with physical abuse of suspects that are not resisting and I'm not ok with the "blue wall" of protecting bad cops just because they are cops.
So, you're ok with unnecessary force? You're ok with Trump advocating "not being nice to them"?
Depends on the definition of "(un)necessary" and "nice." It is easy to be an armchair critic. Walk in their shoes, see it with their eyes, surround yourself with the scum of the earth on a daily basis, and then ask me.
-
... So many crazies in Germany, so many possible motives ;)
Looks like the German "illness" is becoming pandemic ;)
"Australia police 'foil terror plot to bring down plane'"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40766858
" the four men arrested were allegedly linked to an "Islamic-inspired" plot."
In contrast to Europe (and Obama's America), it looks like Down Under they have no problem calling a spade a spade.
-
Good questions, Tex.
-
If 0%of muslim foreign nationals secretly wanted to hurt us Americans, surely it would be immoral to ban ALL muslims from entering the U.S. If 100% of muslims wanted to hurt us, however, surely it would be morally justifiable to ban ALL muslims.
So what do we do when the actual percentage is less than 100% but more than 0%? How much risk are you willing to take? And is it racist/Islamaphobic/intolerant if I am more risk averse than you are? And if so, by how much? Can you be 10% of a racist? Are you a racist if you draw the line at 1% but I at 2%? How much risk should a non-racist be allowed to take? .01%? 1%. How about 10%? Maybe 99%?
If 0%of foreign nationals secretly wanted to hurt us Americans, surely it would be immoral to ban ALL people from entering the U.S. If 100% of the people wanted to hurt us, however, surely it would be morally justifiable to ban ALL people.
So what do we do when the actual percentage is less than 100% but more than 0%? How much risk are you willing to take? And is it racist/Islamaphobic/intolerant if I am more risk averse than you are? And if so, by how much? Can you be 10% of a racist? Are you a racist if you draw the line at 1% but I at 2%? How much risk should a non-racist be allowed to take? .01%? 1%. How about 10%? Maybe 99%?
-
"Hamburg supermarket attacker 'was known Islamist'"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40763369
"...asylum seeker...suffered from "psychological" issues...It is not yet clear what the suspect's motivations were."
So many crazies in Germany, so many possible motives ;)
One day later, another violent event in southern Germany, with one dead and three injured. The shooter was killed by the police.
Since the shooter was an Iraker living there for a long time, technically (according to German police) they wouldn't call it a terrorism, but just in case, they had a helicopter hovering over the nightclub.
BERLIN (Reuters) - A gunman who killed one person and injured three others in a nightclub in southern Germany on Sunday was an Iraqi citizen who had lived in the country for a long time and was not an asylum seeker, police said, ruling out terrorism as a motive.
Konstanz police spokesman Fritz Bezikofer told the n-tv broadcaster that after an initial investigation into the events surrounding the shooting at the nightclub in Konstanz on the border with Switzerland investigators ruled out terrorism. "The motives of the man who acted alone are unclear," he said. "We are still investigating but the circumstances surrounding the events at the disco in the evening before the shooting are a bit clearer and this led us to rule out a terrorism background."
-
When I am in Chicago, I approach police patrols and ask to shake their hands, white, black, yellow or brown, male of female, thank then for their service and tell them not everyone is against them.
Just remember not have your cell phone in the other hand, or you might get shot.
-
One day later, another violent event in southern Germany, with one dead and three injured. The shooter was killed by the police.
Since the shooter was an Iraker living there for a long time, technically (according to German police) they wouldn't call it a terrorism, but just in case, they had a helicopter hovering over the nightclub.
And in the USA on Saturday (also yesterday), 17 killed and 51 injured by gunfire alone.
It sure looks like Americans are more deadly than Islamists. Now that last Monday the defense budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 was increased over what Trump had suggested, with funding for the wall slipped in, I'm tempted to say, approve it and build that wall and keep the Americans in.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And in the USA on Saturday (also yesterday), 17 killed and 51 injured by gunfire alone.
It sure looks like Americans are more deadly than Islamists. Now that last Monday the defense budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 was increased over what Trump had suggested, with funding for the wall slipped in, I'm tempted to say, approve it and build that wall and keep the Americans in.
Cheers,
Bart
Thats a silly Argument. There are also over 40,000 Americans killed in car accidents every years. Should we therefore ignore getting run over by a terrorist truck?
Regarding our defense budget, one of the reasons we had to raise it is because Europe's rich NATO allies aren't paying their fair share to defend their own countries. If they would spend their money to defend themselves, we could use the savings and spend our money on our own health care.
-
...It sure looks like Americans are more deadly than Islamists....
(http://rs227.pbsrc.com/albums/dd194/Thedon_/hand-clapping-smiley-emoticon_zps346abfc1.gif~c200)
-
Regarding our defense budget, one of the reasons we had to raise it is because Europe's rich NATO allies aren't paying their fair share to defend their own countries. If they would spend their money to defend themselves, we could use the savings and spend our money on our own health care.
That's a silly argument, the US is spending multiple times what the next 5 superpowers are spending on defense. The "so called" underspending of some NATO countries is dwarfed by the increase the US is now proposing. So there is really no sensible relationship between the two. I know you believe Trump's hollow rhetoric on NATO countries underspending, but a lot of people see right through that.
I think Trump and the US should look at spending their money more efficiently before spending more.
But that doesn't help Trump's cronies in the defense industry, and there you have the main reason for Trump wanting to increase in US military spending. It has nothing to do with NATO or Europe, only with further filling his own swamp.
-
I think Trump and the US should look at spending their money more efficiently before spending more.
Invading countries, and peppering empty fields with cruise missiles are expensive activities - no reason why anyone else should feel obliged to be similarly foolish.
-
Invading countries, and peppering empty fields with cruise missiles are expensive activities - no reason why anyone else should feel obliged to be similarly foolish.
Everyone complains about American military action until they need us. Some day, there's going to be another war in Europe or elsewhere, and Americans will decline to attend the party.
-
That's a silly argument, the US is spending multiple times what the next 5 superpowers are spending on defense. The "so called" underspending of some NATO countries is dwarfed by the increase the US is now proposing. So there is really no sensible relationship between the two. I know you believe Trump's hollow rhetoric on NATO countries underspending, but a lot of people see right through that.
I think Trump and the US should look at spending their money more efficiently before spending more.
But that doesn't help Trump's cronies in the defense industry, and there you have the main reason for Trump wanting to increase in US military spending. It has nothing to do with NATO or Europe, only with further filling his own swamp.
You're being so self-centered as most Europeans are. You think we are increasing our spending only to defend Europe. You know, there are other places in the world we care about enough to help and defend. So our budget has to pay for a larger Navy for example to cover the Pacific as well as the Mediterranean and Atlantic and northern seas.
Of course, we could spend our money more efficiently if you would defend yourselves. Don't you have any pride, man? You remind me of the scared little boy in the schoolyard who runs behind his mother's skirt when he gets frightened by the other boys. Grow up and defend yourself.
-
[Something or other]
-
You're being so self-centered as most Europeans are. You think we are increasing our spending only to defend Europe. You know, there are other places in the world we care about enough to help and defend. So our budget has to pay for a larger Navy for example to cover the Pacific as well as the Mediterranean and Atlantic and northern seas.
Of course, we could spend our money more efficiently if you would defend yourselves. Don't you have any pride, man? You remind me of the scared little boy in the schoolyard who runs behind his mother's skirt when he gets frightened by the other boys. Grow up and defend yourself.
Wow, I didn't mean to get you mad and make you start slinging mud, I'm sorry I hit a nerve there, that was not intended.
I'm really surprized you ask me if I have any pride while you just take all the shit Trump feeds you? It would be much better to develop your own opinion because shit tastes very bad.
-
Donald Trump Is Now the Poster Boy for Terrible Management Skills (https://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/donald-trump-is-now-the-poster-boy-for-terrible-ma.html)
By Erik Sherman
Contributor, Inc.com
(https://www.incimages.com/uploaded_files/image/970x450/getty_652916910_267866.jpg)
Putting politics to the side, he's making classic mistakes in dealing with staff.
I avoid politics as a topic here, but sometimes politicians provide great lessons for the business world, like when the Democratic National Committee had an utter Twitter fiasco that could have been easily avoided. Or there was the question that Donald Trump brought up of whether unpredictability is useful as a negotiation tactic.
After this past week's turmoil in the White House, it's time to look at the issue of managing people. Trump has provided object lessons of what you should never do. Here are some of the classic mistakes.
Allowing employees to turn on each other
In running an organization, you want people to work together. If they don't, it negatively affects efficiency and may even make achieving goals impossible.
Undermining employees
Speaking of Priebus, or even Sean Spicer, his treatment shows how a chief executive should never act. Calling an employee weak or otherwise disparaging people working for you is an utter mistake. If someone bothers you that much, you fire them. You don't talk about them.
Putting personal loyalty above loyalty to the organization
But perhaps the worst step, one I've seen CEOs take time and again, is to mistake what should be most important. The institution and its goals should be. It stands above the chief executive just as the CEO is at the top of the organizational chart. The whole point of everyone being there is to achieve a set of goals that enables the overall strategy.
But, Trump puts ultimate value on one-way personal loyalty. Everyone else must put him first, although he's shown that he will not reciprocate. That makes it impossible to hear necessary criticisms or to examine actions in relation to the institution's goals.
This last point might be different if you looked at Trump in relation to his own company, which is basically an extension of his personal brand. But when you're at an entity that has its own existence, you need to keep your demands and ego and personal feelings in check.
Any way you look at it (with the exception of from the point of view of a reality show) the Presidency and the White House and the American government are in a shambles...what was the "Theme Week" topic that the White House wanted to push last week? Anybody know? If you don't know you can click on this LINK (https://www.gop.gov/american-heroes-week1/)
-
An interesting analysis.
Without Priebus, Trump Is a Man Without a Party
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/30/trump-priebus-unbound-215440
QUOTE : "[...] Trump trampled Priebus from Day One, sending out press secretary Sean Spicer, a longtime Preibus ally, to deliver a demonstrably false rant about the inaugural crowd size. Trump resented the idea that his chief of staff was there to tame him, and resented even more the notion that Priebus was the conduit to a Republican Party he had conquered.
But Priebus was the conduit. By firing him, Trump has severed a critical connection to his own party—not simply to major donors and GOP congressional leaders, but to the unruly, broader constellation of conservative-affiliated organizations and individuals that Priebus had spent five years corralling.
[...]
Priebus was the first call Ryan made when things got hairy this year, and vice versa. Working with a West Wing that contains few other true allies—and with a volatile president who has viewed him suspiciously ever since the speaker accused him of making “the textbook definition of a racist comment” about a Hispanic-American judge—Ryan saw Priebus as his staunchest ally and bunker mate. And now he’s gone.
[...]
Looking around Trump’s inner circle, there is communications director Anthony Scaramucci, a political novice who in the past donated to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; chief strategist Steve Bannon, who used Breitbart to try and burn the Republican Party to the ground; National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, a lifelong Democrat; director of strategic communication Hope Hicks, who has zero history with GOP politics; and Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, a pair of self-professed Manhattan progressives. Of Trump’s closest advisers, only Mike Pence has any association with the Republican Party.
[...]
The fear now, among Republicans in his administration and on Capitol Hill, is that Trump will turn against the party, waging rhetorical warfare against a straw-man GOP whom he blames for the legislative failures and swamp-stained inertia that has bedeviled his young presidency. It would represent a new, harsher type of triangulation, turning his base against the politicians of his own party that they elected. [...]"
I've said it before, the GOP created their own monster of Frankenstein ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Transcript: Sen. Jeff Flake on "Face the Nation," July 30, 2017
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-senator-jeff-flake-on-face-the-nation-july-30-2017/
QUOTE: ""Face the Nation" sat down on Sunday with Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, author of the new book "Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle."
Flake discussed the book -- which New York Times opinion writer David Brooks calls "a thoughtful defense of traditional conservatism and a thorough assault on the way Donald Trump is betraying it" -- and why he wrote it.
[...]
JOHN DICKERSON: Why did you write the book?
SEN. JEFF FLAKE: Well, I felt that just like Goldwater had felt in his time 56 years ago when he wrote the original Conscience of a Conservative that the party had lost its way. And I think similarly today the party has lost its way. We've given in to nativism and protectionism. And I think that if we're going to be a governing party in the future and a majority party we've got to go back to traditional conservatism. Limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility, respect for free trade. Those are the principles that made us who we are.[...]"
But that's not what Trump will bring ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wow, I didn't mean to get you mad and make you start slinging mud, I'm sorry I hit a nerve there, that was not intended.
I'm really surprized you ask me if I have any pride while you just take all the shit Trump feeds you? It would be much better to develop your own opinion because shit tastes very bad.
My opinion is decades old long before Trump. Europeans have been sponging off the American taxpayer and America for years. It's time for Europe to grow up. It's a rich continent, technologically advanced. Certainly filled with people who use to know how to make war and defend themselves - I think, that's still true. Otherwise, one day the sh!t's going to hit the fan and Europe will have forgotten how to fight just when they need too. And America won't be there to bail you out again.
-
My opinion is decades old long before Trump. Europeans have been sponging off the American taxpayer and America for years.
That's easily said Allen, but quite unbelievable. If I would feel that way about a country I wouldn't go there vacationing and stay where I respected the people. Just stay in the US, even Canada doesn't even meet half your sacred 2%, so staying south of the border is much safer. However your feeling is also one-sided. The US has on average higher import duties on EU goods then US goods attract in the EU. So who is sponging off whom?
It's time for Europe to grow up. It's a rich continent, technologically advanced. Certainly filled with people who use to know how to make war and defend themselves - I think, that's still true. Otherwise, one day the sh!t's going to hit the fan and Europe will have forgotten how to fight just when they need too. And America won't be there to bail you out again.
I'll repeat what I have said before. If Trump (and you) really want the other NATO partners ramp up their military spending faster just reduce your own military budget and reduce troops over here. Walk the talk is the best way to get things done. Trump's bullying is totally ineffective because his actions don't support his words. And the reason for that is simple, it would go against his "friends" in the defense industry and thereby dry up a large part of his 2020 reelection funds.
-
It seems irony seems to follow Trump wherever he goes...
Behold the Trump boomerang effect (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/behold-the-trump-boomerang-effect/2017/07/30/8534a696-73ac-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html?utm_term=.b929241de28f)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/AFP_R26QC-2343.jpg.jp2)
President Trump arrives at New York’s Long Island on Friday to deliver remarks on law enforcement at Suffolk Community College in
Brentwood, N.Y. (Nicholas Kamm/Agence France-Presse via Getty Images)
Did your head spin when Utah’s Orrin Hatch, a true conservative and the Senate’s longest-serving Republican, emerged last week as the most eloquent spokesman for transgender rights? Credit the Trump boomerang effect.
Much has been said about White House dysfunction and how little President Trump has accomplished in his first six months. But that’s not the whole story: In Washington and around the world, in some surprising ways, things are happening — but they are precisely the opposite of what Trump wanted and predicted when he was sworn in.
The boomerang struck first in Europe. Following his election last November, and the British vote last June to leave the European Union, anti-immigrant nationalists were poised to sweep to power across the continent. “In the wake of the electoral victories of the Brexit campaign and Donald Trump, right-wing populism in the rich world has appeared unstoppable,” the Economist wrote. Russian President Vladimir Putin would gain allies, the European Union would fracture.
But European voters, sobered by the spectacle on view in Washington, moved the other way. In March, the Netherlands rejected an anti-immigrant party in favor of a mainstream, conservative coalition. In May, French voters spurned the Putin-loving, immigrant-bashing Marine Le Pen in favor of centrist Emmanuel Macron, who went on to win an overwhelming majority in Parliament and began trying to strengthen, not weaken, the E.U.
Good article and the irony of so much of what Trump said would happen didn't happen or happened in the opposite...Trump though pulling out of the Paris Accords would help America but in fact it's help China, India and Germany because they are ready to pick up the slack–and the governors, majors and CEO's of major US corps are going to do the work inspire of Trump. Boomerang Effect
Trump said on day one he would repeal and replace...6 months later ObamaCare has never had a higher approval rating–far outstripping Trump's appeal rating. Boomerang Effect
Travel Ban? Not so much...but they are working on it...maybe after the Supremes do their final ruling. The Wall? Well, now it's gonna be some better fences–maybe with color panels on top? Yeah, nope. Boomerang Effect
Transgender ban for the military? Came as a surprise to the military and the Pentagon basically said "a Tweet isn't an Order, get your act together and create a policy and get back to us"...then, of all people to stand up to Trump with support for Transgender people, Orrin Hatch says “I don’t think we should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.” Boomerang Effect
From the article:
And Americans aren’t unique. Millions of people in Europe and around the world are just as appalled by the scapegoating of minorities and the celebration of police brutality.
That has an effect. Maybe Newton’s third law of motion doesn’t translate perfectly into the political sphere, but a version of it applies: For every malignant or bigoted action, there will be an opposite reaction. And you can never be sure where it will begin.
Boomerang Effect I hope Trump learns to duck...those boomerangs can be tricky things and can hurt when they come back to hit ya...The 2018 midterm elections are gonna be interesting.
-
Filed under: The best laid plans often go awry...
Putin’s Bet on a Trump Presidency Backfires Spectacularly (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin’s-bet-on-a-trump-presidency-backfires-spectacularly/ar-AAp8rHm?li=BBnb7Kz#image=1)
(http://the18.com/sites/default/files/u100010536/20170615-The18-Image-Angry-Putin.jpg)
By David E. Sanger, The New York Times
A little more than a year after the Russian effort to interfere in the American presidential election came to light, the diplomatic fallout — an unraveling of the relationship between Moscow and Washington on a scale not seen in decades — is taking its toll.
President Vladimir V. Putin bet that Donald J. Trump, who had spoken fondly of Russia and its authoritarian leader for years, would treat his nation as Mr. Putin has longed to have it treated by the West. That is, as the superpower it once was, or at least a major force to be reckoned with, from Syria to Europe, and boasting a military revived after two decades of neglect.
That bet has now backfired, spectacularly. If the sanctions overwhelmingly passed by Congress last week sent any message to Moscow, it was that Mr. Trump’s hands are now tied in dealing with Moscow, probably for years to come.
Just weeks after the two leaders spent hours in seemingly friendly conversation in Hamburg, Germany, the prospect of the kinds of deals Mr. Trump once mused about in interviews seem more distant than ever. Congress is not ready to forgive the annexation of Crimea, nor allow extensive reinvestment in Russian energy. The new sanctions were passed by a coalition of Democrats who blame Mr. Putin for contributing to Hillary Clinton’s defeat and Republicans fearful that their president misunderstands who he is dealing with in Moscow.
So with his decision to order that hundreds of American diplomats and Russians working for the American Embassy leave their posts, Mr. Putin, known as a great tactician but not a great strategist, has changed course again. For now, American officials and outside experts said on Sunday, he seems to believe his greater leverage lies in escalating the dispute, Cold War-style, rather than subtly trying to manipulate events with a mix of subterfuge, cyberattacks and information warfare.
But it is unclear how much the announcement will affect day-to-day relations. While the Russian news media said 755 diplomats would be barred from working, and presumably expelled, there do not appear to be anything close to 755 American diplomats working in Russia.
And all indications are Trump will be forced into signing because both the House and Senate had veto proof voting totals. The only thing worse than signing the law would be to veto it and have Congress slap down Trump's veto...
-
That's easily said Allen, but quite unbelievable. If I would feel that way about a country I wouldn't go there vacationing and stay where I respected the people. Just stay in the US, even Canada doesn't even meet half your sacred 2%, so staying south of the border is much safer. However your feeling is also one-sided. The US has on average higher import duties on EU goods then US goods attract in the EU. So who is sponging off whom?
I'll repeat what I have said before. If Trump (and you) really want the other NATO partners ramp up their military spending faster just reduce your own military budget and reduce troops over here. Walk the talk is the best way to get things done. Trump's bullying is totally ineffective because his actions don't support his words. And the reason for that is simple, it would go against his "friends" in the defense industry and thereby dry up a large part of his 2020 reelection funds.
I don't see how Trump is doing this just for our defense industry. But if he is, that still doesn't mean my point is wrong.
After WWII when the Soviets occupied Eastern Europe and threatened Western Europe, America through it's Marshall Plan helped Europe back on it's feet. We threw troops in there to hold the Communists back. But over the years, Europe has gotten strong. Then the Soviet Union collapsed freeing eastern Europe. The Russians aren't going to attack. Certainly Europe's wealth can support an effective counter-force against them without America. We should go home but we're so use to being a super power that we don't know how to reverse course even when it's OK to do that. You're right that there are a lot on interests in America. But that's not coming from Trump but from the usual forces in and out of government. Actually, Trump is opposed to that "swamp" thinking. That's opposite to what you're saying. But you favor the old regime that pays for much of Europe's defense and Trump represents a threat to that.
-
Filed under: The best laid plans often go awry...
Putin’s Bet on a Trump Presidency Backfires Spectacularly (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin’s-bet-on-a-trump-presidency-backfires-spectacularly/ar-AAp8rHm?li=BBnb7Kz#image=1)
And all indications are Trump will be forced into signing because both the House and Senate had veto proof voting totals. The only thing worse than signing the law would be to veto it and have Congress slap down Trump's veto...
I'm glad we're doing this to remind them not in interfere in our elections. But we need to get passed this and continue to work on having good relations with Russia. We could use them as a bulwark against a more and more aggressive China that we're going to face in the future. Having Russian friends on China's northern border are important as are having friends in India and Pakistan on China's southern border.
Look what's going on even today. China shifted an army along their border with North Korea in the past few weeks. I suppose they're doing that in anticipation of possible war on the Korean peninsula. Remember they fought in the Korean War with the North Koreans against the west in the 1950's. If they had to protect those other borders more, they would be in a weaker position to help NK. We may be able to get them to help with the NK atomic situation. Now, they're secure enough to put a larger army on the NK border making it more difficult for us to influence them to help us. We don't have any leverage.
-
Actually, Trump is opposed to that "swamp" thinking. That's opposite to what you're saying.
That's BS. He's just against the former inhabitants of the swamp, he's just filling the swamp with his own friends. Swamp thinking is an integral part of his government.
But you favor the old regime that pays for much of Europe's defense and Trump represents a threat to that.
Totally wrong. Where did you get that? Point to one post where I said that.
You're so full of preconceived black and white notions that you assume way too much of what others think. And you're still surprised you can't convince others of your ideas, well I have a hunch. The world is more complicated then good/bad or black/white.
As the French philosopher Pierre Hassner said: "Apres trop d'anees de guerre froide voici le moment de la revanche de la complexité du monde"
And I remain with my original point, if Trump really wants the other NATO countries to spend more the US needs to spend less and pull back.
As long as he doesn't do that it means he's got other interests that he's not talking about. You say he's a smart businessman and can smell a bad deal from miles away, well if it's really not in his interest to spend more and keep some US troops here tell me why is he staying? For sure it's not altruism, because that's not high on his priority list ;)
-
I don't see how Trump is doing this just for our defense industry. But if he is, that still doesn't mean my point is wrong.
After WWII when the Soviets occupied Eastern Europe and threatened Western Europe, America through it's Marshall Plan helped Europe back on it's feet.
Yes, and secured access to a large market to sell stuff to. In fact, much of the help was in goods, so at cost price, not market value. Which is fine, everybody benefitted.
We threw troops in there to hold the Communists back. But over the years, Europe has gotten strong. Then the Soviet Union collapsed freeing eastern Europe. The Russians aren't going to attack.
I'm sure the countries bordering on the former Soviet Union, beg to differ.
Certainly Europe's wealth can support an effective counter-force against them without America.
Sure, but we first had to cope with a financial crisis brought to us by the USA housing crisis and collapse of financial markets. That's why it was agreed to increase military expenditure to 2% of GDP over the course of 10 years, we're now in year 3. Besides, opinions can differ over what is an effective counter force. One can also differ over what's efficient, given the example of excessive cost of the USA defense.
But that's nothing new, it usually suffices to spend more in the USA, instead of more wisely. Health care is a good example, one on the most expensive systems with third rate life expectancies and still high mortality.
We should go home but we're so use to being a super power that we don't know how to reverse course even when it's OK to do that. You're right that there are a lot on interests in America. But that's not coming from Trump but from the usual forces in and out of government. Actually, Trump is opposed to that "swamp" thinking. That's opposite to what you're saying. But you favor the old regime that pays for much of Europe's defense and Trump represents a threat to that.
Correction, Trump is a threat to the USA and the rest of the world. In 6 months time he has done more damage to the reputation of the USA as an friendly partner nation to the international community than any president before him. The hostile attitude will bear fruit, but it will be sour grapes mostly. Internally he is only replacing things with his own swamp, and it smells even worse.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump bump: Court fights draw big money into attorney general races
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-attorneys-general-idUSKBN1AG17K
QUOTE July 31, 2017 / 1:05 PM: "Like many Democratic state attorneys general, Herring has made legal challenges to the agenda of President Donald Trump a priority. He joined with attorneys general in other states to challenge Trump's executive order banning travel to the United States from six predominately Muslim countries and to defend former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, which aims to slash carbon emissions.
Those fights, and the prospect of others, are drawing record amounts of campaign contributions into attorney general races in a number of states, according to campaign finance records and more than a dozen interviews with attorneys general, challengers, political operatives and donors.
Attorneys general, who as the top elected legal officers in each state are charged with defending state agencies from lawsuits as well as initiating litigation on their own, have always helped shape national politics. "
So attorneys will benefit, effectively blocking ill conceived plans and resulting in inaction, and solvable issues will remain unsolved unless a more bipartisan approach will be pursued (which is unlikely with Trump and Bannon around, thus leading to no Democratic support and ever dwindling Republican support). Trump has already isolated himself from his Republican support in government and it will only get worse when Republican officials start feeling the pressure from their support base (electorate and sponsors).
The only way out is by starting a war, which in the past used to close the ranks.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm sure the countries bordering on the former Soviet Union, beg to differ.
like Serbia bombed into its borders change by NATO... right ?
-
This is quite a good read:
https://theconversation.com/why-trump-must-stop-being-trump-to-survive-81756
It suggests that it's all quite likely to end with impeachment under the "crazy clause" as the Russians decide to get rid of the orange-faced madman via their stockpile of kompromat in exchange for lifting all those American sanctions which they now realize Trump can't do anything about, though they'd put him in place in the expectation that he would. I guess VP Michael "50" Pence could get taken down in the ruckus so it's on to President Ryan, presumably.
-
Serbia was an example where Europe should have done something first before Americans stepped in. After all, it's in their back yard not the US's.
-
Serbia was an example where Europe should have done something first before Americans stepped in. After all, it's in their back yard not the US's.
it was an example who changed the internationally recognized borders first in Europe ;D ... through the use of military power...
-
it was an example who changed the internationally recognized borders first in Europe ;D ... through the use of military power...
Those borders have been altered by military powers for centuries, and nothing's about to change the progression of ownerships.
Let's expand that: all borders are being changed over time. The "Wall" didn't do much for Hadrian; the Chinese have managed to turn theirs into a prime tourist attraction, and the real estate/tourism angle is perhaps what excites Trumpie and the Mexican wet dream. So yeah, maybe Mexico will pay for it, by buying tickets to see it during vacations across it.
;-)
Rob
-
like Serbia bombed into its borders change by NATO... right ?
I was actually thinking of Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine (Crimea is already illegally confiscated), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia. And further away from the European union, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, North Korea, and China and the USA, although the latter two should be able to defend themselves.
And in the mean time ...
VP Pence, in the Baltics, voices support for mutual defense in NATO
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pence-estonia-idUSKBN1AG1G0
QUOTE July 31, 2017 / 2:34 PM "TALLINN (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on Monday assured the Baltic states of U.S. support if they faced aggression from Russia, telling them that Washington firmly backs NATO's doctrine of collective defense.
Pence's comments to the presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, ahead of Russian war games on their doorstep, were clearly intended to reassure following Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and U.S. President Donald Trump's early lukewarm support for NATO.
[...]"
Cheers,
Bart
-
The gong show continues.
The Mooch is OUT! ;)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40782299
-
The gong show continues.
The Mooch is OUT! ;)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40782299
Apparently, happened minutes ago.
Trump removes Scaramucci as communications director: NYT
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-scaramucci-idUSKBN1AG299?il=0
Full QUOTE July 31, 2017 / 8:47 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to remove Anthony Scaramucci from his job as communications director, the New York Times reported on Monday, citing three unidentified people close to the decision.
News of Scaramucci's removal came hours after Trump swore in a new chief of staff, retired General John Kelly. Politico reported the dismissal came at Kelly's request, citing two unidentified White House officials. "
I'm sure this article will be updated as more details are fact checked. Note the "two unidentified White House officials", Kelly is not fully 'deployed' apparently.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Reuters started a new article called:
Trump fires communications chief Scaramucci in new White House upheaval
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN1AG1OV?il=0
QUOTE July 31, 2017 / 4:16 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump fired his communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, on Monday over an obscene tirade, just over a week after naming him to the job, sources familiar with the decision said, in the latest staff upheaval to hit the Republican's six-month-old administration.
Scaramucci's departure follows one of the rockiest weeks of Trump's presidency in which a major Republican effort to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system failed in Congress and both his spokesman and previous chief of staff left their jobs as White House infighting burst into the open. [...]"
-
(http://static2.blastingnews.com/media/photogallery/2017/3/10/660x290/b_586x276/donald-trump-gives-all-the-fucks-this-is-a-bad-thing-vsb-verysmartbrothas-com_1199983.jpg)
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Highest Stock Market EVER, best economic numbers in years, unemployment lowest in 17 years, wages raising, border secure, S.C.: No WH chaos!
7:28 AM - Jul 31, 2017
'No WH chaos!': Trump praises John Kelly for avoiding controversy at the new chief of staff's swearing-in ceremony (http://www.businessinsider.com/r-trump-praises-new-chief-of-staff-for-avoiding-controversy-2017-7)
Trump Removes Anthony Scaramucci From Communications Director Role (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/us/politics/anthony-scaramucci-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)
Even President Trump's Favorite Poll Shows a Record Low Approval (http://time.com/4880842/donald-trump-polling-approval-rating-rasmussen/)
Now, even Rasmussen is showing Trump doing poorly.
The Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll for July 31 shows Trump with a record low approval rating for their poll, the latest to show support for the president is slipping.
Just 39% of likely U.S. voters approve of Trump's performance as President according to the Rasmussen tracking poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jul31) released July 31, while 26% strongly approve, and 61% disapprove. This is the first time Trump's approval rating has ever fallen below 40% in Rasmussen. The poll of 1,500 likely voters had a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.
(https://maduro.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/media/post_image/220/saddonald-trump.jpg)
Please remain calm...everything is under control–really!
There is no chaos, this is the way Donald Trump like to run his business...
And other than 6 bankruptcies and numerous law suits and liens by unpaid workers, Trump has been really, fabulously successful in his business pursuits...so, SNAFU–get used to it. This will go on until the people wake up and do something about this unfortunate circumstance.
-
You're being so self-centered as most Europeans are. You think we are increasing our spending only to defend Europe. You know, there are other places in the world we care about enough to help and defend. So our budget has to pay for a larger Navy for example to cover the Pacific as well as the Mediterranean and Atlantic and northern seas.
Of course, we could spend our money more efficiently if you would defend yourselves. Don't you have any pride, man? You remind me of the scared little boy in the schoolyard who runs behind his mother's skirt when he gets frightened by the other boys. Grow up and defend yourself.
What are you talking about?
The USA outspends the rest of the world by a wide margin on defence. How much MORE does it need to spend for you to feel safe? Isn't it risky giving the Pentagon carte blanche. Are they delivering?
The USA has the highest incarceration rate of any country, so you'd think that all your bad guys would be in jail by now and that your streets would be as safe as could be, but people are still running around advocating gun ownership for self-protection because everyone is so afraid. That doesn't add up to me. What's going wrong?
-
An opinion piece I found about Trump's presidency (http://induecourse.ca/what-if-donald-trump-is-an-authentic-douchebag/).
-
What are you talking about?
The USA outspends the rest of the world by a wide margin on defence. How much MORE does it need to spend for you to feel safe? Isn't it risky giving the Pentagon carte blanche. Are they delivering?
The USA has the highest incarceration rate of any country, so you'd think that all your bad guys would be in jail by now and that your streets would be as safe as could be, but people are still running around advocating gun ownership for self-protection because everyone is so afraid. That doesn't add up to me. What's going wrong?
The last time I looked, the US was spending between three and four times as much on its military as the next highest spender, China, and nearly 9 times as much as Russia. But we can't afford health care. What a joke!
-
Every organization needs a hatchet man. Scarramucci is Trump's. They're both from Queens, like to rattle people and take no prisoners. A perfect match.
Really? And what do you say now?
-
Really? And what do you say now?
Apparently, Kelly is the hatchet man. Trump just put him in charge.
-
The "Wall" didn't do much for Hadrian; the Chinese have managed to turn theirs into a prime tourist attraction, and the real estate/tourism angle is perhaps what excites Trumpie and the Mexican wet dream. So yeah, maybe Mexico will pay for it, by buying tickets to see it during vacations across it.
My wife and I decided back in January that the most appropriate venue to get an appropriate perspective on the Trump inauguration was south of the border, so while the grounds of the U.S. Capitol Building were being prepared for The Blessed Event, we headed down to the city of San Miguel de Allende in the Mexican state of Guanajuato.
The Sanmiguelenses seemed rather blasé about the inauguration of el señor Loco—well, mostly (https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/32633241906/in/datetaken-public/)—however one 20-something restaurant waiter, who told us he had spent six months as a construction worker in Texas so he could earn enough to complete his degree at a Mexican university (without a work visa, I suspect, but I didn't ask), was excited about "the Wall." And quite pleasantly so. "I hope your Congress gives him the money," he told us. "He is going to need a lot of Mexican workers to build it."
-
Apparently, Kelly is the hatchet man. Trump just put him in charge.
I was going to take a vacation, but reading the latest headlines is more exciting than photographing grizzlies.
Just a week ago, Pro-Trump media celebrated Spicer's departure and Scaramucci's appointment, and Newt Gingrich said that Trump doesn't like to fire people.
It takes at least one month to learn the job. Trump just eliminated 3 weeks of WH communication director's training time.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/21/media/pro-trump-media-sean-spicer-scaramucci/index.html
"I think Donald Trump doesn't like to fire people, period," said the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump adviser and friend.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/politics/trump-firing-people-jeff-sessions-contrast/index.html
-
An opinion piece I found about Trump's presidency (http://induecourse.ca/what-if-donald-trump-is-an-authentic-douchebag/).
the gong show inside a dumpster fire on a train wreck that is the Trump presidency
I like it!
-
Trump dictated misleading statement on son's meeting with Russian: Washington Post
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-meeting-idUSKBN1AH2QE
QUOTE August 1, 2017 / 3:09 AM "August 1, 2017 / 3:09 AM / 10 hours ago
Trump dictated misleading statement on son's meeting with Russian: Washington Post
3 Min Read
FILE PHOTO: Then U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (R) welcomes his son Donald Trump Jr. to the stage at one of the New England Council's "Politics and Eggs' breakfasts in Manchester, New Hampshire November 11, 2015.Brian Snyder/Files - RTX3BSRG
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump dictated a statement, later shown to be misleading, in which his son Donald Trump Jr. said a meeting he had with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 was not related to his father's presidential campaign, the Washington Post reported on Monday.
Trump Jr. released emails earlier in July that showed he eagerly agreed last year to meet a woman he was told was a Russian government lawyer who might have damaging information about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as part of Moscow's official support for his father. The New York Times was first to report the meeting.
The Washington Post said Trump advisers discussed the new disclosure and agreed that Trump Jr. should issue a truthful account of the episode so that it "couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged."
The president, who was flying home from Germany on July 8, changed the plan and "personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said he and the Russian lawyer had 'primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children,'" the Post said, citing unnamed people with knowledge of the deliberations.
[...]
David Sklansky, a professor of criminal law at Stanford Law School, said that if Trump, as reported by the Post, helped craft a misleading public statement about the meeting, he may have bolstered a potential obstruction of justice case against himself.
To build a criminal obstruction of justice case, federal law requires prosecutors to show that a person acted with "corrupt" intent. A misleading public statement could be used as evidence of corrupt intent, Sklansky said.
"Lying usually isn't a crime," he said. But "it could be relevant in determining whether something else the president did, like firing (former FBI Director James) Comey, was done corruptly." "
And so the saga continues ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump dictated misleading statement on son's meeting with Russian: Washington Post
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-meeting-idUSKBN1AH2QE
QUOTE August 1, 2017 / 3:09 AM "August 1, 2017 / 3:09 AM / 10 hours ago
Trump dictated misleading statement on son's meeting with Russian: Washington Post
3 Min Read
FILE PHOTO: Then U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (R) welcomes his son Donald Trump Jr. to the stage at one of the New England Council's "Politics and Eggs' breakfasts in Manchester, New Hampshire November 11, 2015.Brian Snyder/Files - RTX3BSRG
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump dictated a statement, later shown to be misleading, in which his son Donald Trump Jr. said a meeting he had with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 was not related to his father's presidential campaign, the Washington Post reported on Monday.
Trump Jr. released emails earlier in July that showed he eagerly agreed last year to meet a woman he was told was a Russian government lawyer who might have damaging information about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as part of Moscow's official support for his father. The New York Times was first to report the meeting.
The Washington Post said Trump advisers discussed the new disclosure and agreed that Trump Jr. should issue a truthful account of the episode so that it "couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged."
The president, who was flying home from Germany on July 8, changed the plan and "personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said he and the Russian lawyer had 'primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children,'" the Post said, citing unnamed people with knowledge of the deliberations.
[...]
David Sklansky, a professor of criminal law at Stanford Law School, said that if Trump, as reported by the Post, helped craft a misleading public statement about the meeting, he may have bolstered a potential obstruction of justice case against himself.
To build a criminal obstruction of justice case, federal law requires prosecutors to show that a person acted with "corrupt" intent. A misleading public statement could be used as evidence of corrupt intent, Sklansky said.
"Lying usually isn't a crime," he said. But "it could be relevant in determining whether something else the president did, like firing (former FBI Director James) Comey, was done corruptly." "
And so the saga continues ...
Cheers,
Bart
If I understand the article, Trump first came up with the adoption issue to hide the fact they met with the Russians to get information that would make Hillary look bad. That in itself isn't illegal. Sort of what the anti-Trump republicans and democrats did with the dossier. The lie and the act itself would only be illegal if they colluded with the Russians and knew that the Russians were breaking into Hillary's server to get the information. Breaking into a server would be the illegal part.
-
Soviet Union, Red China, NK, Cuba and now Venezuela. Socialism at work. We'd be that much closer to it if Trump wasn't elected.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-08-01/maduro-says-he-will-radically-overhaul-venezuelas-system
-
Soviet Union, Red China, NK, Cuba and now Venezuela. Socialism at work. We'd be that much closer to it if Trump wasn't elected.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-08-01/maduro-says-he-will-radically-overhaul-venezuelas-system
Yup, the dominoes are falling.
-
Yup, the dominoes are falling.
:) ;) :D ;D 8)
-
Yup, the dominoes are falling.
So you and Peter think what's happening in Venezuela is good?
-
So you and Peter think what's happening in Venezuela is good?
I think it is none of our business and if we try to make it our business it won't help the situation and will probably make it worse.
-
So you and Peter think what's happening in Venezuela is good?
second the point - how is that your business ?
-
One thing I kept on coming back to is why are they not fighting back?
so you approve Taliban fighting back against the foreign aggressor and their minions in Kabul, don't you ?
-
but if my freedom was being threatened directly in my own country
so do feel IRA of various flavors, ETA, ISIS and so many others ... does not look like you recognize their choice freedom because it does not suit u, does it ? you don't have a monopoly on what freedom is, you just have the United Fruit States army to impose your view about it ;D ...
-
So you and Peter think what's happening in Venezuela is good?
Irrelevant and intentionally inflammatory.
-
Irrelevant and intentionally inflammatory.
So you do think what's happening in Venezuela is good. Very interesting. It says a lot about you. And it isn't irrelevant or inflammatory if that's what you believe. Why are you running from your beliefs?
-
according to google
google, really ? why not Koran ? try for a moment to consider that people might have totally different mindset at all ...
-
So you do think what's happening in Venezuela is good. Very interesting. It says a lot about you. And it isn't irrelevant or inflammatory if that's what you believe. Why are you running from your beliefs?
Why do you keep trying to change the subject and also deliberately misinterpret what people say?
-
Why do you keep trying to change the subject and also deliberately misinterpret what people say?
So tell us how you really feel about what's going on in Venezuela instead of dodging it.
-
So, Jared's defense on collusion charges is that they were too incompetent to be able to collude successfully? That's almost real enough to believe except incompetence didn't keep them from TRYING to collude when meeting with that Russian lawyer.
Kushner to Interns: Trump Team Too Disorganized to Collude With Russia (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/31/kusher-to-interns-trump-team-too-disorganized-to-collude-with-russia/)
(https://foreignpolicymag.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/gettyimages-821582298.jpg)
In off-the-record remarks, the president’s son-in-law offers a unique defense.
Donald Trump’s election team could not have colluded with Russia because they were barely talking to each other, according to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and top White House advisor.
“They thought we colluded, but we couldn’t even collude with our local offices,” Kushner told congressional interns during a private talk at the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington on Monday afternoon.
Kushner’s meeting with the interns had been rescheduled from two weeks ago, shortly after which he had to appear before Congress to give testimony about the Russia investigation.
A source provided a copy of written notes on Kushner’s talk and question-and-answer session to Foreign Policy.
For investigators attempting to determine whether Trump’s associates knowingly worked with Russia to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a defense claiming chaos and confusion might be the key difference between criminal behavior and incompetence.
The last line is, I think the motivation for claiming incompetence and confusion in the event, like with the Donny Jr. meeting and the Russians. "We didn't know what we were doing" would be the claim rather than conspiracy...
We'll see about that, huh? But between you and me, it doesn't fill me with confidence that the Trump campaign is claiming incompetence. The problem is that the incompetence is ongoing and continuous.
#BigOrangeDummy
-
So you do think what's happening in Venezuela is good. Very interesting. It says a lot about you. And it isn't irrelevant or inflammatory if that's what you believe. Why are you running from your beliefs?
And how exactly have you drawn that conclusion?
In fact, your erronious conclusion says a lot more about YOU than it does about me. You have precisely zero idea what I know or think about "whats happening in Venezuela".
-
And how exactly have you drawn that conclusion?
In fact, your erronious conclusion says a lot more about YOU than it does about me. You have precisely zero idea what I know or think about "whats happening in Venezuela".
I ask how you felt about what's happening in Venezuela. You still haven't answered.
-
Trump 'weighed in' on son's Russia attorney statement: White House
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-statement-idUSKBN1AH533
QUOTE August 1, 2017 / 8:58 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday that U.S. President Donald Trump had a role in producing a statement in which his son denied that a meeting he had with a Russian lawyer was related to the 2016 presidential campaign, comments later shown to be misleading.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told a briefing that Trump "certainly didn't dictate (the statement), but ... he weighed in, offered suggestion like any father would do."
"The statement that was issued was true and there were no inaccuracies in the statement," Sanders said, even though emails later released by Donald Trump Jr. showed that the subject of the meeting was to be possible damaging information about Republican Trump's rival for the presidency, Democrat Hillary Clinton.
The Washington Post reported on Monday that Trump's advisers discussed the statement about the meeting and agreed that Trump Jr. should issue a truthful account of the episode so that it "couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged."
But the president, who was flying home from Germany on July 8, changed the plan and "personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said he and the Russian lawyer had 'primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children,'" the Post said, citing unnamed people with knowledge of the deliberations. "
So now we have it from the horse's mouth, against the advice from Trump Jr's advisers, Senior made sure (the President "weighed in") that part of the truth (which inevitably would come out anyway) was kept hidden. Why???? What was he thinking, if anything?
The result was again worse than it needed to be, and it was not good to begin with.
What was his Twitter comment again? No chaos at the WH? Maybe in his alternate universe ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I ask how you felt about what's happening in Venezuela. You still haven't answered.
And I won't. For several reasons.
1) It's none of your business, as others have pointed out.
2) It's got nothing to do with the topic of this thread, namely Trump.
3) You have already concluded "how I feel about what's happening in Venezuela" and, given your record here, nothing will change that opinion.
-
And I won't. For several reasons.
1) It's none of your business, as others have pointed out.
2) It's got nothing to do with the topic of this thread, namely Trump.
3) You have already concluded "how I feel about what's happening in Venezuela" and, given your record here, nothing will change that opinion.
It does have to do with Trump. He's imposed sanctions on Venezuela's officials and is contemplating sanctions on the country. So how you feel about that is related to this thread. I would change my opinion if you provided an actual response. Otherwise, we have to assume you're in favor of Maduro and Venezuela's Socialism and opposed to Trump's sanctions.
-
Even before tax reforms, stock market is at highest ever (up 20% since the election), GDP for 2nd 1/4 is 2.6% highest in years, unemployment lowest in over a decade, illegal immigration down 40% (Mexico might not have to pay for a wall after all) :)
-
Even before tax reforms, stock market is at highest ever (up 20% since the election), GDP for 2nd 1/4 is 2.6% highest in years, unemployment lowest in over a decade, illegal immigration down 40% (Mexico might not have to pay for a wall after all) :)
Partly due to Apple success. The company just announced their 3rd quarter results, beating analyst's expectations, and sending its stock price soaring.
The company’s cash pile, grew to $261 billion which compares favorably to the reported $200 billions in assets owned by V. Putin.
—
-
Partly due to Apple success. The company just announced their 3rd quarter results, beating analyst's expectations, and sending its stock price soaring.
The company’s cash pile, grew to $261 billion which compares favorably to the reported $200 billions in assets owned by V. Putin.
—
Ah Apple, I read this earlier today ... :
Apple seeks tax breaks for suppliers to make iPhones in India: sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-india-idUSKBN1AH499
QUOTE August 1, 2017 / 2:23 PM "NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) has asked the Indian government to extend tax breaks to its suppliers if India seeks to become a manufacturing hub for iPhones and its components.
Government officials say meeting this request would require a new policy that applies fairly to other device makers, too.
The U.S. tech giant has been in talks with Indian officials since May of last year, when CEO Tim Cook and Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to set up a production base in the country that goes beyond just assembling the devices, as happens today. "
Not that I blame them, but wasn't "America First" Trump's slogan?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I would change my opinion if you provided an actual response. Otherwise, we have to assume you're in favor of Maduro and Venezuela's Socialism and opposed to Trump's sanctions.
I see. In your eyes, guilty unless proven otherwise.
Nice.
-
Ah Apple, I read this earlier today ... :
Apple seeks tax breaks for suppliers to make iPhones in India: sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-india-idUSKBN1AH499
QUOTE August 1, 2017 / 2:23 PM "NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) has asked the Indian government to extend tax breaks to its suppliers if India seeks to become a manufacturing hub for iPhones and its components.
Government officials say meeting this request would require a new policy that applies fairly to other device makers, too.
The U.S. tech giant has been in talks with Indian officials since May of last year, when CEO Tim Cook and Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to set up a production base in the country that goes beyond just assembling the devices, as happens today. "
Not that I blame them, but wasn't "America First" Trump's slogan?
Cheers,
Bart
What counts is that the Tomahawks cruise missiles are still being made in US. Raytheon keeps busy their workers making replacements for the 59 units Trump took off the inventory earlier this year. It's all well thought through.
As to the traditional industries, in 2014 the entire US coal industry employed 76,000. That compares with 69,088 employed in bowling or 75,036 in skiing industries. Car washes employ 150,000 people, twice as many as the coal industry.
Today, Tim Cook stated that Apple created 2 million jobs in US, mainly in the app development, but also in the manufacturing. Trump can only dream about such numbers.
-
So tell us how you really feel about what's going on in Venezuela instead of dodging it.
I was in Venezuela in 1980. At that time the country was doing relatively OK. Many poor areas, but the streets were calm and generally they seemed to be better off than today.
Just imagine they hired then Steve Jobs as a president and he would do the same miracle with the country as with his other company. Between 1980 and 2017, a $1 million Venezuela investment would have grown to $276 billions. They could be giving oil free to Cubans.
-
Car washes employ 150,000 people, twice as many as the coal industry.
Ah, yes. But can they be counted on to vote MAGA?
-
You mean instead of making the cars clean again?
-
Even before tax reforms, stock market is at highest ever (up 20% since the election), GDP for 2nd 1/4 is 2.6% highest in years, unemployment lowest in over a decade, illegal immigration down 40% (Mexico might not have to pay for a wall after all) :)
There were times during every administration, including Obama's, when markets did well and jobs were being created. I'm not sure that's an indication of anything except economic variability. In any case, what do short-term swings in these measures have to do with the office of the President? The effectiveness of strategic plans put into place at high levels can only be measured after many years have passed. Looking at these short-term numbers in this way (even if they are accurate) is as silly as paying a CEO based on this month's stock price. It's how the company does in 2 or 5 years' time that indicates how well the CEO is doing. That's the theory anyway, but it never works out that way. Sort of like how GM continued to pay bonuses to their top brass during the 25-30 years it took them to drive the company into the ground. Then they blamed the unions.
I heard an interesting statistic about Mexico the other day (might have been on the podcast Planet Money, but I can't pinpoint it right at the moment). The high point of Mexican immigration into the USA happened about 10 years ago. It began to decrease at that time and for about a year or two now there has been a net flow of Mexican citizens from the USA to Mexico. They're leaving. It appears to be in part related to the growing Mexican economy. This seems to suggest that a lot of election year emotion about Mexican immigration was beside the point. But it wouldn't be the first time that public discourse was out of touch with reality.
-
Partly due to Apple success. The company just announced their 3rd quarter results, beating analyst's expectations, and sending its stock price soaring.
The company’s cash pile, grew to $261 billion which compares favorably to the reported $200 billions in assets owned by V. Putin.
—
Apple is only in the NYSE/Dow. However, all the exchanges are up big time (ie. NASDQ up 24%, S&P 500 up 14%). For 8 years liberals have credited Obama for the re-bound of the markets. So you have to give Trump credit also. Frankly, neither of them deserve so much credit. Trump's getting it because people are waiting for tax reform especially for business that will give a shot in the arm. De-regulation has started to help some already.
-
Ah Apple, I read this earlier today ... :
Apple seeks tax breaks for suppliers to make iPhones in India: sources
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-india-idUSKBN1AH499
QUOTE August 1, 2017 / 2:23 PM "NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Apple Inc (AAPL.O) has asked the Indian government to extend tax breaks to its suppliers if India seeks to become a manufacturing hub for iPhones and its components.
Government officials say meeting this request would require a new policy that applies fairly to other device makers, too.
The U.S. tech giant has been in talks with Indian officials since May of last year, when CEO Tim Cook and Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to set up a production base in the country that goes beyond just assembling the devices, as happens today. "
Not that I blame them, but wasn't "America First" Trump's slogan?
Cheers,
Bart
Foxconn, the Chinese company that makes the iPhone for Apple in China, is going to build a plant for LED's in Wisconsin. They're going to spend ten billion dollars and hire 13,000. Wisconsin was actually out-bid by another state but won anyway. My guess, Trump twisted Foxconn's arm and told them he'd appreciate if they picked Wisconsin, one of the states that help win Trump the presidency. He's fulfilling his promise to the "deplorables" to get them jobs. http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wisconsin-foxconn-factory/
Meanwhile, my Senator in New Jersey, Cory Booker just announced he's issued a bill in the Senate to legalize weed. Well, if you;re out of work, you could always stoke up on a blunt to help you forget you have to live with your parents because you don't have income. Booker wants to run for president in 2020 against Trump. Who do you think Wisconsinites will vote for? https://www.theroot.com/cory-booker-for-the-win-nj-senator-introduces-bill-to-1797441749
-
...
I heard an interesting statistic about Mexico the other day (might have been on the podcast Planet Money, but I can't pinpoint it right at the moment). The high point of Mexican immigration into the USA happened about 10 years ago. It began to decrease at that time and for about a year or two now there has been a net flow of Mexican citizens from the USA to Mexico. They're leaving. It appears to be in part related to the growing Mexican economy. This seems to suggest that a lot of election year emotion about Mexican immigration was beside the point. But it wouldn't be the first time that public discourse was out of touch with reality.
It seems that you have your facts wrong because you only read the liberal fake news. Heck, we won't need the wall if this keeps up and Mexico can save its money:
"Empowered by a president who has "taken the handcuffs off of law enforcement," the nation's chief immigration official revealed Tuesday that deportation targets have surged and that he's planning to deploy more agents and resources to "sanctuary cities" to arrest illegal criminals.
Thomas D. Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview that since Trump entered office, illegal border crossings have crashed by almost 70 percent, "an historic low," arrests inside the country have jumped 40 percent and that demands for illegal criminals in local jails has skyrocketed 80 percent.
"You can like President Trump, not like him, like his policies, not like his policies, but one thing no one can argue with is the effect they've had," said Homan, the former chief ICE enforcement boss and a 30-year immigration agency veteran.
He said that the change in immigration enforcement has been radical — and welcome — under Trump. "You'd think everybody would be celebrating these policies," he said during the 45-minute interview in his office.
One group he says are cheering: Border Patrol and ICE agents. "Now they have meaning to their jobs," said Homan. "What this president has done is taken the handcuffs off of law enforcement officers who are charged with enforcing immigration laws," he added.
The drop in illegal crossings has given ICE a chance to redirect resources to interior United States and immigrants locked up in jails, illegally working jobs and on the run.
A key target is the 300-plus sanctuary cities and counties that do not cooperate with ICE and ignore requests that they detail criminal illegals for ICE arrest and deportation proceedings.
Homan called sanctuaries "ludicrous," adding, "In the America I grew up in, cities didn't shield people who violated the law."
A New York native who took his first immigration job during the Reagan administration, Homan said that he plans to flood sanctuary cities with agents. He has been OK'd to hire 10,000 new agents and many will help track down illegals in those havens.
"The president recognizes that you've got to have a true interior enforcement strategy to make it uncomfortable for them," he said.
He ripped cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and San Francisco that refuse to let ICE officers into jails to seize illegal criminals. He explained that it is much safer for ICE targets, police and citizens to make the arrest in jails than on city streets.
What's more, he said that the sanctuary policies create more fear in immigrant communities by forcing ICE agents to hunt down fugitives at their homes or work. "I'm going to arrest him and anybody else with him because there is no population off the table any more. So if you really want to tap down the fear in the immigrant community, I would think the counties would want me in their jails," he said.
Homan testified before Congress recently that under Trump, no illegal immigrant is safe from deportation, though the administration is prioritizing criminals, fugitives, threats to national security and those who illegally reentered the U.S.
"I don't think that there is a magic number that we need to get to," said Homan.
"What I want to get to is a clear understanding from everybody, from the congressmen to the politicians to law enforcement to those who enter the country illegally, that ICE is open for business. We're going to enforce the laws on the books without apology, we'll continue to prioritize what we do. But it's not OK to violate the laws of this country anymore, you're going to be held accountable," he added.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ice-chief-80-jump-in-illegal-targets-readies-national-sanctuary-crackdown/article/2629001
-
Apple is only in the NYSE/Dow. However, all the exchanges are up big time (ie. NASDQ up 24%, S&P 500 up 14%). For 8 years liberals have credited Obama for the re-bound of the markets. So you have to give Trump credit also. Frankly, neither of them deserve so much credit. Trump's getting it because people are waiting for tax reform especially for business that will give a shot in the arm. De-regulation has started to help some already.
Not all businesses are doing well. Many retail stores are closing.
(https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/x37X_nCVTJ4fE5u9AeD59w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7c209MTt3PTY1MDtoPTUyMA--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/More_than_6300_stores_are-4178ad1ecadff0c906557c5f65532255)
-
Well, at least Podesta has company (but these are just embarrassing not injurious because the guy is just a prankster).
Trump White House Officials Fall For The Perfect Email Prank (http://the-daily.buzz/a/trump-white-house-officials-fall-for-the-perfect-email-prank)
One prankster just proved that anybody can be the victim of an email scam. Even White House officials.
The British "email prankster," who goes by @Sinon_Reborn on Twitter, recently duped White House officials into believing he was not only their colleagues, but in the case of Eric Trump, his own brother.
Using fake email addresses like "reince.priebus@mail.com" and "donaldtrumpjr.trump@gmail.com," @Sinon_Reborn was able to get the likes of Eric Trump, Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's Russian ambassador pick Jon Huntsman, and even Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert to respond.
(http://images1.the-daily.buzz/live/articles/Bossert_7a8e3c46063eb6c74f0c256e413598f7.jpg)
Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert? Wow ya wouda thought ol' Tommy might have a clue but no...
[The emails are on tweeter in an image format so I won't bother with all of them, just the one from fake Reince Priebus to the Mooch and his reply]
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGFkD8eW0AAOhlG.jpg:small)
According to CNN, Scaramucci replied, "You know what you did. We all do. Even today. But rest assured we were prepared. A Man would apologize."
He also replied later, telling the fake Priebus to "read Shakespeare":
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DGHC0IyWAAEos07.jpg)
You would think that the Trump White House (considering the fact they benefited by the democrats getting hacked) would have better digital policies and procedure that would prevent this sort of stupid behavior...
-
According to Trump...
Trump: Boy Scout Leader Said I Gave 'Greatest Speech Ever' (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/speech-greatest-boy-scouts/2017/08/01/id/805183/)
(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/5e/5e04d4c2-abe7-429a-84f7-7d781b0a50a2.jpg)
The leader of the Boy Scouts of America called Donald Trump and told him his recent speech was, "the greatest speech that was ever made to them," according to the comments the president made to The Wall Street Journal as published by Politico.
But then...
Boy Scouts of America disputes leadership praised President Trump's jamboree speech as 'greatest' ever (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/boy-scouts-disputes-leadership-praised-trump-speech-greatest-article-1.3376061)
President Trump boasted that the Boy Scouts of America called him to say his jamboree pep talk was by no means “mixed” — it was the “greatest.”
Except the Boy Scouts did no such thing, according to a source within the organization.
The Boy Scout source disputed that its leadership called Trump to praise the July 24 speech in Glen Jean, W.V., as claimed by the President in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
“We are not aware of any calls from national BSA leadership to the White House,” the source said.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/720x405/p059n08g.jpg)
Boy Scouts chief after Trump speech: We regret that ‘politics were inserted’ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/27/boy-scouts-chief-apologizes-donald-trump-speech/517138001/)
The head of the Boy Scouts of America apologized for President Trump's political speech at its national gathering.
"I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree," chief executive Michael Surbaugh wrote in an open letter posted on the Boy Scouts website Thursday. "...We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program."
He lies like dog that he is...
-
Foxconn, the Chinese company that makes the iPhone for Apple in China, is going to build a plant for LED's in Wisconsin. They're going to spend ten billion dollars and hire 13,000.
And Wisconsin subsidizes it with 3 billion of tax payers' money over a period.
Wisconsin to consider $3 billion Foxconn incentive package
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxconn-wisconsin-idUSKBN1AG2DK
Activists attack Wisconsin's Foxconn deal as harmful to wetlands
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxconn-wisconsin-idUSKBN1AH5EF
QUOTE "The draft bill allows Foxconn to discharge dredged or fill material into some wetlands without state permits. The legislation also would allow Foxconn to connect artificial bodies of water with natural waterways without state permits.
Gou told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Wisconsin was appealing in part because of its proximity to abundant fresh water from Lake Michigan.
"New business is great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of our water and air," Clean Wisconsin said on Facebook. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
According to Trump...
Trump merely rejects your reality and substitutes his own.
-
It seems that you have your facts wrong because you only read the liberal fake news. Heck, we won't need the wall if this keeps up and Mexico can save its money:
I'll try to locate that podcast's source for the immigration data, but I believe it's from immigration department statistics. Or do you not believe those either.
I remember the number 13 million bandied about during the election, being the number of illegal Mexicans in the US (or was that total illegal immigrants, not just Mexicans, I don't know). It's kind of obvious to me that if there are that many, then it must mean that the USA wanted them or easily absorbed them anyway, in the sense that the majority of them must be working, or else how could they eat and pay rent (or pay doctors) every day? And if they are working, thus contributing to the economy, then what, exactly, is your problem with immigration. I don't buy the notion that illegal "aliens" steal jobs. If americans wanted to work, all they have to do is fill out an application for the damn job like everybody else. What exactly is the problem here?
And you can't make the simultaneous arguments that illegal aliens represent a low-cost source of labour that undercuts americans while at the same time complain that the minimum wage is too high.
You also keep complaining that regulations are strangling american enterprise. There is a UN ranking of country competitiveness (can't remember its name) that is done by some economic development agency that ranked the USA as fourth in the world for ease of starting a business. That, and given the huge wealth in your country, your assertion that federal government regulation is harming business is a little difficult to swallow. It's just not plausible.
-
Robert. The cost of labor is determined by scarcity. Illegals allow employers to pay less for labor because there's more people to choose from. So instead of Americans getting the jobs, many illegals get them. This is even worse because illegals are often willing to work for less than minimum wage. American workers can't even compete.
Also, the cost of illegals is not offset by the taxes they pay. School costs, Medicare, Obama care, welfare, food stamps, etc. are paid for by citizens. These costs much higher than the taxes the illegals pay. Illegals are great for employers who lower their production costs. But they're terrible for society in general as it increases costs for everyone else.
-
...
You also keep complaining that regulations are strangling american enterprise. There is a UN ranking of country competitiveness (can't remember its name) that is done by some economic development agency that ranked the USA as fourth in the world for ease of starting a business. That, and given the huge wealth in your country, your assertion that federal government regulation is harming business is a little difficult to swallow. It's just not plausible.
Federal regulation costs America $1.9 trillion dollars annually. That's equal to the entire GDP production of goods and services for Italy, the eighth most productive country in the world. Imagine, we can pay for another Italy.
https://fiscalnote.com/2016/04/07/the-trillion-dollar-cost-of-regulations-in-the-united-states/
Federal cost doesn't include local state and municipal regulations which add a lot more.
-
Robert Roaldi: I believe you are Canadian. So it's to your advantage to advocate more regulation in America. Higher regulation means that our goods cost more to produce against Canadian cost of production. That allows Canada to sell more cheaper goods to America rather than Americans buying more US made goods.
Everyone here should state their nationality on their profile page so we can assess whether the reasons for your opinions are just self-interest on your part. No one would believe that foreigners care more about America than their own countries.
-
I know you are talking to Alan here, but I feel the need to comment.
You are not correct on this.
I, myself, do not deal with regulations as a photographer, but my clients (architects and GCs mainly) do. Not a single one of them would agree with you. They could all site multiple projects that either did not even start or went extremely over budget, so the quality of the project suffered in other areas, due to regulations, some of which make no sense.
They would all say we are over-regulated and that regulations are costing businesses.
Actually, Joe, as a photographer, you too deal with regulations. Fees are required for commercial photography in public places. Complicated accounting procedures and tax regulations require you spend more money on accountants. Issuing a tax form at the end of the year as required by Obamacare to show that employees have health care through your firm. I'm sure if you think about all the things you do, you'll come up with a lot more.
I was a contractor in NYC. The rules and regulations were burdensome and costly. Filing plans and the associate costs for architects and engineers are astounding. Trump being a NY real estate developer is well acquainted with extra costs to build because of regs. So he probably has a pet peeve against regulations. Of course we need some regulations. The problem is they just get out of control so they begin to hurt more than help. They grow like weeds. They add costs that make us less competitive against imports and countries that have less regulation.
-
,
Federal regulation costs America $1.9 trillion dollars annually.
If it does (haven't bothered to check the figures), is that all burned/wasted? Or are people getting paid for jobs involved, goods consumed, or are there any benefits from the regulations that are not counted in the aggregate cost benefit picture here?
Maybe the government is just inefficient, because if not, maybe it is just a part of the cost of having a more smoothly running economy which saves more money than it costs?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump thinks the 'White House is a real dump,' report says (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/08/01/trump-thinks-white-house-real-dump/531212001/)
(https://www.sasapost.com/wp-content/uploads/World_04_52039c.jpg)
Trump's "official" Oval Office redesign
President Trump told members at his Trump National Bedminster golf club he has spent so much time there recently because "that White House is a real dump," Golf magazine reported Tuesday.
According to the the in-depth look at the president and his relationship to golf (http://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/08/01/president-donald-trump-relationship-golf-more-complicated-now), Bedminster has become one of Trump's favorite escapes. It served as a "permanent campaign rally site" in the months leading up to the election and Trump has visited the club four times since taking office.
"He has his own cottage adjacent to the pool; it was recently given a secure perimeter by the Secret Service, leading to the inevitable joke that it's the only wall Trump has successfully built," Golf magazine reported. "Chatting with some members before a recent round of golf, he explained his frequent appearances: 'That White House is a real dump.'"
By contrast, people who've played with Trump on his courses say he praises every detail of his clubs.
"'Is this not the most beautiful asphalt you've ever seen in your life?'" he'll say of an ordinary cart path," Golf reported. "At the turn he'll ask, "'Have you ever had a better burger?'"
(http://www.schewephoto.com/misc/trump-cart-1.jpg)
Though Trump may take a lot of "floating mulligans" — ignoring a bad shot, or dropping a new ball without taking a penalty — and though he may have a nasty habit of driving his cart onto greens and tee boxes, Golf writes that no president has ever played the sport better.
Trump "clearly loves the game, and even at 71 is easily the best golfer who has ever lived in the White House," the magazine said.
So, Trump cheats when keeping score? Why am I not surprised...
I suspect this is what Trump REALLY wants his Oval Office to look like,
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/Trump-oval-office.jpg)
The designer posted suggested elements HERE (http://www.ifitshipitshere.com/oval-office-trump-style/)
BTW, if you want to see what the Trumpeter is giving up in NYC, here's his living room...see, the Oval Office is a dump!
(http://www.truthandaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/TrumpManhattan-010.jpg)
Inside Donald and Melania Trump’s Manhattan Apartment Mansion (http://www.idesignarch.com/inside-donald-and-melania-trumps-manhattan-apartment-mansion/)
-
Jeff, The Donald wouldn't be caught dead with a leopard carpet. Are you kiddin'?
-
This is particularly slimy...particularly Sean Hannity who STILL has not actually retracted his statements...
Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story)
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/08/01/gettyimages-684348272_slide-678820307b516d52f72e2ff94a6d6f052e6fa114-s800-c85.jpg)
Mary Rich, the mother of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, speaks at a press conference on Aug. 1, 2016.
A lawsuit alleges Fox News and a wealthy Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the
administration's ties to the Russian government by concocting a story about Seth Rich's death.
Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post/Getty Images
The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.
Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story.
Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.
The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.
--snip--
The back story
On May 16, the Fox News Channel broke what it called a "bombshell" story about an unsolved homicide: the July 2016 shooting of 27-year-old Democratic Party staffer Seth Rich.
Unfounded conspiracy theories involving Rich abounded in the months after his death, in part because WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cryptically suggested that Rich's death may have been related to the leaks of tens of thousands of emails from Democratic Party officials and their allies at the peak of the presidential campaign.
Fox News' story, which took flight online and ran in segments across major shows, breathed fresh life into the rumors. Fox reported that the leaks came from inside the party and not from hackers linked to Russia — despite the conclusions of the nation's most senior intelligence officials. The network suggested that Democrats might have been connected to Rich's death and that a cover-up had thwarted the official investigation.
The network cited an unnamed FBI official. And the report relied heavily on Wheeler, a former police detective, hired months earlier on behalf of the Riches by Butowsky.
These developments took place during growing public concern over a federal investigation into the Trump camp's possible collusion with the Russian government during the campaign. The allegations have since touched the president's son and son-in-law, his former campaign manager, his attorney general and his first national security adviser, who resigned as a result.
The question of Rich's death took on greater urgency for Butowsky after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in early May. Comey had been overseeing the Russia investigation. The story ran just a week later.
Fox's report went sideways shortly after it was posted online and aired on Fox & Friends. It was denounced by the Rich family, D.C. police, Democratic Party officials and even, privately, by some journalists within the network. Within hours, Wheeler told other news outlets that Fox News had put words in his mouth.
Despite those concerns, Wheeler appeared on the shows of Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and Fox News star Sean Hannity, who devoted significant time to the story that night and in subsequent days. In speaking with Wheeler, Hannity said: "If this is true and Seth Rich gave WikiLeaks the DNC e-mails ... this blows the whole Russia collusion narrative completely out of the water."
A week later, on May 23, Fox retracted the story, saying the reporting process failed to live up to its standards. Hannity said he would take a break from talking about Rich's death out of respect for the family. And there it has largely stood — until now.
This is the type of real "Fake News" story that hurts real people...and that slime-dog Hannity STILL hasn't actually retracted the story saying "it's still under investigation"...yeah, well, Hannity I think your being an actual HUMAN is still under investigation...
-
If it does (haven't bothered to check the figures), is that all burned/wasted? Or are people getting paid for jobs involved, goods consumed, or are there any benefits from the regulations that are not counted in the aggregate cost benefit picture here?
Maybe the government is just inefficient, because if not, maybe it is just a part of the cost of having a more smoothly running economy which saves more money than it costs?
Cheers,
Bart
Of course regulation provides safety or other benefits to society that people want to have. But they all add costs which are transferred from people who mainly produce things we want to people who produce things that have less value. For example, you may produce photos I want to buy of my daughter's wedding. But the fees that have to be paid to local government to provide a police presence to keep things orderly just take away money from me that I could give toward a nicer wedding with a better desert for my guests.
Another example. Adding tax regulation and complicated accounting procedures does not help the economy. Businesses and individuals get no benefit from transferring their money to an accountant and raising their product or living costs. People have to pay more for the product. The accountant isn't providing anything of value when he's doing those kind of things. Not to get bad with accountants, they do provide a valuable service by giving accounting statements, profit and loss statements, etc that help the business owner run his business more efficiently. But hiring them to handle stupid regulations only helps the accountant make money transferred from the business owner and raising costs of the products he produces.
What you're arguing is the old "hole" theory of helping the economy. We could get rid of unemployment by hiring 2 million unemployed to dig holes then hire another 2 million to fill them. It sounds like we're doing something beneficial by putting 4 million to work. But what they produce has no value to anyone. It's the same when you spend on the military. Why do you think Germany doesn't want to pay the 2%? Because, no one benefits in their regular daily lives when tax money goes to defense. Do you need a tank? Of course not. Neither do I. It's a transfer of money from civilians who could have used that money on health care, something of value that means something to them. Well, costs for regulations are similar.
-
So, how low will he go?
Poll: Trump's approval rating down to 33% (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/trump-approval-new-low-quinnipiac-poll/index.html)
(http://crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/node_primary/primary_image/16/10/angry_trump_0.jpg)
Nooooo!
(CNN)Just 33% of American voters approve of how President Donald Trump is performing as president, a new Quinnipiac University poll has found (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2476).
The findings mark Trump's lowest approval rating and highest disapproval rating in the Quinnipiac poll. Sixty-one percent of respondents say they disapprove of the President's performance, with 55% of people saying they strongly disapprove -- the highest share of respondents yet.
Trump's numbers declined more among Republicans than they did among Democrats, who had already viewed the President unfavorably. In late June, 84% of Republicans approved of Trump's performance -- now, 76% of Republicans say the same. Seventeen percent of Republicans now say they disapprove of the way Trump is performing in the job.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/TrumpApproval.png)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c8/13/1e/c8131edb53988f02a78343cb985a81f4--classic-cartoons-cartoon-characters.jpg)
Actually, some numbers are startling...
From the poll:
President Trump is not levelheaded, say 71 - 26 percent of voters, his worst score on that character trait. Voter opinions of most other Trump qualities drop to new lows:
62 - 34 percent that he is not honest;
63 - 34 percent that he does not have good leadership skills;
59 - 39 percent that he does not care about average Americans;
58 - 39 percent that he is a strong person;
55 - 42 percent that he is intelligent;
63 - 34 percent that he does not share their values.
This is the President of the United States of America and Former Leader of the Free World (pretty sure Merkel would beat him–oh wait, she did)
On world affairs, most G20 countries more confident in Merkel than Trump (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/on-world-affairs-most-g20-countries-more-confident-in-merkel-than-trump/)
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/06/30150611/PG_17.06.29_G-20_DotPlot.png)
EeeeeeeeK!
-
Enough with polls. The elections are over. They were wrong then. He's president for 4 years. Let's see what the polls say in 3 1/2 years when the economy is either good or bad. Everything else is conversation.
-
I'm thinking the White House prolly shouldn't let Steve Miller actually speak to reporters...
The Poem on the Statue of Liberty Was 'Added Later' But There's More to That Story (http://time.com/4884799/statue-of-liberty-emma-lazarus-poem/)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/CNN_glykx4.jpeg)
The history of the Statue of Liberty (http://time.com/4544961/statue-of-liberty-quick-history/) became the focus of a back-and-forth (http://time.com/4884808/stephen-miller-immigration-policy-jim-acosta/) between Stephen Miller, an aide to President Donald Trump, and CNN's Jim Acosta during the White House Press Briefing on Wednesday.
The broadcast journalist had argued that the President's support of a bill that would place limits on legal immigration (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/trump-immigration.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news) did not jibe with the spirit embodied by the monument, as expressed by the Emma Lazarus poem that has become synonymous with Lady Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor," it famously declares, "Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
"The poem that you're referring to was added later," Miller replied. "It's not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty."
The poem was engraved onto a plaque placed on the pedestal in 1903 — nearly two decades after the statue was unveiled — and that the monument wasn't always associated with immigration.
Originally, the meaning of the monument had more to do with the abolition of slavery than with immigration. In the 1860s, French anti-slavery activist Edouard de Laboulaye had first proposed that France should make a gift of the statue, dubbed "Liberty Enlightening the World" and designed by sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi, both to commemorate the alliance between the U.S. and France during the American Revolution and the end of slavery in the U.S. after the Civil War, according to the National Park Service.
But, while the statue herself would be a gift, it would be up to Americans to raise money to construct the monument's base. Many years passed during this period, and in that time the main liberty-related questions on Americans' minds — especially in New York City — evolved. The Civil War had ended, but a "Great Wave of Immigration" had begun, as 23.5 million persons immigrated between 1880 and 1920.
It was as a result of the need to fund the pedestal that Emma Lazarus was tapped to write the famous sonnet "The New Colossus" for a Statue of Liberty fundraiser in 1883. Inspired by her work with Russian Jews detained by immigration officials on Ward Island, she included a new facet of liberty in her interpretation of what the statue could mean.
(http://coyotelegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Statue-of-Liberty-crying-628x356.jpg)
#MAGA?NOT!
-
Enough with polls.
You're like Trump...polls are ok when he likes them and they are #FAKENEWS when he doesn't.
Doesn't it mean anything to you that the majority of America thinks Trump is doing a bad job?
-
You're like Trump...polls are ok when he likes them and they are #FAKENEWS when he doesn't.
Doesn't it mean anything to you that the majority of America thinks Trump is doing a bad job?
The fact he's doing so well despite the constant biased press hitting him every day to bring his presidency down is amazing. The NY Times and the Washington Post have made it their job to destroy Trump. Add in the liberal press and cable and no one could stand up to those kind of attacks. But it will all come down to how the economy is doing and what the democrats offer in opposition.
-
I know you are talking to Alan here, but I feel the need to comment.
You are not correct on this.
I, myself, do not deal with regulations as a photographer, but my clients (architects and GCs mainly) do. Not a single one of them would agree with you. They could all site multiple projects that either did not even start or went extremely over budget, so the quality of the project suffered in other areas, due to regulations, some of which make no sense.
They would all say we are over-regulated and that regulations are costing businesses.
I take your point, but I didn't say it, a podcast on poverty said it (can't remember which one, I've been listening to a few in the car lately). It was concerned with what was holding back entrepreneurs around the globe and keeping them in poverty, and one big culprit was pointless regulation (like getting 13 permits to open a business from 13 different city departments, that kind of thing). The data they quoted simply said that the USA was the fourth best place in the world to start a business, at least from the regulatory point of view.
Discussing this using anecdotes is a waste of time. I'm not surprised to hear that businessmen complain about any overhead that does not go toward generating profit. That does not mean that regulation should not exist or that it does not serve a useful purpose.
And anyway, so what if they say that. I have never heard any businessman say that things were going well. Somehow, they never make enough money and things are always standing in their way. I stopped listening to that whine a long time ago. I bet plantation owners complained about how much their slaves were eating. On their own, without objective evidence, those complaints carry no weight whatsoever, imo.
I am in no doubt that some regulation is nonsensical. We've all seen or heard of examples, but we should not overplay that hand. I am also sure that some regulation is essential in a civilized society.
How do we define regulation anyway? Are pollution controls on cars an unnecessary regulation? A lot of people used to think so. Do regulations about building homes on flood plains interfere with real estate development? You bet, and it's a good thing that they do. Does it cost coal mining companies money to prevent their employees from getting black lung disease? I should hope so. I understand that some people are perfectly ok with making money at the expense of someone else's health, but that does not mean that a civilized society should let them do it. I understand that it may cost coal companies so much to protect their workers that it may cripple their ability to make a profit. All that means is that it's a business that should not exist.
The free market is fantastic at producing cheap mobile phones. And it has a terrible track record when it concerns effects their businesses might have on the external world and that's why we've evolved business regulation, because it was necessary.
As I said above, I am in no doubt that some jurisdictions invent all kinds of silly regulations as cash grabs and that those things are bad for everyone. So let's find THOSE and get rid of them. But let's not pretend that regulation is evil or bad for society, because there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
However, while we're cleaning up those dumb regulations that serve no purpose, it may be good for us to stop and figure out why those jurisdictions implemented them in the first place. Why did they need the money and why don't they have a more equitable way to raise it? I wonder how many regulations were lobbied by industry groups to protect their turf and make it difficult for competitors.
-
The fact he's doing so well despite the constant biased press hitting him every day to bring his presidency down is amazing.
In what universe is Trump "doing well"?
Is he doing well when only 33% of the nation approves while 61% disapproves of the job he's doing?
How can you possibly construe that to be doing well?
Wow...
-
In what universe is Trump "doing well"?
Is he doing well when only 33% of the nation approves while 61% disapproves of the job he's doing?
How can you possibly construe that to be doing well?
Wow...
Jeff, I said he was doing well despite the out-to-get-him liberal press. Also, you're using the same old poll argument that was made during the campaign. You're judging him like past politicians.
"Well, there's no way he can win the nomination because he can't get above 33%". Then , when he got above that, "Well he can't win unless he gets above 40%." Etc Etc. Then he won.
But in any case he is President. He's working thru policies that will help the economy or not. It's going to take awhile. Didn't Obama say years and years after 2008, well you got to give me time. Well Trump's been President 6 months. Give him time. Or not. It doesn't matter. Because he will be judged not now but before the 2018 election and in 2020 before the next presidential election. If the economy is doing well and Wall Street hasn't been nuked by NK, he'll get re-elected and the Republicans will do OK.
-
Maybe this will help...THE TRUMPLANDIA DICTIONARY
(this is from a neighbor :~)
Column: It's hard to understand Donald Trump without this Trumplandia Dictionary (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-donald-trump-dictionary-mary-schmich-20170727-column.html)
Mary Schmich Contact Reporter
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-597a79c6/turbine/ct-donald-trump-dictionary-mary-schmich-201707-001/750/750x422)
In the brave, new nation of Trumplandia, it can be hard to keep things straight. Down is up and up is sideways and many words have taken on new meaning. What follows is an aid to deciphering the gibberish.
THE TRUMPLANDIA DICTIONARY
LOYALTY: Unswerving allegiance to a ruler (e.g., Donald Trump) regardless of how crazy or cruel his behavior.
Usage note: Loyalty is a quality demanded by the ruler with no guarantee of reciprocity.
See: Jeff Sessions
DISTRACTION: A technique used by Donald Trump to direct attention away from his failures or potential crimes, e.g., a ban on transgender people in the military.
See: Twitter/Tweet/Tweetstorm
LGBT (acronym): Coined as shorthand for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender," currently used by Donald Trump to mean "Laughing Greatly Because They-really-thought-I-was-on-their-side-haha."
CLINTON (perjorative): 1. Either of two politicians who stick in Donald Trump's craw because they are widely considered to be smarter than he is. 2. A noun used to deflect substantive argument over important matters.
Usage note: Often used in the plural.
See: Distraction/Sean Hannity/Email/Blue Dress/Breitbart/Bannon/Cough/Fox
HEALTH: The condition of being sound in body, mind or spirit; freedom from disease or pain; a state reserved for people with lots of money or good genes.
HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION: 1. A political football. 2. A pain in the ass for Donald Trump. 3. A moral pain for John McCain.
OBAMA (archaic): A long-ago president of the United States.
CHICAGO: 1. A synonym for hell. 2. A useful political tool. 3. The home of Trump Hotel Chicago, where one night in a nice suite in August costs only $2,119.07.
Editor's note: That's tax included.
WHITE: The color of people who count.
For exceptions, see: Omarosa/Ben Carson/Mike Tyson/Dennis Rodman/Kanye
MALE: The gender of people who count.
For exceptions, see: Ivanka
WOMAN: A human being who exists to be objectified, ogled or mocked; used for sexual purposes and male adornment; or jailed for being a threat to a man.
See: Beauty Queen/Brigitte Macron/P---y/Wife/Evil Hillary
WIFE: A young woman who will bear at least one child before she hits menopause and has to be replaced.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT: Fun!
BOY SCOUT: A future Trump voter.
BAN: A prohibition, often rooted in fear or the desire to create fear for political gain.
See: Muslim/Immigrant/Transgender
FAIR: Whatever makes Donald Trump look and feel good.
UNFAIR: The antonym of "fair."
Example: "No politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been treated worse or more unfairly." — Donald J. Trump
NEWS: Whatever facts, errors and assertions make Donald Trump look and feel good.
FAKE NEWS: The antonym of "news."
Usage note: Some of what is called "fake news" is actually real news. And vice-versa. And that is why your head hurts.
GREAT: A catch-all adjective used by Donald Trump to describe his TV ratings, his crowd sizes, his poll numbers, his vote tallies, and America as it once was and will be again under his rule.
See: Stupendous/Tremendous/Terrific/Big League/Huge/Lie
FAILING: Whatever enterprise, country or person makes Donald Trump feel or look bad.
See: The Mainstream Media
RELIGION: A useful tool for exploiting the fears and prejudices of voters.
RUSSIA: 1. Host of the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, co-owned by Donald Trump. 2. The country that interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. 3. The Slavic word for "nothingburger."
FRAUD: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain, but not if Donald Trump is involved, in which case the correct word is "fair."
CONSISTENCY: The hobgoblin of little minds.
WORD: A sound or combination of sounds, spoken or written, that once had a generally agreed-upon meaning but now means whatever is convenient for the user.
See: Fact/Truth/Winning/Honesty and most of the words above.
ANXIETY (trending): A state of chronic stress felt nationwide since November 2016.
-
"Well, there's no way he can win the nomination because he can't get above 33%". Then , when he got above that, "Well he can't win unless he gets above 40%." Etc Etc. Then he won.
And exactly why did he just barely win?
Remember, it was about 80,000 voters in three swing states that made the difference and also remember 92 million eligible voters didn't bother to vote and remember Comey released a letter to Congress about Wiener's computer 11 days before the election and Wikileaks started leaking Podesta's emails about an hour after the Trump Pussy Grab recording was released.
You keep telling yourself Trump won fair and square but refuses to admit Russia interfered with our election even though he signed a bill today putting even more Russian sanctions.
You keep telling yourself it doesn't matter that Trump is president only to his diminishing base and continues to offend everybody else in America and the vast majority of the world...
You keep telling yourself the last 6 months is anything other than an unmitigated disaster.
Maybe Kelly can do something to whip Trump into presidential material but I seriously doubt it.
-
So, here's the scary thing, the Wall Street Journal did an interview with Donald Trump and the WSJ has been releasing snippets of the interview that almost make Trump sound normal.
Then, somebody (at the WSJ?) leaks the entire interview to Politico and then all attempts to characterize Trump's interview to be anything other than virtually unintelligible end.
I won't bother the cut and past the entire interview but if you want some nearly impossible reading, here's the full transcript (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/01/trump-wall-street-journal-interview-full-transcript-241214)
(https://m.wsj.net/video/20170726/072617wsjtrump/072617wsjtrump_640x360.jpg)
But the question that needs to be asked is why does Trump sound so, well, unable to carry on a normal coherent conversation?
Cnn has excerpted the top 45 oddest quotes here: The 45 oddest quotes from Donald Trump's secretive Wall Street Journal interview (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/donald-trump-wsj-interview/index.html)
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Washington (CNN)On July 25, President Trump sat down for an interview with The Wall Street Journal. The paper wrote a few stories on the 45-minute chat and released a handful of excerpts. What they didn't do was release the full transcript of the interview -- which has become common practice among media organizations over the last few years.
Thanks to the good folks at Politico, however, we can now see the full back and forth of the Journal's conversation with the President; Politico got their hands on the entire transcript and released it Tuesday night. (Hooray for transparency!) Worth noting: The New York Times didn't release its FULL transcript of the Trump interview last month. The Times, however, did release extensive excerpts.
It is a classic of the form. I went through and pulled out the strangest of the strange Trump lines. They're below in the order Trump said them.
[here's the 1st 5 quotes]
1. "But once you get that motion, it's in pretty good shape, once you get in. It's hard to get in, but once you get in."
Trump is talking here about the motion to proceed on the health care legislation, in case you were wondering.
2. "John McCain was a great help, coming in as he did. And so it was something I very much appreciate, and we'll see what happens."
This interview was conducted on Thursday afternoon. By early Friday morning, the Senate had failed to pass the measure with McCain casting the decisive "no" vote.
3. "Many conversations. I just had one with a certain senator that was very convincing to that senator. So I've done a lot."
Hmmm. You would assume this had to do with health care given the timing of the interview. And, if so, was Trump really "very convincing" given that the vote failed hours later?
4. "And I — you know, I think I — you know, look, just don't quote me on this unless it happens, but I think we have a pretty good shot."
They did quote you. And the vote failed.
5. "If it's repeal and replace, which one do you want to go? Which form of existing conditions? I mean, there's many things."
Here's the truth: Trump isn't a details guy. Never has been. He comes in at the end and uses the power of his #brand and personality to close deals. In this quote he makes clear he knows very, very little about the specific policies being debated in the health care fight. "Which form of existing conditions" is not a phrase anyone who knows the law and the proposed changes says.
Look, I didn't even cherry pick the really crazy sounding stuff Trump said–which is, I think, the reason that the WSJ didn't release the full transcript and carefully chose quotes in their article that made Trump sound almost intelligible. I do find it interesting that we're seeing leaks of news media leaking on and to each other. I would be interested in seeing an analysis about the potential copyright implications for the Politico leak of the WSJ transcript.
-
Give him time. Or not. It doesn't matter. Because he will be judged not now but before the 2018 election and in 2020 before the next presidential election. If the economy is doing well and Wall Street hasn't been nuked by NK, he'll get re-elected and the Republicans will do OK.
So, there's this...(yes another poll–they are done in a scientific manner ya know?)
Poll: Democrats surge ahead on generic ballot (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/02/democrats-ballot-2018-election-241228)
Republicans trail Democrats by 7 percentage points on the generic congressional ballot, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the Democratic Party's greatest advantage on the generic ballot since the poll began asking the question this past spring.
The survey, conducted last Thursday through Saturday, shows a generic Democrat leading a generic Republican, 44 percent to 37 percent, with 19 percent of registered voters undecided. The two parties were tied, 40 percent apiece, in the previous week’s poll.
The results came on the heels of a week in which the GOP effort to repeal Obamacare crashed and burned in the Senate and President Donald Trump’s chief of staff left the White House abruptly.
That does bode well for a democratic resurgence in the midterm elections and the risk the president and GOP are being exposed to by the incompetence both are showing so far. And do you honestly think Trump will be able to actually learn how to be a president?
-
More battle lines drawn...
Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html?_r=0)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170720093324-07-jeff-sessions-lead-image-exlarge-169.jpg)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.
The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”
The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.
The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minority students to university campuses.
Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.
So, Trump and his Minions™ (Miller and Bannon) seem to be waving a shiny object in the eyes of the Trump base by sating the DOJ is gonna make it more difficult for minorities to get a break from affirmative action.
-
You know it's starting to get real when the president is being ignored.
As the lies and contradictions mount, federal officials are deciding to simply ignore Trump (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/as-lies-contradictions-mount-federal-officials-deciding-to-ignore-trump.html)
(https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/06/27/104554053-RTS18QQF-donald-trump.530x298.jpg?v=1498574368)
Increasingly, federal officials are deciding simply to ignore President Donald Trump.
Evidence arrives every day of the government treating the man elected to lead it as someone talking mostly to himself.
The phenomenon has grown more pronounced as Trump keeps struggling to govern amid special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.
Increasingly, federal officials are deciding to simply ignore President Donald Trump.
As stunning as that sounds, fresh evidence arrives every day of the government treating the man elected to lead it as someone talking mostly to himself.
On Tuesday alone, the commandant of the Coast Guard announced he will "not break faith" with transgender service members despite Trump's statement that they could no longer serve. Fellow Republicans in the Senate moved ahead with other business despite the president's insistence that they return to repealing Obamacare. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "we certainly don't blame the Chinese" for North Korea's nuclear program after Trump claimed, "China could easily solve this problem." And Vice President Mike Pence said the president and Congress speak in a "unified voice" on a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill Trump has signed, but not publicly embraced.
"What is most remarkable is the extent to which his senior officials act as if Trump were not the chief executive," Jack Goldsmith, a top Justice Department official under President George W. Bush, wrote last weekend on lawfareblog.com.
"Never has a president been so regularly ignored or contradicted by his own officials," Goldsmith added. "The president is a figurehead who barks out positions and desires, but his senior subordinates carry on with different commitments."
But you know, everything is going great–no problems! New chief of staff will be a great reset and now the team can look for another new director of communications because well, The Mooch didn't really work out. But the team is sure there will be somebody really great to step in and take over this well oiled machine in the White House...oh, and really it's not a dump...Trump never said that in front of plenty of witnesses. And the Boy Scouts speech and the speech in front of cops...they were really great many people were saying. And that Wall Street Journal interview provided a couple of good quotes for the WSJ. The Trumpets will be sure to stir up the racial impact of affirmative action and legal immigration is gonna be cut in half to save America jobs!
Yeah, things are going great...couldn't be better!
-
I kinda miss him already!
(ok, not really but he did have a way with language–something I can certainly appreciate)
Why The Mooch Lost His Cool (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anthony-scaramucci-what-went-wrong_us_59811cc9e4b02b36343ec1da)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/31/31-anthony-scaramucci-fired.w710.h473.jpg)
Anthony Scaramucci tells HuffPost about the highs and lows of his fiery stint at the White House and what that cuss-filled rant was really about.
By Vicky Ward Editor at Large, HuffPost
I received a call Monday night from Roger Stone, the infamous political prankster and Donald Trump confidant. He wanted to talk about Anthony Scaramucci, whose 10-day tenure as White House communications director had just ended in ignominy.
Stone said that Scaramucci reminded him of “a suicide bomber,” then switched centuries for his next metaphor. “The administration is like the French Revolution,” Stone said. “You never know who will be beheaded next.”
But Stone didn’t believe that Scaramucci would stay far from the president for long. “As you know, none of us are ever really gone. He still has the president’s cellphone, the president’s private number. Just because he’s not in the White House, no one should think his influence has gone.”
When I spoke to Scaramucci on Tuesday afternoon, the financier was more interested in justifying his recent past.
From the beginning of his time in the Trump White House, way back on July 20, critics said that Scaramucci was too similar to Trump, too eager to be on TV, to last. Scaramucci was keenly aware of that particular liability. It explains why his opening news conference was so filled with compliments for the president. He knew there was only one person watching whose opinion of him mattered.
“The president thought I killed it,” Scaramucci told me the following day, still clearly hyped up by his experience in the White House briefing room.
“If you were 7 inches taller, I’d be worried,” Trump told Scaramucci, according to someone familiar with the conversation who asked not to be named quoting the president.
--snip--
But on Monday morning, Scaramucci knew he was cooked. Retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, the new chief of staff, who insisted that all White House staff report to him, asked for his resignation. “It was a very polite conversation,” Scaramucci says.
Scaramucci then went to see Trump, who was unavailable. He ended up speaking with the president, his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, separately later in the day by telephone. All were gracious, he said. “The president told me he knows I have his back, but he has to try to tighten the ship.”
So what are you going to do next, I asked him.
“I am now going to go dark,” he said.
And then?
“Then I will reemerge.” He paused. “As me.”
The rest of the article is sort of sad and shows somebody who had no clue what he was stepping into and didn't handle anything well including the exposure of his personal life and pending divorce.
He had great plans he was working on before getting fired...he even gave CNN his plan READ: Anthony Scaramucci's communications plan (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/scaramucci-comms-plan-text-only/index.html). It looked good as an outline but he never got the chance to implement anything before being escorted from the White House.
But hey, me made a ton of money selling his business and he's famous so now he can be a bon vivant of politics–heck, he could prolly get a news commentary on cable where his potty mouth could make him a lot of money...
-
I kinda miss him already!
But hey, me made a ton of money selling his business and he's famous so now he can be a bon vivant of politics–heck, he could prolly get a news commentary on cable where his potty mouth could make him a lot of money...
Could go on Bill Maher's show, they both speak the same language.
-
(https://www.sasapost.com/wp-content/uploads/World_04_52039c.jpg)
One thing I have always wondered. What exactly does the President keep in those drawers? His staff has its own staff that probably has even their own staff to take care of stuff. The President only has to twitch an eyebrow and there are aids standing by to supply what ever material he needs. Those look like dressers that one would find in a bedroom.
-
Golf writes that no president has ever played the sport better.
Trump "clearly loves the game, and even at 71 is easily the best golfer who has ever lived in the White House," the magazine said.
I understand that Kim Jong Il made five holes-in-one the first time he played golf. Kim shot 38 under par.
-
More battle lines drawn...
Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College Admissions (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html?_r=0)
So, Trump and his Minions™ (Miller and Bannon) seem to be waving a shiny object in the eyes of the Trump base by sating the DOJ is gonna make it more difficult for minorities to get a break from affirmative action.
The big complaint of discrimination is now coming from Asian Americans who are being "capped" because they're moving towards majority in many schools. Schools are preferring other races, mainly whites, over Asians. If Trump does away with preferences, Asians, not whites would benefit and have higher admissions rates. Whites would go down. Another fake news article to smear Trump and twist what he's doing. If the Justice Department does away with race preferences, people will be admitted based on academic performance and other skills but not based on the color of their skin. The time for race discrimination is over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions.html
-
Robert. The cost of labor is determined by scarcity. Illegals allow employers to pay less for labor because there's more people to choose from. So instead of Americans getting the jobs, many illegals get them. This is even worse because illegals are often willing to work for less than minimum wage. American workers can't even compete.
Also, the cost of illegals is not offset by the taxes they pay. School costs, Medicare, Obama care, welfare, food stamps, etc. are paid for by citizens. These costs much higher than the taxes the illegals pay. Illegals are great for employers who lower their production costs. But they're terrible for society in general as it increases costs for everyone else.
You seem to be implying that the unfettered free market is contributing to illegal immigration by its pursuit of low-cost labour. Maybe this could be addressed by more close oversight of these businesses then, to prevent them from hiring illegals. You're not advocating more regulation, are you? :)
-
The big complaint of discrimination is now coming from Asian Americans who are being "capped" because they're moving towards majority in many schools. Schools are preferring other races, mainly whites, over Asians. If Trump does away with preferences, Asians, not whites would benefit and have higher admissions rates. Whites would go down. Another fake news article to smear Trump and twist what he's doing. If the Justice Department does away with race preferences, people will be admitted based on academic performance and other skills but not based on the color of their skin. The time for race discrimination is over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions.html
Wow. Did I call it right. Now the NY Times is already backing off its fake news article that it was to support whites that Trump's DOJ started the investigation. They must have read my post. This just goes to show how quick to distort and create the fake news that the NY Times and the Washington Post and all the other Trump haters feel. We "get" it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/asian-americans-complaint-prompted-justice-inquiry-of-college-admissions.html
-
You seem to be implying that the unfettered free market is contributing to illegal immigration by its pursuit of low-cost labour. Maybe this could be addressed by more close oversight of these businesses then, to prevent them from hiring illegals. You're not advocating more regulation, are you? :)
I've been recommending that for years. There have been laws on the books for decades making it illegal to hire people who are not citizens or who don't have a green card or other legal right to work in America. All the government has to do is prosecute a couple of business owners and send them to jail for hiring illegals. Employment of illegals would stop over night. Mexicans would stay in Mexico. Central Americans would go no further than Mexico. You won't have to build a wall and you could fire most of the immigration guards along the border and use the rest to stop illegal drug smuggling exclusively.
The truth of the matter is we have this problem of huge illegal population because everyone has looked the other way. We want cheap labor. Of course, this hurts poor blacks and other people at the lower end of the economic scale. So when Trump says the wall and other immigration policies will help the poor and Blacks so they should vote for him, he's telling the truth. It's the phony Democrats who want the Latino vote and Republicans who want cheap labor that favor the status quo. Nobody gives a damn about the poor black American except Trump.
Which brings up another matter. Trump wants to cut immigration in half and require good skills and the ability to support one's family of the people who are allowed to immigrate. This follows some of the rules that Canada and Australia use. The point is that skilled workers benefit America. Unskilled workers just add a burden to the taxpayer as their families have to be supported with health care, and other government handouts at taxpayer expense. Also, unskilled immigrants compete with unskilled and poor American workers, similarly as do illegal immigrants. So even though Trump's policy would help American poor and black, he's being castigated as anti-immigrant.
-
I know you are talking to Alan here, but I feel the need to comment.
You are not correct on this.
I, myself, do not deal with regulations as a photographer, but my clients (architects and GCs mainly) do. Not a single one of them would agree with you. They could all site multiple projects that either did not even start or went extremely over budget, so the quality of the project suffered in other areas, due to regulations, some of which make no sense.
They would all say we are over-regulated and that regulations are costing businesses.
I found the podcast I was referring to: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/28/381652827/episode-599-the-invisible-wall (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/28/381652827/episode-599-the-invisible-wall).
-
I've been recommending that for years. There have been laws on the books for decades making it illegal to hire people who are not citizens or who don't have a green card or other legal right to work in America. All the government has to do is prosecute a couple of business owners and send them to jail for hiring illegals. Employment of illegals would stop over night. Mexicans would stay in Mexico. Central Americans would go no further than Mexico. You won't have to build a wall and you could fire most of the immigration guards along the border and use the rest to stop illegal drug smuggling exclusively.
The truth of the matter is we have this problem of huge illegal population because everyone has looked the other way. We want cheap labor. Of course, this hurts poor blacks and other people at the lower end of the economic scale. So when Trump says the wall and other immigration policies will help the poor and Blacks so they should vote for him, he's telling the truth. It's the phony Democrats who want the Latino vote and Republicans who want cheap labor that favor the status quo. Nobody gives a damn about the poor black American except Trump.
Which brings up another matter. Trump wants to cut immigration in half and require good skills and the ability to support one's family of the people who are allowed to immigrate. This follows some of the rules that Canada and Australia use. The point is that skilled workers benefit America. Unskilled workers just add a burden to the taxpayer as their families have to be supported with health care, and other government handouts at taxpayer expense. Also, unskilled immigrants compete with unskilled and poor American workers, similarly as do illegal immigrants. So even though Trump's policy would help American poor and black, he's being castigated as anti-immigrant.
Every immigration wave has had an economic benefit, and every such wave has produced critics who believed the opposite. Why is this time any different?
-
I fail to see how this relates to my comment on over-regulation. ???
Only in that it was the interview in that podcast that mentioned that the USA is relatively unregulated, fourth best in the world from that measure. The main point of the podcast supports what you said.
No one is contesting that silly regulations stifle enterprise. That is self-evident, I'd say. The point in my earlier thread was that what we call regulation varies from person to person and from time to time. A large swath of the population at one point thought that pollution controls on cars was over-regulation.
-
I found the podcast I was referring to: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/28/381652827/episode-599-the-invisible-wall (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/28/381652827/episode-599-the-invisible-wall).
I read the transcript. Nice story; amazing guy that Peruvian deSoto. A year-and-a-half to open a bakery in Egypt. Just shows how terrible regulations are.
I'll tell you one I faced over and over again in NYC. Building codes require the manufacturer's name and model number of fans installed in buildings. Even for little fractional horsepower ones like you put in windows to exhaust a storage room. So whenever we had to do that, we had to pay the architect and engineers to file updated plans with the Building's Department. The original filing would not have that information because it was unknown until the contractor installed the fan. Only the HP size of the fan was listed. So it cost upwards of a $1000 to re-file the plans for an exhaust fan that cost maybe $150. Nuts! It serves no purpose to list the manufacturer and model number. If it failed, by that time the original unit would no longer be available. It would just have to be replaced with any fan of the same size. In any case, no one would ever check the original plans or care about the manufacturer. When I asked the Director of the Building's Department for a reason, he couldn't give me any except. "Well, it's the way we've been doing it for years." Typical bureaucratic response. Regulations gone amuck.
-
Every immigration wave has had an economic benefit, and every such wave has produced critics who believed the opposite. Why is this time any different?
Frankly, I have a soft spot in my heart for immigrants. My grandparents were immigrants. Also, someone has to pay for the Social Security I'm getting. :)
But there is a difference between today and years ago. Back then, there was little in the way of free government services. If you needed help it came from your church or synagogue, from charitable organizations, or from friends and family. So people had to get on with it. They couldn't loaf around. They may have spoken their original language at home but spoke English in the marketplace. They wanted to be an American.
Today, things are different. It costs a fortune to school, medically care for and support immigrants. It's not just a federal problem but a big state and local community problem. My school taxes is 55% of my property tax bill. There's not the same incentive to get work and get ahead. Many people come to America to sponge off of our society instead of being part of and contributing to it as past immigrants did. I'm not saying all. But a lot. Requiring immigrants to have skills before being let in is not something Trump invented. It's been around for decades.
-
FWIW, between 1860 and 1930, the foreign-born portion of the U.S. population averaged 13.6 percent. It was 14.8 percent in 1910. The foreign-born population in 2013 was 13%. Things actually haven't changed much.
-
My school taxes is 55% of my property tax bill.
you have to blame teachers unions (tenures, pensions instead of 401K, etc) for that and interest groups imposing various expenditures - not immigrants... school buses, my a$$ ??? I walked to school and back... as a side effect there were rarely any fat kids ever.
-
Now, I do realize I kind of contradicted myself here by saying immigrants have grit, but then criticized some of them for lack of value. So I obviously do not have the complete answer to this, but do think some form of merit based system would be beneficial, along with 58% of the rest of the country. The policy needs to be formed in a way to not discourage those with value from coming here.
"Nobody knew immigration reform could be so complicated!"
— Donald J. Trump, sometime in the near future.
The idea of changing the balance between family-based immigration and employment-based immigration was considered and supported by the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations as part of what is known within the federal government as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (CIR). The Obama Administration also approved of this change, but gave up on trying to push new legislation because it concluded—almost certainly correctly—that given the increase in right-wing influence within the Republican majority in the House of Representatives there was no possibility of passing CIR.
Aside from the technical issues, putting together an immigration reform program is politically complicated because there is no way either the Democrats or the Republicans can pass it without support from the other party. The Bush Administration developed an expertly-crafted bill in consultation with Congressional immigration experts representing both parties and both chambers of Congress, only to have it go down in flames because influential Hispanic organizations were disappointed with its treatment of undocumented aliens.
The fundamental problem is that there is a limited constituency for moving toward an employment-based immigration scheme: mainly, immigration specialists inside the government, and private and government economists. The business community is far more concerned with non-immigrant visa policy because sponsorship of non-immigrant visa applicants is essential in many industries, from high-tech to agriculture, for acquiring workers to do jobs for which U.S. citizens and permanent residents don't qualify or aren't interested in doing.
The constituency that really cares about immigrant visa policy is composed of U.S. citizens and current permanent residents who want to sponsor relatives. The citizens, of course, are voters, and in some states they are sufficiently concentrated that members of Congress, of either party, feel compelled to take their concerns very seriously.
That's where CIR comes in. Recent national administrations have assembled proposals that were intended to move toward an employment-based immigrant policy, restrict to close relatives the availability of family-based immigrant visas, provide businesses with an enlarged pool of non-immigrant visa applicants where there are genuine shortages of domestic workers, reduce the abuse of some non-immigrant visa categories (for example by foreign "job shops" that exploit the H-1B skilled worker category), and normalize the status of undocumented ("illegal") aliens. Aside from the fact that all these policies have strong support among immigration experts, the idea is that by tackling a series of known issues simultaneously it may be possible to assemble a bipartisan political coalition broad enough to get legislation through both chambers of Congress and onto the desk of the president.
It hasn't happened yet. I haven't seen the language of the latest bill, but I wouldn't hold my breath that it will fare any better than the other proposals that have been offered over the last 20 or so years.
-
normalize the status of undocumented ("illegal") aliens.
illegal ("undocumented") aliens do not have any status... there is nothing to normalize in the first place... deport (@ their own cost : no money = chain gang, build roads, earn the ticket) but w/o taking an ability to apply legally for a non immigrant (or immigrant) visa abroad and that's it.
-
The fundamental problem is that there is a limited constituency for moving toward an employment-based immigration scheme: mainly, immigration specialists inside the government, and private and government economists. The business community is far more concerned with non-immigrant visa policy because sponsorship of non-immigrant visa applicants is essential in many industries, from high-tech to agriculture, for acquiring workers with jobs for which U.S. citizens and permanent residents don't qualify or aren't interested in doing.
H-1B (and many others) is a "dual intent" visa - it is a non-immigrant visa that allows a status holder legally to have immigration intents and actively seek change of status ... EBGC sponsorship is the benefit that "tech" companies (and "bodyshops") use to attract foreigners to join them on H-1B.
-
The idea of changing the balance between family-based immigration and employment-based immigration was considered and supported by the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations as part of what is known within the federal government as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (CIR). The Obama Administration also approved of this change, but gave up on trying to push new legislation because it concluded—almost certainly correctly—that given the increase in right-wing influence within the Republican majority in the House of Representatives there was no possibility of passing CIR.
Aside from the technical issues, putting together an immigration reform program is politically complicated because there is no way either the Democrats or the Republicans can pass it without support from the other party. The Bush Administration developed an expertly-crafted bill in consultation with Congressional immigration experts representing both parties and both chambers of Congress, only to have it go down in flames because influential Hispanic organizations were disappointed with its treatment of undocumented aliens.
The fundamental problem is that there is a limited constituency for moving toward an employment-based immigration scheme: mainly, immigration specialists inside the government, and private and government economists. The business community is far more concerned with non-immigrant visa policy because sponsorship of non-immigrant visa applicants is essential in many industries, from high-tech to agriculture, for acquiring workers with jobs for which U.S. citizens and permanent residents don't qualify or aren't interested in doing.
The constituency that really cares about immigrant visa policy is composed of U.S. citizens and current permanent residents who want to sponsor relatives. The citizens, of course, are voters, and in some states they are sufficiently concentrated that members of Congress, of either party, feel compelled to take their concerns very seriously.
That's where CIR comes in. Recent national administrations have assembled proposals that were intended to move toward an employment-based immigrant policy, restrict to close relatives the availability of family-based immigrant visas, provide businesses with an enlarged pool of non-immigrant visa applicants where there are genuine shortages of domestic workers, reduce the abuse of some non-immigrant visa categories (for example by foreign "job shops" that exploit the H-1B skilled worker category), and normalize the status of undocumented ("illegal") aliens. Aside from the fact that all these policies have strong support among immigration experts, the idea is that by tackling a series of known issues simultaneously it may be possible to assemble a bipartisan political coalition broad enough to get legislation through both chambers of Congress and onto the desk of the president.
It hasn't happened yet. I haven't seen the language of the latest bill, but I wouldn't hold my breath that it will fare any better than the other proposals that have been offered over the last 20 or so years.
Thank you, it's so refreshing to hear facts instead of polemics. But since it's longer than a sound bite, requiring an attention span, it will likely go unread. Am I being too cynical?
I wonder when people will finally get tired of the paralysis brought on by polarizing emotions.
-
FWIW, between 1860 and 1930, the foreign-born portion of the U.S. population averaged 13.6 percent. It was 14.8 percent in 1910. The foreign-born population in 2013 was 13%. Things actually haven't changed much.
That's not accurate and misleading. The 1940, 1950,1960 and 1970 census shows foreign born population declining. It was only 4.7% in 1970. It increased each following decade 1980 until the latest in 2010 when it reached the highest since 1920 at 12.9%. So we're matching the highest basically since the huge influx of American immigration at the turn of 19th century.
What I don't know is whether the recent foreign population percentage includes illegal immigrants or whether they would be in addition to the census figures. If it's the latter, than we currently have the largest foreign population ever.
So Trump's desire to get a handle on current legal and illegal immigration is not unreasonable to keep them within norms of our history.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/foreign_born_population_chart.jpg?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C636px
-
So Trump's desire to get a handle on current legal and illegal immigration is not unreasonable to keep them within norms of our history.
Well, it would be the first time Trump apparently gave a damn about any of our norms, historical or otherwise, so there's that. ;D
-
In blustery call, Trump pressured Mexico on border wall payment
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN1AJ20F
QUOTE August 3, 2017 / 3:59 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump pressured the Mexican president to stop voicing opposition in public to his plan to have Mexico pay for a border wall, according to transcripts of phone calls published on Thursday that gave an insight into Trump's attempts to influence foreign leaders in his first days in office.
The Washington Post published texts of sometimes fraught calls with Mexico's Enrique Pena Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull just days after the Republican took office on Jan. 20.
The substance of the calls has previously been reported but the lengthy transcripts reveal Trump, whose first elected office is the presidency, trying to use a mixture of bluster, tough talk and charm as he fully enters the world of diplomacy.
Trump argued with Turnbull over refugees in an acrimonious call on Jan. 28 which the new U.S. president told his counterpart was "unpleasant."
[...]
Trump told the Mexican leader in the call that "if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that,” according to the transcript.
“You cannot say that to the press,” Trump said. "
Seems he hasn't learned much since ... He still thinks that bluster, tough talk, and charm will do it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
you have to blame teachers unions (tenures, pensions instead of 401K, etc) for that and interest groups imposing various expenditures - not immigrants... school buses, my a$$ ??? I walked to school and back... as a side effect there were rarely any fat kids ever.
It's estimated that illegal immigrants cost local and federal governments $50-$100 billion in all services provided: health, education, welfare, food stamps, etc. To give you an idea of what that represents, the total US Department of Education budget is $70 billion. The point is illegals cost a substantial amount. Also, the local costs are not spread around equally. Illegals tend to congregate in certain areas so their burden for local governments and taxpayers in those areas can be substantial especially since the illegals don't contribute that much in taxes to offset their costs. So Americans like me have to pay higher property and state taxes for illegals.
Of course, my higher taxes may be offset by cheaper gardeners who tend to be Mexican and central Americans. Don't know how many are illegals. Also, they make up a big part of restaurant cooks and service people there, and there are some good Mexican restaurants where I live. So on balance, I personally might not have much to complain about. :)
-
Well, it would be the first time Trump apparently gave a damn about any of our norms, historical or otherwise, so there's that. ;D
Picky. Picky. :)
-
In blustery call, Trump pressured Mexico on border wall payment
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN1AJ20F
QUOTE August 3, 2017 / 3:59 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump pressured the Mexican president to stop voicing opposition in public to his plan to have Mexico pay for a border wall, according to transcripts of phone calls published on Thursday that gave an insight into Trump's attempts to influence foreign leaders in his first days in office.
The Washington Post published texts of sometimes fraught calls with Mexico's Enrique Pena Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull just days after the Republican took office on Jan. 20.
The substance of the calls has previously been reported but the lengthy transcripts reveal Trump, whose first elected office is the presidency, trying to use a mixture of bluster, tough talk and charm as he fully enters the world of diplomacy.
Trump argued with Turnbull over refugees in an acrimonious call on Jan. 28 which the new U.S. president told his counterpart was "unpleasant."
[...]
Trump told the Mexican leader in the call that "if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that,” according to the transcript.
“You cannot say that to the press,” Trump said. "
Seems he hasn't learned much since ... He still thinks that bluster, tough talk, and charm will do it.
Cheers,
Bart
I think Trump promised the Mexican president that if he stops complaining about paying for the wall, Trump would give him five free rounds at one of his golf courses and a free three night stay at Mar-a-lago. .
-
Oh, and a cha cha with Melania.
-
It's estimated that illegal immigrants cost local and federal governments $50-$100 billion in all services provided: health, education, welfare, food stamps, etc. To give you an idea of what that represents, the total US Department of Education budget is $70 billion. The point is illegals cost a substantial amount. Also, the local costs are not spread around equally. Illegals tend to congregate in certain areas so their burden for local governments and taxpayers in those areas can be substantial especially since the illegals don't contribute that much in taxes to offset their costs. So Americans like me have to pay higher property and state taxes for illegals.
Of course, my higher taxes may be offset by cheaper gardeners who tend to be Mexican and central Americans. Don't know how many are illegals. Also, they make up a big part of restaurant cooks and service people there, and there are some good Mexican restaurants where I live. So on balance, I personally might not have much to complain about. :)
Let's assume that estimate is correct and not fake news, it's still only half the story. Presumably, these people are working at something somewhere, so they contribute to the economy. If your argument is that because they're illegal then they don't pay taxes, i.e., don't pay into that social safety net out of which they draw benefit, then how is that any worse than Trump not paying any tax (assuming his bragging about not doing so is true). If they are living and working in your cities, then they are contributing to the economy by buying food, clothes, cars, paying rent, etc. The consumption of those goods and services IS the economy.
People expend an inordinate amount of emotional energy, it seems to me, worrying about the possible "costs" that illegals cost the system, but are there data showing that they cost the system any more than legal citizens do? How does that compare to the various forms of corporate welfare that the various levels of government pay out to Big Oil, Big Corn, Big Sugar, etc.
How much tax money paid by the avg joe is turned over to the one-percenters who own pro sports franchises when cities and states given them stadiums and other tax holidays based on the confidence game that these places benefit local economies (something that has been fund untrue by every economic analysis ever done)? We like to make fun of corrupt governments in the underdeveloped world, but viewed from a couple of steps back, how is the handing over of tax money to pro sports enterprises anything but corruption? It's theft on a grand scale, imo, although at the same time I have to admire the audacity of the con.
-
It's estimated that illegal immigrants cost local and federal governments $50-$100 billion in all services provided: health, education, welfare, food stamps, etc.
by whom and how ? for each $1 that goes towards illegal alien (do not call them immigrants) there are $10+ going to native born idiots like Air Force veteran Nathan Hutsky from http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/03/pf/college/gi-bill-benefits-for-profit/index.html
-
Now stuff is getting serious...popcorn?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury for Trump-Russia investigation, and it has already issued subpoenas (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mueller-impaneled-grand-jury-trump-russia-probe-article-1.3381717)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/06/14/National-Security/Images/AFP_PI2R1.jpg)
The grand jury is in for the Trump-Russia probe.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury for his investigation into the Trump campaign’s potential Russia ties, according to a report Thursday. The jury has already issued subpoenas relating to a secret meeting held at Trump Tower last year between Trump campaign associates and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. Mueller’s move indicates his investigation has already taken major steps forward, and that he’s preparing to ramp up the investigative work for a long time coming.
The grand jury in Washington, D.C., started its work several weeks ago and it is likely to continue for months, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Grand juries have the power to subpoena documents, get testimonies under oath and seek indictments if there is evidence of a crime. Mueller's panel shows that he’s anticipating the clout of his probe to intensify. Since grand juries work in secret, little else is known about this latest twist in the inquiry.
But Reuters reported the jury has issued subpoenas over the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, which was exposed in July.
Trump's special counsel Ty Cobb told the Journal he wasn't even aware of the grand jury. "The White House favors anything that accelerates the conclusion of (Mueller’s) work fairly," Cobb said.
Hum...I wonder if this crosses Trump's "red line"? Fortunately, there's movement afoot to protect Robert Mueller...
Senators propose legislation to protect special counsel from Trump (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate-idUSKBN1AJ2Z9?il=0)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican and Democratic senators introduced two pieces of legislation on Thursday seeking to block President Donald Trump from firing the special counsel probing his ties to Russia, as Congress increasingly seeks to assert its authority on policy.
Members of Congress from both parties have expressed concern that Trump might dismiss Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to determine whether there was collusion between his 2016 presidential campaign and Moscow.
The Republican president on May 9 fired FBI Director James Comey, who was overseeing the investigation. He also recently criticized his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for recusing himself from the probe.
With signs that Mueller's investigation is intensifying, members of Congress sought to protect the special counsel, who was appointed on May 17. Two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday that Mueller had convened a grand jury in Washington to investigate the allegations of Russian meddling.
-
Let's assume that estimate is correct and not fake news, it's still only half the story. Presumably, these people are working at something somewhere, so they contribute to the economy. If your argument is that because they're illegal then they don't pay taxes, i.e., don't pay into that social safety net out of which they draw benefit, then how is that any worse than Trump not paying any tax (assuming his bragging about not doing so is true). If they are living and working in your cities, then they are contributing to the economy by buying food, clothes, cars, paying rent, etc. The consumption of those goods and services IS the economy.
People expend an inordinate amount of emotional energy, it seems to me, worrying about the possible "costs" that illegals cost the system, but are there data showing that they cost the system any more than legal citizens do? How does that compare to the various forms of corporate welfare that the various levels of government pay out to Big Oil, Big Corn, Big Sugar, etc.
How much tax money paid by the avg joe is turned over to the one-percenters who own pro sports franchises when cities and states given them stadiums and other tax holidays based on the confidence game that these places benefit local economies (something that has been fund untrue by every economic analysis ever done)? We like to make fun of corrupt governments in the underdeveloped world, but viewed from a couple of steps back, how is the handing over of tax money to pro sports enterprises anything but corruption? It's theft on a grand scale, imo, although at the same time I have to admire the audacity of the con.
First, you live in Canada. Who are you to decide how Americans should spend their tax money? You don't vote nor do you pay Federal or local American taxes. Second, you are now telling us that we, not you, should provide a safety net for illegals in the same way that we provide one for our citizens.
I'll tell you what. Send me a check for $1,000 and I'll see to it that it is earmarked and forwarded to help illegals here in America.
-
by whom and how ? for each $1 that goes towards illegal alien (do not call them immigrants) there are $10+ going to native born idiots like Air Force veteran Nathan Hutsky from http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/03/pf/college/gi-bill-benefits-for-profit/index.html
What an idiotic comparison.
-
So the Republicans gain another governor as the current Democrat governor of W. Virginia changes parties. He does it at a Trump rally!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/03/west-virginias-governor-is-switching-parties-and-democrats-just-hit-a-new-low/#comments
-
... Canada has a merit based immigration policy...
Funny, I couldn't collect enough "merit" points to qualify for Canada, back in 2004. I was one point short... I didn't speak French. Never mind that I had no intention to live or work in Montreal or Quebec, never mind that I speak three other languages fluently and two elementary, never mind that I already had an MBA from an American University, resume with four blue-chip multinationals, etc... I wasn't good enough. Had I been a Muslim terrorist, however... Killing an American soldier would probably get me bonus points as well.
-
Funny, I couldn't collect enough "merit" points to qualify for Canada, back in 2004. I was one point short... I didn't speak French. Never mind that I had no intention to live or work in Montreal or Quebec, never mind that I speak three other languages fluently and two elementary, never mind that I already had an MBA from an American University, resume with four blue-chip multinationals, etc... I wasn't good enough. Had I been a Muslim terrorist, however... Killing an American soldier would probably get me bonus points as well.
You just weren't polite enough, Slobo ;-)
-
First, you live in Canada. Who are you to decide how Americans should spend their tax money? You don't vote nor do you pay Federal or local American taxes. Second, you are now telling us that we, not you, should provide a safety net for illegals in the same way that we provide one for our citizens.
I don't understand this response. I am not trying to tell you how Americans should spend their tax money, I was just wondering aloud about some of the concepts we've been discussing.
-
... How much tax money paid by the avg joe is turned over to the one-percenters who own pro sports franchises when cities and states given them stadiums and other tax holidays based on the confidence game that these places benefit local economies (something that has been fund untrue by every economic analysis ever done)? We like to make fun of corrupt governments in the underdeveloped world, but viewed from a couple of steps back, how is the handing over of tax money to pro sports enterprises anything but corruption? It's theft on a grand scale, imo, although at the same time I have to admire the audacity of the con.
As much as I disagree with your stance on (illegal) immigration, I will agree with you on this one. But the explanation is simple, no matter whose administration it is, Democrat or Republican, they all understand perfectly well why it works on a deeper level (deeper than "benefiting local economies"): panem et circenses.
-
With that said, Alan is (sort of) correct in noting you are Canadian. Canada has a merit based immigration policy, which Trump is basing his off of. Are you actively trying to change your country's policies while also criticizing ours? Or are you only criticizing ours and fine with leaving yours as is?
PS, as a photographer, I know for a fact how much of a pain in the ass it is to photograph a project, even a one-off project, in Canada as a USA citizen. However, Canadian citizens can easily do multiple projects in the States without any issue.
There was a discussion going on about concepts in immigration. What bearing on our discussion are the policies of the Canadian government? (And anyway, I know very little about Canada's immigration processes, having never had to deal with the issue.)
I can't address your second point, except to say that my understanding is that work visas are required for anyone (even Canadians) who plan to work in the US. I have no idea how short-term independent contractors are handled. I've always assumed there was some procedure involved.
But why is my nationality an issue in this discussion all of a sudden? Seems like a non-sequitur to me.
-
I don't understand this response. I am not trying to tell you how Americans should spend their tax money, I was just wondering aloud about some of the concepts we've been discussing.
It's the response of someone with their head in the sand who has realised he has no reasonable or logical rebuttal of your point. He doesn't understand the concept of general discussion and virtually sits there, fingers in his ears, yelling "la la la la la" so he can't hear anything he doesn't like the sound of. After all, you're a filthy foreigner and you're probably trying to kill him.
-
I didn't think I had much of a stance on illegal immigration. A country has the right to keep out people it doesn't want and should do so. I was just questioning some of the emotional rhetoric concerning the current US situation. When you reach the point where you have 13 million illegal aliens/immigrants, who have been there for a while and are probably, in the main, productive members of society, I'm not sure it serves much purpose to demonize them. If the US wants to prevent future illegal immigration, then you should do so, of course. I'm just not convinced that the presence of the ones who are already there is as big a problem as some people think and was just questioning many of the assertions about them.
(And I don't accept the notion that I don't have a right to discuss these issues because I happen to be Canadian. This is a public discussion board, a Canadian one in fact, so if you don't want to hear Canadian opinions, you might be in the wrong place. Just saying.)
-
Funny, I couldn't collect enough "merit" points to qualify for Canada, back in 2004. I was one point short... I didn't speak French. Never mind that I had no intention to live or work in Montreal or Quebec, never mind that I speak three other languages fluently and two elementary, never mind that I already had an MBA from an American University, resume with four blue-chip multinationals, etc... I wasn't good enough. Had I been a Muslim terrorist, however... Killing an American soldier would probably get me bonus points as well.
I don't understand Canadian merit point immigration rules neither.
In early eighties, a friend of mine with his wife, who both finished their studies in west Germany visited me in Toronto and they liked Canada so much, that they decided to immigrate here. They were young and healthy, with no dependents, highly educated, no criminal records, some savings - perfect immigration material. However, for some reason Canada didn't want them. Subsequently, they applied for immigration visa to USA, which they received without any problems. They live now in Virginia.
While, as Slobodan points out, many undesirable individuals, some even with criminal records received their Canadian landed immigrant visa without any problems.
-
... Presumably, these people are working at something somewhere, so they contribute to the economy... If they are living and working in your cities, then they are contributing to the economy by buying food, clothes, cars, paying rent, etc. The consumption of those goods and services IS the economy...
Ok, back to the general discussion.
"Remittances Supersede Oil As Mexico's Main Source Of Foreign Income"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2016/05/16/remittances-supersede-oil-as-mexicos-main-source-of-foreign-income/#5cf4392c1754
"Remittances surpassed crude oil revenues for the first time in history in December of 2014. Since then, remittances have continued to increase even to the point of representing more than twice the value of crude oil exports since December of 2015," José Alfredo Coutiño, Moody’s Director for Latin America..."
Which raises the question of who actually benefits the most of the legal/illegal Mexican immigration.
-
... This is a public discussion board, a Canadian one in fact...
Touché! :D
-
I don't understand this response. I am not trying to tell you how Americans should spend their tax money, I was just wondering aloud about some of the concepts we've been discussing.
Robert, You weren't wondering aloud. You made a moral judgment against Americans. The fact is our immigration policies are more liberal than the ones in Canada where you come from. Additionally, you were advising people in another country to spend their tax money supporting aliens in America who are here illegally, Meanwhile in your country, safety nets would not be supplied to your illegals in the same way. They probably would all be arrested and immediately deported.
Then Phil joins in supporting your hypocritical views with even more of his own. After all, he comes from Australia whose immigration policies are even more stringent than the strict policies in Canada. Certainly more strict than America's.
It seems to me that both of your countries would have a lot to learn about fairness to immigrants and illegals if you just followed America's lenient policies. In any case, maybe you should clean up your own messes before advising others how they should live.
-
LA made $1.3B in illegal immigrant welfare payouts in just 2 years - Fox News
https://apple.news/Ai5r8T5Z9RzKwyfuz5KD5AQ
-
I didn't think I had much of a stance on illegal immigration... you have 13 million illegal aliens/immigrants ... I'm not sure it serves much purpose to demonize them...
Ahmmm... sounds like a stance to me :)
-
LA made $1.3B in illegal immigrant welfare payouts in just 2 years - Fox News
https://apple.news/Ai5r8T5Z9RzKwyfuz5KD5AQ
It's worse in New York. This is from a 2015 article, link below.
"New York’s illegal alien population of 750,000 costs the Empire State billions of taxpayer dollars every year.
Tax payers in New York pay approximately $5.1 billion per year to support immigrants who are illegally residing in their state, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Of the billions, about $4.3 billion is spent on illegal immigrant children in New York’s public schools, about $690 million is spent on health care, and another $165 million is spent on incarcerating, deporting, and prosecuting illegal immigrants.
Although every New York household made up of American citizens pays an estimated $874 every year to support their illegal neighbors, the state makes some money back. The illegal immigrant population in New York pays approximately $730 million every year in sales, income, and property taxes. "
http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/illegal-immigration-cost-New-York/2015/10/17/id/696663/
-
Love it...Trump's gonna hate it (which is why I love it)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEhn5nOozu3rVh2r6/giphy.gif)
TRUMP, AMERICA'S BOY KING: GOLF AND TELEVISION WON'T MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN (http://www.newsweek.com/2017/08/11/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-gop-white-house-potus-bannon-643996.html)
Just a quick snippet...
Were he to reach the White House, Trump said, he wouldn’t make the same mistake for which he’d been lambasting Obama since 2011. “I'm going to be working for you,” he told supporters in August 2016. “I'm not going to have time to go play golf.”
Now that he’s president, Trump frequently departs the White House and spends the weekend golfing at either his South Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, or his country club in the New Jersey suburb of Bedminster. The promise he’d made a year before was discarded so quickly, you have to wonder if he even remembers making it. Politico did the legwork (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-first-visit-golf-course-234729): George W. Bush didn’t golf for the first five months of his presidency, while Obama stayed away from his beloved links for four months following his inauguration. Trump held out for all of two weeks. He has visited a golf club 40 times since taking office in January, according to the self-explanatory site Trump Golf Count (http://trumpgolfcount.com/), which estimates the forays have cost American taxpayers $55 million. Another Trump tracker, this one by The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/05/us/politics/tracking-trumps-visits-to-his-branded-properties.html), finds that his visits to Trump-branded properties total 56 days, nearly a third of his time in office.
All indications are he's not really having any fun (other than golf). Remember the Reuters Interview (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA)? In late April, the president confessed that he was both overwhelmed and frustrated. “I loved my previous life,” he said. “I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier.”
And more to the point, what does he have to show for all his paltry efforts? Little to nothing unless you count the scorn of virtually every leader in the world-including Putin since Trump signed the Russian sanctions bill. Heck this is what the Prime Minister of Russia had to say in a tweet...
Dmitry MedvedevVerified account
@MedvedevRussiaE
The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way
1:38 PM - 2 Aug 2017
Ouch...even though it wasn't his buddy Putin ya gotta figure Dmitry wrote what he wrote with Vlad's blessing...
We're coming up on the 2nd 100 days and arguably, things are worse now than at the end of the first 100 days...can you even remember back then?
Here's a cheat sheet: INSIDE DONALD TRUMP'S TUMULTUOUS FIRST 100 DAYS (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/inside-donald-trumps-tumultuous-first-100-days/)
Much ado about nothing...
Lazy Boy is right...
-
The USA has not always used a family based immigration policy. Returning to a merit policy, although a mild one, I think would do a great good for the USA.
Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so it would be best if the Reps and the Dems worked together on this.
I don't have a fundamental problem with trying to get the best people to emigrate into the US but...from what I've read, the current merit system is suspect. But the real problem I see with this legal immigration plan is the fact it's trying to cut legal immigration about in half...
Now the alt right and populists may like this but in point of fact it would have a real negative impact in actual growth. The US population growth is down: Growth of U.S. Population Is at Slowest Pace Since 1937 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/us/usa-population-growth.html?_r=0)
The United States population grew by 0.7 percent in the last year, its smallest annual expansion in 80 years, the Census Bureau said this week.
The nation added about 2.2 million people from July 2015 to July 2016, bringing the total population to just over 323 million. In relative terms, that was the slowest rate of annual growth since 1937, though census methods have changed over that time.
The sluggishness is nothing new: The American population entered a period of slow expansion in recent years, with growth averaging just over 0.7 percent in the 2010s, according to an analysis of census data. The rate averaged about 1 percent annually in the 2000s and 1.2 percent in the 1990s. In the 1950s, the middle of the baby boom, growth averaged 1.8 percent each year.
So, as our own population has tapered off, we've made up for the reduction by the increase in legal immigrants–and our economy is now the better for it.
Also, there's the question of legal immigrants doing the work no American would accept...Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don’t want the job (http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/)
The flow of labor began drying up when President Obama tightened the border. Now President Trump is promising to deport more people, raid more companies and build a wall on the southern border.
That has made California farms a proving ground for the Trump team’s theory that by cutting off the flow of immigrants they will free up more jobs for American-born workers and push up their wages.
So far, the results aren’t encouraging for farmers or domestic workers.
Farmers are being forced to make difficult choices about whether to abandon some of the state’s hallmark fruits and vegetables, move operations abroad, import workers under a special visa or replace them altogether with machines.
Growers who can afford it have already begun raising worker pay well beyond minimum wage. Wages for crop production in California increased by 13% from 2010 to 2015, twice as fast as average pay in the state, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So, if the numbers of legal immigrants is cut, particularly in favor of college grads which speak English (you don't need to speak English to work in fields) ya know what happens...the cost of food will rise and that hurts everybody but hurts lower economic people worse.
And guess what–this is gonna hurt Trump voters the hardest because, well, it's the Red States that are the primary agro businesses that will be hurt.
And remember, we've already learned the Law Of Unintended Consequences...it's older but still relevant: The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Georgia's Immigration Law Backfires (https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/#1ee817cd492a)
To forgo a repeat of last year, when labor shortages triggered an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses, as crops rotted in the fields, officials in Georgia are now dispatching prisoners to the state’s farms to help harvest fruit and vegetables.
The labor shortages, which also have affected the hotel and restaurant industries, are a consequence of Georgia’s immigration enforcement law, HB 87, which was passed last year. As State Rep. Matt Ramsey, one of the bill’s authors, said at the time, “Our goal is … to eliminate incentives for illegal aliens to cross into our state.”
Now he and others are learning: Be careful what you wish for, because you may get more than you bargained for.
The odds are pretty good that this immigration effort won't find itself in any laws because Trump is toxic and to really do immigration reform it will take a bipartisan effort which basically means Congress needs to work together and pretty much ignore the Big Orange Dummy™ like they did for the Russian sanctions...if Congress can get veto proof consensus then Trump becomes irrelevant–which he's becoming more and more.
-
Robert, You weren't wondering aloud. You made a moral judgment against Americans. The fact is our immigration policies are more liberal than the ones in Canada where you come from. Additionally, you were advising people in another country to spend their tax money supporting aliens in America who are here illegally, Meanwhile in your country, safety nets would not be supplied to your illegals in the same way. They probably would all be arrested and immediately deported.
Then Phil joins in supporting your hypocritical views with even more of his own. After all, he comes from Australia whose immigration policies are even more stringent than the strict policies in Canada. Certainly more strict than America's.
It seems to me that both of your countries would have a lot to learn about fairness to immigrants and illegals if you just followed America's lenient policies. In any case, maybe you should clean up your own messes before advising others how they should live.
Show me once, just once, Alan, where I said that your immigration policies as a whole were inappropriate or unfair or that you shouldn't have the right to decide who comes into your country or anything even remotely similar. All I have EVER said is that Trump's bans were pointless, achieved nothing, and in fact just made things worse because they looked like he was doing something to appease the masses when in fact it did nothing to make you safer.
So before you lecture me on my views, you had bloody well better read and see what I've written and then comment on them. This is a general discussion board and we are discussing things. I haver never once said you should follow Australia's lead on immigration or anything or the like. My nationality has nothing to do with whether or not I can contribute to a general discussion about anything on this thread. Similarly , Robert made no such attempt to lecture you about anything. Any time anyone who isn't an American says something you don't like or can't argue with you start ranting about how they have no right to tell you anything about the US because they're not Americans. Get a bloody grip, mate. You're not special by virtue of the random chance you were born in a particular place or not.
For the record, I support strong border control and immigration policies which meet the needs of the relevant country. Australia's immigrations policies are such that per capita we have a much higher intake of immigrants than the US, so tell me again how we need more lenient policies? As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The one policy you are vaguely referring to is the one that prohibits illegal immigrants from landing by ship and applying to immigrate as asylum seekers. Yes, the navy actively tows boats back out to sea. It's a policy that generates a lot of dissent and controversy within Australia but successive governments from both sides of politics support it and have been elected with it as their policy. It is what it is in that respect.
The US, over generations and multiple parties from both sides, has effectively enabled illegal immigration and now has a very large population to contend with. Before you start espousing moral superiority, consider how you intend to justly and reasonable deal with those people who have, for all intents and purposes, been effectively officially allowed to continue living there. But mostly, just actually read what people say and pull your head out from the sand - it's tiresome.
-
Some informational links:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/08/517561046/how-americas-idea-of-illegal-immigration-doesnt-always-match-reality (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/08/517561046/how-americas-idea-of-illegal-immigration-doesnt-always-match-reality)
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/02/10/514172676/mexicans-in-the-u-s-are-sending-home-more-money-than-ever (http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/02/10/514172676/mexicans-in-the-u-s-are-sending-home-more-money-than-ever)
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/02/13/171903865/nyt-excerpt-the-economics-of-illegal-immigration (http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/02/13/171903865/nyt-excerpt-the-economics-of-illegal-immigration)
-
You made a moral judgment against Americans.
I did no such thing.
-
Also, I'd say that worrying about remittances is a waste of time and energy. We're talking about 11 to 13 million people who, after paying their own living expenses, take part of what's left over and send it home to help their families out. And we're not talking about people who are near the top of the income food chain either. The amounts of money involved must be negligibly trivial. The combined readers of these forums probably spend more on coffee every month. :)
-
Also, I'd say that worrying about remittances is a waste of time and energy... The amounts of money involved must be negligibly trivial. The combined readers of these forums probably spend more on coffee every month. :)
That would be one hell of expensive coffee then:
(from the article I referenced previously)
In 2016, first quarter remittances of $6.2 billion were 56.7% higher than the $2.6 billion earned from oil exports for the same period. The remittances for the quarter represents an 8.6% jump over the funds sent in the same period in 2015, according to Mexico's Central Bank data.
Last year, Mexican remittances were $24.8 billion, while oil exports were $18.7 billion. With remittances growing and oil revenues decreasing, the pattern is likely to continue.
-
... The US, over generations and multiple parties from both sides, has effectively enabled illegal immigration and now has a very large population to contend with.... how you intend to justly and reasonable deal with those people who have, for all intents and purposes, been effectively officially allowed to continue living there...
I agree with the first part of the observation. That's the original sin of the immigration politics.
And yet... just because a cop, eating a donut and having a full cup of coffee in his hand, decided not to engage in the pursuit of a speeding car, doesn't mean you are not breaking the law, and that the next cop along the road has no right to stop you. That next cop is Trump.
-
I did no such thing.
You did make moral judgments. When you say that the big shots are getting handouts, what you are realing saying is that illegals are not afforded similar rights. Well, that's a moral judgment. Once you start comparing "fairness", you're playing the morals argument game. Liberals do this all the time. It comes natural too them. "It's unfair that blacks don't get into colleges at the same rate as whites." "It's unfair that the poor cannot eat the same food as the rich." "It's unfair that illegal aliens are denied their 'rights" while rich guys get all kinds of tax breaks."
Here's from your post:
"People expend an inordinate amount of emotional energy, it seems to me, worrying about the possible "costs" that illegals cost the system, but are there data showing that they cost the system any more than legal citizens do? How does that compare to the various forms of corporate welfare that the various levels of government pay out to Big Oil, Big Corn, Big Sugar, etc.
How much tax money paid by the avg joe is turned over to the one-percenters who own pro sports franchises when cities and states given them stadiums and other tax holidays based on the confidence game that these places benefit local economies (something that has been fund untrue by every economic analysis ever done)? We like to make fun of corrupt governments in the underdeveloped world, but viewed from a couple of steps back, how is the handing over of tax money to pro sports enterprises anything but corruption? It's theft on a grand scale, imo, although at the same time I have to admire the audacity of the con."
-
Show me once, just once, Alan, where I said that your immigration policies as a whole were inappropriate or unfair or that you shouldn't have the right to decide who comes into your country or anything even remotely similar. All I have EVER said is that Trump's bans were pointless, achieved nothing, and in fact just made things worse because they looked like he was doing something to appease the masses when in fact it did nothing to make you safer.
So before you lecture me on my views, you had bloody well better read and see what I've written and then comment on them. This is a general discussion board and we are discussing things. I haver never once said you should follow Australia's lead on immigration or anything or the like. My nationality has nothing to do with whether or not I can contribute to a general discussion about anything on this thread. Similarly , Robert made no such attempt to lecture you about anything. Any time anyone who isn't an American says something you don't like or can't argue with you start ranting about how they have no right to tell you anything about the US because they're not Americans. Get a bloody grip, mate. You're not special by virtue of the random chance you were born in a particular place or not.
For the record, I support strong border control and immigration policies which meet the needs of the relevant country. Australia's immigrations policies are such that per capita we have a much higher intake of immigrants than the US, so tell me again how we need more lenient policies? As usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The one policy you are vaguely referring to is the one that prohibits illegal immigrants from landing by ship and applying to immigrate as asylum seekers. Yes, the navy actively tows boats back out to sea. It's a policy that generates a lot of dissent and controversy within Australia but successive governments from both sides of politics support it and have been elected with it as their policy. It is what it is in that respect.
The US, over generations and multiple parties from both sides, has effectively enabled illegal immigration and now has a very large population to contend with. Before you start espousing moral superiority, consider how you intend to justly and reasonable deal with those people who have, for all intents and purposes, been effectively officially allowed to continue living there. But mostly, just actually read what people say and pull your head out from the sand - it's tiresome.
You supported Roaldi's arguments many of which were which were morally based. So you were making moral judgments against American policies as well. Whether they were moral, economically based, or whatever, the fact that Canada and Australia have more harsh immigration policies than America should give you pause before criticizing ours. Most Americans who post don't go around criticizing other countries policies on such "in the weeds" issues. It's your country and you can decide how to run it. Why do so many non-Americans feel they have to tell Americans how we should live?
-
... Why do so many non-Americans feel they have to tell Americans how we should live?
Because we stick our nose in everybody else's lives? ;)
-
Because we stick our nose in everybody else's lives? ;)
That's true for our government, unfortunately. But I like to think not here in the threads.
-
Looks like Jeff is losing steam, so I decided to help ;)
-
If roughly 11-13 million American-Mexicans remitted $24 billion last night, that's about $2000 each. Sorry, but in the US economy that's an insignificant amount of money. (Lots of people probably do spend $2000 per year on coffee. :) )
-
You did make moral judgments. When you say that the big shots are getting handouts, what you are realing saying is that illegals are not afforded similar rights. Well, that's a moral judgment. Once you start comparing "fairness", you're playing the morals argument game. Liberals do this all the time. It comes natural too them. "It's unfair that blacks don't get into colleges at the same rate as whites." "It's unfair that the poor cannot eat the same food as the rich." "It's unfair that illegal aliens are denied their 'rights" while rich guys get all kinds of tax breaks."
Here's from your post:
"People expend an inordinate amount of emotional energy, it seems to me, worrying about the possible "costs" that illegals cost the system, but are there data showing that they cost the system any more than legal citizens do? How does that compare to the various forms of corporate welfare that the various levels of government pay out to Big Oil, Big Corn, Big Sugar, etc.
How much tax money paid by the avg joe is turned over to the one-percenters who own pro sports franchises when cities and states given them stadiums and other tax holidays based on the confidence game that these places benefit local economies (something that has been fund untrue by every economic analysis ever done)? We like to make fun of corrupt governments in the underdeveloped world, but viewed from a couple of steps back, how is the handing over of tax money to pro sports enterprises anything but corruption? It's theft on a grand scale, imo, although at the same time I have to admire the audacity of the con."
We were discussing public policy options. If you want to spin that into some kind of "moral" argument that I'm making against Americans, go ahead.
-
If roughly 11-13 million American-Mexicans remitted $24 billion last night, that's about $2000 each. Sorry, but in the US economy that's an insignificant amount of money. (Lots of people probably do spend $2000 per year on coffee. :) )
Even if so, those $2000 people spend on coffee HERE, stay HERE, helping the economy: baristas, truck drivers, Starbuck employees, food makers, taxes, etc. On the other hand, $24 billions are sucked OUT of the U.S. economy every year.
-
Taken on its own, I guess that's true. But it doesn't only apply to Mexicans, does it? How big a fraction of the larger issue are Mexican remittances? I have no idea.
Are Americans barred from investing overseas or in overseas stock markets? Isn't that sucking the money out of the economy? Wasn't there some issue a couple of years back of multi-nationals who did business in the USA parking the money in other jurisdictions to avoid US taxes? I bet that was a lot more than $24 billion. I realize it's not apples to apples (pun not intended but fun anyway), but it's best to keep a proper perspective.
The complaint against remittances eventually brings one around to export currency controls. Wasn't it the policy of communist regimes to prevent people taking money out of their countries? I don't think the USA would want to emulate them. Isn't the freedom to do what you want with your own money kind of important? If they worked for and earned that cash, the portion of it that is not due in payroll taxes IS NOT the state's money, it's theirs.
-
Taken on its own, I guess that's true. But it doesn't only apply to Mexicans, does it? How big a fraction of the larger issue are Mexican remittances? I have no idea.
Are Americans barred from investing overseas or in overseas stock markets? Isn't that sucking the money out of the economy? Wasn't there some issue a couple of years back of multi-nationals who did business in the USA parking the money in other jurisdictions to avoid US taxes? I bet that was a lot more than $24 billion. I realize it's not apples to apples (pun not intended but fun anyway), but it's best to keep a proper perspective.
The complaint against remittances eventually brings one around to export currency controls. Wasn't it the policy of communist regimes to prevent people taking money out of their countries? I don't think the USA would want to emulate them. Isn't the freedom to do what you want with your own money kind of important? If they worked for and earned that cash, the portion of it that is not due in payroll taxes IS NOT the state's money, it's theirs.
I agree, and Americans also shouldn't go on holidays outside of the USA, draining their own economy, or buy foreign products/services (like iPhones which are made in Asia with cheap labor), or ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump administration goes on the attack against leaks
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1AJ1SW
QUOTE August 4, 2017 / 5:24 PM "U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a briefing on leaks of classified material threatening national security at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., August 4, 2017.Yuri Gripas
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, taking up an issue that has infuriated President Donald Trump, went on the attack against leaks on Friday, and said that the government was reviewing policies on compelling journalists to reveal sources.
"One of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas," Sessions told reporters as he announced administration efforts to battle what he called a "staggering number of leaks undermining the ability of our government to protect this country."
"We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited," he said.
A media subpoena is a writ compelling a journalist to testify or produce evidence, with a penalty for failure to do so. The fact the administration is reviewing its policy leaves open the possibility of sentencing journalists for not disclosing their sources. "
The start of the endgame ...?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump administration goes on the attack against leaks
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1AJ1SW
QUOTE August 4, 2017 / 5:24 PM "U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a briefing on leaks of classified material threatening national security at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., August 4, 2017.Yuri Gripas
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, taking up an issue that has infuriated President Donald Trump, went on the attack against leaks on Friday, and said that the government was reviewing policies on compelling journalists to reveal sources.
"One of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas," Sessions told reporters as he announced administration efforts to battle what he called a "staggering number of leaks undermining the ability of our government to protect this country."
"We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited," he said.
A media subpoena is a writ compelling a journalist to testify or produce evidence, with a penalty for failure to do so. The fact the administration is reviewing its policy leaves open the possibility of sentencing journalists for not disclosing their sources. "
The start of the endgame ...?
Cheers,
Bart
It certainly smells like desperation.
As I said a few times in this thread and other places, when politicians complain about journalists, my immediate reaction is to think that the journalists are doing something right and I start paying even more attention to them.
-
Taken on its own, I guess that's true. But it doesn't only apply to Mexicans, does it? How big a fraction of the larger issue are Mexican remittances? I have no idea.
Are Americans barred from investing overseas or in overseas stock markets? Isn't that sucking the money out of the economy? Wasn't there some issue a couple of years back of multi-nationals who did business in the USA parking the money in other jurisdictions to avoid US taxes? I bet that was a lot more than $24 billion. I realize it's not apples to apples (pun not intended but fun anyway), but it's best to keep a proper perspective.
The complaint against remittances eventually brings one around to export currency controls. Wasn't it the policy of communist regimes to prevent people taking money out of their countries? I don't think the USA would want to emulate them. Isn't the freedom to do what you want with your own money kind of important? If they worked for and earned that cash, the portion of it that is not due in payroll taxes IS NOT the state's money, it's theirs.
All your parallels, communism, investing, taxes, sport stadiums, etc. are based on single premise that illegal immigrants are equal in their rights to citizens and legal aliens. They are not, and should not be in the position to syphon money out of the economy in the first place. For a variety of reasons (the rule of law being the most important), not just monetary.
-
... As I said a few times in this thread and other places, when politicians complain about journalists, my immediate reaction is to think that the journalists are doing something right and I start paying even more attention to them.
You seem to be hearing only one thing (journalists), but there is a much more important aspect of it (bold mine):
Mr Sessions was joined by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who issued a stark warning to leakers.
“Anyone who engages in these criminal acts is betraying the intelligence community and the American people,” he said.
“We feel the pain of those betrayals intensely and I can assure you that I will do everything in my power as director of national intelligence to hold those people accountable.
“Understand this, if you improperly disclose classified information, we will find you, we will investigate you, and we will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, and you will not be happy with the result.”
-
I think that it's commonplace in a lot of jurisdictions that even illegal aliens have some human rights. I understand that people aren't happy that they are in the country, but I don't agree that they "siphoned" the money out of the economy. They worked for it and were paid for the work, it's not like they robbed a bank. (You could make the argument that they had a job that "rightly" belonged to someone else, but to me that's far from a convincing argument.) But I take your point, they are not in the same legal category as citizens, notwithstanding the arguments of the economists who do NOT think that they cost the county anything. And if they don't cost the country anything, my thinking goes, why this much fuss? Do something about it if you want, sure, but I remain unconvinced that it's a pressing issue of great magnitude.
But it is difficult for me to believe that the US is really going to track down and deport all 13 million (or whatever the number is), it's about as likely as getting Mexico to pay for a wall, assuming a wall ever gets built. So at some point, an accommodation is going to be reached.
(Do you know if the remittance amounts mentioned earlier included only remittances from illegal aliens or did the amounts also include remittances from legal Mexican immigrants? It seems to me that the latter can send the money to whoever they want, and it's none of anyone's business.)
As for declaring that journalists are violating the country's secrets, in this case it seems like a stretch to me. It's all too easy for politicians to declare personally embarrassing things to be secrets, isn't it? It's happened before, I'm sure. I don't know the details of this one, I can't honestly say I've followed the whole Russian/election thing much, but at first glance, it doesn't seem to me as if important state secrets are at stake here. We'll see, I guess.
-
...I don't agree that they "siphoned" the money out of the economy. They worked for it and were paid for the work, it's not like they robbed a bank...
The fact is that money is syphoned out, period, whether you agree or not with the fact. Whether they earned it and deserve it is not relevant. Once again you are inserting a moral judgment.
... the arguments of the economists who do NOT think that they cost the county anything....
Which economists? Both Alan and I provided links to specific calculations for NY and LA that show quite the opposite. Then again, as I said, there are more important aspects than monetary. Even if they cost nothing, and even if they actually would contribute to the economy. They broke the law in the first place. We do not celebrate Pablo Escobars of the world for building schools and hospitals for the poor, for instance.
...But it is difficult for me to believe that the US is really going to track down and deport all 13 million...
Not overnight. It might take time. But even a 1000-mile journey starts with a first step, as the Chinese say, and after that it is extremely simple: round them up and kick them out... rinse and repeat. Ant that is already happening under Trump.
... Do you know if the remittance amounts mentioned earlier included only remittances from illegal aliens or did the amounts also include remittances from legal Mexican immigrants?...
Both.
...As for declaring that journalists are violating the country's secrets...
Nobody said that. They were talking about leakers within the government and administration that are the primary target for prosecution. Journalists might be caught in the middle for not disclosing their sources, but jailing them for that is nothing new, it happened before under several different administrations.
-
... They were talking about leakers within the government and administration that are the primary target for prosecution. Journalists might be caught in the middle for not disclosing their sources, but jailing them for that is nothing new, it happened before under several different administrations.
Further to the above:
"If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html
WASHINGTON — If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama... Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.
Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases...
Of note: the source is not Breitbart ;)
-
We were discussing public policy options. If you want to spin that into some kind of "moral" argument that I'm making against Americans, go ahead.
Your argument is meaningless because you are not American, do not have to deal with the issues created, and do not pay American taxes that support illegals and immigrants. Since you have no skin in the game, your opinion has no monetary value. It can only have a value based on some moral precept you may have. Otherwise it's worthless. Your recommendations don't cost you anything. It's easy to be a big shot with other people's money.
It would be like me, an American, saying that Canada should let in 2 million immigrants from the middle east, half Syrian refugees. After all, Canada is a rich country. Although there may be dislocations at first and extra costs to Canadian citizens, they will only add to your economy, eventually. Anyway, what do you have against Arabs?
On the other hand, if you want to discuss trade policy like NAFTA since that would effect you, that would be a topic where your input would have value.
-
So, a person's opinion has zero value unless they are monetarily connect to the particular issue?
-
So, a person's opinion has zero value unless they are monetarily connect to the particular issue?
Well, paying for services are a major component in deciding how your feel about something. In addition, I also said that he wasn't an American. So it's rather pointless to an American for a foreigner who doesn't live here and who doesn't pay the taxes to recommend what America should do when it doesn't effect the foreigner. On top of that, his recommendation is opposite what they do in his country. Frankly, it's minding someone else's business.
I don't think foreigners ought to opine about domestic American politics and our economy and other things that they aren't involved in and don't effect them. On the other hand, I'm all in favor of hearing everyone's viewpoint on trade. What should Trump do? Now there's something that does effect non-Americans. How about providing your opinion on what Trump should do regarding war, policing foreign shores, and things like that. These could use international input because they do effect you. I want to hear what others think. I'm very conflicted on these things. For example, on the one hand I think we get involved in too many places that cost us treasure and blood. On the other hand, I have a feeling that being such a major economic and military power requires us to be a sort of "policeman" to keep the peace. What do you think about that?
-
I agree with the first part of the observation. That's the original sin of the immigration politics.
And yet... just because a cop, eating a donut and having a full cup of coffee in his hand, decided not to engage in the pursuit of a speeding car, doesn't mean you are not breaking the law, and that the next cop along the road has no right to stop you. That next cop is Trump.
Agreed entirely. All I said, despite Alan's #fakenonsense, is that you had to think about it and that Trump's travel ban was ill conceived, poorly implemented, and probably not legal - all of which was demonstrably shown, of course and lead to him crafting a different one.
From that, I've had Alan tell me I can't comment on a Canadian message board on a message thread about Trump, started by someone else who has no objection to my comments, all because I don't have a financial interest in the US in terms of taxes paid and so on (which is actually not true - I have and will continue to pay US taxes at various times).
And here's the thing, Slobo - Trump ain't no cop. He doesn't understand the law, he doesn't understand what's required to maintain it, he doesn't understand the implications of his choices, he understands very little, overall. Look at the recently leaked transcripts. They shouldn't have been leaked, but they have and he doesn't even make sense a lot of the time, and he's clearly only interested in what makes him look good. He doesn't give a damn about the US unless it benefits him.
Yes, you need to control your border. You need a better idea than trying to get Mexico to pay for a fence/wall/line-in-the-sand. It's a complex issue but Trump lacks the mental capacity for complex thought and so you get soundbite policies, delivered by tweet, instead of rational and sustainable and achievable policies to attain the desired goals. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Timely. It's a very basic guideline, but virtually everything he's done has failed. Then he blames someone else. Alan blames the media for not giving him a go. Tough. No one said people have to be nice to someone they don't like and disagree with and if that's most of the media, again, tough. Deal with it. If you can't manage to deal with the press you shouldn't be trying to manage an entire nation, and refusing to have on-camera briefings and having people literally and demonstrably get up and tell lie after lie after lie to the press is just stupid.
-
You supported Roaldi's arguments many of which were which were morally based. So you were making moral judgments against American policies as well. Whether they were moral, economically based, or whatever, the fact that Canada and Australia have more harsh immigration policies than America should give you pause before criticizing ours. Most Americans who post don't go around criticizing other countries policies on such "in the weeds" issues. It's your country and you can decide how to run it. Why do so many non-Americans feel they have to tell Americans how we should live?
So I'll ask you again. Show me. Quote it. Quote just once where I did what you claim here or before? You can't. Because I didn't. You just make stuff up, Alan.
Also you claim that Canada and Australia have "more harsh" policies. In what way? How are they harsh, let alone harsher? Specific parts, broadly speaking, or are you just making stuff up again, Alan (hint: it's the last option).
As to why non-Americans comment here? It's a public message board and a subject was started about Trump. We comment. Want to start one about Malcolm Turnbull? Go right ahead. You can have whatever views you want and they can be discussed without me, or anyone, needing to resort to "you don't live here you don't get to have a say".
As Slobo pointed out, as a nation, you stick your nose into other nation's business basically more than any other. But from now on, Alan, so as to help you avoid being a hypocrite, please refrain from commenting on any topic on these boards unless you can first show that you have a financial interest in the matter. That's the standard that you're trying to hold us to, so live by it.
-
So I'll ask you again. Show me. Quote it. Quote just once where I did what you claim here or before? You can't. Because I didn't. You just make stuff up, Alan.
Also you claim that Canada and Australia have "more harsh" policies. In what way? How are they harsh, let alone harsher? Specific parts, broadly speaking, or are you just making stuff up again, Alan (hint: it's the last option).
As to why non-Americans comment here? It's a public message board and a subject was started about Trump. We comment. Want to start one about Malcolm Turnbull? Go right ahead. You can have whatever views you want and they can be discussed without me, or anyone, needing to resort to "you don't live here you don't get to have a say".
As Slobo pointed out, as a nation, you stick your nose into other nation's business basically more than any other. But from now on, Alan, so as to help you avoid being a hypocrite, please refrain from commenting on any topic on these boards unless you can first show that you have a financial interest in the matter. That's the standard that you're trying to hold us to, so live by it.
This thread is a two-way street. You can claim as much as you want you have the right to criticize us and tell us how we should live. And I claim the right to criticize you and tell you I don't accept your opinion and stop nosing in to our business.
Also, no one cares about Malcolm Turnbull. Most don't even know who he is. I wouldn't waste my time.
-
...Also, no one cares about Malcolm Turnbull...
True.
But I do care about another Aussie politician, Cleaver Greene. Awesome dude! ;)
-
This thread is a two-way street. You can claim as much as you want you have the right to criticize us and tell us how we should live. And I claim the right to criticize you and tell you I don't accept your opinion and stop nosing in to our business.
Also, no one cares about Malcolm Turnbull. Most don't even know who he is. I wouldn't waste my time.
You are so very, very, small, Alan.
-
But I do care about another Aussie politician, Cleaver Greene. Awesome dude! ;)
Hah :-)
-
Meanwhile the topic of this thread is now on VaCa (prolly gonna get a lot of golf in) but we're still stuck with the #BigOrageDummy as president so I'm still examining just why he's such a terrible president. This article puts forth a pretty good argument (and it ain't from the #FAKENEWS biased MSM).
Donald Trump, meet the Founding Fathers (https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0804/Donald-Trump-meet-the-Founding-Fathers)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/0804-DDP-glum-trump.jpg)
AUGUST 4, 2017 WASHINGTON—America’s senators scattered to the winds for their summer recess on Thursday, leaving behind a big unfinished agenda and a peeved president.
The chief executive has lambasted lawmakers for failing to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, for their investigations into Russia and his campaign, for their arcane voting rules, and for passing sanctions legislation against Russia.
He took a parting shot in a tweet Thursday morning, saying “You can thank Congress” for a US-Russia relationship that is at an “all-time & very dangerous low.”
President Trump may think his problem is with members of Congress and the way they run things. In one sense, the decisions and behaviors of individuals in Washington – not least, himself – account for his threadbare legislative accomplishments, despite Republican control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
But in the broadest sense, the resistance he's encountering is due to America’s system of governance. The story of his early presidency might easily be called “Donald Trump meets the Founding Fathers,” as a beginner politician runs up against the checks and balances that are designed to prevent tyranny and forge consensus.
Trump and his team are “surprised at the intransigence and resistance they’re meeting, when in fact, every other president has met them,” says Don Ritchie, former Senate historian. This outsider White House “didn’t anticipate these things because they hadn’t experienced these things,” as former governors or legislators, like other presidents and senior White House officials.
During the honeymoon phase of a new administration, presidents can make significant headway. Barack Obama and George W. Bush scored some major legislative wins, when their parties, too, controlled both the House and Senate.
By the first August recess, a Democratic Congress had passed President Obama’s big economic stimulus package, confirmed a Supreme Court justice, and was deep into the policy weeds of health care, which would become law early the next year. In his first year, President Bush got a $1.35 trillion tax cut and Congress passed landmark education reform with bipartisan support.
But Trump's marriage with the GOP has been rocky from the start.
He has been able to appoint a Supreme Court justice – a biggie – and roll back 14 Obama-era regulations, which Republicans say has helped to fuel the stock market to a record high. Still repeal-and-replace failed, the president’s budget is being strongly resisted by his own party, the border wall is a disputed budget line, tax reform is a set of talking points, and Democrats have panned his infrastructure plan.
Trump and his Minions™ learned the hard way that America is not a kingdom, it's a republic with 3 roughly equal branches of government–something the 9th circuit appeals court and Senator John MaCain proved to Trump the hard way.
Maybe during his summer VaCa, Trump might doing some catchup on how to govern and achieve a consensus–negotiating like everything is like a real estate deal ain't gonna work.
Oh, and if you single out a US Senator on Twitter for ridicule as he did with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) after she voted no on the skinny repeal, she returned the favor by spearheading a maneuver in the Senate that will prevent Trump attempting any recess appointments. Senate blocks Trump from making recess appointments over break (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/345261-senate-blocks-trump-from-making-recess-appointments-over-break)
The Senate blocked President Trump from being able to make recess appointments on Thursday as lawmakers leave Washington for their August break.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), doing wrap up for the entire Senate, locked in nine "pro-forma" sessions — brief meetings that normally last roughly a minute.
The move, which requires the agreement of every senator, means the Senate will be in session every three business days throughout the August recess.
Looks like Jeff Sessions DOJ job is still secure :~)
-
Why use one when you can use two?
Special counsel Robert Mueller using multiple grand juries in Russia inquiry
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/04/russia-special-counsel-robert-mueller-using-multiple-grand-juries/540959001/?csp=breakingnews)
(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/39/3992e18f-addd-4f26-8500-95f8f6c1b195.jpg)
WASHINGTON — Russia special counsel Robert Mueller is using at least two grand juries — in Virginia and Washington, D.C. — to advance a wide-ranging federal inquiry into possible coordination between President Trump's campaign and Moscow, a lawyer involved in the case said Friday.
As he investigates Russia's interference in the presidential election, Mueller may continue to use multiple panels or eventually consolidate those efforts in Washington, where the special counsel's team has only begun to use a grand jury in recent weeks.
But the lawyer, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter, said both venues continued to be active in recent days.
The use of the grand jury located in Washington is potentially significant, analysts said, as it likely means investigators are probing activities that happened within that jurisdiction.
Mueller's team is investigating possible obstruction of justice related to the president's abrupt May 9 dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's contacts with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak — all of which occurred in the District of Columbia.
But hey, the whole Russian story is a hoax right? Nothing to see here...time to go on #VaCaEscape
-
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20621865_1510942878944439_1250219784288953780_n.jpg?oh=7f4eb29ac1e1234159ef97febaff7bb3&oe=59F05644)
Opinion: What Trump fears most is coming (http://www.myajc.com/news/opinion/opinion-what-trump-fears-most-coming/xHx57HDSeTgx73iaJKUm6K/)
OPINION By Jay Bookman - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
He promised to give America an administration that was filled with the best people, “people that are truly, truly capable.” Instead we witness a rotating freak show, a cavalcade of clowns and cretins culled from the dark corners of American politics to which they are destined to retreat, but not before they get the chance to turn their long-nurtured, malignant dreams into our national nightmare.
The relative handful of competent, responsible people that survive in his administration — many of them with a military sense of duty to serve the country, not the man — do not see their job as implementing the president’s whims and fancies. Increasingly, they justify their presence by their ability to fend off his worst instincts, to tell him “yes of course” to his face while quietly ensuring that the real answer remains no.
The campaign narrative of betrayal that he spun for his supporters, the story in which they were cast as the victims of an elite conspiracy, while he would be their knight on a white steed, has now been rewritten. He has proceeded to make that betrayal a reality, backing health care, tax and other provisions to further enrich and empower the elite that he has long courted, at the expense of those who invested their desperate hopes and votes in him.
--snip--
If the deep state is to blame, it is his own deep state of ignorance and laziness. He has made the amazing discovery that politics is hard, but he cannot wrap his head around the fact that the Constitution made it hard by design. The Founders drafted that document with men like him very much in mind, to frustrate those who would take the demagogue’s route to power, who proclaim that “I alone ….” am the solution.
Donald Trump, alone, is what he fears most. And Donald Trump, isolated and alone, is exactly where this thing is headed.
-
This thread is a two-way street. You can claim as much as you want you have the right to criticize us and tell us how we should live. And I claim the right to criticize you and tell you I don't accept your opinion and stop nosing in to our business.
That's a false equivalence. If a non-US citizen critisize something that's happening internally in the US (because you think it's none of our business, which is also BS by the way) that doesn't give you any justification to falsely accuse people of things they actually did not say.
-
I don't think foreigners ought to opine about domestic American politics and our economy and other things that they aren't involved in and don't effect them.
It's as silly a thought as saying that a surgeon who hasn't had an appendicitis himself/herself cannot operate on someone else having that condition, or even have an opinion on how to treat it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fascinating article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis).
If you haven't read any of Lewis's books, I recommend them, especially the ones about financial markets.
-
Fascinating article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis).
It describes a chilling display of utter incompetence.
No wonder they want to stop people telling leaking about that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's a false equivalence. If a non-US citizen critisize something that's happening internally in the US (because you think it's none of our business, which is also BS by the way) that doesn't give you any justification to falsely accuse people of things they actually did not say.
Non Americans like to dump on America. It makes them feel good. You don't have to look inward. I get it. It's just annoying to most Americans. But it seems to me that you have more important things to do like fixing your own countries?
-
Non Americans like to dump on America. It makes them feel good. You don't have to look inward. I get it. It's just annoying to most Americans. But it seems to me that you have more important things to do like fixing your own countries?
Alan, you've got it totally wrong and what's most anoying is that you don't (want to) understand what we write. You're just closing your mind and venting unfounded frustrations and keep accusing many people here of things we never said or did. Sometimes playing the poor victim works, but when it's so obviously wrong it's just pathetic.
-
Alan, you've got it totally wrong and what's most anoying is that you don't (want to) understand what we write. You're just closing your mind and venting unfounded frustrations and keep accusing many people here of things we never said or did. Sometimes playing the poor victim works, but when it's so obviously wrong it's just pathetic.
Oh yes, I see. You're not always criticizing us. You're just trying to understand us and help us. Well gee. I guess I got it wrong. Thanks.
-
Oh yes, I see. You're not always criticizing us. You're just trying to understand us and help us. Well gee. I guess I got it wrong. Thanks.
Oh boy, you really don't want to understand it do you? Well, your loss, not mine. I think you're either frustrated or tired, maybe even both.
Hope you have a good vacation and come back enlightened and recharged.
-
You two (or three?), get a room ;D
-
You two (or three?), get a room ;D
Allready got one. You're welcome to join since I guess you will fit right in ;) First round (of drinks) is on me. 8)
-
Oh boy, you really don't want to understand it do you? Well, your loss, not mine. I think you're either frustrated or tired, maybe even both.
Hope you have a good vacation and come back enlightened and recharged.
Thanks for the warm wishes regarding our vacation. Unfortunately, we had to cancel when my daughter got sick. So now we're considering a warmer cruise in the Mediterranean rather than the Baltic as it will be at least a couple of months before we can go. Yeah, I could of used that vacation away from the forums. Although, at my age, the mental stimulation they say is good for the mind, But it's also a huge time waster. 242 pages on this thread alone. Think of all the photos we all could have taken instead.
-
Thanks for the warm wishes regarding our vacation. Unfortunately, we had to cancel when my daughter got sick. So now we're considering a warmer cruise in the Mediterranean rather than the Baltic as it will be at least a couple of months before we can go. Yeah, I could of used that vacation away from the forums. Although, at my age, the mental stimulation they say is good for the mind, But it's also a huge time waster. 242 pages on this thread alone. Think of all the photos we all could have taken instead.
That's too bad Alan, hope your daughter is better now and you have better luck with the next cruise. The Mediterranean is nice as well and you might indeed need AC there ;)
I don't think you will get a lot of "mental stimulation" from this thread, it's merely entertaining but overall quite useless. But it hasn't prevented me from taking pictures, just checked my Lightroom and since the thread started in Februari I have kept a little over 3500 images in there, and since I usually bin at least 1/3 from every outing that means that internet discussions have not kept me back. How about you?
-
Non Americans like to dump on America.
Yet another all-encompassing, wild-assed blanket statement from our resident closed mind.
You may THINK that's true, but that doesn't make it so. You can't repeatedly vituperate like that and expect anyone to take you seriously.
I, for example don't like to "dump on America". And I've never done so. In 71 years of travel in over fifty countries, NEVER have I been better treated than I have in the United States.
-
Think of all the photos we all could have taken instead.
I for one have been shooting my ass off this year, despite "wasted" time here on LuLa.
It's all good.
-
That's too bad Alan, hope your daughter is better now and you have better luck with the next cruise. The Mediterranean is nice as well and you might indeed need AC there ;)
I don't think you will get a lot of "mental stimulation" from this thread, it's merely entertaining but overall quite useless. But it hasn't prevented me from taking pictures, just checked my Lightroom and since the thread started in Februari I have kept a little over 3500 images in there, and since I usually bin at least 1/3 from every outing that means that internet discussions have not kept me back. How about you?
Not me. It's not that the forums hold me up. I'm just going through a dry spell where I don't want to get out and shoot. I've been scanning some old slides and post processing them for a slide show on a DVD for my TV. But not much in the way of new stuff. Retirement can be boring. This afternoon we're going to play canasta with some friends. Nothing exciting. I think I can use a part time job! :)
-
Yet another all-encompassing, wild-assed blanket statement from our resident closed mind.
You may THINK that's true, but that doesn't make it so. You can't repeatedly vituperate like that and expect anyone to take you seriously.
I, for example don't like to "dump on America". And I've never done so. In 71 years of travel in over fifty countries, NEVER have I been better treated than I have in the United States.
That's really great to hear. You're always welcome here.
-
Non Americans like to dump on America. It makes them feel good. You don't have to look inward. I get it. It's just annoying to most Americans. But it seems to me that you have more important things to do like fixing your own countries?
This might be of interest:
"In views of diversity, many Europeans are less positive than Americans"
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/12/in-views-of-diversity-many-europeans-are-less-positive-than-americans/
-
Trump eyes top policy aide for communications director role: official
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN1AL0T4
QUOTE August 6, 2017 / 1:47 AM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House may appoint a senior policy adviser with hardline views on immigration, who recently sparred with reporters in a televised briefing, as its new communications director, a senior administration official said on Saturday.
Stephen Miller, a top aide and speechwriter for President Donald Trump, is a candidate to lead the White House's communications team after a series of personnel changes in the more than six months that Trump has been president.
[...]
Retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, the new chief of staff who sources said was seeking to impose order on a White House riven with factions and backbiting, is said to have recommended the move."
Given Miller's track-record, this would be a gift to the media, and for Trump to point to somebody else (the media) as the cause of confusion.
Cheers,
Bart
-
While Trump drives around his golf course in a golf cart, Putin roughs it up in Siberia.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/06/world/06PUTIN2/06PUTIN2-facebookJumbo.jpg)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/world/europe/vladimir-putin-russia-summer-vacation.html
-
Donald Trump has a sickening fetish for cruelty (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/05/trump-has-fetish-cruelty-christian-schneider-column/537483001/)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1e45e1a44b2ad6295a2b55acc0e753c0cfd722d8/c=43-0-3788-2816&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2017/08/03/USATODAY/USATODAY/636373732210981635-626524652-87068166.JPG)
It isn't very often that the public gets to see a man's soul die inside his body. To see his dignity immolated. His manhood ripped from his bones.
And to have it captured all in one picture. Oh, the picture.
Late last November, President-elect Donald Trump and former Republican nominee Mitt Romney settled into a four-course dinner at New York's Jean-Georges restaurant, dining on frog legs and diver scallops. Over the previous year, Romney had been bitterly critical of Trump, calling him "con man" and "a fraud" – yet upon winning, Trump dangled the possibility of naming Romney to the position of Secretary of State, leading to what would soon become Romney's Last Supper.
In a chilling photograph of the dinner, Romney has turned to the camera with the look of a man that would much prefer to be dining with the Grim Reaper. As Trump glowers at the camera with a mischievous grin, Romney's eyes yearn for a foregone era when he stood in resistance to the vulgarian-in-chief; a time before he was made to kiss the ring in exchange for serving his country as secretary of state. The only thing missing from the photo is a Sarah McLachlan song playing in the background and a phone number to call to stop the abuse.
Of course, two weeks later, Trump picked oil executive Rex Tillerson to be his secretary of state, ending Romney's parade of public humiliation. But Trump got exactly what he wanted — after the dinner, Romney told reporters that Trump "continues with a message of inclusion and bringing people together," and that his "vision is something which obviously connected with the American people in a very powerful way.” Romney became another well-coiffed head for Trump's trophy case.
It wasn't the first time Trump stripped a conquered foe naked and paraded him in the public square, Game of Thrones-style. (And just like the citizens of Westeros, the #MAGA crowd evidently has plenty of time to take off work to spit and yell "shame" at Trump's vanquished opponents.)
--snip--
These are not the actions of a well-adjusted person. Trump clearly has a maudlin fetish for cruelty – given his pattern of humiliating both friend and foe, the president's brain is occupied with little else than Electoral College results and revenge fantasies. Trump is basically a 71-year old kid cackling in delight as he melts ants under his magnifying glass. Only these ants are attorneys general, senators, FBI directors and governors.
Naturally, Trump's supporters think toying with peoples' dignity is a show of strength – but it is the exact opposite. He's a weak leader who wastes what little political capital he has settling personal scores. With apologies to Winston Churchill, Trump remains an immodest man with much to be modest about.
And it's just a matter of time before he's under Vladimir Putin's magnifying glass.
He's a petty man with little if any respect for other people or any caring for their feelings.
-
He's a petty man with little if any respect for other people or any caring for their feelings.
It's easy to believe that of him, but what kind of wimps are the rest of them, guys like Romney, to put up with it? Do they really need to kiss that much a** just to land a cozy job?
-
It's easy to believe that of him, but what kind of wimps are the rest of them, guys like Romney, to put up with it? Do they really need to kiss that much a** just to land a cozy job?
Romney, who I liked and voted for when he ran for president in 2012 and lost to Obama, disappointed me with his hostile and vile attacks on Trump. He represented the elite, connected Republican establishment who felt Trump as a threat to them, their positions of power and wealth. They were the group who hired the British spy who worked with the Russian spies to come up with that phony dossier on Trump. I lost a lot of respect for Romney. Watching him grovel and change his tune so he could get the appointment as Secretary of State under Trump was gratifying, frankly. What a turncoat. Well, he got a nice meal out of it, I suppose.
-
Ah, yes, the Romney episode!
My first impression was Trump wanted to show he can rise above personal animosities and look to appoint the best people for the job, even if politically unfriendly. I also expected he would appoint some Democrats as well.
My second thought, however, before the final outcome was known, is that he was trying to humiliate Romney, by raising his hopes, then dashing them, all publicly. After all, as I said before, Trump is a naughty playboy billionaire, who can do what we mere mortals only wish we could, e.g., exact a sweet revenge on those who slighted us. All Romney had to say is "I appreciate the offer, but I don't see how I can reconcile working for the same man after what I said about him." Instead, he fell for the prank.
-
I don't usually post links to newspaper opinion pieces, but I thought those of you who were following this thread's recent immigration tangent might be interested in an essay on the subject by Russ Douthat published today by the New York Times (https://nyti.ms/2v6X3o2). Douthat is a conservative columnist who, in the words of the left-wing publication Mother Jones, "is on a quest to save intellectual conservatism." But the reason I'm posting the link to his piece isn't his political perspective—which in this instance is presented with a very light touch—but because of the way he explains the social and political factors that make any new legislation relating to immigration so contentious here. It's one of the few concise treatments of the issue that I've read which is consistent with what I've been hearing for many years from immigration experts inside the federal government.
I'm not going to try to summarize Douthat's argument, but it's a quick read and I think the link I've provided should work just about anywhere except Iran, North Korea, and China (the keepers of "the Great Firewall" don't approve of the Times). If not, you can try Googling for "Douthat elusive immigration compromise."
-
Ah, yes, the Romney episode!
My first impression was Trump wanted to show he can rise above personal animosities and look to appoint the best people for the job, even if politically unfriendly. I also expected he would appoint some Democrats as well.
My second thought, however, before the final outcome was known, is that he was trying to humiliate Romney, by raising his hopes, then dashing them, all publicly. After all, as I said before, Trump is a naughty playboy billionaire, who can do what we mere mortals only wish we could, e.g., exact a sweet revenge on those who slighted us. All Romney had to say is "I appreciate the offer, but I don't see how I can reconcile working for the same man after what I said about him." Instead, he fell for the prank.
Now that I think more about it, I too thought that Romney might be a good pick for Secretary of State despite what he did. I figured if Trump could forgive him and rise above it, he might make a good Secretary. But now that Rex Tillerson is Secretary, I'm happy he was chosen. Tillerson isn't flashy or a showboat, does his job, non-political. He has a humble background. Yet, his position as CEO of Exxon made him an experienced executive who dealt and negotiated with the highest levels of foreign governments. Romney would be more concerned like Hillary was about running for future office. Rex seems to just want to do his current job. One of Trump's better picks.
-
I don't usually post links to newspaper opinion pieces, but I thought those of you who were following this thread's recent immigration tangent might be interested in an essay on the subject by Russ Douthat published today by the New York Times (https://nyti.ms/2v6X3o2). Douthat is a conservative columnist who, in the words of the left-wing publication Mother Jones, "is on a quest to save intellectual conservatism." But the reason I'm posting the link to his piece isn't his political perspective—which in this instance is presented with a very light touch—but because of the way he explains the social and political factors that make any new legislation relating to immigration so contentious here. It's one of the few concise treatments of the issue that I've read which is consistent with what I've been hearing for many years from immigration experts inside the federal government.
I'm not going to try to summarize Douthat's argument, but it's a quick read and I think the link I've provided should work just about anywhere except Iran, North Korea, and China (the keepers of "the Great Firewall" don't approve of the Times). If not, you can try Googling for "Douthat elusive immigration compromise."
Americans aren't bigots as he implied somewhat. Immigration policy will be determined by how jobs do. As long as many Americans still can't find good paying jobs at the bottom, the middle, and the top, they will want less legal immigration and illegals thrown out. It's not only the jobs at the bottom. American engineers who would expect to earn let's say $100k are competing with foreign engineers who come here on job permits and who get paid $65K. Americans can't compete. So highly paid Americans are just as disgruntled as low paying. In any case, once the job problem is solved, if it is solved, no one will care about immigration numbers. Then, new immigration laws might be passed that get support from all sides.
-
"China, the EU and other trading partners put up formidable barriers to imports from America" (bold mine):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/free-trade-is-a-two-way-street-1501542569?nan_pid=1861518849
When it comes to trade in goods, our deficits with China and the EU are $347 billion and $146.8 billion, respectively. As the nearby chart shows, China’s tariffs are higher than those of the U.S. in 20 of the 22 major categories of goods. Europe imposes higher tariffs than the U.S. in 17 of 22 categories, though the chart does show that the EU and China are much different regarding tariff rates.
The EU charges a 10% tariff on imported American cars, while the U.S. imposes only a 2.5% tariff on imported European cars. Today Europe exports 1.14 million automobiles to the U.S., nearly four times as many as the U.S. exports to Europe. China, which is the world’s largest automobile market, has a 25% tariff on imported vehicles and imposes even higher tariffs on luxury vehicles.
-
who can do what we mere mortals only wish we could, e.g., exact a sweet revenge on those who slighted us.
I suggest you attend a screening of "Dunkirk" to perhaps adjust your attitude towards the idea of "sweet revenge".
-
... I'm not going to try to summarize Douthat's argument...
Luckily, I am here to do the hard work for you, you lazy boy ;) (bold mine)
mainstream liberalism has gone a little bit insane on immigration, digging into a position that any restrictions are ipso facto racist, and any policy that doesn’t take us closer to open borders is illegitimate and un-American... Liberalism used to recognize the complexities of immigration; now it sees only a borderless utopia waiting, and miscreants and racists standing in the way.
-
I suggest you attend a screening of "Dunkirk" to perhaps adjust your attitude towards the idea of "sweet revenge".
???
-
Luckily, I am here to do the hard work for you
Sigh. Talk about pulling a quote out of context.
-
Sigh. Talk about pulling a quote out of context.
That's the price to pay for being (intellectually) lazy to express what is your own understanding of the article, to stake your own territory, so to speak. I am generally reluctant to click on a link in a post that doesn't provide at least a glimpse of what it might be about (other than generic "immigration'), but out of respect for you, I did.
-
But now that Rex Tillerson is Secretary, I'm happy he was chosen. Tillerson isn't flashy or a showboat, does his job, non-political.
Not according to those in the know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/06/us/politics/rex-tillerson-state-department.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
-
???
Obviously, you've not seen the movie.
-
Not according to those in the know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/06/us/politics/rex-tillerson-state-department.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The State Department has been a runaway freight train for decades operating on its own design for decades. The diplomats who complained to theNY Times are pissed off that the Trump Administration won't stand for it. One complaint was that Tillerson stopped the hiring of spouses of state department staff. That nepotism is part of the Washington swamp he's trying to clean up.
Of course the NY Times supports the diplomats now because they want too destroy Trump. Every article they print is twisted into a negative against him. The paper has turned to yellow journalism. They're a disgrace.
-
The State Department has been a runaway freight train for decades operating on its own design for decades. The diplomats who complained to theNY Times are pissed off that the Trump Administration won't stand for it. One complaint was that Tillerson stopped the hiring of spouses of state department staff. That nepotism is part of the Washington swamp he's trying to clean up.
Of course the NY Times supports the diplomats now because they want too destroy Trump. Every article they print is twisted into a negative against him. The paper has turned to yellow journalism. They're a disgrace.
I wasn't going to chime in on this, but can you appreciate the irony of complaining about nepotism in the era of the Trump family white house?
-
... One complaint was that Tillerson stopped the hiring of spouses of state department staff. That nepotism is part of the Washington swamp...
As someone who actually worked for the State Dept., allow me a comment: hardly nepotism or swamp. The policy makes perfect sense, as already explained in the referenced article. These days, having two breadwinners in a family is more of a necessity than luxury. Asking someone to move to a different country means that their spouse must quit their job and career to accompany them. Even with the current policy in place, those spousal jobs are hardly a proper replacement, as they tend to be lower level and less paid than what one had at home, not to mention a break in a career. This isn't just State Dept., a lot of businesses do the same, when they want to relocate existing staff (or attract new) to less desirable locations, as I am sure Mr. Tillerson is aware. My former general manager at an American company said he is not going to move from the States to Russia unless his wife is also given a job there. And frankly, if I were today in the same situation, I would expect my company to do the same.
-
As someone who actually worked for the State Dept., allow me a comment: hardly nepotism or swamp. The policy makes perfect sense, as already explained in the referenced article. These days, having two breadwinners in a family is more of a necessity than luxury. Asking someone to move to a different country means that their spouse must quit their job and career to accompany them. Even with the current policy in place, those spousal jobs are hardly a proper replacement, as they tend to be lower level and less paid than what one had at home, not to mention a break in a career. This isn't just State Dept., a lot of businesses do the same, when they want to relocate existing staff (or attract new) to less desirable locations, as I am sure Mr. Tillerson is aware. My former general manager at an American company said he is not going to move from the States to Russia unless his wife is also given a job there. And frankly, if I were today in the same situation, I would expect my company to do the same.
The optics are terrible for a President who said he wants to clean up the Washington swamp. First off, what a private company does is different than what a public tax supporting government agency does. Second, the idea that the taxpayers should find a job for a spouse to increase the take-home pay for the diplomat just stinks regardless of the arguments you make. There are already supplemental payments for serving overseas, danger pay (it's 35% extra serving in Kabul and Baghdad the two cities mentioned in the article) , size of family payments, etc. That's similar to what the military overseas gets, actually less as combat pay is less than 35%.) Why should the State Department be different. Are we suppose to find a job for every spouse of every secretary or diplomat who works overseas? Can you imagine what the New York Times would say if he continued that policy, They'd claim he's betraying his supporters. Well, of course we know anything he does they would come up with a way why he's bad so much do they want to destroy him.
-
I wasn't going to chime in on this, but can you appreciate the irony of complaining about nepotism in the era of the Trump family white house?
Trump's family members do not take a salary.
-
Trump's family members do not take a salary.
At least they're being paid commensurate with their experience, then.
-
I think this really comes down to keeping good employees with little cost, vs. hiring new employees that need training and vetting for a few months.
If keeping the good employees means finding jobs for spouses while at the same time avoiding the cost of training, then why not?
Joe, anyway you cut it, it smacks of nepotism and politically it has terrible optics. If Trump continues this policy, you know the NY Times' next article will be headlined, "Trump and Tillerson Continue Nepotism in State Department - Reversing Promises Made to Supporters to Drain the Swamp".
-
...Anyway you slice it though, it's good employee retention. I always regret the first day using someone new, even though it is a necessary evil.
Yeah, I can see Trump's campaign slogan for 2020: "Keep Making America Great - I'm already trained. And so are my children."
-
I read the article in full as well, and although those quotes are out of context here, their meaning is changed little within the article.
Quite. The problem is that the quotation out-of-context entirely misses Douthat's point. It's like a short blurb yanked out of a review panning a movie that gives an impression quite the opposite of what the critic intended.
I would encourage anyone interested in current American conservative thinking to read more of Douthat's stuff. I've never met the guy, and I certainly don't consider myself a conservative by any means, nor a liberal ("progressive"), for that matter—I'm skeptical of doctrine of any flavor—but I find many of his columns to be nuanced and quite provocative. He is essentially a direct lineal descendant of the William F. Buckley line of libertarian Christian conservatism. His writing seems to have quite a strong following among political intellectuals who otherwise would be considered to be left-wing. Hence the interest in him by publications such as Mother Jones.
Alternatively, you could navigate over to the Breitbart site (http://www.breitbart.com/). If so, may Ronald Reagan have mercy on your soul.
-
I am also failing to understand what you meant by "quite." Did you agree with me
Yes. I was agreeing that the quote accurately reflected Douthat's argument regarding the second obstacle to immigration reform. (The first being that "the Cotton-Perdue proposal is associated with a president whose ascent was darkened by race-baiting, and whose ability to broker any deal is seriously in doubt.")
-
An article about the "leaky" media: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/05/sessions-leaks-media-attack-worse-thank-you-think-215465?lo=ap_d1 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/05/sessions-leaks-media-attack-worse-thank-you-think-215465?lo=ap_d1).
-
Congress should focus on tax reform first. A better economy will make immigration and health care reform easier.
-
Congress should focus on tax reform first. A better economy will make immigration and health care reform easier.
I'm surprised the government isn't doing anything in the tax reform. It could be done easily in stages. Let the technology companies bring their overseas stash home, that should be very simple. Then address the other loopholes.
According to Moody's estimate from the last year:
Large American corporations held an estimated $1.3 trillion in cash reserves overseas in 2016, out of reach from the IRS. The five companies holding the largest cash reserves overseas are in the technology sector, and four are based in Silicon Valley: Apple, Alphabet, Cisco and Oracle. Washington-based Microsoft rounds out the list. Together,these five companies alone held $505 billion in foreign cash reserves
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/11/04/how-much-cash-do-these-5-companies-have-stashed.html
That amount will be even higher this year.
-
Quite. The problem is that the quotation out-of-context entirely misses Douthat's point. It's like a short blurb yanked out of a review panning a movie that gives an impression quite the opposite of what the critic intended...
Oh, please, stop whining!
Exactly how is what I quoted "out of context'? How does it "entirely miss his point"? And how is it "quite the opposite of what he intended"?
Once again, state what you think is his point, instead of whining.
-
An article about the "leaky" media: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/05/sessions-leaks-media-attack-worse-thank-you-think-215465?lo=ap_d1 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/05/sessions-leaks-media-attack-worse-thank-you-think-215465?lo=ap_d1).
Excellent analysis of the insidious games that are being played on the (gullible) general public.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm surprised the government isn't doing anything in the tax reform.
They are too busy dismantling/repealing previous governments' achievements. That is fully in line with Steve Bannon's intent.
Not much constructive work gets done, it's mostly destructive. Lots of unfilled vacancies as well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Excellent analysis of the insidious games that are being played on the (gullible) general public.
Cheers,
Bart
Sessions was addressing two issues with leaks, some of them overlap. When classified information is leaked, it directly hurts the security of the country. That's one type of leak. The other leak relates to confidential discussions that may or may not be classified but would damage America's ability to conduct foreign affairs if leaked. For example, how would your Prime Minister feel if his private conversation with the President about relations between America and the Netherlands were printed word for word in the next morning's newspaper. Foreign leaders would not want to talk to the American government about important matters. We couldn't conduct affairs between us. That hurts relations between our countries and could have security implications, as well.
-
Trade deals are complex: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459).
-
Jimmying the numbers: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337?lo=ap_d1 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337?lo=ap_d1).
We used to think that competition was good, there were even anti-trust laws in place to prevent corporate concentration.
-
They are too busy dismantling/repealing previous governments' achievements. That is fully in line with Steve Bannon's intent.
Not much constructive work gets done, it's mostly destructive. Lots of unfilled vacancies as well.
Cheers,
Bart
The people who voted for Trump thought that many of Obama's actions were destructive, not constructive as you imply. If Obama wanted to secure those so-called "achievements", he should have had Congress enact them by legislation as required by our Constitution. He's wasn't a king. Because he thought he was, and thought he could get away with it especially since he expected fellow Democrat Clinton to win, he took the easy way. But the electorate said "no" and elected a president who's campaign was to reverse those unilateral actions.
-
Sessions was addressing two issues with leaks, some of them overlap. When classified information is leaked, it directly hurts the security of the country. That's one type of leak. The other leak relates to confidential discussions that may or may not be classified but would damage America's ability to conduct foreign affairs if leaked. For example, how would your Prime Minister feel if his private conversation with the President about relations between America and the Netherlands were printed word for word in the next morning's newspaper. Foreign leaders would not want to talk to the American government about important matters. We couldn't conduct affairs between us. That hurts relations between our countries and could have security implications, as well.
There are all sorts of leaks, for all sorts of reasons (some intentional). That has nothing to do with the free media and their right to keep their sources undisclosed, otherwise, their work would become impossible because sources would dry up (which is part of Session's game plan). The leaking is also a direct result of worried White House staffers, worried about the destruction around them. Action --> reaction, less worries --> less leaking.
BTW, I'm still wondering whether the information that Trump leaked to the Russian visitors (no WH staff nor photographer around to leak what really happened), was properly declassified before being shared. The Israelian secret services are still not pleased about him compromising their assets. While a President can disclose such information, he/she can only do so after formally declassifying it, not before, according to my information.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trade deals are complex: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459).
With or without trade deals, if foreign countries want to sell their products to America, which all do, then they'll have to reduce tariffs on American goods sold in their countries. Trump wants to negotiate with countries separately because he feels that TPP hurts American workers while helping large multinationals. Maybe he could modify TPP to include more protection for workers. Who knows? Frankly, I think the American standard of living is going to shrink regardless of what happens.
-
Jimmying the numbers: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337?lo=ap_d1 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/06/trump-fcc-sinclair-broadcast-expansion-241337?lo=ap_d1).
We used to think that competition was good, there were even anti-trust laws in place to prevent corporate concentration.
90% of media is currently liberal, socialist and Democrat leaning. So anything that adds some more conservative reporting that's good for Republicans is good in my book.
-
There are all sorts of leaks, for all sorts of reasons (some intentional). That has nothing to do with the free media and their right to keep their sources undisclosed, otherwise, their work would become impossible because sources would dry up (which is part of Session's game plan). The leaking is also a direct result of worried White House staffers, worried about the destruction around them. Action --> reaction, less worries --> less leaking.
BTW, I'm still wondering whether the information that Trump leaked to the Russian visitors (no WH staff nor photographer around to leak what really happened), was properly declassified before being shared. The Israelian secret services are still not pleased about him compromising their assets. While a President can disclose such information, he/she can only do so after formally declassifying it, not before, according to my information.
Cheers,
Bart
You got it wrong again on both issues. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment protection for a "free press" does not protect reporters from keeping secret the names of leakers of classified information. Reporters have gone to jail for being in contempt of court for not revealing their sources. Leaking of conversations that aren't classified are another matter. That goes on all the time and is the bread and butter of news reporting. Unfortunately, the news media has lost trust. So claims about information from un-name" and "confidential" sources have grown more suspect in their truthfulness. A lot of it is BS and only political in nature to hurt one side or the other.
Regarding classified information, the President as chief executive, decides what materials should be classified or declassified. Otherwise, a subordinate would have authority over the president in deciding what's to be classified, a silly proposition.
"Top Secret" information is often released for international political effect. For example, let's say the CIA has discovered Iran is manufacturing plutonium against the agreement. That information would be classified by the CIA as "Top Secret". But the President at a news conference, or in a tweet, where he wants to put pressure on Iran to agree to more inspections or impress the UN to add sanctions announces that we know what they're up too. The president in effect, de-classifies that information. The whole world now knows that we know. What he did is perfectly legal.
-
"Top Secret" information is often released for international political effect. For example, let's say the CIA has discovered Iran is manufacturing plutonium against the agreement. That information would be classified by the CIA as "Top Secret".
It might, but often there is a distinction between the need to protect the substance of the information and the need to protect the source of the information or the way it was obtained. In your hypothetical, the substantive information—that Iran was manufacturing plutonium—might well be classified at a level lower than "Top Secret," or arguably even not classified at all. Precisely how the CIA obtained the information probably would be classified as "Top Secret," and subject to additional special handling restrictions, as well.
I suspect most intentional public disclosures of the kind you are referring to involve information classified at the "Confidential" or "Secret" levels. One exception that comes to mind is Kennedy's disclosure of the aerial reconnaissance photos of the Soviet missile sites in Cuba; unless they were manipulated to conceal the detail in the original image captures, they would almost certainly have been classified "Top Secret"—and no doubt subject to additional restrictions—because the images themselves conveyed information about a sensitive source.
-
But the president still controls what is declassified or not.
-
But the president still controls what is declassified or not.
The president as well as a number of other officials. See Part 3 of Executive Order 13526 (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526) for the specifics of the declassification and downgrading process.
-
But the president still controls what is declassified or not.
I sincerely hope that's not strictly true. Not a good idea to place too much power in a single person's hands.
-
90% of media is currently liberal, socialist and Democrat leaning. So anything that adds some more conservative reporting that's good for Republicans is good in my book.
90%? Socialist? You crack me up sometimes.
-
I sincerely hope that's not strictly true. Not a good idea to place too much power in a single person's hands.
The president has what is called Original Classification Authority when it comes to information generated by the United States. This means that he does have the authority to classify information (within some legal limitations) and declassify information. However, this classification/declassification is not done casually in a conversation. The president has to issue a classification/Declassification Decision (or in some cases classification/Declassification Order) formally documenting the information that is being classified/declassified, the reason why it is being classified/declassified and to formally start a policy review effort to determine if the classification/declassification of this specific information conflicts or adversely affects other information.
-
He blamed it on an overwhelmingly majority and blinding support of Clinton by the media, causing a bias and for them to ignore anything that disputed their opinions, and our country's seriously inapt ability in mathematics.
I certainly agree with the second part of the theory, and the first would sense as well.
Yes, makes sense. The number of votes required to swing things one way or the other is so small, you would think that they would spend more time looking at the measurement errors. But that's par for the course for the daily news cycle though. Carefully considered thought is not what it's about, and anyway I suspect not many people go looking for long complicated analyses.
-
90%? Socialist? You crack me up sometimes.
Ok. I'll change my sentence.
90% of media is currently liberal, socialist AND/OR Democrat leaning.
-
The president has what is called Original Classification Authority when it comes to information generated by the United States. This means that he does have the authority to classify information (within some legal limitations) and declassify information. However, this classification/declassification is not done casually in a conversation. The president has to issue a classification/Declassification Decision (or in some cases classification/Declassification Order) formally documenting the information that is being classified/declassified, the reason why it is being classified/declassified and to formally start a policy review effort to determine if the classification/declassification of this specific information conflicts or adversely affects other information.
Where can I find these requirements?
-
Where can I find these requirements?
I believe the latest is Executive Order 13526
-
I believe the latest is Executive Order 13526
Executive Orders's are issued by presidents so they can be modified at any time by the president oo subsequent presidents. In any case, you don't think that President Obama who signed the EO limited his own authority, do you? If his subordinates like the Director of theCIA can declassify in his supervisory role, certainly his supervisor the president can declassify. Alll the secretaries and directors of theCIA, Department of State, Department of Defense, NSA, etc work for the president.
-
U.S. Interior Department rescinds coal valuation rule
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-coal-idUSKBN1AN2F7
QUOTE August 7, 2017 / 11:01 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of the Interior said on Monday it has rescinded an Obama-era rule that reformed how energy companies value sales of oil, gas and coal extracted from federal and tribal land to protect taxpayers because it caused "confusion and uncertainty" for energy companies.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the department's newly formed royalty policy committee would propose alternatives to the rule and "remain committed to collecting every dollar due."
"Repealing the valuation rule provides a clean slate to create workable valuation regulations," Zinke said in a statement.
The valuation rule was proposed by former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell last year to close a loophole that enabled companies to dodge royalty payments when mining on taxpayer-owned public land.
[...]
Meanwhile, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a taxpayer watchdog group, found that taxpayers missed out on nearly $30 billion in revenues over three decades because of the loophole."
More money to Trump's cronies, less to the actual taxpayers. Guess the American people get what they voted for, less education, less healthcare, etc.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Never mind the resurrection of coal miner jobs, or a tax reform, Trump acted pretty quickly where it counts most. He reduced substantially the fines for the financial industry.
Federal regulators have fined financial firms significantly less under the first six months of President Trump’s tenure compared to the first six months of 2016, President Barack Obama’s final year in office, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority levied two-thirds fewer fines ($489 million) in the first half of 2017 compared with the first half of 2016 ($1.4 billion). That’s on track for the lowest annual level of fines since at least 2010.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/345606-financial-regulators-issue-fewer-fines-under-trump-report
-
Whether we like it or not, banking makes the world go round.
Did you know banks create money? Yes, that is right, lending and interest gained is what increases values and creates money.
(Now before you say that countries' actually create their own money, they don't. The print/mint currency that is a physical representation of money, but that is not money. If you disagree, ask yourself why is there about 10x more wealth in USA dollars then currency to represent it?)
But anyway, I truly believe that congresses' overreach in 2009 with the financial industry is what is holding our economy back. I don't agree with all deregulation (especially environmental), but I think Dodd-Frank did much more harm then good and these regulations need to stop.
Credit creation is the process you describe above. It's not the interest gained, but in a closed system when you lend money, some of that money ends up being deposited again and then the banks can lend it again. The credit creation ratio is important and the value of it forms part of the money in an economy. By controlling capital adequacy ratios, governments can control credit creation (also through other means such as interest rates but that is indirect control).
Your second point isn't really right. Currency is a part of broad money which includes other things of value in the economy such as bank deposits and other representations of value typically with a maturity not longer than 2 years. There are numerous definitions of money to suit different needs, but they all include the notes and coins (cash) in the economy which is real money. What that money is worth compared to other currencies or in terms of buy power changes such that just printing more money simply increase inflation (quantitative easing, as it has been know since the GFC, is literally the act of creating more cash and therefore more money in the economy and therefore reducing the value of the money - if money is less valuable you pay less for it - lower interest rates. You also enable inflation to stop stagnation of an economy in a super low (or even negative) interest rate environment).
And, contrary to your view of over regulation, it was strong prudential controls that largely saw Australia avoid the GFC in the sense that we didn't go into recession because our major banks were financially sound. Our last recessions ended in the September quarter of 1991 - just coming up on 26 years ago. How you control and regulate your banks is a worthy discussion, but suggestions that you need to deregulate to help the economy is demonstrably false in the long term. That doesn't mean you need excessive controls and regulations, but you need banks to be kept within a reasonable bound because they're not just "another business" - they're in fact the core of all business and financial activities and have a role beyond that of a simple commercial enterprise.
-
Meh - it wasn't clear what you were saying about money, so I clarified.
Regarding regulation. Let's be clear. The underlying single cause of the GFC was a lack of regulation of banking in the United States. All other factors and operational causes stem from that. Perhaps things have gone further than they needed, but that's not what's holding back your economy. Primarily those causes are hyper political partisanship and crippling government debt.
-
U.S. Interior Department rescinds coal valuation rule
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-interior-coal-idUSKBN1AN2F7
QUOTE August 7, 2017 / 11:01 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of the Interior said on Monday it has rescinded an Obama-era rule that reformed how energy companies value sales of oil, gas and coal extracted from federal and tribal land to protect taxpayers because it caused "confusion and uncertainty" for energy companies.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the department's newly formed royalty policy committee would propose alternatives to the rule and "remain committed to collecting every dollar due."
"Repealing the valuation rule provides a clean slate to create workable valuation regulations," Zinke said in a statement.
The valuation rule was proposed by former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell last year to close a loophole that enabled companies to dodge royalty payments when mining on taxpayer-owned public land.
[...]
Meanwhile, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a taxpayer watchdog group, found that taxpayers missed out on nearly $30 billion in revenues over three decades because of the loophole."
More money to Trump's cronies, less to the actual taxpayers. Guess the American people get what they voted for, less education, less healthcare, etc.
Cheers,
Bart
I always appreciate when a foreigner is concerned about the American taxpayer. Thanks.
Just to clarify a point though. Trump won election promising to bring back jobs to coal miners and supporting the coal industry and other deplorables. What Trump did was to reverse a rule instituted by Obama before he left office. Obama's rule would made coal production less viable. In effect, the rule would help destroy the coal industry which Obama wanted to do and which Hillary spit on as well.
Trump's reversal of the rule is just fulfilling a promise he made to the voters in the coal states that won him the presidency. I'm sure in 4 years he'll go back to those coal miners and ask for their vote again reminding them how he went to bat for them as president. Elections have consequences.
-
Never mind the resurrection of coal miner jobs, or a tax reform, Trump acted pretty quickly where it counts most. He reduced substantially the fines for the financial industry.
Federal regulators have fined financial firms significantly less under the first six months of President Trump’s tenure compared to the first six months of 2016, President Barack Obama’s final year in office, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority levied two-thirds fewer fines ($489 million) in the first half of 2017 compared with the first half of 2016 ($1.4 billion). That’s on track for the lowest annual level of fines since at least 2010.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/345606-financial-regulators-issue-fewer-fines-under-trump-report
So it took Obama until 2016, 8 years after the crisis to actually fine a few banks. $1.6 billion is pennies on the dollar for what the Fed gave them back in free money. No one went to jail. May I remind you, that the Fed re-imbursed all the banks by bailing them out. So many would have gone bankrupt. Not only were the bankers bailed out, but they were rewarded with more money than ever before making them bigger then ever before. The bankers are richer after Obama's terms then they were back when Bush was President.
So appreciative were the financiers and bankers for his hands off approach during his eight years, Obama was awarded after his presidency with a $400,000 for a speech he gave to Wall Street. Just like Hillary. What a pair!
It's that BS, the inside the Beltway to Wall Street, incestuous relationship that helped Trump in the election. His let's clean the swamp mantra worked as million of his voters understood they were screwed for 8 years while the usual suspects lined their pockets.
-
for the specifics of the declassification and downgrading process.
no executive order limits the sitting president's authority - only constitution & laws... executive order is only for those who are below him ;D ... so president can say whatever he wants on the spot, not matter how bad it is and regardless of what executive orders mandate for his subordinates
-
No one went to jail... the Fed re-imbursed all the banks ...rewarded with more money...incestuous relationship that helped Trump in the election. His let's clean the swamp mantra worked as million of his voters understood they were screwed for 8 years while the usual suspects lined their pockets.
Yes, absolutely true, all of that. Except the last part. See, he promised to "drain the swamp", but is he actually doing it? Do you see any evidence that he's actually starting? Most of us see exactly the opposite.
-
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/345606-financial-regulators-issue-fewer-fines-under-trump-report
So it took Obama until 2016, 8 years after the crisis to actually fine a few banks. $1.6 billion is pennies on the dollar for what the Fed gave them back in free money. No one went to jail. May I remind you, that the Fed re-imbursed all the banks by bailing them out. So many would have gone bankrupt. Not only were the bankers bailed out, but they were rewarded with more money than ever before making them bigger then ever before. The bankers are richer after Obama's terms then they were back when Bush was President.
List of Goldman Sachs Alumni in Donald Trump’s Administration
http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/donald-trump-goldman-sachs-drain-swamp-steve-bannon-steven-mnuchin-gary-cohn-jay-clayton/
Draining the Swamp, and filling it again ... ?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Not counting Anthony Scaramucci who already got drained from the new swamp.
-
I watched the Fareed Zakaria
he only has the job @ CNN for diversity reasons, otherwise he is just dumb...
-
Finally, a good use for Trump's tweets!
Toilet paper featuring Donald Trump’s tweets reportedly sells out on Amazon — at $12 per roll (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toilet-paper-featuring-donald-trump-tweets-sells-amazon-article-1.3391300)
(https://i.elitestatic.com/content/uploads/2017/08/07222929/trump-tweet-rolls.jpg)
By Saturday, Amazon.com sold out of the "Donald Trump Classic Tweets Toilet Paper" priced at nearly $12. (TOILET TWEETS/AMAZON)
Donald and the john.
A company called Toilet Tweets was selling toilet paper littered with images of President Donald Trump’s controversial tweets.
By Saturday, Amazon, which was fulfilling orders, sold out of individual rolls — priced at around $12 per item, according to Local 10 News.
Current searches for “Donald Trump Classic Tweets Toilet Paper — Single Roll” list the product as “currently unavailable.”
UPDATE: You can preorder and Amazon says it'll be in stock Aug 15th!
Donald Trump Classic Tweets Toilet Paper - Single Roll (https://www.amazon.com/Donald-Trump-Classic-Tweets-Toilet/dp/B07258JCS8)
Darn good idea...#MAGA
-
Just like Mother Nature, Reality always wins...
Reality 1, Trump 0 (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2017/08/08/reality-1-trump-0/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=friendlyatheist&ref_post=tucker-carlson-had-no-clue-how-to-respond-to-this-satanist)
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/trump.png?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
Donald Trump was bored Monday morning so he went on an extended rant on Twitter about how his base is “bigger” (wrong) and “stronger” (whatever that means) and “closer together” (quite possibly true) than ever, despite all the “fake news” out there that makes him look bad. In order:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The Trump base is far bigger & stronger than ever before (despite some phony Fake News polling). Look at rallies in Penn, Iowa, Ohio.......
5:58 AM - Aug 7, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...and West Virginia. The fact is the Fake News Russian collusion story, record Stock Market, border security, military strength, jobs.....
6:04 AM - Aug 7, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
... Supreme Court pick, economic enthusiasm, deregulation & so much more have driven the Trump base even closer together. Will never change!
6:09 AM - Aug 7, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Hard to believe that with 24/7 #Fake News on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTIMES & WAPO, the Trump base is getting stronger!
6:18 AM - Aug 7, 2017
And now, the rebuttal (http://firehousestrategies.com/new-firehouse0ptimus-survey-trumps-shrinking-base/) will be delivered by reality, in the form of a new poll by a Republican strategy firm:
Key Findings:
Trump’s base of support has shrunk from 35.3% of voters who have a “strongly favorable” view of him in April to only 28.6% today. Notably, much of that erosion is among Republicans: Strongly favorable views among GOP voters dropped from 54.1% to 44.9%, while unfavorable views increased from 20.5% to 27.9%.
KEY POINT: Trump’s base is shrinking. He cannot take continued GOP support for granted in swing states.
Nearly half of voters (48.3%) believe Trump lies intentionally to mislead people, up from 43.4% in April. For Congressional Republicans, 51.8% now believe the same about them, up from 45.7% in April. Only 14.6% now believe Trump never lies, and only 9.1% believe the same about GOP congressmen/women. Today, only 5% of Republicans we surveyed believe Trump never lies, down from 31.3% in April.
KEY POINT: Trump’s false statements are eroding his credibility with voters, including Republicans.
In April, one third of voters (33.8%) said President Trump had been successful, 35.8% said unsuccessful, and 30.6% said it was too soon to tell. Now, 27.4% say he has been successful, 44.9% say unsuccessful, and 27.7% say it is too soon to tell. Republicans still overwhelmingly believe he has been successful (43.9%) or that it is too soon to tell (35.8%). However, the percentage willing to say he has been unsuccessful has increased from 13.1% to 20.4%.
KEY POINT: Voters are losing faith in Trump’s ability to deliver on his big campaign promises.
In April we asked how voters would respond if Trump failed to repeal Obamacare or overhaul the tax code before next year’s midterm elections. In our new survey, we found a 7% and 9% jump in the percentage of respondents saying they will not vote for current GOP office holders if these two items are not accomplished.
KEY POINT: Failure to deliver major legislative victories is raising the prospects of an electoral setback for Republicans next year.
(http://healthcare-economist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/donald-trump-black-and-white.png)
Don't ya just hate it when reality slaps you in the face?
-
Wow...Trump will prolly Tweet about this!
6 months in, a record low for Trump, with troubles from Russia to health care (POLL) (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/months-record-low-trump-troubles-russia-health-care/story?id=48639490)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/Presidential_Job_Approval_170714.png)
Americans give President Donald Trump the lowest six-month approval rating of any president in polls dating back 70 years, punctuated by questions about his competence on the world stage, his effectiveness, the GOP health care plan and Russia’s role in the 2016 election.
Just 36 percent of Americans polled in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll approve of Trump’s job performance, down 6 points from his 100-day mark, itself a low. The previous president closest to this level at or near six months was Gerald Ford, at 39 percent, in February 1975.
See PDF with full results here. (http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1189a1TrumpatSixMonths.pdf)
Oh wait...of course Trump had to tweet about it...
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
After 200 days, rarely has any Administration achieved what we have achieved..not even close! Don't believe the Fake News Suppression Polls!
11:10 AM - 8 Aug 2017
So, now it's the Fake News Suppression Polls! Uh, what's getting "suppressed"? The Fake News? Or Trump's grandiose view of himself?
-
Oh, wait...Trump also retweeted something (that maybe he shouldn't have)
Trump retweets Fox News story containing classified info (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/trump-retweet-fox-news-north-korea-story-haley/index.html)
(http://cdn.totalfratmove.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/c86609638ec82937cd0a27bad669f4f7.png)
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's retweet of a Fox News story claiming US satellites detected North Korea moving anti-ship cruise missiles to a patrol boat is raising eyebrows on Tuesday after US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley indicated that the information in the report is classified and was leaked.
"I can't talk about anything that's classified and if that's in the newspaper that's a shame," Haley said Tuesday on "Fox and Friends" when asked about the story that cites two anonymous sources.
Pushed on whether the information was leaked, Haley said "it's one of those things I don't know what's going on. I will tell you it's incredibly dangerous when things get out into the press like that."
But just a few hours before Haley's appearance on Fox, Trump retweeted a post from the Fox News morning show promoting the story said to contain classified information.
The tweet with a link to a story siting anonymous sources and allegedly classified info:
FOX & friends ✔ @foxandfriends
U.S. spy satellites detect North Korea moving anti-ship cruise missiles to patrol boat http://fxn.ws/2wp9cU2
4:50 AM - Aug 8, 2017
The White House has not responded to a request for comment.
"It is alarming the casualness with which President Trump shares classifieds information," Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California told CNN's Poppy Harlow Tuesday. "Just because something is in the press doesn't make that information no longer classified, so the President should not be tweeting classified information just because he as the President."
Will Fischer, an Iraq War veteran and director of government relations for VoteVets, was also critical of the retweet and questioned what role -- or lack thereof -- new chief of staff John Kelly had in the process.
"It is absolutely terrifying to see that information that Ambassador Haley said was 'dangerous' to print was retweeted by Donald Trump," Fischer said in a statement. "The question for everyone to ask is: What did General Kelly say? If he told Donald Trump to retweet this, there's a real problem. If he told Trump not to, and Trump ignored him, that's a big problem. If Donald Trump is refusing to consult with his chief of staff on any of this, that's a huge problem, especially given General Kelly's military background."
-
And, when it comes to Trump's own "self-image"...
Donald Trump 'obsessed with his own self-image', visiting senior Republican says (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-07/donald-trump-obsessed-by-his-own-self-image-says-republican/8780156)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8199848-3x2-700x467.jpg)
PHOTO: Not everyone listens to you just because you are the US President, Republican Michael Steele says. (AP: Andrew Harnik)
A prominent US Republican says President Donald Trump is struggling with the limitations of a job he never expected to get.
Michael Steele, a former chairman of the powerful Republican National Committee, told ABC News Mr Trump was still grappling with the transition from colourful businessman and reality-TV star to Commander in Chief.
"Not everyone listens to you just because you're president," Mr Steele said.
Mr Steele said presidents do not have as much power as they might have expected.
"You have 535 members of Congress who have a different view. You have cabinet secretaries who, while they might work for you, still carry out different agendas," he said.
"You've got the voters, the press and all those other interests out there who have a say about what you just said, and that's not something Donald deals with too well."
Mr Steele's assessment comes as Mr Trump faces criticism for taking a 17-day trip to his New Jersey golf club resort, and as a widely circulated Newsweek magazine cover ridicules the President's work ethic.
--snip--
'Obsessed with his own self-image'
Mr Steele said Mr Trump was focused on how he looked to others.
"This is who he is. This is a guy obsessed with his own self-image; how his numbers are doing, whether everything is playing to a narrative he has developed in his own head," he said.
Mr Steele has been taking part in the annual Australian American Leadership Dialogue, a private diplomatic initiative where key figures from both countries gather to discuss the state of the relationship and work on ways of resolving tensions.
It is fair to say that phone call between Malcolm Turnbull and Mr Trump was widely discussed over the two-day session last week.
BTW, that's the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not America's #FAKENEWS ABC...
-
Oh, wait...Trump also retweeted something (that maybe he shouldn't have)
Trump retweets Fox News story containing classified info (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/trump-retweet-fox-news-north-korea-story-haley/index.html)
...
The tweet with a link to a story siting anonymous sources and allegedly classified info:
The info was released by our intelligence agengies. Obviously they were directed to so the world would know what NK is up too. Otherwise, you'd have to believe our intelligence agencies are illegally releasing classified info to the press without approval.
Jeff, everything Trump does is negative in your book. You really got to get over your mantra. It's blinding you. You're like the boy who cried wolf. Why aren't you complimenting Trump how he got the entire Security Council in the UN to vote 15-0 to add sanctions and condemn NK for the missile and nuclear tests.? He even got the Russians and the Chinese to vote with us. Would it prevent you from getting a good night sleep if you actually said he's done something right?
Intelligence source release:
"North Korea loaded two Stormpetrel anti-ship cruise missiles on a Wonsan guided-missile patrol boat at Toejo Dong on North Korea’s east coast.
“North Korea is not showing any evidence it plans to halt its missile tests,” said one official who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive information. “It's a trend that does not bode well for hopes of de-escalating tensions on the [Korean] peninsula.
The latest moves by Pyongyang point to a likely missile test in the days ahead or it could be a defense measure should the U.S. Navy dispatch more warships to the Korean peninsula, officials said.”
-
The info was released by our intelligence agengies. Obviously they were directed to so the world would know what NK is up too. Otherwise, you'd have to believe our intelligence agencies are illegally releasing classified info to the press without approval.
Fake news, like more 'info' coming from the WH? Just asking, because only Fox had the report.
Another 'Weapons of Mass destruction' ploy, like before the Irak invasion? Just asking.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Are these the same pollsters who told us Hillary was a shoo-in?
Naw... ABC News/Washington Post poll (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-campaigns-end-close-unpopular-poll/story?id=43344414) had Hillary ahead 47 to 43 percent as of Nov 7th, 2016 and Hillary did win the popular vote by 2% so it was within the margin of error. But what national polls didn't do well was get the late breaking voter who went for Trump and the large number of voters who simply didn't vote. So, the national polls didn't see the 88,000 or so voter differences in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that made the difference in the Electoral vote. Change those votes and we have a different president to be pissed off at.
But if the polls not predicting a Trump/Putin win gives you any comfort, please believe anything you want...the fact is, any way you look at it, the polls aren't wrong now that Trump has an historically bad favorability rating now, right?
-
Jeff, everything Trump does is negative in your book. You really got to get over your mantra. It's blinding you. You're like the boy who cried wolf. Why aren't you complimenting Trump how he got the entire Security Council in the UN to vote 15-0 to add sanctions and condemn NK for the missile and nuclear tests.? He even got the Russians and the Chinese to vote with us. Would it prevent you from getting a good night sleep if you actually said he's done something right?
I sleep just fine...I'm an old white guy with money so I'm not worried about much other than, oh, say Trump threatening ‘Fire and Fury’ against North Korea...oh, wait, he just did (the upside is he didn't do it in a tweet).
Trump Threatens ‘Fire and Fury’ Against North Korea if It Endangers U.S. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/world/asia/north-korea-un-sanctions-nuclear-missile-united-nations.html?_r=0)
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — President Trump threatened on Tuesday to unleash “fire and fury” against North Korea if it endangers the United States as tensions with the isolated nuclear-armed state grow into perhaps the most serious foreign policy challenge yet in his young administration.
“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Mr. Trump told reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J. “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal state and as I said they will be met with fire and fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.”
But ya know, it's kinda hard to take him seriously when "bluster" is something he always seems to do (yeah, ok he wasted $59 mil in Cruise missiles to put a dent in a runway). And do ya really think Kim Jong-un is quaking in his boots by a threat broadcast from a golf course?
As for my seeing everything Trump does as negative, well, that's because pretty much everything Trump has done or will likely do is negative. I view Trump as a; Racist, Sexist, Islamaphobic, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Misogynistic, Fascist, Chauvinistic, Rude, Ignorant, Hateful, Demagogic, Insensitive, Incompetent, Lying, Egotistical, Despicable, Narcissistic, Fraudulent Orange Buffoon that is an embarrassment to America and danger to the world...
But, you know, other than that, I hate the guy.
Besides, it's way easier to find negative stories because, well he does so much negative stuff. It's really, really hard to find any good stuff Trump does. Besides, it's much more fun and therapeutic to find all the stuff that shows the Big Orange Buffoon™ as he actually is and not the way the he and his Minion™ depict him like on Donny's Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump) and that scary propaganda video Trump TV (https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10159619784950725/)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/TrumpTV.jpg)
Have you all seen Trump TV? I actually really love the "Real News" mashup Stephan Colbert did with Lara Trump broadcast (the 1st Real News)
Stephen Colbert Has Beef With Lara Trump’s ‘Real News’ Broadcast (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-colbert-lara-trump-real-news-facebook_us_59857e68e4b08b75dcc71656)
Really funny...and sad.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/TrumpTV-3.jpg)
and really, funny...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/TrumpTV-4.jpg)
Talk about #FAKENEWS!
-
Then there's this....
Trump gets a folder full of positive news about himself twice a day (https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house)
It’s known as the “propaganda document”
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/d4afbdea04af024a193928d6f91ee819?width=650)
Twice a day since the beginning of the Trump administration, a special folder is prepared for the president. The first document is prepared around 9:30 a.m. and the follow-up, around 4:30 p.m. Former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former Press Secretary Sean Spicer both wanted the privilege of delivering the 20-to-25-page packet to President Trump personally, White House sources say.
These sensitive papers, described to VICE News by three current and former White House officials, don’t contain top-secret intelligence or updates on legislative initiatives. Instead, the folders are filled with screenshots of positive cable news chyrons (those lower-third headlines and crawls), admiring tweets, transcripts of fawning TV interviews, praise-filled news stories, and sometimes just pictures of Trump on TV looking powerful.
One White House official said the only feedback the White House communications shop, which prepares the folder, has ever gotten in all these months is: “It needs to be more fucking positive.” That’s why some in the White House ruefully refer to the packet as “the propaganda document.”
Who's a good boy???
You're a good boy!!!
-
Fake news, like more 'info' coming from the WH? Just asking, because only Fox had the report.
Another 'Weapons of Mass destruction' ploy, like before the Irak invasion? Just asking.
Cheers,
Bart
Interesting that you believe CNN when only they have the news.
Well, in any case, the information about the details such as the type of missile, type of boat and the port the boat is leaving from are too specific to believe in was leaked from anyone but an intelligence agency. My guess, the administration wanted to world to know for political reasons to get their support against NK and for NK to know that we're watching their every move. If you're worried about a possible war, it's got to be upsetting to realize that your enemy has your military moves surveilled to that degree.
The thing that I'm concerned about and the world should be as well, is does the situation demand war? Yeah, I know people say Kim's nuts. But he isn't stupid. And frankly, if I was him, I'd want to have nukes too. But. they're not going to attack America knowing they'll get wiped out when we retaliate. They just want to protect their rotten little regime. So maybe we should just isolate them and ignore them. Let them stew in their Middle Kingdom. On the other hand, they will develop more and more nukes, so do we want to leave them there as a potential adversary for later when they will be more dangerous or take them out now?
What a mess.
-
Naw... ABC News/Washington Post poll (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-campaigns-end-close-unpopular-poll/story?id=43344414) had Hillary ahead 47 to 43 percent as of Nov 7th, 2016 and Hillary did win the popular vote by 2% so it was within the margin of error. But what national polls didn't do well was get the late breaking voter who went for Trump and the large number of voters who simply didn't vote. So, the national polls didn't see the 88,000 or so voter differences in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that made the difference in the Electoral vote. Change those votes and we have a different president to be pissed off at.
But if the polls not predicting a Trump/Putin win gives you any comfort, please believe anything you want...the fact is, any way you look at it, the polls aren't wrong now that Trump has an historically bad favorability rating now, right?
The only people who care about the president's low popularity polls are the losers and Trump. :)
He's going to be president for four years, and there are 3 1/2 more to go. So the polls are meaningless right now.
-
This article is long. Really really long. But oh so worth reading. Not an opinion piece, it's logical, clear and indisputable, it'll take you half an hour at least to read it. A lot of things make sense once you see this big picture.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
Go on, Alan. (and Ray) I dare you. :)
-
This article is long. Really really long. But oh so worth reading. Not an opinion piece, it's logical, clear and indisputable, it'll take you half an hour at least to read it. A lot of things make sense once you see this big picture.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
Go on, Alan. (and Ray) I dare you. :)
Many won't bother, sadly, but the first paragraph in and of itself is damning, if only because it contains Karl Rove's admission that the main thesis is right. Sadly, the article leaves out the second part of Rove's musing:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
The arrogance is by turns disgusting and laughable, except that far too many people believe to be acceptable.
-
This article is long. Really really long. But oh so worth reading. Not an opinion piece, it's logical, clear and indisputable, it'll take you half an hour at least to read it. A lot of things make sense once you see this big picture.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
Go on, Alan. (and Ray) I dare you. :)
Peter, I read The Atlantic only once in a while to find out what the left is thinking. The article writer, Kurt Anderson, is a leftist who thinks the Left is right and the Right is unhinged. What else is new? You have to be smoking something to declare "...it's not an opinion piece, it's logical, clear and indisputable..." I won't waste my time disputing its one-sidedness.
-
Peter, I read The Atlantic only once in a while to find out what the left is thinking. The article writer, Kurt Anderson, is a leftist who thinks the Left is right and the Right is unhinged. What else is new? You have to be smoking something to declare "...it's not an opinion piece, it's logical, clear and indisputable..." I won't waste my time disputing its one-sidedness.
Atlantic is about as centrist as you find these days. It's basically beacon of nonpartisan rationality, with longform content that speaks to those of us who have little interest in soundbites and 140-character stupidity.
-
Atlantic is about as centrist as you find these days. It's basically beacon of nonpartisan rationality, with longform content that speaks to those of us who have little interest in soundbites and 140-character stupidity.
They're Left Biased. Not as bad as CNNN or MSNBC or some of the mainstream media.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/
-
Interesting that you believe CNN when only they have the news.
Well, in any case, the information about the details such as the type of missile, type of boat and the port the boat is leaving from are too specific to believe in was leaked from anyone but an intelligence agency. My guess, the administration wanted to world to know for political reasons to get their support against NK and for NK to know that we're watching their every move. If you're worried about a possible war, it's got to be upsetting to realize that your enemy has your military moves surveilled to that degree.
The thing that I'm concerned about and the world should be as well, is does the situation demand war? Yeah, I know people say Kim's nuts. But he isn't stupid. And frankly, if I was him, I'd want to have nukes too. But. they're not going to attack America knowing they'll get wiped out when we retaliate. They just want to protect their rotten little regime. So maybe we should just isolate them and ignore them. Let them stew in their Middle Kingdom. On the other hand, they will develop more and more nukes, so do we want to leave them there as a potential adversary for later when they will be more dangerous or take them out now?
What a mess.
We ought to get the Congress involved. This shouldn't be Trump's decision. Going to war is up to Congress. This requires a big discussion in the public.
-
They're Left Biased. Not as bad as CNNN or MSNBC or some of the mainstream media.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/
Nevertheless, from your own link:
"...it has grown to achieve a national reputation as a high-quality review organ with a moderate worldview. The periodical has won more National Magazine Awards than any other monthly magazine. Has a slightly liberal bias in reporting coverage, put produces exceptional journalism that is sourced and factual."
In other words, it's hardly fair to call it a place to visit only to find out "what the left is thinking."
-
Nevertheless, from your own link:
"...it has grown to achieve a national reputation as a high-quality review organ with a moderate worldview. The periodical has won more National Magazine Awards than any other monthly magazine. Has a slightly liberal bias in reporting coverage, put produces exceptional journalism that is sourced and factual."
In other words, it's hardly fair to call it a place to visit only to find out "what the left is thinking."
You make a good point. Well, that's why I read them once in awhile rather then the way left where the crazies are just out of their minds. Of course, the author is very important. The one for the article is left thinking. I glanced through his article. The impression I got was that he thought the right believed falsehoods more than the left. I disagree. We're all capable of allowing our egos to distort the truth. No one has a monopoly on BS.
-
I won't waste my time disputing its one-sidedness.
Surprise, surprise.
-
Well, this would be good for the climate :~)
Al Gore says 'ethical reasons' could end Trump presidency early (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-gore-idUSKBN1AO2MD)
(http://cdn.charismanews.com/images/stories/2017/07/Reuters-Al-Gore-Inconvenient-Sequel.jpg)
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore attends a screening for "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power"
in Los Angeles, California, U.S., July 25, 2017.
BERLIN (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore suggested on Tuesday that the presidency of Donald Trump could end prematurely for "ethical reasons," drawing laughter from a packed movie theater at the European premiere of his latest film on climate change.
"We’re only six months into the experiment with Trump. Some experiments are ended early for ethical reasons," Gore said, acknowledging the "provocative" nature of his comment.
Gore said he was convinced that U.S. cities, states and business executives would meet U.S. obligations under the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change, despite Trump's decision in June to withdraw from the global pact.
"We have a global agreement and the American people are part of this agreement in spite of Donald Trump," he told hundreds of moviegoers at Berlin's Zoo Palast cinema after a showing of his new film, "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power."
"We can win this ... All we need is the political will," he said, adding his hope that the United States would "soon once again" have a leader who was committed to halting global warming.
-
And on the subject of Climate Change, as far as Trump is concerned. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the report, now that we can compare the unofficial original with a revised official version, if it's ever officially published ...
US government’s grim climate summary draft gets unofficially published
Fate of congressionally mandated report uncertain in the face of Trump’s disbelief.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/us-government-scientists-finish-climate-study-will-it-be-published/
QUOTE "In 1990, during the presidency of the first George Bush, Congress passed the Global Change Research Act. Along with reorganizing government-funded climate research, the Act stipulates that, every four years, the federal agencies involved provide an update on the state of climate science.
It has been four years, and the next report's draft has been completed and has undergone scientific vetting.
The draft paints a grim picture of how the US is already dealing with a variety of issues related to climate change and how much worse most of those issues will get during the coming decades. And the report places the blame squarely on humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.
This message won't go over well with the administration of President Donald Trump, which has a number of members who are openly hostile to the scientific community's conclusions. As a result, a lot of people are worried that the report will never be formally published or its conclusions will be watered down by further edits. These are the fears that undoubtedly prompted someone to leak the draft to The New York Times.
[...]"
The Ars Technica article also mentions the censoring of the terms used by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which I addressed at a different table in the Coffee Corner but didn't want to cross post:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg991645#msg991645
Here's the link to the Final (but yet unofficial) report as published by the New York times:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html
and here's the link to the PDF document itself:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf
Cheers,
Bart
-
Are these the same pollsters who told us Hillary was a shoo-in on election night?
No these are the same polls that predicted Hillary getting 2-3% more votes than Trump did. Which turned out to be pretty close.
-
No these are the same polls that predicted Hillary getting 2-3% more votes than Trump did. Which turned out to be pretty close.
Care to quote those polls? Since it falls within a margin of error, any such poll would have described it as a "dead heat race" at the time. I don't remember anyone saying it.
-
No these are the same polls that predicted Hillary getting 2-3% more votes than Trump did. Which turned out to be pretty close.
The N Y Times gave Clinton an 85% chance of winning the morning of the election. That's about 6-1 odds against Trump. For months before the election, every TV show and political analyst explained with those maps how there was "no path to electoral victory" for Trump. Until there was. The polls were wrong. Get over it.
-
Care to quote those polls? Since it falls within a margin of error, any such poll would have described it as a "dead heat race" at the time. I don't remember anyone saying it.
I think that's exactly the problem. The polls I saw here in Europe showed indeed a small margin for Clinton. It was however the analysis and commentary of these poll results that was way out of wack. Normally one would have expected that "objective" pollsters would have called it "too close to call", but they didn't. Their analysis and commentary was too much skewed by "wishful thinking". Even looking at the raw results I as a layman in statistics didn't understand why they had such high confidence in Clinton winning on such a small margin (and small sample size). Let's hope they have learned from this, but I'm not holding my breath.
-
Then there's this....
Trump gets a folder full of positive news about himself twice a day (https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folder-positive-news-white-house)
It’s known as the “propaganda document”
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/d4afbdea04af024a193928d6f91ee819?width=650)
Who's a good boy???
You're a good boy!!!
I need to ask because I can't tell anymore. Is this for real?
-
I need to ask because I can't tell anymore. Is this for real?
Sadly, yes...multiple sources. And semi-confirmed (or at least not denied) by Spicer (although he claims it's not really called the "propaganda document". So that's kinda a non-denial denial.
-
Uh ho...does Trump think God is on our side?
Evangelical Adviser: God Has OK'd Trump to 'Take Out' Kim (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/evangelical-adviser-robert-jeffress-bible/2017/08/08/id/806578/)
(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/9f/9f43f23c-bc37-4fa1-a1f2-059d82d995df.jpg)
Donald Trump's evangelical adviser Tuesday said God had given the president the authority to "take out" North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
"When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil," Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas said in a statement.
"In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un. I'm heartened to see that our president — contrary to what we've seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors — will not tolerate any threat against the American people. When President Trump draws a red line, he will not erase it, move it, or back away from it. Thank God for a President who is serious about protecting our country."
So, Trump has God's permission? Does anybody else think this is creepy? Who is Trump listening to, his generals or his religious advisors?
-
Sadly, yes...multiple sources. And semi-confirmed (or at least not denied) by Spicer (although he claims it's not really called the "propaganda document". So that's kinda a non-denial denial.
Every day the bar gets lower. It's amazing to watch, in its own way.
-
Trump still wants to treat addiction like a crime instead of a disease–which is backward and reminiscent of the stupid "Just Say No" approach of Nancy Reagan.
Addiction is both a mental and physical disease and should be treated like a medical condition not unlike type 2 diabetes or medical conditions caused by environmental rather than genetic conditions. It would seem that Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price might have a friggin' clue since he's a former medical professional (orthopedic surgeon). His background is, ironically one of the primary sources of opioid addiction caused by over prescription of opioid pain relievers.
So, rather than declare a health emergency, Trump is just gonna step up law enforcement and strengthening security on the southern border to stop illegal drugs–which isn't really doesn't address the problems of medically induced addiction caused by over prescribing...but hey, wave your hands and look busy is always easier than actually doing something useful.
Trump says he'll beat opioid epidemic with law-and-order approach (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/trump-opioid-epidemic-heroin-241416)
President Donald Trump on Tuesday vowed his administration would beat the opioid epidemic by beefing up law enforcement and strengthening security on the southern border to stop illegal drugs from entering the country.
Trump, joined in Bedminster, New Jersey, by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and other administration officials, emphasized a tough law-and-order approach, rather than new treatment or social programs, as the White House's primary strategy for halting an epidemic that kills 142 Americans every day, according to federal statistics.
"Strong law enforcement is absolutely vital to having a drug-free society," Trump said. "I'm confident that by working with our health care and law enforcement experts we will fight this deadly epidemic and the United States will win." The remarks echoed similar comments made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier this summer.
Trump as a candidate vowed to confront a public health crisis that has hit states he carried in the presidential campaign — like West Virginia and Kentucky — especially hard.
Trump on Tuesday stopped short of declaring the crisis a national emergency — a recommendation the White House's opioid commission, led by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, made last week.
Price later told reporters the administration is treating the opioid epidemic as an emergency, but that it does not need to make a formal declaration.
(https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/2016/06/070916_opioids_deathgraph_730.png)
Pretty sure 2015 & 2016 deaths have risen considerably...
Oh, so it's an emergency, but not serious enough to declare it as such.
-
I think that's exactly the problem. The polls I saw here in Europe showed indeed a small margin for Clinton. It was however the analysis and commentary of these poll results that was way out of wack. Normally one would have expected that "objective" pollsters would have called it "too close to call", but they didn't. Their analysis and commentary was too much skewed by "wishful thinking". Even looking at the raw results I as a layman in statistics didn't understand why they had such high confidence in Clinton winning on such a small margin (and small sample size). Let's hope they have learned from this, but I'm not holding my breath.
First off, Presidents don't win elections by the popular vote. It's the electoral vote that counts. That's why all those maps of the 50 states on TV where the pundits explained over and over again for months how there was no chance for Trump to win electorally was the main mistake. Trump actually won 306-232 electoral votes or 57%-43%. The way the experts had the electoral votes going, Hillary should have won 60%-40%.
Also, the so-called "minimal" 70,000 vote margin Trump had in the key states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, are deceiving. Clinton should have won those states by a million votes. So what happened was that over a million traditional Democrats switched sides in those three key states, not just the 70,000 the media keeps referring too. So the press should be talking about how 1,070,000 voters made the difference, not 70,000. But as usual, they're distorting the results by only talking about the 70,000 to make his win in those three states seem less impressive than it was.
In any case, if Clinton actually won those three states, the final electoral results would have been only 274 Clinton to 264 Trump or electorally 50.7% Clinton to 49.3% Trump, much, much less than her predicted landslide. She had been expected to win with 335 electoral votes or over 60% of the electoral vote. That means that she also didn't win many other states where she had been expected to do better.
Like you said, the commentary was "out of wack and wishful thinking".
-
Uh ho...does Trump think God is on our side?
Evangelical Adviser: God Has OK'd Trump to 'Take Out' Kim[/url? Does anybody else think this is creepy? Who is Trump listening to, his generals or his religious advisors?
(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/evangelical-adviser-robert-jeffress-bible/2017/08/08/id/806578/)
Creepy doesn't begin to cover it. Read the article from The Atlantic.
Alan refuses to because it's a "waste of his time", but the rest of us need to pay attention to this idiocy.
-
Creepy doesn't begin to cover it. Read the article from The Atlantic.
Alan refuses to because it's a "waste of his time", but the rest of us need to pay attention to this idiocy.
I agree that Trump shouldn't take military advice from the clergy. On the other hand, Clinton took advice from Monica. :)
-
I don't know what is more disturbing
A religious adviser stating "When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil," That sounds like a lot like how terrorists justify their actions.
or a President listening to this crap.
Last time I looked, the United States was not a theocracy.
-
I don't know what is more disturbing
A religious adviser stating "When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil," That sounds like a lot like how terrorists justify their actions.
or a President listening to this crap.
Last time I looked, the United States was not a theocracy.
You use to claim Trump was a heathen who supported bible thumpers only for political advantage. Now you're saying he's a holy man who will go to war according to advice from preachers. Which is it?
I sincerely doubt Trump is going to listen to Deuteronomy.
"Melania, please hand me my bible. I want to check to see what I should do regarding North Korea. Gee, I wonder if it says anything about Putin?"
-
First off, Presidents don't win elections by the popular vote. It's the electoral vote that counts. That's why all those maps of the 50 states on TV where the pundits explained over and over again for months how there was no chance for Trump to win electorally was the main mistake. Trump actually won 306-232 electoral votes or 57%-43%. The way the experts had the electoral votes going, Hillary should have won 60%-40%.
Also, the so-called "minimal" 70,000 vote margin Trump had in the key states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, are deceiving. Clinton should have won those states by a million votes. So what happened was that over a million traditional Democrats switched sides in those three key states, not just the 70,000 the media keeps referring too. So the press should be talking about how 1,070,000 voters made the difference, not 70,000. But as usual, they're distorting the results by only talking about the 70,000 to make his win in those three states seem less impressive than it was.
In any case, if Clinton actually won those three states, the final electoral results would have been only 274 Clinton to 264 Trump or electorally 50.7% Clinton to 49.3% Trump, much, much less than her predicted landslide. She had been expected to win with 335 electoral votes or over 60% of the electoral vote. That means that she also didn't win many other states where she had been expected to do better.
Like you said, the commentary was "out of wack and wishful thinking".
Yes, I know all those details, which is my main reason for calling it that way. No need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs ;)
The way the polls were commented on in the media might even have helped Trump, it made Clinton voters feel secure and not vote while it encouraged Trump voters to go out and vote. You never can be sure but it was a cardinal mistake of the Clinton campaign to neglect certain states which they though they would win but lost in the end because they didn't read the sentiments there well enough.
-
Trump still wants to treat addiction like a crime instead of a disease–which is backward and reminiscent of the stupid "Just Say No" approach of Nancy Reagan.
Addiction is both a mental and physical disease and should be treated like a medical condition not unlike type 2 diabetes or medical conditions caused by environmental rather than genetic conditions. It would seem that Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price might have a friggin' clue since he's a former medical professional (orthopedic surgeon). His background is, ironically one of the primary sources of opioid addiction caused by over prescription of opioid pain relievers.
So, rather than declare a health emergency, Trump is just gonna step up law enforcement and strengthening security on the southern border to stop illegal drugs–which isn't really doesn't address the problems of medically induced addiction caused by over prescribing...but hey, wave your hands and look busy is always easier than actually doing something useful.
Trump says he'll beat opioid epidemic with law-and-order approach (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/08/trump-opioid-epidemic-heroin-241416)
(https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/2016/06/070916_opioids_deathgraph_730.png)
Pretty sure 2015 & 2016 deaths have risen considerably...
Oh, so it's an emergency, but not serious enough to declare it as such.
Stop drug use by stepping up border controls? Is this some kind of joke? The reason drugs are crossing the border is not because those evil foreigners want to pollute America with drugs, it's because there is a demand for them. Could anything be more obvious.
The war on drugs is an utter failure, time to change tactics. A lot of the rest of the world, and many americans (maybe even most) realize this.
After 2 generations of the "tough on crime" approach to drugs, nobody can even keep drugs out of prisons, where the doors are locked and there are CCTV cameras above each entrance/exit and we know everyone who goes in and out. This is pure farce.
-
... Addiction is both a mental and physical disease and should be treated like a medical condition not unlike type 2 diabetes...
Oh, dear Lord! Another knee-jerk reaction of the left, when everything can be blamed on somebody or something else, never a personal responsibility. It is a self-inflicted wound, just like alcoholism, smoking, obesity, etc.
My solution: legalize all drugs. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead.
-
How Does the federal government stop the desire to use drugs? Basically, its main capability centers around enforcement. Stopping drugs at the border or stopping interstatet distribution of drugs. I suppose they can also tweak drug regulations regarding legal prescriptions of opiates. I believe The federal government also provides funding to the states for treatment programs.
But the rest is up to the states and local communities. Judges send violaters to treatment programs, detox centers, rehabs, 12 step programs, but all of these require that the individuals want to be helped. Local police do much of the hard work in arresting the criminals who sell the drugs locally. The feds aren't involved.
What is your solution? Should we allow open sales of opiods, meth, heroin, etc, ?
-
Handling the "drug problem" through the criminal courts has been an abject failure. A spectacular abject failure by any measure. Almost anything else is better, maybe even doing nothing, i.e., let anybody buy and use whatever they like.
Many jurisdictions around the world are showing some success (e.g., Portugal), at much less cost, by removing drugs from the criminal realm and regulating their access, the way you don't let underage kids into adult movies or not allowing them to buy liquor. As much as Slobodan dislikes the "loonie left" language of the medical model, he is in fact agreeing with that idea and is advocating the same thing in the end, though he may not realize it. For the harder drugs, heroin and so on, regulated dispensing stations where addicts can obtain the drug and use it in a safe place seem to work fine where they've been tried. This approach eliminates two things, criminal gangs and the need for addicts to commit crimes to maintain their addiction. You could argue that these are the only two real issues with the drug trade that affects the wider society, i.e., non-users.
Of course, all those for-profit prison corporations may not like it much, but they're funded by tax money in the end, so if they go away, who cares? I'm sure that most people will agree that corporations that are funded by government that don't do anything useful should not exist.
In Alan's last post above he asks, "What is your solution? Should we allow open sales of opiods, meth, heroin, etc, ?", I would reply that's what we have now anyway. Who is kidding who? You (and me) and everyone else reading this board can probably obtain any illegal substance you choose with a couple of phone calls. The notion that police action has, in any way, even slowed down the availability of drugs in the last 50 years is farce. I can recall a supply teacher in 1968 in Montreal asking some of the students where he could score. The M.B.A. general manager of the office in my first job went around asking where he could get some, and he was a pillar of the business community.
The quaint notion that drugs are these evil things that evil people are poisoning our society with is absurd. It was and is just supply and demand, and there is a HUGE demand, except that it's run by criminal gangs. Drugs are supposedly illegal in nearly all countries, yet there exists a huge international trade in illegal drugs that keeps growing every year and that in some countries has produced gangs that rival governments in power. How has that happened at the same time as we've had a worldwide "war on drugs"? The "tough on crime" approach to drug control is not even trending in the right direction, let alone working. And it costs a ton of money.
One thing is certain. What we've been doing up till now will never make things better, not for the users and not for the larger culture.
-
Oh, dear Lord! Another knee-jerk reaction of the left, when everything can be blamed on somebody or something else, never a personal responsibility. It is a self-inflicted wound, just like alcoholism, smoking, obesity, etc.
So, Slobodan, where did you get your medical license?
Have you ever been addicted to drugs or alcohol Slobodan?
Ever had a friend or family member die from addiction?
Ever been through a rehab?
Ever studied addiction and the causes of addiction?
Ever studied the mesolimbic dopamine system?
Ever seen active MRI's of an addict's brain under the influence?
Do you have even a half of a clue of what you are talking about?
Once somebody crosses the line of addiction, no amount of wishing or hoping or thinking can keep an addict from taking drugs or alcohol. The dopamine system takes control over the dopaminergic pathway in the brain. The pathway connects the ventral tegmental area, which is located in the midbrain, to the nucleus accumbens. This is the most primitive portion of the brain and completely overpowers the more recently developed forebrain of the cerebral cortex-the "thinking" or logical part of the brain. It basically means you lose the ability to think logically.
Ya see Slobodan, once somebody's mesolimbic dopamine system has been compromised by addiction, there's nothing the thinking portion of the brain can do to control the addiction. That's why normal people think addicts are so weak and can't control their thinking...because they no longer have the physical capability to do so...not unless they get help both medically as well as psychologically.
Your backwards and primitive perception of the problem is the real problem. You want to treat addicts as criminals as apposed to mentally and physically ill.
I know about addiction and alcoholism because I've been personally effected by alcoholism and I also had a roommate die from his addiction. So, unless you can prove to me that you have half a clue about this, you might just want to back off this subject...until you learn what addiction and alcoholism really is.
-
Handling the "drug problem" through the criminal courts has been an abject failure. A spectacular abject failure by any measure. Almost anything else is better, maybe even doing nothing, i.e., let anybody buy and use whatever they like.
Many jurisdictions around the world are showing some success (e.g., Portugal), at much less cost, by removing drugs from the criminal realm and regulating their access, the way you don't let underage kids into adult movies or not allowing them to buy liquor. As much as Slobodan dislikes the "loonie left" language of the medical model, he is in fact agreeing with that idea and is advocating the same thing in the end, though he may not realize it. For the harder drugs, heroin and so on, regulated dispensing stations where addicts can obtain the drug and use it in a safe place seem to work fine where they've been tried. This approach eliminates two things, criminal gangs and the need for addicts to commit crimes to maintain their addiction. You could argue that these are the only two real issues with the drug trade that affects the wider society, i.e., non-users.
Of course, all those for-profit prison corporations may not like it much, but they're funded by tax money in the end, so if they go away, who cares? I'm sure that most people will agree that corporations that are funded by government that don't do anything useful should not exist.
In Alan's last post above he asks, "What is your solution? Should we allow open sales of opiods, meth, heroin, etc, ?", I would reply that's what we have now anyway. Who is kidding who? You (and me) and everyone else reading this board can probably obtain any illegal substance you choose with a couple of phone calls. The notion that police action has, in any way, even slowed down the availability of drugs in the last 50 years is farce. I can recall a supply teacher in 1968 in Montreal asking some of the students where he could score. The M.B.A. general manager of the office in my first job went around asking where he could get some, and he was a pillar of the business community.
The quaint notion that drugs are these evil things that evil people are poisoning our society with is absurd. It was and is just supply and demand, and there is a HUGE demand, except that it's run by criminal gangs. Drugs are supposedly illegal in nearly all countries, yet there exists a huge international trade in illegal drugs that keeps growing every year and that in some countries has produced gangs that rival governments in power. How has that happened at the same time as we've had a worldwide "war on drugs"? The "tough on crime" approach to drug control is not even trending in the right direction, let alone working. And it costs a ton of money.
One thing is certain. What we've been doing up till now will never make things better, not for the users and not for the larger culture.
Regarding "criminal courts are an abject failure". You're wrong. First, they get pushers off the street and punish them for hurting society. Second, criminal courts have taken a modern approach to users and minors violators who use as well. They mandate them to detoxes, rehabs, and 12 step programs or jail. Many choose the former to stay out of jail. It helps many get off the drugs (and alcohol, a legal substance, if they've been arrested for drunk driving). But of course, many will relapse. The point is, criminal courts are not an "abject failure", at least not where I live in New Jersey. Many jurisdictions today have moved on to this enlightened approach of helping rather than jailing. I guess you haven't heard about it.
Regarding government provided drugs, I'm morally and ethically against it. Government should not be in the business of providing substances that hurt citizens and will kill many. If someone wants to kill themselves using drugs, let them buy it illegally. I don't want my tax money being spent to kill other people.
-
How Does the federal government stop the desire to use drugs? Basically, its main capability centers around enforcement. Stopping drugs at the border or stopping interstatet distribution of drugs. I suppose they can also tweak drug regulations regarding legal prescriptions of opiates.
I guess you didn't bother to read the chart in the article I posted? Look at the deaths due to PRESCRIPTION OPIODS...notice something? The majority of the deaths are due to prescription drugs dummy, not the drugs smuggled over the border.
And if you had half a clue, the vast majority of the opioid drugs being smuggled is NOT heroin, it's fentanyl and it ain't coming over the border just from Mexico, it's coming over from Canada as "legal" precursor chemicals from China and being chemically converted to fentanyl in a very, very dangerous manner by amateur chemists who prolly don't have a clue about proper pharmaceutical procedures and likely make the drugs so strong you can overdose just by topical contamination–which is happening to cops who raid drug houses. In fact some police jurisdictions are not letting officers field test drugs because of the risk and have to wait till the drug teams get into place to test the drugs safely.
Naw, sorry bud...this is an area where you and Slobodan are woefully ignorant–as Trump himself is.
One would have thought that Price would have had a clue but it's his type of doctor that is responsible for over-prescribing opioids in the first place. Kids and adults with injuries get pain killers, then get addicted and buy heroin or fentanyl because it so much cheaper than legal prescriptions on the street.
Heroin used to be an inner-city black problem, now it's a suburban and rural white problem. Trump had promised to deal with the opioid epidemic while on the campaign trail but now that he's in office, somehow the emergency is not a national crisis, just something that can be dealt with by stronger enforcement.
Wonder what all those Trump voters with strung out kids that expected Trump to help them will think of that as a solution? They gonna be happy with better drug enforcement and locking their kids away instead of treating them for the disease of addiction?
-
Regarding "criminal courts are an abject failure". You're wrong. First, they get pushers off the street and punish them for hurting society.
The police and the courts have done nothing of the kind. We would have run out of drug dealers a long time ago if that were true, or if it was even just trending in that direction.
You're still calling them "pushers". They're "sellers" responding to a demand, a huge demand.
Regarding government provided drugs, I'm morally and ethically against it. Government should not be in the business of providing substances that hurt citizens and will kill many. If someone wants to kill themselves using drugs, let them buy it illegally. I don't want my tax money being spent to kill other people.
Hard to know what to say to this. For someone who claims strong spiritual beliefs, it's an odd position to take. People who become addicts are not evil-doers who deserve to die. They're probably your neighbours.
When a problem gets big enough that it cannot be resolved by other means, you don't think that the government has a role to play? What an odd position, since it would be cheaper and more effective than the way governments are handling the issue now. Anyway your governments and mine oversee all kinds of things now that may possibly harm people, gambling, over the counter and prescription drugs, tobacco, alcohol.
You already have a free market in drugs, they're everywhere, in every suburb, everywhere. The idea that the police and courts can stop anything that big is unrealistic.
They can't keep drugs out of prisons !
-
I guess you didn't bother to read the chart in the article I posted? Look at the deaths due to PRESCRIPTION OPIODS...notice something? The majority of the deaths are due to prescription drugs dummy, not the drugs smuggled over the border.
And if you had half a clue, the vast majority of the opioid drugs being smuggled is NOT heroin, it's fentanyl and it ain't coming over the border just from Mexico, it's coming over from Canada as "legal" precursor chemicals from China and being chemically converted to fentanyl in a very, very dangerous manner by amateur chemists who prolly don't have a clue about proper pharmaceutical procedures and likely make the drugs so strong you can overdose just by topical contamination–which is happening to cops who raid drug houses. In fact some police jurisdictions are not letting officers field test drugs because of the risk and have to wait till the drug teams get into place to test the drugs safely.
Naw, sorry bud...this is an area where you and Slobodan are woefully ignorant–as Trump himself is.
One would have thought that Price would have had a clue but it's his type of doctor that is responsible for over-prescribing opioids in the first place. Kids and adults with injuries get pain killers, then get addicted and buy heroin or fentanyl because it so much cheaper than legal prescriptions on the street.
Heroin used to be an inner-city black problem, now it's a suburban and rural white problem. Trump had promised to deal with the opioid epidemic while on the campaign trail but now that he's in office, somehow the emergency is not a national crisis, just something that can be dealt with by stronger enforcement.
Wonder what all those Trump voters with strung out kids that expected Trump to help them will think of that as a solution? They gonna be happy with better drug enforcement and locking their kids away instead of treating them for the disease of addiction?
Jeff, you quoted me but didn't read what you quoted. I said, "...I suppose they (the Feds) can also tweak drug regulations regarding legal prescriptions of opiates." I recognize the major issue with people getting addicted to opiods due to legal prescriptions. Doctors seem to be handing out these prescriptions like candy. Since government controls this area, they may be able to implement some sort of policy that prevents initial addiction by reducing prescription or dosage. I know many people need these prescriptions. So I don't know how this best could be handled by the feds and doctors. But I do recognize the issue. Also, if they can come up with a workable procedure, that would alleviate the downstream problem since unaddicted people don't buy drugs on the street. You really need to slow down before calling me a "dummy" and "woefully ignorant". Your vile insults are really getting over the top. Especially when we're on the same page.
-
Paul Manafort: FBI raided home of former Trump chairman (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879798)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/35F9/production/_97271831_1da5b44f-4e29-4ff7-b71e-467827516c57.jpg)
The FBI has conducted a pre-dawn raid on the Virginia home of Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, his spokesman confirmed.
Federal agents are said to have seized files and other material on 26 July, a day after Mr Manafort voluntarily met the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Mr Manafort left the Trump campaign over questions about his foreign ties.
The FBI is leading one of several investigations into alleged Russian meddling in last year's US election.
Special counsel Robert Mueller, who heads up the FBI investigation, left Mr Manafort's Alexandria home with "various records", the Washington Post first reported.
A day before the raid, Mr Manafort voluntarily met a congressional panel that is also investigating Russia's alleged influence on the 2016 election.
Analysts say the search warrant suggests investigators wanted to be sure Mr Manafort would hand over all records in response to a grand jury subpoena.
Federal agents searched for tax documents and foreign bank records, US media reported.
-
Uh ho...does Trump think God is on our side?
Evangelical Adviser: God Has OK'd Trump to 'Take Out' Kim (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/evangelical-adviser-robert-jeffress-bible/2017/08/08/id/806578/)
(http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/9f/9f43f23c-bc37-4fa1-a1f2-059d82d995df.jpg)
So, Trump has God's permission? Does anybody else think this is creepy? Who is Trump listening to, his generals or his religious advisors?
The thing that worries me most about this kind of spiritual advice is that we are always forced to rely on self-declared middle-men, various preachers of one kind or another. Shouldn't we insist on hearing from the creator directly on the really important stuff, like nuclear war for instance.
-
The police and the courts have done nothing of the kind. We would have run out of drug dealers a long time ago if that were true, or if it was even just trending in that direction.
You're still calling them "pushers". They're "sellers" responding to a demand, a huge demand.
Hard to know what to say to this. For someone who claims strong spiritual beliefs, it's an odd position to take. People who become addicts are not evil-doers who deserve to die. They're probably your neighbours.
When a problem gets big enough that it cannot be resolved by other means, you don't think that the government has a role to play? What an odd position, since it would be cheaper and more effective than the way governments are handling the issue now. Anyway your governments and mine oversee all kinds of things now that may possibly harm people, gambling, over the counter and prescription drugs, tobacco, alcohol.
You already have a free market in drugs, they're everywhere, in every suburb, everywhere. The idea that the police and courts can stop anything that big is unrealistic.
They can't keep drugs out of prisons !
Well, thanks for cherry picking my post. You totally ignored my second point how the courts help addicts and alcoholics by mandating them to rehabilitation instead of jail. That doesn't make courts as you said an "abject failure". Many of these addicts and alcoholics recover and live sober, productive lives. By passing out government provided drugs or not punishing them, they would have no incentive to try to get better. Government and we the people would condemn them to addiction for the rest of their lives. To me, that's the immoral concept.
-
Well, thanks for cherry picking my post. You totally ignored my second point how the courts help addicts and alcoholics by mandating them to rehabilitation instead of jail. That doesn't make courts as you said an "abject failure". Many of these addicts and alcoholics recover and live sober, productive lives. By passing out government provided drugs or not punishing them, they would have no incentive to try to get better. Government and we the people would condemn them to addiction for the rest of their lives. To me, that's the immoral concept.
Don't misrepresent things. The government agencies who supply these services do not simply pump the stuff into people's arms to make a profit. They are all part of larger rehabilitation projects, probably the same ones that you're so gung-ho about.
-
Don't misrepresent things. The government agencies who supply these services do not simply pump the stuff into people's arms to make a profit. They are all part of larger rehabilitation projects, probably the same ones that you're so gung-ho about.
If government provides a choice to addicts, to either go to a rehab or government will give them free drugs, what do you suppose the addicts will choose? Of course, they'll choose free drugs and we'll be condemning them to a lifetime of addiction. I wouldn't want to pay for that immoral plan.
However, I would go along with the government providing temporary drugs while the addict is in a rehab to help him detox. But that's a short time situation not a lifetime of free drugs.
-
I said, "...I suppose they (the Feds) can also tweak drug regulations regarding legal prescriptions of opiates."
TWEAK??? Are you kidding? Obama and the DEA already seriously tightened the screws on opioid prescriptions–which ironically has lead to the problem that people who become addicted to legally prescribed opioids then turn to illegal heroin and street fentanyl because the legal prescriptions are now so hard to get.
What the Feds (read DEA, FDA, CDC, AMA) need to put much tighter controls over the prescription pain market while still making sure the people who need them get them but also medially help the percent of people who become addicted–which can happen with a single prescription in some people.
The Feds need to approach the problem of drug addiction as a medical problem, not a legal problem. You can lock up all the drug dealers and addicts and the medical profession will create new addicts each day. When new addicts are created, new dealers will provide the addicts what they need.
Much of this could be mitigated if society understood the problem better and dealt with the problem in a medically humane manner. But sadly, it ain't free. Medicaid (something the GOP was trying to cut) handles many of the payments to the state run rehab centers–which are over crowded and underfunded as it is.
I suspect that's exactly why Trump ignored the interim report prepared for the Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis that said:
The first and most urgent recommendation of this Commission is direct and completely within your control. Declare a national emergency under either the Public Health Service Act or the Stafford Act. With approximately 142 Americans dying every day, America is enduring a death toll equal to September 11th every three weeks. After September 11th, our President and our nation banded together to use every tool at our disposal to prevent any further American deaths. Your declaration would empower your cabinet to take bold steps and would force Congress to focus on funding and empowering the Executive Branch even further to deal with this loss of life. It would also awaken every American to this simple fact: if this scourge has not found you or your family yet, without bold action by everyone, it soon will. You, Mr. President, are the only person who can bring this type of intensity to the emergency and we believe you have the will to do so and to do so immediately.
So, Trump creates a commission then choses to ignore their most urgent recommendation of the commission?
Sorry if you were offended by my language, but this is a very serious problem that has directly impacted me and my family so unless you can show some actual knowledge and personal experience on this problem, I will consider your opinions less than fully informed. This problem isn't about "opinions" it's abut knowledge and experience and the facts. And in this subject I know a lot more than both you and Slobodan and I'll tell you that supporting Trump in his ill-informed and ignorant position is doing a great disservice to all those addicts out there suffering...
-
Translation: Have at it hoss, but clean up your own sh*t.
You got anything even mildly useful to say on the subject?
-
... Once somebody crosses the line of addiction...
There you go. That's all someone needs to know about addiction. Don't cross. I didn't.
And where did you find that I advocate treating addicts like criminals? I specifically said "legitimize all drugs." That would take the crime out on both sides, suppliers and users.
-
This was written Aug 1st...but sadly it seems New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who chairs President Trump’s opioid commission was unable to convince Trump of the importance of declaring a national emergency under either the Public Health Service Act or the Stafford Act...
Trump’s Opioid Commission Listened To Public Health Experts (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-opioid-commission-listened-to-public-health-experts/)
President Trump’s drug commission says the opioids epidemic has become a national crisis that requires aggressive federal action to improve treatment and collect better data. Those conclusions line up with the views of many health policy researchers.
After missing its deadline twice, Trump’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis on Monday presented an interim report of policy recommendations for handling the nation’s opioid epidemic. The commission’s preliminary recommendations are largely in line with those of many public health advocates: The report emphasizes treatment over law enforcement; backs the use of medical alternatives to heroin such as methadone; and makes no mention of Trump’s border wall, which the president has often touted as a way to stop the flow of drugs into the country. Perhaps most significantly, the commission called on the president to declare a national emergency under either the Public Service Health Act or Stafford Act. Doing so would give the government the power to respond more aggressively to the crisis, including by modifying requirements for health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare to make it easier for patients to seek treatment for addiction.
“I think finally this is a high-level message to say we are in a crisis, that we’ve moved beyond epidemic to a crisis,” said Daniel Ciccarone, who is a professor at the University of California, San Francisco’s medical school and studies heroin use. “The commission clearly understands that and clearly wants to send the signal to the president to concur with them.”
If you want to have a real (and useful) conversation on this subject, it would be useful to read the actual interim report which is available as a PDF HERE (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/ondcp/commission-interim-report.pdf).
-
TWEAK??? Are you kidding? Obama and the DEA already seriously tightened the screws on opioid prescriptions–which ironically has lead to the problem that people who become addicted to legally prescribed opioids then turn to illegal heroin and street fentanyl because the legal prescriptions are now so hard to get.
What the Feds (read DEA, FDA, CDC, AMA) need to put much tighter controls over the prescription pain market while still making sure the people who need them get them but also medially help the percent of people who become addicted–which can happen with a single prescription in some people...
I don't understand why you're arguing with me. My "tweaking" comment has to do with the feds doing something to help the legal prescription problem that leads to illegal use of street drugs. So we agree on that point. I don't know exactly what they should do. You post doesn't describe it either exept in general terms. If you a specific solution, I'd love to hear it. Frankly, I think it's a difficult problem that won't find an easy solution.
-
There you go. That's all someone needs to know about addiction. Don't cross. I didn't.
Uh huh...so that makes you what, something super human?
The great and powerful Slobodan Blagojevic is immune from becoming an addict or alcoholic, right?
Then you just proved you don't understand addiction and alcoholism. It just hasn't happened to you...lucky you.
How about anybody in your family? Any friends? Ever lost anybody to addiction or alcoholism? Unless you can answer yes, then quit talking about something you don't know about.
-
There you go. That's all someone needs to know about addiction. Don't cross. I didn't.
And where did you find that I advocate treating addicts like criminals? I specifically said "legitimize all drugs." That would take the crime out on both sides, suppliers and users.
I think an in-between approach is better. Don't legalize as that will increase the addiction rates, especially with youngsters. That would be bad for the individual and society. However, government should provide assistance to the user as an alternative to jailing him. This enlightened approach is happening in jurisdictions around the country.
-
If you a specific solution, I'd love to hear it. Frankly, I think it's a difficult problem that won't find an easy solution.
Well, read the PDF from the commission:
Here are the highlights...
Rapidly increase treatment capacity. Grant waiver approvals for all 50 states to quickly eliminate barriers to treatment resulting from the federal Institutes for Mental Diseases (IMD) exclusion within the Medicaid program. This will immediately open treatment to thousands of Americans in existing facilities in all 50 states.
Mandate prescriber education initiatives with the assistance of medical and dental schools across the country to enhance prevention efforts. Mandate medical education training in opioid prescribing and risks of developing an SUD by amending the Controlled Substance Act to require all Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registrants to take a course in proper treatment of pain. HHS should work with partners to ensure additional training opportunities, including continuing education courses for professionals.
Immediately establish and fund a federal incentive to enhance access to Medication- Assisted Treatment (MAT). Require that all modes of MAT are offered at every licensed MAT facility and that those decisions are based on what is best for the patient. Partner with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the industry to facilitate testing and development of new MAT treatments.
Provide model legislation for states to allow naloxone dispensing via standing orders, as well as requiring the prescribing of naloxone with high-risk opioid prescriptions; we must equip all law enforcement in the United States with naloxone to save lives.
Prioritize funding and manpower to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection, the DOJ Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the DEA to quickly develop fentanyl detection sensors and disseminate them to federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Support federal legislation to staunch the flow of deadly synthetic opioids through the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).
Provide federal funding and technical support to states to enhance interstate data sharing among state-based prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) to better track patient-specific prescription data and support regional law enforcement in cases of controlled substance diversion. Ensure federal health care systems, including Veteran’s Hospitals, participate in state-based data sharing.
Better align, through regulation, patient privacy laws specific to addiction with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to ensure that information about SUDs be made available to medical professionals treating and prescribing medication to a patient. This could be done through the bipartisan Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act/Jessie’s Law.
Enforce the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) with a standardized parity compliance tool to ensure health plans cannot impose less favorable benefits for mental health and substance use diagnoses verses physical health diagnoses.
Those are some of the suggestions AFTER the first and primary suggestion of declaring a national emergency under either the Public Health Service Act or the Stafford Act.
This crisis and make no mistake it's a crisis that was first caused by the promotion by pharmaceutical companies making widespread use of lobbyist groups in their efforts to encourage opioid prescribing practices to medical professionals. The pharma industry vastly understated the risk of addiction and overpromised the patient benefits and really downplayed the side effects of opioids. The major players, 5 companies, are under a Senate probe but there's big pushback by lobbyists (why else do you think Trump ignored the call for a declaring a national emergency–which would put a thumping on opioid sales...
Opioid epidemic: Senate committee opens probe of five big painkiller makers (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/senate-committee-opens-probe-of-five-big-opioid-makers.html)
A Senate committee is investigating whether practices at five of the top makers of opioids in the United States fueled an epidemic of painkiller abuse that has led to the fatal overdoses of tens of thousands of Americans.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., on Tuesday sent letters to the companies seeking information about sales and marketing materials, internal studies on addictions, details on their compliance with legal settlements and donations to advocacy groups.
The companies are Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson's Janssen division, Insys, Mylan and Depomed. McCaskill is the ranking Democrat on the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
The worst offender is Purdue Products who have been accused of engaging in deceptive marketing practices that have helped fuel a national opioid addiction epidemic. Heck even New Hampshire (Trump's drug-infested den) is suing: New Hampshire sues OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma over opioid marketing practices (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/new-hampshire-sues-oxycontin-maker-purdue-pharma-over-opioid-marketing-practices.html)
New Hampshire sued OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma on Tuesday, becoming the latest state or local government to accuse the drugmaker of engaging in deceptive marketing practices that have helped fuel a national opioid addiction epidemic.
The lawsuit filed in Merrimack County Superior Court claimed that Purdue Pharma significantly downplayed the risk of addiction posed by OxyContin and engaged in marketing practices that "opened the floodgates" to opioid use and abuse.
The complaint said the Stamford, Connecticut-based company spent hundreds of millions of dollars since the 1990s on misleading marketing that has also overstated the benefits of opioids for treating chronic, rather than short-term, pain.
The solution to the problem is actually easier to find if you actually know what the problem is and who caused it. So yeah, Trump screwed the pooch and let his Trump Red States down by NOT declaring a national state of emergency...
-
Jeff, Many of the recommendations you listed regarding the opiod problem have to do with law enforcement. I suspect that Trump would support those.
regarding, the other recommendations of how doctors should handle these drugs, etc, I'm not clear as to the recommendations.
As I see the problem, opiods like OxyContin are being prescribed by doctors to relieve very painful medical conditions. The patient may get hooked and either wants the doctors to continue the pain mediation or winds up buying illegal substances on the street to satisfy his "addiction".
The main issue to me seems to be at the moment a doctor prescribes the initial medication. Should we prevent the doctor from prescribing it? Should we change the guidelines when it can be prescribed? What are those guidelines? What do we do if the patient become addicted? The guidelines you posted don't go into those details.
-
While I seriously doubt Trump would ever consider this, decriminalization CAN work if it's combined with addiction treatment, rehab and social support.
Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html)
Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)
Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for marijuana haze–filled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually legalized cannabis — the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against the shops. The correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.
The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.
The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.
"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."
Make no mistake, being addicted to drugs and alcohol sucks and can ruin your life even if it's not a crime. But it's far better to HELP people than LOCK THEM UP. And to those who would say that decriminalization will result in increased drug use, it didn't for the primary reason is people ended up getting help with their problem and addiction treatment can work and allow people to get their lives back and become a useful member of society again.
-
While I seriously doubt Trump would ever consider this, decriminalization CAN work if it's combined with addiction treatment, rehab and social support.
Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html)
Make no mistake, being addicted to drugs and alcohol sucks and can ruin your life even if it's not a crime. But it's far better to HELP people than LOCK THEM UP. And to those who would say that decriminalization will result in increased drug use, it didn't for the primary reason is people ended up getting help with their problem and addiction treatment can work and allow people to get their lives back and become a useful member of society again.
Jeff, as I mentioned in my earlier posts, jurisdictions throughout the country are offering rehabilitation. However, the reason people go into rehabilitation is because drug use or selling drugs are illegal. If the addict faces jail time, he more likely to opt for a rehabilitation program that is offered. In many jurisdictions today, their are Drug Courts rather than criminal courts where judges are familiar with addiction issues. Even if a addict relapses, they continue to work with him with rehab programs rather than sending him to jail.
However, without the stick, he'd just keep on using. So the threat of jail time helps rather than impedes. Also, criminal records are expunged after a period of time if the addict stays clean. So they can become a full member of society again.
Frankly, I don't think the Feds should get involved in this part of program leaving it up to the states and local jurisdictions to handle it. The feds could provide money, but not direct rules especially since jail time is usually a local issue anyway. The feds should get involved in establishing procedures for prescriptions of legal opioids however. It's not clear to me what those procedures should be.
-
The main issue to me seems to be at the moment a doctor prescribes the initial medication. Should we prevent the doctor from prescribing it? Should we change the guidelines when it can be prescribed? What are those guidelines? What do we do if the patient become addicted? The guidelines you posted don't go into those details.
Read the article about New Hampshire suing OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma. Purdue Pharma spent hundreds of millions of dollars since the 1990s on misleading marketing that has also overstated the benefits of opioids for treating chronic, rather than short-term, pain. Yes, you can use opioids for a few days to treat short-term pain but if you go for more than a few days or weeks, you become addicted–at a much higher rate than Purdue Pharma let on.
Entire graduating classes of medical schools since the 1990's have been told that patients need relief from pain–and I agree, but if the pain lasts more than a short while, then there's other medical problems involved and the opioids are likely masking the problem–or the patient is addicted.
Getting addiction treatment early offers far better outcomes than after a patient is a long time addict, you would agree right? So, shouldn't doctors be taught how to spot signs of addiction? You would think they would be but in general, they aren't unless they specialize in addiction treatment.
As far as a patient's right to pain relief, in terminal cases, I absolutely agree...if somebody has a terminal disease like cancer that causes a lot of pain, hell, give them anything they want including opioids, medical marijuana, alcohol, meditation, massage or anything that eases their last days, weeks or months of life.
But terminal patients aren't the ones with long term opioid addiction that transition to illegal drugs when their doctors finally catch on and quit writing scripts...heck if the doctors could quit over prescribing in the first place or put addicted patients in early treatment we wouldn't be having this conversation...
-
However, without the stick, he'd just keep on using. So the threat of jail time helps rather than impedes.
No, it turns addicts into criminals...did you even bother to read the Time article about Portugal?
Addicts have a disease...you don't treat a disease by putting addicts in jail.
Frankly, I don't think the Feds should get involved in this part of program leaving it up to the states and local jurisdictions to handle it.
Because the states have shown such an excellent track record of dealing with the problem that the commission wanted Trump to declare a national state of emergency?
The locals and states are asking for federal help...so, what, just tell them to fix it themselves–and here's some money to throw at it?
Heck the DOJ is gonna try to shut down legal marijuana (which ironically could be very useful for opioid addiction treatment) which is a case where the Feds SHOULD let the states decide.
Legalized Marijuana Could Help Curb the Opioid Epidemic, Study Finds (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/legalized-marijuana-could-help-curb-opioid-epidemic-study-finds-n739301)
In states that legalized medical marijuana, U.S. hospitals failed to see a predicted influx of pot smokers, but in an unexpected twist, they treated far fewer opioid users, a new study shows.
Hospitalization rates for opioid painkiller dependence and abuse dropped on average 23 percent in states after marijuana was permitted for medicinal purposes, the analysis found. Hospitalization rates for opioid overdoses dropped 13 percent on average.
At the same time, fears that legalization of medical marijuana would lead to an uptick in cannabis-related hospitalizations proved unfounded, according to the report in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
“Instead, medical marijuana laws may have reduced hospitalizations related to opioid pain relievers,” said study author Yuyan Shi, a public health professor at the University of California, San Diego.
“This study and a few others provided some evidence regarding the potential positive benefits of legalizing marijuana to reduce opioid use and abuse, but they are still preliminary,” she said in an email.
Somebody should clue in Sessions and Price–maybe cut back on the anti-marijuana rhetoric?
-
Trump's 'fire and fury' North Korea remark surprised aides: officials
QUOTE August 9, 2017 / 7:41 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's vow to respond with "fire and fury" if North Korea persisted in threatening the United States caught his foreign policy and military aides by surprise, two administration officials with direct knowledge of how the issue unfolded said on Wednesday.
"President Trump's comment was unplanned and spontaneous,” said a senior administration official who deals with the Korea issue and who requested anonymity.
The comment was "all Trump," said another administration official who, like the first, requested anonymity.
Both officials said Trump, known for his off-the-cuff remarks, had not run that language by his senior aides beforehand.
At an event on Tuesday on the topic of Americans over-using opioids, Trump said: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."
U.S. officials and analysts cautioned against engaging in rhetorical shouting matches with Pyongyang, which in turn said it was considering a strategy to fire missiles at the U.S.-held Pacific island of Guam, where there is a military air base. "
The man is a danger to his country. Shouting matches will not lead to anything useful. On the contrary.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Uh no Donald, it was Obama and not you who set the modernizing of the the nation’s nuclear arsenal in place. But, what else is new, Trump lies again?
Fact-checking Donald Trump's misleading tweet about U.S. nuclear arsenal (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/09/donald-trump/under-donald-trump-us-nuclear-arsenal-far-stronger/)
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before....
6:56 AM - Aug 9, 2017
(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-false.png)
Our ruling
Trump said, "My first order as president was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before."
What Trump did shortly after taking office was neither his first order nor a unique action; every new president in recent years has requested a Nuclear Posture Review. In addition, the ongoing nuclear modernization plan -- which dates back to the Obama administration and will take decades to complete -- would not have notched achievements in six months sufficient to be characterized as "far stronger and more powerful than ever before."
We rate the statement False.
-
Trump's 'fire and fury' North Korea remark surprised aides: officials
Maybe so, but the White House is apparently telling people not to pay attention to what Trump said...
WHITE HOUSE URGES WORLD TO IGNORE DONALD TRUMP (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/donald-trump-north-korea)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/donald-trump-north-korea.jpg)
Doesn't know what he's saying, apparently.
Apparently North Korea shouldn’t “read too much into” the president’s “fire and fury” comments.
Yesterday, four days into his 17-day “working vacation” at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, Donald Trump took a break from his whatever it is he is doing to aggressively threaten North Korea, a country not typically known for having a thick skin. “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Trump told reporters during a meeting that was ostensibly focused on America’s opioid crisis. “They will be met with fire and fury and, frankly, power the likes of which the world has never seen before.” Earlier in the day, The Washington Post had reported that the Hermit Kingdom has successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead, allowing it to be fitted on a missile. The news was terrifying enough on its own without Trump ad-libbing his response. The Dow Jones, perhaps unsurprisingly, faltered for the first time in days, breaking its 10-session winning streak amid mushrooming headlines like, “Can SF plan for surviving a North Korean nuclear strike?” World leaders, too, were on edge. The comments were “not helpful in an environment that is very tense,” New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English told the Guardian. In a statement, China’s foreign ministry advised both the U.S. and North Korea to avoid using “any words or actions” that would further inflame the situation. Even Senator John McCain, who has rarely met a potential war he didn’t like, denounced Trump’s rhetoric as unhelpful.
According to the White House, however, the whole “fire and fury” thing is getting completely blown out of proportion because the media, and the international community, are making the mistake of taking whatever Trump says literally.
Politico’s Josh Dawsey reports that individuals close to the situation have said not to “read too much into” anything the president said on Tuesday. Inside the West Wing, the language was not taken “too seriously,” either. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, en route to Guam, which North Korea had just threatened to bomb in retaliation, also said there was nothing to worry about. “I think Americans should sleep well at night,” he said. “Nothing I have seen and nothing I know of would indicate that situation has dramatically changed in the last 24 hours.”
-
Trump's 'fire and fury' North Korea remark surprised aides: officials. . . .
The man is a danger to his country. Shouting matches will not lead to anything useful. On the contrary.
Two insecure fat guys with funny haircuts screaming bellicose threats at each other through their respective news media: isn't that the classic definition of diplomacy?
-
Maybe so, but the White House is apparently telling people not to pay attention to what Trump said...
No worries about that, the rest of the world stopped taking Trump serious some time ago. The IMHO worrying part is that the USA will not be taken seriously either when there actually might be a reason to do so ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
To clarify a bit further, the concerns of the 'rest of the world' including some of the WH staff, is also mentioned in the afore mentioned Reuters article (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-depetris-nsc-commentary-idUSKBN1AP1T2).
QUOTE Being a White House national security staffer is a tough job in the most ideal of circumstances. But if colleagues are afraid of backstabbing or unable to establish productive working relationships with one another, the environment becomes unbearable. In their respective memoirs, former Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta both griped about how coordination between the U.S. national security bureaucracies can be slowed or stopped over personality differences and individual self-interest.
This is why all of the staff changes, resignations, and score-settling in the media between top NSC and White House officials in the Trump administration are so concerning. If left unchecked, the healthy competition and inter-personal rivalries that often give the president more policy options can breed mistrust, hindering workflow and coordination. The NSC must nip this problem in the bud before it grows any worse and negatively impacts the president’s work.
The past few weeks of NSC activity have been so dizzying that it is becoming difficult to monitor who retains the confidence of the president and who is falling out of favor. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, the man at the top of the hierarchy for ensuring the president is properly briefed, has removed several officials he believed were either undermining his authority or suspected of leaking to the press. Derek Harvey, the NSC's top Middle East adviser, was shown the door in late July and reassigned to another part of the government. Rich Higgins, the man responsible for strategic planning at the NSC, was let go after distributing a controversial memo about government bureaucrats allegedly attempting to destroy Trump's agenda. Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior intelligence director, who the intelligence community considered too inexperienced and too close to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is no longer working in the White House. The staff turnover is apparently something McMaster views as a necessity in order to streamline the process and eliminate threats to his own power.
Even more disconcerting than the resignations and firings, however, is the ongoing smear campaign against McMaster himself, a three-star Army general who has served his country with distinction in numerous war zones across multiple deployments over a span of decades.
And this is only one part of the Administration's personnel policy. I've read that many /most vacancies do not even have proposed candidates for the continuity of doing ordinary business as usual.
QUOTE " However, the difference between those instances and the current one is that all of the other administrations had a relatively orderly - if spirited - national security decision-making process. After the heated arguments and feuding, final decisions would eventually get made.
The Trump administration, in contrast, is still hobbled by a lack of staffing in the State Department, a development that will reduce Foggy Bottom’s influence on the NSC if not rectified. The vicious innuendo, personality-laced leaks to the press, and the anonymous public airing of grievances that has dominated the Trump White House during its first six months is placing the ego of government officials above what is most important: giving the president sound recommendations. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
My solution: legalize all drugs. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead.
Absolutely.
-
NOT heroin, it's fentanyl and it ain't coming over the border just from Mexico, it's coming over from Canada
Proof, please. When in doubt, blame Canada. Just like 911.
-
Read the article about New Hampshire suing OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma. Purdue Pharma spent hundreds of millions of dollars since the 1990s on misleading marketing that has also overstated the benefits of opioids for treating chronic, rather than short-term, pain. Yes, you can use opioids for a few days to treat short-term pain but if you go for more than a few days or weeks, you become addicted–at a much higher rate than Purdue Pharma let on.
Entire graduating classes of medical schools since the 1990's have been told that patients need relief from pain–and I agree, but if the pain lasts more than a short while, then there's other medical problems involved and the opioids are likely masking the problem–or the patient is addicted.
Getting addiction treatment early offers far better outcomes than after a patient is a long time addict, you would agree right? So, shouldn't doctors be taught how to spot signs of addiction? You would think they would be but in general, they aren't unless they specialize in addiction treatment.
As far as a patient's right to pain relief, in terminal cases, I absolutely agree...if somebody has a terminal disease like cancer that causes a lot of pain, hell, give them anything they want including opioids, medical marijuana, alcohol, meditation, massage or anything that eases their last days, weeks or months of life.
But terminal patients aren't the ones with long term opioid addiction that transition to illegal drugs when their doctors finally catch on and quit writing scripts...heck if the doctors could quit over prescribing in the first place or put addicted patients in early treatment we wouldn't be having this conversation...
You didn't answer my question in the details I asked. What do you want the Feds to do exactly regarding the doctors who prescribe opioids to prevent the problem we now have?
-
No, it turns addicts into criminals...did you even bother to read the Time article about Portugal?
Addicts have a disease...you don't treat a disease by putting addicts in jail.
Because the states have shown such an excellent track record of dealing with the problem that the commission wanted Trump to declare a national state of emergency?
The locals and states are asking for federal help...so, what, just tell them to fix it themselves–and here's some money to throw at it?
Heck the DOJ is gonna try to shut down legal marijuana (which ironically could be very useful for opioid addiction treatment) which is a case where the Feds SHOULD let the states decide.
Legalized Marijuana Could Help Curb the Opioid Epidemic, Study Finds (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/legalized-marijuana-could-help-curb-opioid-epidemic-study-finds-n739301)
Somebody should clue in Sessions and Price–maybe cut back on the anti-marijuana rhetoric?
If an addict beats someone up to steal money for his habit, or an alcoholic kills someone while driving drunk, then both of them belong in jail. Having a disease does not excuse the alcoholic or addict for his actions. On the other hand, if the offense is minor, like someone drives drunk for the first time but there are no injuries, or an addict gets caught selling small amounts of drugs to support his habit, then a judge would have the discretion to mandate a treatment program or jail if the offender refuses the program. If the threat of jail time can get an addict or alcoholic into a treatment program, that's better than handing him drugs forever so he can stay an addict. It will also keep him out of jail.
Regarding marijuana, Congress passed laws making it illegal. It's not up to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to decide if they're legal or not. The DOJ is suppose to enforce federal laws. If you want to legalize it, then get Congress to change the law. In any case, I don't know how legalizing marijuana will alleviate opioid addiction. People in heavy pain need opioids or some other drug that's effective. Weed won't eliminate pain that's severe. Legalizing weed to replace opioids is fraught with danger. Also, people are substituting one addiction for another. Legalizing weed raises frequency of car accidents and other health issues. I think it would be better if we work to get people free of all addictions. Otherwise it's like changing deck chairs on the Titanic.
-
Uh huh...so that makes you what, something super human?
The great and powerful Slobodan Blagojevic is immune from becoming an addict or alcoholic, right?
Then you just proved you don't understand addiction and alcoholism. It just hasn't happened to you...lucky you.
How about anybody in your family? Any friends? Ever lost anybody to addiction or alcoholism? Unless you can answer yes, then quit talking about something you don't know about.
If being normal is super human, then yes, I am. And so far, I stayed, consciously, immune to drugs and alcoholism. I love drinking, good beer (amber ale mostly) and bourbon... just never got drunk. As for "happening" to me... you mean, drugs are like bird shit or meteorite... it just happens to you?
If I am "super human," what does it make you, for instance? You know, humans are gifted with willpower and reasoning... absence of which would make you... ?
I had relatives alcoholics - precisely the reason I never allowed myself to get drunk (I do drink, however).
As for addiction, you call it "illness," I call it "cleaning the gene pool."
-
If the threat of jail time can get an addict or alcoholic into a treatment program, that's better than handing him drugs forever so he can stay an addict.
But it doesn't. The threat doesn't work. Otherwise, the number of addicts would be decreasing.
Regarding marijuana, Congress passed laws making it illegal.
Ever done any research about how and why they passed those laws?
Legalizing weed to replace opioids is fraught with danger. Also, people are substituting one addiction for another. Legalizing weed raises frequency of car accidents and other health issues.
Alan, the depth and breadth of your knowledge is amazing. How ever did you learn so much?
-
Meanwhile at the lair, Kim reacts to Trump's Fire and Fury speech. Such pranksters. Gotta love 'em.
Maybe it's time for a US president to talk tough. Past presidents have been feckless with NK. Speaking softly has only gotten us an NK with atomic bombs and missiles that are on the cusp of reaching New York and maybe Amsterdam. Diplomacy hasn't worked.
Fortunately, other countries concerned with a nuclear armed NK, aren't listening to the political comments of people who just want to make Trump look bad. South Korea and Japan are anxiously looking to up their military to offset NK's nuclear position. Japan's clamoring for military weapons that haven't been acceptable politically since the end of WWII. South Korea is talking about letting the US move tactical nukes into their country to protect them against NK. If others aren't taking the situation seriously, these neighbors of NK certainly are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/world/asia/north-korea-japan-missile-south.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSouth%20Korea&action=click&contentCollection=world®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection&_r=0
-
But it doesn't. The threat doesn't work. Otherwise, the number of addicts would be decreasing.
It's true that that the threat of jail often doesn't get people sober or free of addictions. But it does work at times. What's the alternative? Give them free drugs so they stay addicted for life? Of course the rate of addiction is going up faster than those being helped. But that doesn't mean no one is being helped.
Ever done any research about how and why they passed those laws?
It doesn't matter why there are laws against weed on the books. The DOJ is suppose to enforce Federal law. That's their sworn job, and the President's too. If you don't like the laws, get Congress to change them.
-
Proof, please. When in doubt, blame Canada. Just like 911.
Where does fentanyl come from? China is primary source in U.S., and much is ending up in Ohio (http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20170207/where-does-fentanyl-come-from-china-is-primary-source-in-us-and-much-is-ending-up-in-ohio)
“China is a global source of fentanyl and other illicit substances because the country’s vast chemical and pharmaceutical industries are weakly regulated and poorly monitored,” the report states. “Chinese law enforcement officials have struggled to adequately regulate thousands of chemical and pharmaceutical facilities operating legally and illegally in the country, leading to increased production and export of illicit chemicals and drugs.”
Some of the fentanyl comes straight to the United States from China, while other shipments come in from China to Mexico (and to a lesser extent) Canada before making its way into the U.S.
The report said China exports a number of different fentanyl products into the U.S.: raw fentanyl, precursors, analogues, fentanyl-laced counterfeit prescription drugs like oxycodone, pill presses and other machinery necessary for fentanyl production.
“Chinese chemical exporters utilize various methods to covertly ship drugs to the Western hemisphere, including sending illicit materials through a chain of forwarding systems, mislabeling narcotics shipments and modifying chemicals so they are not controlled in the United States,” the report stated.
And...
US rates Canada once again as a “major money laundering country” in annual drug report (http://www.antimoneylaunderinglaw.com/2017/03/us-rates-canada-once-again-as-a-major-money-laundering-country-in-annual-report.html)
Fentanyl entering Canada from China by mail
The Report states that fentanyl is originating in China and entering the US via Canada or Mexico, making Canada a source country. The fentanyl that enters Canada from China is by mail. Heroin is being altered with low-cost synthetic opioids, especially fentanyl, by drug dealers which can be 25 to 50 times more potent than heroin. Fentanyl is also pressed into pill form and sold as counterfeit prescription opioid pills. Drug takers are not aware of the large quantities of fentanyl, causing thousands of overdoes fatalities in Canada and the US.
Volume 1 - The key findings of Volume 1 on the drug trade vis a vis Canada are:
Large amounts of fentanyl from China enter Canada by mail.
Canada is a major producer of precursor chemicals used in the production of illicit narcotics, along with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iraq, Mexico and several other countries.
Cannabis destined for the US is produced mostly in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario.
Canada is a primary source country of high potency marijuana and estasy to the US.
Canadian synthetic drugs and amphetamine stimulants are exported to the US, Asia and Australia.
Cocaine continues to enter Canada from South America and Mexico, some of which is transited through the US.
Volume 2 - The key findings in respect of money laundering in Volume 2 for Canada are:
Money laundering activities in Canada are primarily from tax evasion, corruption, illegal drug trafficking, fraud, piracy and tobacco smuggling.
Laundering methods in Canada have changed slightly and now involve smuggling, money services businesses, casinos, real estate, wire transfers, offshore companies, credit cards and digital currencies like Bitcoin.
Also noted was that bulk cash smuggling into Canada is “widespread”.
Gangs from Vietnam are a significant source of illicit funds.
Sorry to say, the fentanyl based overdose deaths are not just an American problem but also a Canadian problem.
A KILLER HIGH-How Canada got addicted to fentanyl (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/a-killer-high-how-canada-got-addicted-tofentanyl/article29570025/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&)
Manufactured in China, it easily crosses our porous borders, triggering a heroin-like bliss in users – and, all too often, death. The Globe investigates the rise of a fatal opioid
The Globe and Mail article is from April 2016 but the problem in Canada has only grown worse although efforts are being made at the UN to control fentanyl-making chemicals. UN adds fentanyl-making chemicals to list of controlled substances (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/u-n-fentanyl-substance-1.4029027)
The narcotic fentanyl took centre stage at the annual United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, March 16.
Two chemicals used in the making of fentanyl were added to the "International List of Controlled Substances."
However, a B.C. expert on substance abuse says controlling chemical ingredients isn't the solution.
"We need to do everything we can, so the decision is welcome," said Dr. Evan Wood, a professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia.
"At the same time though, you can't get out of a problem with the same kind of thinking that got you into the problem."
But the problem is trying to keep up with the chemical labs in China and elsewhere...
Underground labs in China are devising potent new opiates faster than authorities can respond (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/underground-labs-china-are-devising-potent-new-opiates-faster-authorities-can-respond)
Note, this is in the magazine Science so some of the info is high level and include formulas :~)
Public awareness of the crisis spiked last spring, after music icon Prince's death from an overdose of fentanyl. But in the months since then, the chemical one-upmanship has deepened the opiate crisis, as new and nastier substances appear on the streets in places like Cincinnati. The fentanyl derivatives not only allow makers and dealers to elude law enforcement; they blindside public health authorities and make addiction even riskier. "It's just going to get worse," Reagan says.
Last July, police and scientists here were bracing for a new villain—perhaps the deadliest fentanyl cousin yet. "We were hearing about something so dastardly we had to be prepared," recalls Lakshmi Sammarco, the coroner for Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati. Carfentanil, an elephant tranquilizer that apparently had never been studied in humans, was showing up mixed into heroin in nearby cities and felling addicts. That month, a Canadian man was arrested in Calgary after authorities intercepted a 1-kilogram package of carfentanil labeled as "printer accessories," which he had ordered from China. Other synthetic opiates had found their way into Ohio via Canada, so it was only a matter of time before carfentanil would make the journey as well. "We all looked at each other and said, ‘Alright, buckle your seat belts, this is going to get very bumpy,’" Sammarco says.
Fentanyl crosses the blood-brain barrier with ease. It binds to opioid receptors and floods the brain with dopamine, which creates intense euphoria but also slows the heart and depresses breathing. For most individuals, a lethal fentanyl dose is about 2 milligrams—an amount so minuscule that in a test tube it looks like a few grains of salt clinging to the glass. Carfentanil is 100 times stronger, making it about 10,000 times more potent than morphine. Crime labs keep autoinjectors of naloxone, the lifesaving opioid receptor antagonist, within reach in case their personnel are accidentally exposed to synthetic opiates.
So, Peter, I'm not blaming Canada, I actually blame the outdated attitude that addicts could just stop if they wanted to. That addicts are criminals that should be locked up instead of given medical treatment. I blame big pharma for pushing these opioids on doctors without fully warning of the addictive nature and how hard it is to overcome an addiction. I blame government and politicians who play politics with the problem and claim that better drug enforcement will solve the problem and building a friggin' wall will keep out stuff that users can buy and import via partial post.
The preliminary report had some good recommendations but the most important–for Trump to declare a national emergency was ignored.
The sad thing is Trump SHOULD know better..his brother Freddy ended up dying from a life suffering from alcoholism. Unfortunately, Donald may have learned the wrong lesson and though his brother to be weak and blamed the alcoholism on Freddy.
-
As for addiction, you call it "illness," I call it "cleaning the gene pool."
Yeah, you would.
Your heartlessness has been in fine form in this thread. Pretty sure this surprises nobody here on LuLa.
So, just to be clear, you don't have a medical license, right? You don't know what causes addiction and alcoholism, right?
You just desire not to get drunk and you don't get drunk so anybody should be able to do what you do, right?
So, is this "cleaning of the gene pool" limited to the illness of addiction or alcoholism, what about genetic disorders?
What about a predisposition for heart disease or stroke, or mental illness, or limited intelligence or ugly features or bad hair, should all these imperfections make people consider termination of early pregnancy?
And why stop at termination of early pregnancy, why not nip it in the bud and simply sterilize anybody who doesn't pass muster?
You see where this goes right? Genetic cleansing...ring a bell?
-
If an addict beats someone up to steal money for his habit, or an alcoholic kills someone while driving drunk, then both of them belong in jail.
Assault and DUI are themselves crimes and I have zero problems throwing the book at them for those acts. But simple possession for personal use should not put an addict in the same kind of facility where hardened criminals are put or else you risk making an addict into a hard core criminal. And I would much rather see an addict's fate decided by a medical professional instead of a judge...jeeeesh, that's the least likely place to get reasoned help.
In any case, I don't know how legalizing marijuana will alleviate opioid addiction. People in heavy pain need opioids or some other drug that's effective. Weed won't eliminate pain that's severe. Legalizing weed to replace opioids is fraught with danger. Also, people are substituting one addiction for another.
Again, did you read the article about opioid addiction and overdoses being reduced in states that had state legal marijuana? In point of fact, marijuana is useful for treating long term pain and while it can't completely eliminate severe pain, marijuana in combination with other pain relief techniques are effect-possibly as effective as opioids.
Also, it would be useful if you understood addiction better. One doesn't get physically addicted to marijuana in the same way a user gets addicted to opioids or cocaine or even alcohol because marijuana doesn't interfere with the mesolimbic dopamine system-which means a marijuana user doesn't have the same sort of physical withdrawals. One can become psychologically dependent on marijuana but that's much easier to deal with than a physical addiction.
All of which is pretty far afield from the failure of Trump and the administration to recognize the severity of the current opioid crisis and actually take the steps required for crisis mitigation.
-
Donald Trump just picked a dumb fight with Mitch McConnell (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/trump-mcconnell-scavino/index.html)
(http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/04/05/bc7c04d8-eae0-4c3c-9b6a-edbeb2a8bf3e/thumbnail/620x350/fe238f159bb83f7b517ee408aaee2a2f/ap-17094722996346.jpg)
By Chris Cillizza
(CNN)Even as the Trump White House continues to calibrate the right response to the news that North Korea may have miniaturized a nuclear weapon, President Donald Trump started a very public fight with the most powerful Republican in the Senate.
"Senator Mitch McConnell said I had 'excessive expectations,' but I don't think so," Trump tweeted Wednesday afternoon. "After 7 years of hearing Repeal & Replace, why not done?"
That Trump tweet came just hours after this one from White House social media director -- and Trump confidant -- Dan Scavino Jr.: "More excuses. @SenateMajLdr must have needed another 4 years - in addition to the 7 years -- to repeal and replace Obamacare..."
Scavino added a link to his tweet of a video of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaking at an event in Kentucky on Tuesday -- which is what started this all up.
"Our new President, of course, has not been in this line of work before," said McConnell, according to a local CNN affiliate, which covered the event. "I think he had excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process."
McConnell's criticism -- Trump is a newbie in politics and doesn't totally get that things move incrementally even in the best of times -- seems relatively mild especially compared to Scavino's response.
--snip--
Picking a fight with someone: a) you need to get things done and b) people look up to, seems to me to be the essence of playing dumb politics. Maybe Trump (and Scavino) have some sort of grand plan here I don't see. Always possible! But from where I sit, this was a needless fight to pick that could have decidedly negative consequences on the Trump's agenda in the future.
So, do ya really wanna poke the bear that you have to work with for the rest of your legislative agenda (unless the rest of the legislative agenda is just a pipe dream).
Trump is simply unprepared to be the President of the United States of America...he's just interested in getting the adulation of his constantly diminishing base.
-
At this point, I am not sure that Trump even knows what the truth is or is not. He seems to be operating in an emotional reactionary mode -- saying what ever his emotions dictate at that specific time with no real strategic thought.
-
At this point, I am not sure that Trump even knows what the truth is or is not. He seems to be operating in an emotional reactionary mode -- saying what ever his emotions dictate at that specific time with no real strategic thought.
It would be interesting to plot his tweet times versus the time he reads his "ego folder" to see how it bumps his mood or bravado and how that wears off over time before the next boost.
-
It's true that that the threat of jail often doesn't get people sober or free of addictions. But it does work at times. What's the alternative? Give them free drugs so they stay addicted for life? Of course the rate of addiction is going up faster than those being helped. But that doesn't mean no one is being helped.
It doesn't matter why there are laws against weed on the books. The DOJ is suppose to enforce Federal law. That's their sworn job, and the President's too. If you don't like the laws, get Congress to change them.
You seem to locked into the mindset that people who take drugs are criminals. And I don't mean that just from the point of view that some laws are being contravened, because that can easily be remedied by repealing those laws. I mean that you actually seem to believe it, the way you keep talking about a "stick". Think back, there was a time when people who drank alcohol in the US were declared to be criminals, something which also didn't work very well. I hope you'll agree that alcohol prohibition was basically a nutty idea.
There is no need for a "stick" in this scenario, because viewing the issue from the criminal point of view makes no sense. People will do things that are not good for them, and humans have always devised ways to help mitigate that. Drugs are no different and it serves no purpose whatsoever to compound the problem by criminal action.
Your self-stated moral objection to the government providing drug relief (such as safe injection sites or other related programs) is nonsensical and is based on the notion that using drugs is, in itself, a criminal act. But that notion is an arbitrary one, not based on reality. Why would you morally object to handling a problem in a cheaper way that works better? It seems to me that you should have a moral objection to spending money unnecessarily through criminal action when it itself obviously causes so much harm, and has not only NOT helped solve the problem but has made it worse by increasing the cost of the crime, and thus increased the power of the criminal gangs who control drug distribution.
People who self-administer drugs often harm themselves, so doesn't it make sense to direct help to them specifically? By arbitrarily making them criminals, and making them dependent on criminal systems for drug delivery, that ends up causing harm to the rest of society, something that is utterly unnecessary. It simply makes everything worse for everyone.
-
You seem to locked into the mindset that people who take drugs are criminals. And I don't mean that just from the point of view that some laws are being contravened, because that can easily be remedied by repealing those laws. I mean that you actually seem to believe it, the way you keep talking about a "stick". Think back, there was a time when people who drank alcohol in the US were declared to be criminals, something which also didn't work very well. I hope you'll agree that alcohol prohibition was basically a nutty idea.
There is no need for a "stick" in this scenario, because viewing the issue from the criminal point of view makes no sense. People will do things that are not good for them, and humans have always devised ways to help mitigate that. Drugs are no different and it serves no purpose whatsoever to compound the problem by criminal action.
Your self-stated moral objection to the government providing drug relief (such as safe injection sites or other related programs) is nonsensical and is based on the notion that using drugs is, in itself, a criminal act. But that notion is an arbitrary one, not based on reality. Why would you morally object to handling a problem in a cheaper way that works better? It seems to me that you should have a moral objection to spending money unnecessarily through criminal action when it itself obviously causes so much harm, and has not only NOT helped solve the problem but has made it worse by increasing the cost of the crime, and thus increased the power of the criminal gangs who control drug distribution.
People who self-administer drugs often harm themselves, so doesn't it make sense to direct help to them specifically? By arbitrarily making them criminals, and making them dependent on criminal systems for drug delivery, that ends up causing harm to the rest of society, something that is utterly unnecessary. It simply makes everything worse for everyone.
I guess my posts weren't clear. I never said people who take drugs are criminals. I said their acts may be criminal. I recognize that drug addiction and alcoholism, for that matter, are diseases. However, people are responsible for their actions regardless. They can't cop out and say that they robbed some guy because they have a drug habit or for that matter that they ran over someone while driving drunk because they're an alcoholic. Even though alcohol is legal, and alcoholism is recognize legally as a disease, the drunk is still liable and can be sent to jail. Likewise, people who commit a crime relating to drugs such as robbing someone or selling drugs to pay for their habit is also a criminal for which prison time is applicable.
Of course, that opens the question for what to do with drug addicts who only break possession laws. Well, first there are laws against drinking in public even though alcohol is legal. So laws against drug possession are not that far afield. But the main question is do we keep possession laws on the books and use potential jail time as a way to help get the addict into treatment. Or do we legalize possession and let the addict go his own way without legal intervention condemning him to continued addiction and probable death? I think legally imposed rehabilitation is the better approach for the addict and society.
Systems should be set up as they already are in many parts of the country where judges have discretion to propose an option even before criminal sanctions are imposed. The person is allowed to start rehabilitation or a criminal process is started. It's up to the addict to decide.
Getting back to Trump, I don't think the Federal government should get into these procedures. They should be handled by local authorities and courts since violations of the laws in these kind of cases are local as well.
-
And why stop at termination of early pregnancy, why not nip it in the bud and simply sterilize anybody who doesn't pass muster?
USA, http://cironline.org/reports/female-inmates-sterilized-california-prisons-without-approval-4917
-
Getting back to Trump, I don't think the Federal government should get into these procedures. They should be handled by local authorities and courts since violations of the laws in these kind of cases are local as well.
The Justice Department under the Obama Administration's Attorney General, Eric Holder, moved to some extent in this direction, but only with respect to marijuana. While pointing out that possession of marijuana remained a federal crime, the department advised U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) that they should use their "investigative and prosecutorial discretion" to focus on eight national priorities: e.g., preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing it from being "diverted" from states which permitted limited personal use to states that did not, preventing drugged driving, etc. Where states had enacted some form of legalization or decriminalization, the department recommended that U.S. Attorneys not interfere with the state "regulatory and enforcement systems."
This policy has been countermanded by the current Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who reportedly has even asked Congress to revoke a law that effectively permits the states to authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
-
The Justice Department under the Obama Administration's Attorney General, Eric Holder, moved to some extent in this direction, but only with respect to marijuana. While pointing out that possession of marijuana remained a federal crime, the department advised U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) that they should use their "investigative and prosecutorial discretion" to focus on eight national priorities: e.g., preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing it from being "diverted" from states which permitted limited personal use to states that did not, preventing drugged driving, etc. Where states had enacted some form of legalization or decriminalization, the department recommended that U.S. Attorneys not interfere with the state "regulatory and enforcement systems."
This policy has been countermanded by the current Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who reportedly has even asked Congress to revoke a law that effectively permits the states to authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
That's the problem with Obama. He arbitrarily and unilaterally overruled legislation enacted for the People by our Congress. Like in so many things he did, he thought he was king. He had no right to order the DOJ to not enforce the law. The President is constitutionally required to enforce federal law. It's not up to him to decide which laws he likes and those he doesn't. He's not Putin, Castro or Maduro.
Secondly, allowing States to manufacture and sell marijuana as Obama decided is on a magnitude of scale way different then how local judges handle State penalties for minor infractions. In NYC for example, State jurisdiction applies in those situations in any case, not federal. Again, Obama should have gone back to Congress to change the laws. I suppose this might wind up in the Supreme Court - State's rights vs. the Federal government.
As an aside, in NYC, first time offense for a doobie or two is $100 fine, like a parking ticket. It's a "violation". It's not considered a misdemeanor or a more serious felony. The penalties do get larger depending on amount and whether you're selling. Here's the chart of penalties.
https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/marijuana-law/new-york-marijuana-legal.htm
-
That's the problem with Obama. He arbitrarily and unilaterally overruled legislation enacted for the People by our Congress. Like in so many things he did, he thought he was king. He had no right to order the DOJ to not enforce the law. The President is constitutionally required to enforce federal law. It's not up to him to decide which laws he likes and those he doesn't. He's not Putin, Castro or Maduro.
Actually, no. In three respects:
- If you have a complaint about the prior Department of Justice policy, it's with Eric Holder, not Obama. It has been well-established, at least since the Watergate era, that neither the president nor any member of the White House staff gives orders respecting or otherwise interferes with decisions by the Attorney General and his subordinates involving criminal enforcement, including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. (It's not clear whether Trump will respect this tradition, but I suspect Congress would statutorily compel him to do so if it appeared he was injecting himself into decisions regarding federal prosecutions other than by the exercise of his constitutional authority to grant pardons.)
- No legislation has been "overruled," arbitrarily or otherwise. The Controlled Substances Act remains in effect and the various U.S. Attorneys have continuously enforced it. The Holder policy set national priorities for prosecution and recommended that the U.S. Attorneys defer to the state governments to the extent that the state approaches to enforcement did not undermine the federal priorities.
- The U.S. Attorneys inevitably need to exercise discretion in deciding which criminal cases to prosecute for a variety of reasons, including the likelihood of securing a conviction, the availability of staff time, and whether the benefit to the public of proceeding with enforcement justifies the cost to the public of litigation. State prosecutors also routinely exercise prosecutorial discretion.
-
Actually, no. In three respects:
- If you have a complaint about the prior Department of Justice policy, it's with Eric Holder, not Obama. It has been well-established, at least since the Watergate era, that neither the president nor any member of the White House staff gives orders respecting or otherwise interferes with decisions by the Attorney General and his subordinates involving criminal enforcement, including the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. (It's not clear whether Trump will respect this tradition, but I suspect Congress would statutorily compel him to do so if it appeared he was injecting himself into decisions regarding federal prosecutions other than by the exercise of his constitutional authority to grant pardons.)
- No legislation has been "overruled," arbitrarily or otherwise. The Controlled Substances Act remains in effect and the various U.S. Attorneys have continuously enforced it. The Holder policy set national priorities for prosecution and recommended that the U.S. Attorneys defer to the state governments to the extent that the state approaches to enforcement did not undermine the federal priorities.
- The U.S. Attorneys inevitably need to exercise discretion in deciding which criminal cases to prosecute for a variety of reasons, including the likelihood of securing a conviction, the availability of staff time, and whether the benefit to the public of proceeding with enforcement justifies the cost to the public of litigation. State prosecutors also routinely exercise prosecutorial discretion.
If you think that Obamas buddy Eric Holder didn't check with Obama before he instituted the marijuana policy then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Frankly I don't have a problem with that. If a president wants his Department of Justice to focus on a specific crime that's rampant, and that's what is election asked him to do through his voters, then he should direct his attorney general to focus on that issue. After all, the Attorney General works for the president.
The issue in this case is that Obama or Eric Holder or both instituted policies that were so different than the laws issued by Congress. They in fact the allowed states to produce distribute sell a drug substance that is illegal nationally. He should have gone back to Congress to modify the law and not play King. So now Trump's going to reverse his policy.
-
Trump declares opioid crisis a national emergency.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/10/health/trump-opioid-emergency-declaration-bn/index.html
-
the Attorney General works for the president.
Well, he serves at the pleasure of the president. In other words, the president has the authority to dismiss the attorney general just as he does any other member of the cabinet. (For a while, until Republican members of the Senate made it clear they would block any attempt to do so, it appeared that Trump was preparing to replace the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, because Sessions had recused himself from involvement in the investigation of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election and Sessions' deputy had appointed an independent special counsel to conduct the investigation.)
Congress has gone to considerable lengths to ensure the independence of the attorney general. His responsibilities are established by statute, and the law requires him to carry out those responsibilities directly—not pursuant to the direction of the president or any other executive branch official. In many respects, it would probably be more accurate to say that he works for the public, and reports to the respective judiciary committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
-
Well Holder worked for Obama not congress. There's wasn't an inch of space between them. He ran Obama's campaign. Holder was the only AJ held in contempt of court in US history.
-
The Big Orange Dummy strikes again....
Trump thanks Putin for expelling U.S. diplomats (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-jokingly-thanks-putin-for-expelling-diplomats-saving-american-tax-dollars/)
(http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20170810&t=2&i=1196617272&r=LYNXMPED791H9&w=940)
President Trump thanked Russian President Vladimir Putin Thursday for expelling hundreds of U.S. diplomatic employees from Russia, saying he appreciated the ability to cut the federal government's payroll.
"I want to thank him because we're trying to cut down our payroll and as far as I'm concerned I'm very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll," Mr. Trump told reporters during his 17-day working vacation in Bedminster, New Jersey. "There's no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we've been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We'll save a lot of money."
Mr. Trump's remarks Thursday were his first comments on the topic, since Putin last month announced the U.S. diplomatic mission in the Kremlin would need to cut its staff by 755 personnel. Putin explained that was tired of waiting to see whether Russia' relationship with the U.S. would improve.
Expelling U.S. diplomats, however, doesn't necessarily remove them from the federal government's payroll -- they just can't stay in Russia.
So, does Trump think that diplomatic employees getting expelled from Russia means the US doesn't have to pay them? Or is Trump kidding? Well, at east he actually said it to reporters rather than Tweeting it (not that it makes more sense coming out of his mouth vs his fingers)
-
Then this happened...
'Really quite sad': Diplomats react to Trump thanking Putin for expelling US embassy workers (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sad-diplomats-react-trump-thanking-putin-expelling-us/story?id=49148226)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/donald-trump-pence-02-ap-jc-170810_12x5_992.jpg)
--
A State Dept. official who is a foreign service officer told ABC News the message from Trump thanking Putin is "really quite sad."
"I'm not even angry, it's just saddening," the official said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official cited what they say is the perception among State Dept. employees that Trump does not support the institution or its diplomats abroad and a sense that "he just doesn't get it."
A former U.S. ambassador also noted a pattern in the comments: "For reasons we do not yet know, the President cannot bring himself to criticize Putin."
The comments were swiftly condemned on a bipartisan basis, too -- by foreign policy voices across the political spectrum.
Harvard University professor Nicholas Burns, who was ambassador to NATO and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President George W. Bush, called Trump's comments disrespectful.
Nicholas Burns @RNicholasBurns
As a Foreign Service veteran, I find it lamentable that our great career diplomats are treated with such disrespect by their President
4:15 PM - Aug 10, 2017
Aaron David Miller @aarondmiller2
Having served at State for 25 yrs under R/Ds, Trump's defense of Putin over expelled US diplomats one of most shameful of his presidency
5:09 PM - Aug 10, 2017
Michael McFaul ✔ @McFaul
Imagine dissing Americans --patriots serving our country under difficult conditions in Russia -to praise Putin. Our president did today.
6:57 PM - Aug 10, 2017
But hey, Trump thinks thanking Putin for saving the US money was a good idea...
-
I saw a report on http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346091-trump-threatens-mcconnell (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346091-trump-threatens-mcconnell) about Trump "threatening" McConnell because he was unable to push through Trump's agenda (e.g., health care, I presume). It was probably just the usual phoney bluster on Trump's part, but on the face of it it sounds like he thinks he's the boss and the Senate is there to do his bidding. I am no expert on American politics, but my understanding is that the 3 branches of government in the USA are independent. McConnell reports to the people who voted for him, he doesn't report to Trump, is my understanding. A later report on the same web site states that some other Senators have rallied behind McConnell on this; I'm not surprised.
Why is the President alienating important politicians in his own party? Does he think they're afraid of him?
-
Ain't that funny that, when Trump uses the very argument of the left, he still gets criticized for that by the left? The argument being that the Republicans had seven long years to figure out their own version of the healthcare legislation. A sound argument, by the way, by most reasonable standards, not just the left.
-
Ain't that funny that, when Trump uses the very argument of the left, he still gets criticized for that by the left? The argument being that the Republicans had seven long years to figure out their own version of the healthcare legislation. A sound argument, by the way, by most reasonable standards, not just the left.
Trump could stand on his head and spit wooden nickels and the left would complain they're the wrong size.
Everything is bad because they want to destroy him.
-
Trump could stand on his head and spit wooden nickels and the left would complain they're the wrong size.
Everything is bad because they want to destroy him.
I take your point, but didn't the GOP do that to Obama for the previous 8 years? That doesn't make any of it right, it's a lousy situation, but it didn't start yesterday. And Trump isn't an innocent victim in all of this either. You can't play confrontation polarized politics and not expect this.
-
:) Superb image! Made me spit coffee.
-
A sound argument, by the way, by most reasonable standards, not just the left.
Maybe, but it was his campaign promise to repeal and replace the ACA very swiftly. And he hasn't delivered. So blaming others doesn't take anything away from his ineffective execution of that promise.
-
I take your point, but didn't the GOP do that to Obama for the previous 8 years? That doesn't make any of it right, it's a lousy situation, but it didn't start yesterday. And Trump isn't an innocent victim in all of this either. You can't play confrontation polarized politics and not expect this.
I'm not talking about the Democrats or the GOP. That's legitimate because they're the opposition to each other. I'm referring to the media like the NY Times and the Washington Post. They've made it their purpose in life to destroy the Trump administration. While they've always been biased left and Democrat, it's gotten out of hand. Any balance has evaporated.
Look, anyone can find or spin good or bad in a person and attack or defend them. We take sides here and do that all the time. Democrat and Republican politicians can do that too. That's all legit. But when influential newspapers do it, it's destructive. It's become totally political. Media is 90% against Trump. It's really fake news and by that I don't mean untruthful. I mean biased so the warts are headlined on page 1 and the good stuff is buried on page 47. It's working somewhat now, except for the Trump faithful. But will that work in the end? Will independents eventually see through the plot to destroy Trump and then take it out on Democrats? No one likes to be fooled. Well, time will tell.
-
Maybe, but it was his campaign promise to repeal and replace the ACA very swiftly. And he hasn't delivered. So blaming others doesn't take anything away from his ineffective execution of that promise.
You're right. He will look bad. That's why he's criticizing Republicans. But he's doing them a favor. If they don't get their act together, Republicans in Congress will suffer in the 2018 elections and could lose the Senate.
In any case, this is what people like about Trump. He tells it like it is. He doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth like Hillary was great at. You know where he stands, whether you're Sessions, McConnell, Assad or Kim Jung-Un. It's already worked with Sessions. He's suddenly doing what Trump wants him to do. Assad has back off with his chemical bombs. Now we'll see what McConnell and Kim do. McConnell will fear Trump going against certain Republican senators who don't support changing Obamacare so he'll lose his Senate leadership role. You know he's under pressure to perform now. Trump's in effect put him on notice. Perform or lose your leadership role to the Democrats including the next Supreme Court justice. McConnell will get on-board like Sessions and Assad.
I wonder what Kim is thinking?
-
The liberal press doesn't get Trump, they hate him so. They're not use to politicians talking tough. They liked Obama's wimpy leading from behind. The world had become use to that as well. That's why they don't like Trump either. They liked Obama because he was a pushover. Now they're facing someone who doesn't take prisoners. Someone who shoots first and asks questions later. Is it dangerous? Sure. But adversaries have to be careful. They're facing a powerful president and country. It's causing them to back off.
-
That's good for peace.
-
I'm not talking about the Democrats or the GOP. That's legitimate because they're the opposition to each other. I'm referring to the media like the NY Times and the Washington Post. They've made it their purpose in life to destroy the Trump administration. While they've always been biased left and Democrat, it's gotten out of hand. Any balance has evaporated.
Look, anyone can find or spin good or bad in a person and attack or defend them. We take sides here and do that all the time. Democrat and Republican politicians can do that too. That's all legit. But when influential newspapers do it, it's destructive. It's become totally political. Media is 90% against Trump. It's really fake news and by that I don't mean untruthful. I mean biased so the warts are headlined on page 1 and the good stuff is buried on page 47. It's working somewhat now, except for the Trump faithful. But will that work in the end? Will independents eventually see through the plot to destroy Trump and then take it out on Democrats? No one likes to be fooled. Well, time will tell.
Given the current context (digital media, Breitbart, alt-Right, etc.), I don't understand your constant harping about the liberal media. There are all kinds of points of view easily available out there now. It's as if you're a politician on the campaign trail trying to control the message, always returning to the biased media. Trump initiated public feuds with people in his own party (e.g., McConnell) and people he placed in office (e.g., Sessions), you can't blame that on the loonie-left media. There is a twitter trail of evidence. Internal battles at the white house are subject of daily coverage in the press. The GOP has majorities in both houses. They should be sitting on top of the world, but they're not. Are you saying that's the fault of the NY Times? At some point, the competence of the people involved has to be called into question.
This persistent whining about the big bad media is getting old. They can't have been THAT big or THAT bad, since he won the election, as you keep pointing out. Being President of the USA is hardball, about as hardball as you can get, but I'm not seeing a firm control of the situation, do you? If he wants to be President, then a combative press comes with the territory. If he doesn't like that, tough, deal with it. If he can't, then he should leave and let someone competent do the job.
The Republicans should be laughing right about now, there is not even an well-organized Democratic party to fight them, but instead they're feuding among themselves, and Trump is the reason. Sooner or later, voters, even the base, are going to start wondering what the weak link is. The rest of the country already has a pretty good idea, I'd say.
-
Given the current context (digital media, Breitbart, alt-Right, etc.), I don't understand your constant harping about the liberal media. There are all kinds of points of view easily available out there now. It's as if you're a politician on the campaign trail trying to control the message, always returning to the biased media. Trump initiated public feuds with people in his own party (e.g., McConnell) and people he placed in office (e.g., Sessions), you can't blame that on the loonie-left media. There is a twitter trail of evidence. Internal battles at the white house are subject of daily coverage in the press. The GOP has majorities in both houses. They should be sitting on top of the world, but they're not. Are you saying that's the fault of the NY Times? At some point, the competence of the people involved has to be called into question.
This persistent whining about the big bad media is getting old. They can't have been THAT big or THAT bad, since he won the election, as you keep pointing out. Being President of the USA is hardball, about as hardball as you can get, but I'm not seeing a firm control of the situation, do you? If he wants to be President, then a combative press comes with the territory. If he doesn't like that, tough, deal with it. If he can't, then he should leave and let someone competent do the job.
The Republicans should be laughing right about now, there is not even an well-organized Democratic party to fight them, but instead they're feuding among themselves, and Trump is the reason. Sooner or later, voters, even the base, are going to start wondering what the weak link is. The rest of the country already has a pretty good idea, I'd say.
You can't compare Breitbart to the Washington Post and the NY Times. No one reads Breitbart. Even I don't read Breitbart. :) But, the whole world reads the Post and Times. These newspapers have a major influence in effecting beliefs. Also, the major TV and radio companies, CBS, NBC and ABC, also liberal in content, are major sources of influence as well. Most people watch or listen to them or their local affiliates in the cities where they live on a daily basis.
Trump voters understand the bias. But it's not just about Trump. He's new to the scene. It's that these news organs have always supported a liberal agenda. And a lot of America has understood the bias for years. I saw it in the 1950's as a teenager. It's actually gotten worse. They don't even try to be fair or present the news as news rather than liberal political fodder. When Trump ran for president, he lifted the cover off the box and revealed the bias and attacked them for it. The press hates him for doing that and continuing to do it. He exposed the game they have been playing. So now, they're doubling down on it to get rid of him. They'd rather deal with a more conservative politician like VP Pence. He'll suck up their BS.
Trump fights back and they can't handle it. Trump voters eat it up because they understand what's going on. When Trump points his finger up over the crowd to the cameras in the back and yells, "There they are. Fake news.", all his supporters get it and yuck it up and cheer. Finally, someone is pointing out the hypocrisy and liberal bias of the press and standing up to them.
-
Trump fights back and they can't handle it.
C'mon Allan, do you really believe that?
He's whining and the more he whines the better it is for the liberal media, more sales, more subscriptions, more viewers.
Yes, Trump has a loyal base who don't like it, but I think more and more people are getting fed up with the chaos he's creating.
I'm with Robert, the GOP and Trump should be miles ahead, but they're losing it because they didn't do their homework when they had the time for it and now that they have to deliver they only fight among themselves and thereby don't achieve a whole lot.
-
C'mon Allan, do you really believe that?
He's whining and the more he whines the better it is for the liberal media, more sales, more subscriptions, more viewers.
Yes, Trump has a loyal base who don't like it, but I think more and more people are getting fed up with the chaos he's creating.
I'm with Robert, the GOP and Trump should be miles ahead, but they're losing it because they didn't do their homework when they had the time for it and now that they have to deliver they only fight among themselves and thereby don't achieve a whole lot.
I love it when Jim Acosta gets unhinged. You're right about more sales, etc. The best thing that ever happened to them is Trump. Nobody would watch if Pence was President. A big yawn. Can you imagine Schewe needing to start Pence II? We'd be out taking pictures. Also, would you want to see Melania or Hillary's fat ass? Give me a break! :)
-
Can you imagine Schewe needing to start Pence II?
If Pence did the stoooopid shyte Trump has done, you betcha bud. But I know a bit more about Pence than you do...Trump is goofy stupid, Pence is evil. He paints himself as a Christian but his annual behavior of about as unChristian as the worst of the Tea Bagger party. As governor or Indiana, he tried to do a lot of far right (not alt right but Christian right) measures that finally prompted Indiana to vote him out of office (he would not have won re-election had he not accepted the vp role).
So, yes, I would be posting a lot of stuff about Pence...in fact, I can if you want, shall I?
Did you know that Pence has a pet rabbit?
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/758d6f8aa7248e20305064e5f4d34e8f6d3d69b3/c=0-183-2304-1915&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2017/01/10/INGroup/Indianapolis/636196549933196292-AP-17009733798167.jpg)
Pet rabbit "Marlon Bundo," is carried off the plane of Vice president-elect Mike Pence
as he arrives with his wife Karen Pence and daughter Charlotte Pence, at Andrews Air
Force Base, Md., Monday, Jan. 9, 2017.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)
This from Indy Star
Trump's VP: 10 things to know about Mike Pence (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/07/trumps-vp-10-things-know-indiana-gov-mike-pence/86746980/)
On Friday, Jan. 20, 2017, former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence will take the oath of office to become Donald Trump's vice president.
Whether your reaction to the news was "Mike Who?" or you just need a refresher on his two-plus decades in politics, here's what you should know about the 50th governor of Indiana.
Then there's this...
Think Trump Is Scary? Check Out Mike Pence On The Issues. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/think-trump-is-scary-check-out-mike-pence-on-the-issues_us_57f137d5e4b095bd896a11db)
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/57f2be5d1b00007f08ef429d.jpeg?cache=puifduns4u&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
Dumb and Dummer?
Mike Pence looks like a guy who watched too many episodes of “Mary Tyler Moore” as a kid and came away imprinted by the character of Ted Baxter, the pompous and self-deluded silver-haired newsman, whose perpetual cluelessness amused millions of TV watchers across the country. Little Mike appears to have seen Ted’s uninformed close-mindedness as a virtue and grew up to become an unapologetic evangelical social conservative who sees the last 40 years of progress on abortion, gay rights, civil rights, criminal justice reform and race relations as a disaster for the country.
Why does it matter? Because there is a possibility that Pence could become president of the United States. I know, I know. He’s running for vice president but consider that if he wins, Trump would be the oldest person ever elected to the job. He hides it well behind the constant rage and Agent Orange hair dye, but the Talking Yam is 70. At 6’3” and 236 pounds, he is overweight. He lives on Big Macs and Kentucky Fried Chicken. And, we know from John Kasich, who turned Trump down, he envisions making his VP the most powerful in history—kind of a chief operating officer while Trump handles the really important things like 3 a.m. tweets.
Donald Trump might blow up the world, but Mike Pence would set the clock back to 1954. It’s hard to say which would be worse. Here are some of Pence’s positions that should give even the most lukewarm progressive voters pause.
So, good idea Alan, I'll start looking for news stories about Pence as well as the, how did they write it, the Talking Yam?
-
...
So, good idea Alan, I'll start looking for news stories about Pence as well as the, how did they write it, the Talking Yam?
Please don't. I've got to get back to shooting pictures.
-
Ok, just to make Alan happy, back to Trump...
Donald Trump Says He’s The Best Dealmaker. Negotiation Experts Say Otherwise. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-dealmaking-skills-mexico-australia_us_598b7e7fe4b0d793738c729a)
(http://www.dailynewsz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Trump-To-Phone-Call-Kenyan-President-Uhuru-Kenyatta.jpg)
Mr. Grumpy on the phone
His leaked calls with world leaders reveal more bullying than diplomacy. “It makes Trump look a little venal, a little weak.”
WASHINGTON ― Donald Trump is the best at making deals. The best! He’ll tell you himself by tweeting unsolicited advice on how to win in a negotiation or bragging about his book The Art of the Deal (which he didn’t actually write, but whatever).
Now we can see for ourselves how the president puts his deal-making skills to work. Last week, The Washington Post released transcripts of two phone calls Trump had with foreign leaders in January — one with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and another with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. It’s a rare window into how Trump works his magic with people one-on-one when he doesn’t think anyone is watching.
There were no deals made on either call. Trump threatened Peña Nieto, a top U.S. ally, with tariffs on Mexican goods and then warned he’d never meet with him unless he stopped saying publicly that Mexico won’t pay for Trump’s promised border wall. In a heated exchange with Turnbull, also a key U.S. ally, Trump vented about the “stupid deal” the United States had made with Australia to accept refugees into the country. He all but hung up on Turnbull in the end.
Is this as bananas as it sounds? Or maybe Trump is deploying clever, art-of-the-deal tactics that casual observers might miss?
We asked experts in business and diplomatic negotiation to weigh in.
If you like Trump and think he's doing a good job and negotiates a great deal, you don't want to read what the experts had to say. Sorry, but the actual transcripts show Trump in a very, very bad light...
Here's a pull quote for a taste:
He’s treating Peña Nieto as if he were a merchant and he were a souvenir purchaser haggling for a price. ... It makes Trump look a little venal, a little weak.
Anthony Wanis-St. John, associate professor at American University
And this is the fellow we have trying to negotiate our way out of war with North Korea?
And the people who voted for Trump thought Trump knew how to negotiate? Maybe a real estate deal to do money laundering for the Russians, but to actually try to keep America safe? EeeeeeeK!
-
Here's a question for our European friends. If war breaks out with North Korea, will European NATO countries honor Article 5 and send troops to support us on the Korean peninsula?
-
Another Yam story...
Donald Trump’s Pop-Culture Presidency Enters Its Thriller Phase (Opinion) (http://variety.com/2017/film/columns/donald-trump-pop-culture-north-korea-1202521122/)
Owen Gleiberman
Chief Film Critic, Variety
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/donald-trump.png?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
Ever since Donald Trump appeared on the horizon of presidential politics, he has mirrored the pop culture of the past. That’s because Trump, in one way or another, has always been an actor — a man whose image precedes his reality. For 35 years, he has been a genius at one thing: stroking and manipulating the image machine of modern media. Trump went on the campaign trail as an insult-comedian/talk-radio-host/pompadoured-Elvis/reality-TV-mogul/badass-in-chief, and whenever I read now about how Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush blew it, I always think: None of those mere mortals ever stood a chance. They were fighting a superhero of populist sleaze who didn’t need facts and figures — he just needed the best lines. Trump remains one of the only people you could name who is not primarily in the entertainment business yet created himself as a character, a figment of larger-than-life fantasy. That’s what autocrats do: They don’t sell reality, they sell mythology.
Pop culture is the metaphysical realm in which Trump operates. To most Washington insiders, his signature phrase of “You’re fired!” on “The Apprentice” was just a catchy piece of kitsch. What they missed is how Trump’s use of that phrase, for all its comic braggadocio, was profoundly nostalgic, because it returned you to an earlier America, one in which you could be fired. (Yes, you can still be fired, but now, for the most part, you’re downsized — phased out of the workforce, replaced by a robot or a worker in Guangdong Province.) Trump was never an old-fashioned patriarch-executive who had the backs of his workers, but he played one — brilliantly — on TV.
Now, he plays the president on TV. But, of course, he isn’t just playing.
With Trump, the reason the pop metaphors keep coming is that they’re often the only things that explain what’s going on.
--snip--
To say, however, that the Trump presidency has entered its countdown-to-zero Hollywood thriller phase is not to trivialize what’s going on. It’s to understand that Trump is suddenly acting like an unhinged president out of a movie because he has unleashed this egregiously reckless threat through the lens of his pop-culture-fed imagination. He’s a leader who has begun to feel cornered: not just by the provocations of North Korea, but by a presidency that isn’t going his way and by a Russia investigation that’s heading directly his way. And so he’s lashing out, asserting his nuclear manhood. It’s policy by toxic tantrum. He’s tweeting his way to Armageddon.
Maybe we're all being overly dramatic...but what if we're not?
-
Uh ho...Pence again...
Today’s Impeach-O-Meter: America Demands President Pence (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/11/trump_impeachment_chances_why_is_donald_trump_still_the_president.html)
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/11/trump_impeachment_chances_why_is_donald_trump_still_the_president/830376030.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
In the tradition of the Clintonometer and the Trump Apocalypse Watch (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/04/today_s_trump_apocalypse_watch_generalized_dishonesty_edition.html), the Impeach-O-Meter is a wildly subjective and speculative daily estimate of the likelihood that Donald Trump leaves office before his term ends, whether by being impeached (and convicted) or by resigning under threat of same.
A recent poll estimates that 70 percent of U.S. voters don't think Donald Trump has the right "temperament" to be president. In another poll, 4 in 10 Republicans said he was "unpresidential." We're currently involved in a nuclear standoff with North Korea. Bad judgment and unpresidential behavior could, in a matter of minutes, create the greatest catastrophe in human history. But there's an alternative: Mike Pence could be president!
Yiiipeee, President Pence!!!
-
Ok, now Trump has Venezuela in his sights...
Trump threatens Venezuela with unspecified 'military option' (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-threatens-venezuela-with-unspecified-military-option/ar-AApTMLD)
(http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AApTRIo.img?h=530&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1275&y=412)
BEDMINSTER, N.J. - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday threatened military intervention in Venezuela, a surprise escalation of Washington's response to Venezuela's political crisis that Caracas disparaged as "craziness."
Venezuela has appeared to slide toward a more volatile stage of unrest in recent days, with anti-government forces looting weapons from a military base after a new legislative body usurped the authority of the opposition-controlled congress.
"The people are suffering and they are dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary," Trump told reporters in an impromptu question and answer session.
The comments appeared to shock Caracas, with Venezuela's Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino calling the threat "an act of craziness."
The White House said Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro requested a phone call with Trump on Friday, which the White House appeared to spurn, saying in a statement that Trump would gladly speak to Venezuela's leader when democracy was restored in that country.
So, is Trump threatening to send US troops to Venezuela to restore order? North Korea and Syria aren't enough to keep Trump busy?
-
Here's a question for our European friends. If war breaks out with North Korea, will European NATO countries honor Article 5 and send troops to support us on the Korean peninsula?
Article 5 is about collective defense, not collective offence.
But even in US offensive missions other NATO countries have supported the US so I think you can guess the answer.
But even if they do you'll find it too small because we spend too little on defense, we can't do right in your eyes anyway, so why ask the question?
-
Article 5 is about collective defense, not collective offence.
But even in US offensive missions other NATO countries have supported the US so I think you can guess the answer.
But even if they do you'll find it too small because we spend too little on defense, we can't do right in your eyes anyway, so why ask the question?
NK has threatened attacks on Guam, a US territory. If they sent missiles, even if unarmed, we could consider that at attack and invoke Article 5 and ask for assistance.
As an aside, NATO attacks against Kosovo was offensive in nature. They didn't attack any NATO country first, I don't believe.
I was thinking that Trump recently reversed his negative position on NATO. He sent additional troops and strongly re-stated America's support of Article 5, that we would defend Europe. I wonder if he had NK and Article 5 in mind?
I'm curious what Europe thinks of the situation in NK and their nuclear arming?
-
Ok, now Trump has Venezuela in his sights...
Trump threatens Venezuela with unspecified 'military option' (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-threatens-venezuela-with-unspecified-military-option/ar-AApTMLD)
[...]
So, is Trump threatening to send US troops to Venezuela to restore order? North Korea and Syria aren't enough to keep Trump busy?
It's all very predictable, and I've said it earlier, a populist will create outside enemies in order to unite the homefront around their leader.
But at the same time, one needs to keep an eye on what is really happening. North Korea has baited Trump into a justification for the North Korean military developments to fend off such aggressive enemies as the USA. A similar thing happens with Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro (also a populist) now has an outside enemy allowing the home front to unite around their president (thus making a solution even more difficult).
But of course, one needs to understand that Venezuela is all about oil, which is now cheaply being bought up by Russia in large quantities to cover the Venezuelan National debts. Just like the singling out of Qatar, which is a huge natural gas exporter and thus a competitor to the USA's efforts to create a dependency on the USA from countries bordering Russia, like Poland and Turkey, to name just two NATO partners. Most of what we've seen as foreign and domestic policy making, hinges on the USA's oil and coal dependency (for consumption and trade). That's how limited the horizon looks to Trump, short term financial profit.
Cheers,
Bart
-
NK has threatened attacks on Guam, a US territory. If they sent missiles, even if unarmed, we could consider that at attack and invoke Article 5 and ask for assistance.
flashback = http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/08/08/page/28/article/hawaii-lacks-nato-coverage-if-attacked
As an aside, NATO attacks against Kosovo was offensive in nature. They didn't attack any NATO country first, I don't believe.
NATO agression againt Serbia and change of borders in Europe using military force.
-
This should make Alan happy: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/08/11/trump-policy-voting-gas-retirement-rule-000499 (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/08/11/trump-policy-voting-gas-retirement-rule-000499).
-
This should make Alan happy: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/08/11/trump-policy-voting-gas-retirement-rule-000499 (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/08/11/trump-policy-voting-gas-retirement-rule-000499).
It's funny that the liberal media complained that Trump was taking 17 days off to be on vacation at his Bedminster NJ golf resort. If only we were so lucky that he spent the time only playing golf. We all could use the break. :)
-
NK has threatened attacks on Guam, a US territory.
And the long term US government policy position (from way before Trump) is that the Korean peninsula should be "one country" and that the North Korean regime should be ousted.
So since the cease-fire the NK government has considered the US a hostile power, probably not unjustified. Only Tillerson (a wise man in my book) is starting to back away from that, but his boss is not listening.
If the US government would have accepted the status quo after the cease-fire I wonder what the the NK situation would look like today.
Playing the "world police" is a tricky game, and I wonder where anybody would get the authority to military intervene in Venezuela.
-
.... And this is the fellow we have trying to negotiate our way out of war with North Korea?
Indeed, negotiations are the answer, 20+ years of negotiations have worked wonders so far:
-
Isn't the problem that NK wants to reunite the original country his way?
-
And the long term US government policy position (from way before Trump) is that the Korean peninsula should be "one country" and that the North Korean regime should be ousted.
So since the cease-fire the NK government has considered the US a hostile power, probably not unjustified. Only Tillerson (a wise man in my book) is starting to back away from that, but his boss is not listening.
If the US government would have accepted the status quo after the cease-fire I wonder what the the NK situation would look like today.
Playing the "world police" is a tricky game, and I wonder where anybody would get the authority to military intervene in Venezuela.
The Korean War started when the North supported by the Soviet Union and Communist China invaded the South. The UN agreed to defend the South. America and other countries supported that and fought in the war. There was an armistice but never a peace treaty. Officially, a war is still in force.
As Slobodan showed in his post, the US made an attempt to reduce tensions and made a treaty with NK that they violated in secret producing nuclear weapons. They've been sanctioned by the UN for that but here we are. Do we have a right to defend ourselves against a country that has produced nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them against us with threats after they violated an agreement they made with us? If we don't do something, will that only encourage the Japanese, South Koreans, and others to develop nukes too? Will the situation get worse as time goes on? Or can we just ignore the NK's and their nukes, and not worry? Who's got a magic ball?
Venezuela, no we shouldn't get involved. On the other hand, the same was said about Serbia-Kosovo and looked what happened there. It's a shame what's going on to the Venezuelans, a nice people who are going to lose their freedom like the Cubans did.
-
Isn't the problem that NK wants to reunite the original country his way?
That's true. That's why there are American forces still in South Korea defending it. The interesting thing is that NK by developing it's nuclear offense to protect its regime and country may have actually created the tensions where a war happens. If they just followed the nuclear agreement to not develop, no one would even care about them or consider them a threat. His regime would be safer. The law of unintended consequences. It happens to the "bad" guys too.
-
a nice people who are going to lose their freedom like the Cubans did.
and by freedom you mean Batista ? because that is what was there before Castro brothers ;D
-
If they just followed the nuclear agreement to not develop, no one would even care about them or consider them a threat.
Saddam and Muamar didn't... case in point - rabid american dog respects only a nuclear fist
-
Saddam and Muamar didn't... case in point - rabid american dog respects only a nuclear fist
That's why Trump failed again when he took North Korea's bait/provocation, instead of trying a more collaborative approach together with partner stakeholders in the region.
China doesn't like North Korea, but it's 'better' than having the USA (or South Korea backed by the USA) at its borders. Same goes for the Russian Federation. Trump's disruptive 'diplomacy' with China doesn't help either. Tillerson is trying to do some damage control, but that's difficult with a president who doesn't follow the rules of the game.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But all is a show. Every country or agglomeration of them is a show. As in showbiz.
In the end, it comes down to the biggest guy with the biggest stick facing off the lesser guys with the lesser sticks. The problems arise when nobody can agree who is Alley Oop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz6IpmmYSXA
Always so.
Rob
-
Isn't the problem that NK wants to reunite the original country his way?
I think both sides want to reunite the original country, and it has been the stated policy of the US to support the South in doing so. So why do we find it OK if one side arms up while the other isn't allowed to do the same? Just asking, I don't know the answer (other then the Alley oop logic). I also rather not see everybody nuke up, but NK doesn't have the largest or most potent arsenal (by a long shot)
-
That's why Trump failed again when he took North Korea's bait/provocation, instead of trying a more collaborative approach together with partner stakeholders in the region.
Ironically, the Trump Administration was getting very favorable press here—and praise from foreign policy veterans of previous administrations representing both major political parties—for its role in assembling unanimous support for the Security Council resolution imposing additional sanctions on North Korea. Nikki Haley and the career staff of the U.S. mission to the United Nations performed as well as anyone could have hoped in the behind-the-scenes negotiations that precede Security Council votes of this kind.
That's all been drowned out now by the clamor over Trump's bellicose comments.
-
I think both sides want to reunite the original country, and it has been the stated policy of the US to support the South in doing so. So why do we find it OK if one side arms up while the other isn't allowed to do the same? Just asking, I don't know the answer (other then the Alley oop logic). I also rather not see everybody nuke up, but NK doesn't have the largest or most potent arsenal (by a long shot)
Indeed, but how threatening with "Fire and Fury" is going to achieve anything positive is something that only Trump's Psychiater can figure out.
Trump is also very careless in mentioning nuclear options, unaware of what that might trigger in opposing forces.
Here are some of his referrals to the nuclear arsenal.
December 28, 2016 Commentary: With Trump, nuclear brinkmanship is back
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apps-nuclear-commentary-idUSKBN14H145
"With barely a single working day left until Christmas, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump appeared to unexpectedly announce an intensified nuclear arms race. "
Apparently, he thought that sheer numbers counted and childishly wanted to beat Russia.
January 15, 2017: Trump says wants nuclear arsenals cut 'very substantially'
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-arms-idUSKBN14Z0XS
"When asked about the prospect of a nuclear arms reduction deal with Russia, Trump told the newspaper in an interview: "For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.” "
Somebody probably told him that the cost of maintaining the nuclear arsenal would be prohibitive, so now he wanted to cut the arsenal. In fact, that would be a wise thing to do, it would cost less, and after all, the weapons delivery systems are more important than sheer numbers of warheads. And there are still way more than required to take out all major cities of the opponent, which should be enough of a deterrent.
August 9, 2017: Trump says U.S. nuclear arsenal stronger than ever
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-trump-idUSKBN1AP1DQ
QUOTE "My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before," he wrote on Twitter. "Hopefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!"
Now it was his first order to renovate and modernize ..., and all the time I was thinking that putting Hillary Clinton in jail, no wait, building a wall, no wait, Coal miner's jobs, no wait, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the U.S., no wait, what was it exactly that was his first order??? It was an "Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", signed within hours of taking office. Whell, that went well ...
Pompous bluster does not convince more intelligent opponents, like the North Korean leadership. Just look at Kim's approval rating from his people (and he is only the figure head of the powers in charge...).
Cheers,
Bart
-
and by freedom you mean Batista ? because that is what was there before Castro brothers ;D
Yeah. So the Cubans didn't have freedom then either. What's your point?
-
Ironically, the Trump Administration was getting very favorable press here—and praise from foreign policy veterans of previous administrations representing both major political parties—for its role in assembling unanimous support for the Security Council resolution imposing additional sanctions on North Korea. Nikki Haley and the career staff of the U.S. mission to the United Nations performed as well as anyone could have hoped in the behind-the-scenes negotiations that precede Security Council votes of this kind.
That's all been drowned out now by the clamor over Trump's bellicose comments.
None of that stuff worked though. For three previous presidents, 24 years, we've been backing off and including a nuclear agreement where they wouldn't produce them which they violated and it's only gotten worse. They're one step away of being able to deliver nuclear weapons by missile tip to the entire United States. All of the people saying Trump did such a great thing arw now arguing against his bellicosity are the same people who promoted fecklessness for the last 24 years that have gotten us nowhere. When they're asked what should we do, they scratch their heads and still have no answer except do the same thing that we've been doing that's accomplished nothing. So maybe Trump is right to try bellicose instead. Nk may back off. China may pressure the north.
Look, it's a scary situation. Who wants War? Who wants a nuclear armed nk? Who's got The answer?
-
Latin America slams Trump's Venezuela 'military options' threat
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-venezuela-military-idUSKBN1AR2GR
QUOTE August 12, 2017 / 12:35 AM "August 12, 2017 / 12:35 AM / 3 hours ago
CARACAS/LIMA (Reuters) - After months of attacking Venezuela's unpopular President Nicolas Maduro, Latin America came out strongly against U.S. threats of military action against the struggling OPECnation.
U.S. President Donald Trump's surprise comments on Friday may give beleaguered leftist leader Maduro a regional boost, just as Venezuela was on verge of becoming a pariah.
Following Trump's comment on Friday that military intervention in Venezuela was an option, Maduro's critics are caught between backing the idea of a foreign invasion of Venezuela or supporting a president they call a dictator.
The surprise escalation of Washington's response to Venezuela's crisis came as U.S. Vice President Mike Pence was set to begin a regional trip on Sunday that will bring him to Colombia, Argentina, Chile, and Panama.
Venezuela's powerful Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino on Friday disparaged U.S. threats as "craziness" and Foreign minister Jorge Arreaza said on Saturday Venezuela rejected "hostile" threats, calling on Latin America to unite against Washington.
"We want to express gratitude for all the expressions of solidarity and rejection of the use of force from governments around the world, including Latin America," said Arreaza, in a short speech on Saturday. "
Well, there you have it. Trump's behavior forced Latin America to take sides and 'support' Venezuelan dictator Maduro. Just like in North Korea, Trump has strengthened the position of its ruler.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If I were to write a plot, which I'm not, I see the US makes a reply bombing to any rockets, then China walks into NK in order to "protect" it, but in fact to assimilate it into China. That would be neat for both the US and China.
I don't think China would then march further south - no need because SK would be an excellent, peaceful neighbour and the US would certainly not even dream of hitting China; why would it want to do so? Only the awkward mother presently in the north is the disruptive factor for the region. That out of the way, back to Persia...
Rob
-
Latin America slams Trump's Venezuela 'military options' threat
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-venezuela-military-idUSKBN1AR2GR
QUOTE August 12, 2017 / 12:35 AM "August 12, 2017 / 12:35 AM / 3 hours ago
CARACAS/LIMA (Reuters) - After months of attacking Venezuela's unpopular President Nicolas Maduro, Latin America came out strongly against U.S. threats of military action against the struggling OPECnation.
U.S. President Donald Trump's surprise comments on Friday may give beleaguered leftist leader Maduro a regional boost, just as Venezuela was on verge of becoming a pariah.
Following Trump's comment on Friday that military intervention in Venezuela was an option, Maduro's critics are caught between backing the idea of a foreign invasion of Venezuela or supporting a president they call a dictator.
The surprise escalation of Washington's response to Venezuela's crisis came as U.S. Vice President Mike Pence was set to begin a regional trip on Sunday that will bring him to Colombia, Argentina, Chile, and Panama.
Venezuela's powerful Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino on Friday disparaged U.S. threats as "craziness" and Foreign minister Jorge Arreaza said on Saturday Venezuela rejected "hostile" threats, calling on Latin America to unite against Washington.
"We want to express gratitude for all the expressions of solidarity and rejection of the use of force from governments around the world, including Latin America," said Arreaza, in a short speech on Saturday. "
Well, there you have it. Trump's behavior forced Latin America to take sides and 'support' Venezuelan dictator Maduro. Just like in North Korea, Trump has strengthened the position of its ruler.
Cheers,
Bart
Only the Venezuelans will stop Maduro. The rest of South America won't do squat. So it's possible that if military or others in Venezuela feel they have America's military backing or backing of any kind, they may go against Maduro. Otherwise Venezuelans are going to wind up like Cubans.
-
Only the Venezuelans will stop Maduro. The rest of South America won't do squat. So it's possible that if military or others in Venezuela feel they have America's military backing or backing of any kind, they may go against Maduro. Otherwise Venezuelans are going to wind up like Cubans.
Sure, opportunists are everywhere. But the real question is, why does the USA care?
The answer is, fossil fuel (i.e. pure self-interest, again, at the expense of others) !!!!!
That's the turn-off, short term financial benefits to none other than the USA. Unilateral benefits suggested by the USA do not benefit the general good, on the contrary. Hence, the USA experiment under Trump rule will fail big time, and those responsible will have to answer for it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Hence, the USA experiment under Trump rule will fail big time, and those responsible will have to answer for it...
To whom?
-
To whom?
To the rest of the American voters who DIDN'T vote for the orange bumbling buffoon-you know the other 73% of American voters who either voted for somebody else or didn't get up off their butt to vote. Pretty sure they will get up off their butt next time :~(
-
He had a chance but couldn't bring himself to decry white supremacists the Neo Nazis, the Alt Right or anti-Semitism.
Trump Takes Heat for Blaming Violence at Charlottesville Rally on ‘Many Sides’ (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-politicians-condemn-white-nationalist-rally-charlottesville-virginia-n792096)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/08/13/Editorial-Opinion/Images/AFP_RI7B2-2432.jpg?uuid=Khje-H_NEeedCLefGRZo7Q)
President Trump speaks about events in Charlottesville on Saturday in Bedminster, N.J.
President Donald Trump sparked a backlash Saturday when he suggested "many sides" were to blame for the deadly violence at a white nationalist rally in downtown Charlottesville, Virginia.
Democrats criticized the president for failing to single out white nationalists, and many Republicans issued statements mentioning white nationalism or white supremacists. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said on Twitter: "We should call evil by its name."
In remarks from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, where he has been on a working vacation, Trump made the following statement: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."
He added that hate and division in the country must stop, but that it is not linked to his presidency because it has "been going on for a long, long time."
"No matter our color, creed, religion, our political party, we are all Americans first," he said, adding that he'd like for his administration to "study" why such violence is occurring. He didn't take questions from reporters.
Wow, condemning violence at a white nationalist/neo nazis racist rally protesting the removal of a Civil War monument and the people who counter protested against racism and white supremacy is somehow equivalent? Trump lays the blame many sides but one side came to Charlottesville for the express purpose of raising the protest to the level of violence.
Yes, the "other side" may have been equally prepared for violence–both groups seems to be wearing armor and helmets for hand to hand combat but did Trump not get the differences between the "sides"?
Trump won't condemn neo nazis, KKK, white supremacists and outright racism? Doesn't Trump know that's a dog whistle for those groups? The fact that Trump refused to condemn them is being taken by those groups are a tacit approval of what they are doing.
Other leaders seems to find their voices:
Marco Rubio ✔ @marcorubio
Very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #whitesupremacists
4:30 PM - Aug 12, 2017
Cory Gardner ✔ @SenCoryGardner
Mr. President - we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism. https://twitter.com/sencorygardner/status/896465229181210624 …
3:44 PM - Aug 12, 2017
Senator Hatch Office ✔ @senorrinhatch
We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home. -OGH
4:41 PM - Aug 12, 2017
But on the other side, they had this to say...Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke called the event in line with Trump’s “promises.”
“THIS REPRESENTS A TURNING POINT FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. WE ARE DETERMINED TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK,” DUKE SAID. “WE ARE GOING TO FULFILL THE PROMISES OF DONALD TRUMP. THAT’S WHAT WE BELIEVED IN. THAT’S WHY WE VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP, BECAUSE HE SAID HE’S GOING TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.”
-
Too bad Trump didn't have Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe's speech writer. He told the white supremacists to go home and don't come back!
Virginia governor tells white supremacists to 'go home' (http://news.sky.com/story/virginia-governor-tells-white-supremacists-to-go-home-10986610)
Virginia's governor has ripped into the "white supremacists and the Nazis" who took part in a far-right rally in Charlottesville.
Far-right activists organised the event on Friday to protest against Charlottesville's plans to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee from the city.
But it turned ugly, as mass brawls broke out between them and anti-fascists, with people throwing punches, hurling water bottles and using pepper spray as riot police were deployed.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe said: "I have a message to all the white supremacists and the Nazis who came into Charlottesville today.
"Our message is plain and simple: Go home.
"You are not wanted in this great commonwealth.
"Shame on you.
"You pretend that you are patriots but you are anything but a patriot."
"You came here today to hurt people and you did hurt people.
"But my message is clear: we are stronger than you...You will not succeed. There is no place for you here. There is no place for you in America."
This is the speech Trump should have given... (https://youtu.be/DLvq9jeTFWE)
10:20
-
Yes, violence is ugly, but there is also great stupidity in trying to rewrite history.
Statues are what they are: representations of the mores of an era. It makes little sense to remove them when all you achieve is short-term hatred and long-term burying of your country's history which, depending on the times and the side you adopt today, serves simply to pervert the thread of reality. You cannot undo what was done, for better or for worse.
Similar crap is happening in Spain, where all trace of Franco is being removed, bit by bit, until future generations will only have fuller foreign versions of Spanish history to read; they will then denounce the truth as propaganda and lies because they no longer have reliable reference to their own history at home. But then, I suppose all of today's political spouting is just that: lies. You see what happens when reality gets tampered with for the purpose of whitewash? Everything turns grey. At least the French have not given in: many villages still cherish their memorials to souls lost to German barbarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre
The above is one such. Would it have been better to remove the rubble and pretend, as in Virginia, that shit didn't happen? That if you deny it ever did, then it can't happen again? That's some big blanket under which to bury the (inter)national head.
Rob
-
The president defended the right of Americans to free speech and admonished them to do it peacefully. The left is anti American and anti free speech. They're the PC police. They only believe in free speech if they agree with it's viewpoint. they want to shut everyone else up. They're the Castro's and Maduro's of the world who when they take power will shut you up and lock you up.
-
The president defended the right of Americans to free speech and admonished them to do it peacefully. The left is anti American and anti free speech. They're the PC police. They only believe in free speech if they agree with it's viewpoint. they want to shut everyone else up. They're the Castro's and Maduro's of the world who when they take power will shut you up and lock you up.
Then it must be nothing short of a miracle that Trump won and that the Republicans have majorities in both houses.
Do you honestly believe that the USA is on the verge of a socialist takeover? I mean, do you really believe that?
Is driving cars into protesters considered free speech now?
-
He had a chance but couldn't bring himself to decry white supremacists the Neo Nazis, the Alt Right or anti-Semitism.
They're his base. :)
-
Yes, violence is ugly, but there is also great stupidity in trying to rewrite history.
Statues are what they are: representations of the mores of an era. It makes little sense to remove them when all you achieve is short-term hatred and long-term burying of your country's history which, depending on the times and the side you adopt today, serves simply to pervert the thread of reality. You cannot undo what was done, for better or for worse.
Similar crap is happening in Spain, where all trace of Franco is being removed, bit by bit, until future generations will only have fuller foreign versions of Spanish history to read; they will then denounce the truth as propaganda and lies because they no longer have reliable reference to their own history at home. But then, I suppose all of today's political spouting is just that: lies. You see what happens when reality gets tampered with for the purpose of whitewash? Everything turns grey. At least the French have not given in: many villages still cherish their memorials to souls lost to German barbarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre
The above is one such. Would it have been better to remove the rubble and pretend, as in Virginia, that shit didn't happen? That if you deny it ever did, then it can't happen again? That's some big blanket under which to bury the (inter)national head.
Rob
I take your point and have some sympathy for it. But archives and history books are full of descriptions of what happened in the past, the info not hard to find. There are numerous documentaries available, probably for free on youtube. Then there's the interweb. It's an open question what a country should celebrate in statues and town squares. There's a sizeable number of Americans who have a fetish about the Confederate flag, for example. How many of them do you think know any history, other than what they see in Hollywood movies? The Confederate flag is a stand-in, a metaphor for generic rebellion. Rebellion against what, I can't tell anymore, can you?
Should there be swastikas all over Germany as a reminder? How about statues of lynchings in public squares in Alabama and Mississippi?
I've been saying for years now that we should have rules in place that no statues of politicians should be erected until they've been dead for at least 50 years. Best to let to let some time pass before deciding if they're worth remembering let alone celebrating.
Do you really think that the supremacist crowd in Virginia that organized that demonstration truly care about history?
Myself, I'd be interested to know what Homeland Security knows about those neo-Nazi and other white supremacist groups. Are they tracking them? Are any of them on no-fly lists?
-
Is driving cars into protesters considered free speech now?
Touché
The problem with extremists (on all sides of the spectrum) is that they are too stupid to defend their case with free speech and need to resort to violence to try and "make their point". I think as soon as that happens they actually prove they're wrong and lost their cause.
-
.... Do you honestly believe that the USA is on the verge of a socialist takeover? I mean, do you really believe that?...
Yes.
Though, to be precise, at the beginning of the road that leads to the verge.
-
I take your point and have some sympathy for it. But archives and history books are full of descriptions of what happened in the past, the info not hard to find. There are numerous documentaries available, probably for free on youtube. Then there's the interweb. It's an open question what a country should celebrate in statues and town squares. There's a sizeable number of Americans who have a fetish about the Confederate flag, for example. How many of them do you think know any history, other than what they see in Hollywood movies? The Confederate flag is a stand-in, a metaphor for generic rebellion. Rebellion against what, I can't tell anymore, can you?
Should there be swastikas all over Germany as a reminder? How about statues of lynchings in public squares in Alabama and Mississippi?
I've been saying for years now that we should have rules in place that no statues of politicians should be erected until they've been dead for at least 50 years. Best to let to let some time pass before deciding if they're worth remembering let alone celebrating.
Do you really think that the supremacist crowd in Virginia that organized that demonstration truly care about history?
Myself, I'd be interested to know what Homeland Security knows about those neo-Nazi and other white supremacist groups. Are they tracking them? Are any of them on no-fly lists?
The problem with books is that they can vanish, either into populist bonfires or government-sponsored ones. A statue has a better chance of survival unless it's called Sadam; guess who pulled that one down for the greater glory of tv news... That flag-raising photo in WW2 has quite a legacy as behavioural fashion icon. I quite liked the Dixie flag (as design) and considered having it painted onto the roof of my old car but didn't for two reasons: no paint shops here can do that sort of artwork - they have problems respraying straight repairs; I realised that somebody not familiar with the Dukes of H. would probably vandalise the old bus thinking I was an American. Maybe the local cop who made me remove my US vanity plate (bearing my website name) after thirty-five years of hassle-free display of such a plate in various iterations was actually doing me a favour, but I doubt it.
As for statues to lynchings - do they exist? Swastikas are problematic: a backwards swastika is perfectly legitimate in the whole of India... I'd be amazed if no swastika is alive and perfectly well in some public, German forum if only for its curiosity value today. The whole concept of whitewash frightens me more than what's being erased - allow it in one sphere of public life and all truth is at once under threat, subject to the existing power structure of the day. Didn't ISIS do the same with historical sites because they didn't dig the message? Would you think that might be okay? Not a lot of difference between an old (in US terms) statue and some old ruins a few centuries out of date...
Supremacy crowds don't justify anything other than the need for control, but that's easy to say if one lives in another neighbourhood than the one they might occupy. It's what seems to have driven Brexit, after all.
It would be nice if we could all coexist in peace, but many of us dislike our own neighbours, regardless of however pale - or dark - their skin may be. Love can't be legislated.
Rob
-
I'd be interested to know what Homeland Security knows about those neo-Nazi and other white supremacist groups. Are they tracking them? Are any of them on no-fly lists?
Their members probably are not being tracked and, in general, it wouldn't be possible for the government to place them on no-fly lists. U.S. law enforcement agencies—both federal and state—can only begin investigations if they have "probable cause" that a crime has been committed or is about to be, at which point they can obtain judicial warrants to conduct searches, but the "about to be" part requires evidence that is difficult to obtain without an informant who is participating in an active plan to commit a crime. Political speech and belief, per se, are constitutionally protected no matter how extreme, and do not constitute probable cause to trigger law enforcement investigations.
Unlike most countries, the United States has no domestic intelligence service that can monitor individuals who are suspected to be likely to commit crimes but have not yet done so. There have been proposals over the years to give the FBI limited intelligence authority similar to that exercised by the domestic intelligence agencies of some European democracies—perhaps not as extensive as the British MI-5, but something similar to the powers of the German BfV—however Congress has never acted on them. (The FBI does have counter-intelligence jurisdiction: the ability to monitor individuals who are believed to be spying for foreign governments, whether they are foreigners, or citizens or permanent residents of the United States.)
Most terrorist plots that have been detected involve individuals with foreign connections, and, as the whole world is aware, the United States has a number of agencies that gather foreign intelligence, as well as information-sharing arrangements with the intelligence agencies of numerous other governments. Based on the press accounts, it apparently is through involvement with foreign collaborators that most plans to commit terrorist acts here have been discovered. But domestic groups, even if they are actively planning violence, probably find it fairly easy to fly under the law enforcement radar.
-
Unlike most countries, the United States has no domestic intelligence service that can monitor individuals who are suspected to be likely to commit crimes but have not yet done so. There have been proposals over the years to give the FBI limited intelligence authority similar to that exercised by the domestic intelligence agencies of some European democracies—perhaps not as extensive as the British MI-5, but something similar to the powers of the German BfV—however Congress has never acted on them. (The FBI does have counter-intelligence jurisdiction: the ability to monitor individuals who are believed to be spying for foreign governments, whether they are foreigners, or citizens or permanent residents of the United States.)
J. Edgar made a valiant attempt to track rock and roll singers and Martin Luther King (and probably other civil rights workers), but I guess that was idiosyncratic and not part of a widespread effort, although I don't know that for a fact. I have no idea how many "communists" were monitored during the red scare years, hundreds, thousands? But as you say, that was nowhere near the efforts of KGB and Stasi.
Funny how some people will staunchly support the free speech rights of white supremacist groups, even the Neo-Nazi anti-semitic ones, but freak if some "socialist" politician advocates universal health care or environmental protection. The fact that Trump explicitly used the phrase 'all sides' (or whatever the words were) and failed, at least at first blush, to condemn those far right views that were being expressed is not encouraging, since it was probably not an accident and the omission may have been intended to make a point (fits the pattern). It will be interesting to see if the voters remember that in the future. There were some grumblings reported yesterday about Republican politicians not being happy about it, which may be the right noise to make, but we'll see if they're actually willing to risk losing those votes (assuming those folks vote, that is). I'm not optimistic about that. Politicians tend to pander nowadays, but maybe that's all they are capable of; the "best and the brightest" may not be choosing careers in public service as much as they used to.
This is so sad to watch.
-
And a friend just sent me this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/neo-nazis-white-supremacists-celebrate-trump-response-virginia-charlottesville-a7890786.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/neo-nazis-white-supremacists-celebrate-trump-response-virginia-charlottesville-a7890786.html).
Somehow, in my spotty reading, I managed to miss the fact that the KKK was represented at this rally. The clan? Really? What year is this?
-
J. Edgar made a valiant attempt to track rock and roll singers and Martin Luther King (and probably other civil rights workers), but I guess that was idiosyncratic and not part of a widespread effort, although I don't know that for a fact. I have no idea how many "communists" were monitored during the red scare years, hundreds, thousands?
The transgressions of J. Edgar Hoover are typically cited whenever the idea is floated of authorizing the FBI to conduct domestic intelligence as a reason not to do so.
I don't know whether there has ever been a reliable public accounting of how many alleged communists were monitored by the FBI during the 1940s and 1950s. The legal justification for doing so was that they were suspected of being spies for a foreign government—the Soviet Union—as indeed a number of them turned out to be. The most serious abuses of civil liberties during that period were instigated by Congressional committees, however.
-
Let's leave aside Nazism, KKK, and those issues and talk about the rebel flag for a moment. I'm not a southerner. But that flag represents being a "rebel". A person who wants to run their life as they see fit. A person who believes in states rights over an all powerful national government Like one who wanted to tell the south how they should operate before the civil war.
If you're honest, how does that differ from Coloradans and Washingtonians who allow marijuana in their states opposed to federal laws? That's a states right issue as well. Many people here who support those states and complain about federal interference, are states rights advocates as well. Many southerners who are opposed to slavery, still today are big supporters of states rights. They want little federal interference. Maybe Coloradans and Washingtonians should fly that flag too.
-
Yeah. So the Cubans didn't have freedom then either. What's your point?
"yeah" what ? you consider Batista was better the brothers ? my point is that it was not ... and Castro went to USA first... so what was the reception he got back then ?
-
Let's leave aside Nazism, KKK, and those issues and talk about the rebel flag for a moment. I'm not a southerner. But that flag represents being a "rebel". A person who wants to run their life as they see fit. A person who believes in states rights over an all powerful national government Like one who wanted to tell the south how they should operate before the civil war.
If you're honest, how does that differ from Coloradans and Washingtonians who allow marijuana in their states opposed to federal laws? That's a states right issue as well. Many people here who support those states and complain about federal interference, are states rights advocates as well. Many southerners who are opposed to slavery, still today are big supporters of states rights. They want little federal interference. Maybe Coloradans and Washingtonians should fly that flag too.
No, let's not leave out Nazism, anti-Semitism and the KKK. They aren't some some unfortunate optional detail. They are central to the events of the past couple of days. Anything else, in the end, is denial. They need to be condemned very directly, and because Trump won't do that, he has shown himself unfit for his office. Even by his standards this is a very low moment. It's really very simple. Here in the U.K. these people are given no leeway at all, quite rightly. States rights and the rest is a whole other argument.
-
"yeah" what ? you consider Batista was better the brothers ? my point is that it was not ... and Castro went to USA first... so what was the reception he got back then ?
So you're saying the Castro brothers were better because they replaced another dictator? The fact is Castro was welcome here in the United States until we found out that he was a communist and was getting support from the Soviet Union. Then, instead of giving the Cuban people Freedom, he perpetuated and made it worse by giving them communism on top of dictatorship.
How can you apologize for decades of Castro's dictatorship? It boggles the mind!
-
No, let's not leave out Nazism, anti-Semitism and the KKK. They aren't some some unfortunate optional detail. They are central to the events of the past couple of days. Anything else, in the end, is denial. They need to be condemned very directly, and because Trump won't do that, he has shown himself unfit for his office. Even by his standards this is a very low moment. It's really very simple. Here in the U.K. these people are given no leeway at all, quite rightly. States rights and the rest is a whole other argument.
Please don't lecture me on freedom of speech. In Europe you can't wear hijab which is freedom of speech. In America you can. In Europe, speech is proscribed. In America it isn't. We take freedom of speech very seriously here. You guys don't get it.
-
Please don't lecture me on freedom of speech. In Europe you can't wear hijab which is freedom of speech. In America you can. In Europe, speech is proscribed. In America it isn't. We take freedom of speech very seriously here. You guys don't get it.
Oh dear, get out an atlas. It may come as a surprise but "Europe" consists of an awful lot of different countries with very different laws. Nor is this particular matter about freedom of speech. In fact this has nothing to do with it. It's about naming evil for what it is. As I said, it's really very very simple and direct. Trump won't do it so those other than his apologists are going to draw some very bleak conclusions.
Or as JFK had it, in one of his favourite quotations, "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."
-
Please don't lecture me on freedom of speech. In Europe you can't wear hijab which is freedom of speech. In America you can. In Europe, speech is proscribed. In America it isn't. We take freedom of speech very seriously here. You guys don't get it.
For a change, I am obliged to agree with you regarding Europe, or at least the UK. We do not have freedom to say whatever we like; we can end up being prosecuted for mentioning a few radical ideas that concern people from foreign lands, as well as make any negative observations about non-Christian belief systems. No bloody wonder many felt the Brexit vote was their only chance to say what they really felt without finding themselves in court or at the recieving end of "politically correct" attacks. That sort of attack is okay, of course. Isn't it?
Rob C
-
You guys don't get it.
As long as driving cars into your "opponents" is considered "freedom of speech" there's not much to "get". Extremist violence has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
-
For a change, I am obliged to agree with you regarding Europe, or at least the UK. We do not have freedom to say whatever we like; we can end up being prosecuted for mentioning a few radical ideas that concern people from foreign lands, as well as make any negative observations about non-Christian belief systems. No bloody wonder many felt the Brexit vote was their only chance to say what they really felt without finding themselves in court or at the recieving end of "politically correct" attacks. That sort of attack is okay, of course. Isn't it?
Rob C
How hard is it to say "anti-Semitism and the KKK are evil, period"? And what on earth has this to do with free speech? Too hard for Trump apparently. This isn't about free speech but about calling out some things for what they are. Free speech is another issue, and you make an important point, but not this issue.
-
As long as driving cars into your "opponents" is considered "freedom of speech" there's not much to "get". Extremist violence has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Where did I propose violence? I'm supporting free speech. They should take the perpetrator from that car and bring him around behind the building and shoot him. Oh wait? Am I allowed to say that? In Europe I probably be jailed for recommending violence.
You see, in America we're not afraid of freedom of speech. As stupid and as asinine and as hateful as people want to speak, we let them do it. That's what makes our country so great.
-
As long as driving cars into your "opponents" is considered "freedom of speech"...
Who said that?
-
The left is anti American and anti free speech.
Yeah ya know, that's simply not true...while YOU may believe that, there is no actual indications or proof that the "left" is anti American. In what ways are liberals any less American than the right? That's total hogwash (insert your fav alternative to hogwash). While you may have the right to your own opinions, you do not have the right to create your own facts.
I have no problem with free speech at all. I do have problems with people who wear helmets and body armor and instruments that can be used as a weapon, matching down the street yelling hate speech with the intent to provoke a response that ends up in violence. Free speech requires wearing helmets and body armor? Since when?
I have a problem with people who espouse hate, racism, white supremacy, neo nazis, radical alt right and antisemitism. While they may have the right to say what they wish, there's no law that makes me accept it as normal and acceptable. I also have the right to counter protest and espouse anti hate, anti neo nazis, anti racism and anti white supremacy.
That's the funny thing here, who's calling who anti free speech? Do I not have an equal right to counter protest?
Yeah, sorry, I'm not anti American, I'm pro American and I'm not anti free Speech, I'm pro free speech. So you should reconsider what you think you think. Because what you think is wrong unless you can prove I'm not a worthy American?
-
Let's leave aside Nazism, KKK, and those issues and talk about the rebel flag for a moment. I'm not a southerner. But that flag represents being a "rebel".
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Battle_flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America.svg/220px-Battle_flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America.svg.png)
The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia
No, that "rebel flag" is not really a rebel flag representing Confederate Nationalism. In it's rectangular form, it was seen as symbol of the Southern United States and heritage but also a reminder of racism and violence and the KKK. Some southerners see the flag as representing Southern pride rather than racism. But those would be white southerners, not black. Black southerners see it as a symbol of racism.
In a CNN/ORC (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/07/01/confederate.flag.pdf) 2015 poll (not long after the nine African-American churchgoers were killed by a white man who said he was trying to start a race war in a Charleston church) "most" Americans (57%) see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism, about the same as in 2000 when 59% said they viewed it as a symbol of pride. Opinions of the flag are sharply divided by race, and among whites, views are split by education.
Among African-Americans, 72% see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, just 25% of whites agree. In the South, the racial divide is even broader. While 75% of Southern whites describe the flag as a symbol of pride and 18% call it a symbol of racism, those figures are almost exactly reversed among Southern African-Americans, with just 11% seeing it as a sign of pride and 75% viewing it as a symbol of racism.
Among whites, there's a sharp divide by education, and those with more formal education are less apt to see the flag as a symbol of pride. Among whites with a college degree, 51% say it's a symbol of pride, 41% one of racism. Among those whites who do not have a college degree, 73% say it's a sign of Southern pride, 18% racism.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg/220px-Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg.png)
A more rectangular variant of the Army of Northern Virginia battle flag, was used during the war by the Army of Tennessee.
But the problem is that since the South is making the effort to remove the flag in many official and public uses, the flag has been coopted by by a variety of movements such as neo nazis, neo confederates (or "Southern Nationalist") which are right wing anti-federalists and libertarians and now the radical Alt Right movement. These groups are protesting the removal os the flag and other monuments that harken back to periods where slavery was legal and the root cause of the civil war.
So, no...waving a Confederate "Rebel Flag" is not something that can be isolated as a representation of being a rebel or being free. Waving a Confederate "Rebel Flag" by a bunch of white guys armed with sticks and clubs and wearing helmets and body armor is not a question of "free speech" protected by the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
See that phrase: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"?
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/nintchdbpict000345290800.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=960)
"Militia members" carrying rifles at the rally to protect the Unite the Right rally. Note, these are not COPs, they are alt right militia members.
That means you prolly shouldn't be armed with weapons and wearing body armor and a helmet if you are intending to peaceably assemble. The white supremacists, KKK, neo confederates, radical Alt Right, antisemitic racists are free to spout their drek but they are not free to threaten citizens and disturb the peace.
I have no idea who started the "fight" but when you have a white supremacist Unite the Right rally organized by Jason Kessler (who was chased away by protesters during a press conference (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jason-kessler-press-conference_us_59909213e4b090964297d1ec) in Charlottesville), you better figure it ain't a 1st amendment issue, it's public safety issue.
-
Ivanka Trump Verified account
@IvankaTrump
1:2 There should be no place in society for racism, white supremacy and neo-nazis.
5:09 AM - 13 Aug 2017
Ivanka Trump Verified account
@IvankaTrump
2:2 We must all come together as Americans -- and be one country UNITED. #Charlottesville
5:09 AM - 13 Aug 2017
Donald Trump:
We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America. What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. No citizen should ever fear for their safety and security in our society. And no child should ever be afraid to go outside and play or be with their parents and have a good time.
So, he could find a way to bring up Barack Obama but somehow racism, white supremacists and neo-nazis slip his mind? So, anti-racism anti-hate protesters and rallies promoting racism are moral equivalents? Is it not ok to hate racism? Is it not ok to protest bigotry and antisemitism? Who has the ownership on 1st amendment rights, people who promote hate or the people to protest hate?
Does Trump consider white supremacists and neo-nazis part of his base?
Is that why he can't condemn them?
What if they were Muslim?
You know the answers, right?
-
In their own words...
Battle of Charlottesville: A Firsthand Account (https://www.dailystormer.com/unitetheright-historic-event-for-the-ages/)
(https://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/IMG_20170812_112157-618x348.jpg)
This was only a small portion of the Alt-Right army that descended on Charlottesville yesterday.
Lee Rogers
Daily Stormer
August 13, 2017
Myself, Azzmador, Zeiger and Ben Garland personally attended the #UniteTheRight rally in Charlottesville, Virginia yesterday. All of us were on the ground at Lee Park.
It was a pleasure personally meeting many of you in person. You should feel proud to be part of this history making event. We have just sent shock waves through the entire political system.
I wanted to give everyone my first hand account of what I saw while everything is still fresh.
(https://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/170812105806-charlottesville-protest-1-exlarge-169-e1502625929653-618x347.jpg)
The one thing I will say is that everything I’m seeing reported in the Jewish media about what happened yesterday is a lie. There’s nobody giving an accurate account. All I’ve seen is an endless parade of non-Whites and Jews spewing nonsense. I’ve yet to see a single person on any of the big cable news channels interview a single person from our side.
Here’s a quick summary of what they’re reporting.
They’re falsely blaming all the violence on White supremacists and Neo-Nazis linked to the Alt-Right movement.
There are major political and cultural figures blaming all the violence on the Alt-Right with no proof.
MSNBC even tried to infer that White supremacists may have tried to shoot down a state police helicopter that crashed miles away from the city center.
The propaganda is retard tier stuff.
Here’s what really happened.
[typical "wasn't our fault drivel but there was this that's kinda creepy]
--snip--
What’s important to note about what happened today is that there did not appear to be huge numbers opposing us. The anti-fascist groups had nothing to do with shutting us down. It was the power of the state that was used to infringe on our First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble. They flat out refused to honor this even with a lawful permit.
There will need to be many lawsuits filed as a result of this.
I don’t think any of us right now can predict what the actual fallout will be. Suffice to say, it will be extraordinary.
#UniteTheRight will go down as a truly historic event. The record will show that the government illegally shut down our gathering because they feared our political ideas. They were stupid to do this as this is only going to bring more people to our side. This was a major victory for us.
I salute each and every one of you who attended the rally. #UniteTheRight has proven that we are a formidable political force not to be taken lightly.
(https://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/C_wfU7JXUAAqjqD-618x350.jpg)
No retreat! No surrender!
Hail Victory!
#MAGA This individual represents a portion of Trump's base...think about that. With Trump not condemning them, Trump emboldened them.
And if you want to see really creepy stuff, check out their web site: www.dailystormer.com (https://www.dailystormer.com)
One line struck me from the web site: At least Donald Trump refuses to single us out for condemnation. We will have to see how this all plays out.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/stormer.jpg)
So, they are hearing Trump's dog whistle whether Trump means it or not.
-
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/nintchdbpict000345290800.jpg?strip=all&quality=100&w=960)
"Militia members" carrying rifles at the rally to protect the Unite the Right rally. Note, these are not COPs, they are alt right militia members.
Sorry for my ignorance, but is this a normal thing, having militia or others standing around with weapons like that on a public street? I can see other people standing around in the background, seemingly nonchalant. Is this considered a normal (or at least not that unusual) sight?
This may be an unfair question to ask you, but are they deputized in some way, such as an armed auxiliary police detachment or something like that, or were they there on their own authority?
-
"Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/
-
Sorry for my ignorance, but is this a normal thing, having militia or others standing around with weapons like that on a public street? I can see other people standing around in the background, seemingly nonchalant. Is this considered a normal (or at least not that unusual) sight?
This may be an unfair question to ask you, but are they deputized in some way, such as an armed auxiliary police detachment or something like that, or were they there on their own authority?
It's not "normal" but it's not unheard off. Slobodan posted an article noting that some situations allow what's called "open carry" meaning carrying weapons clearly visible. This happens in more rural areas and smaller towns and not major cities. I can tell you if a group of armed men started walking down Broadway in NYC or Michigan Ave in Chicago, there would be a large armed response and the "militia" would likely be disarmed and arrested. Most big cities have very strict laws regarding firearms.
As to the second question, as far as I can tell, the armed militia was acting as unofficial "security" for the #UniteTheRight rally. The city and state police certainly saw these militia and there was apparently considerable space between the real police and the militia.
Also note that the militia didn't actually do much of anything other than help evacuate members of the #UniteTheRight rally when the cops shut down the rally. They didn't actually keep either groups of protesters from engaging with each other so I personally think it was just for show. But if the weapons were loaded, bad stuff could have happened if people started shooting–it would have been a friggin' bloodbath.
-
Well, it seems American's giving Nazi salutes aren't welcome in Germany...
An American tourist gave the Nazi salute in Germany — so a stranger beat him up, police say (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/08/13/an-american-tourist-gave-the-nazi-salute-in-germany-so-a-stranger-beat-him-up-police-say/?utm_term=.d8b18e3b92a0)
An American tourist in Germany was beaten up by a passer-by after he began giving the Nazi salute outside a cafe in Dresden, police said Sunday.
The incident occurred about 8:15 a.m. Saturday as the man left a cafe called Europe in the Neustadt district of Dresden, police said in a statement. The district is known to be a liberal part of the town and a popular meeting spot for students.
The tourist was identified only as a 41-year-old American man who was “severely drunk,” according to police. He suffered minor injuries, while the stranger who assailed him fled the scene, police said.
Police said the U.S. national is under investigation for violating German laws prohibiting Nazi symbols and that they are still seeking the passer-by for causing personal injury, according to the Associated Press (https://apnews.com/7038efa32f324d8ea9fa2ff7eadf8f20).
Hum...I can see why Germans are sensitive about having Nazi stuff done, maybe we should too?
-
Trump detractors knee-jerked this one, again.
Yep and they were correct again. Trump uses language that act as dog whistles to the alt right because they are part of his base. Then he sends his spokesmen out to say he really means Trump is anti white supremacist and anti KKK and anti alt right as long as those words don't need to come out of his mouth. Heck, Ivanka said what her father should have said and didn't.
He uses blunt and direct language against his enemies but it seems he just can't be blunt against some things like racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists and even antisemitics.
Hum, there's somebody else who Trump seems unwilling to be blunt about Putin. Hum I wonder of there's a connection?
-
This sums it up pretty well...
Is Donald Trump stubborn, stupid, or simply racist? (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2017/08/13/donald-trump-stubborn-stupid-simply-racist/OrWDDb3ZUqzyJ6Ka0YUZzK/story.html)
By Michael A. Cohen GLOBE COLUMNNIST AUGUST 13, 2017
In America, there are a mere handful of groups that politicians can criticize with relative impunity — members of the Islamic State, Communists, and of course Nazis.
Yesterday, however, after neo-Nazi groups marched in Charlottesville, Va., and a terrorist attack took the life of a young woman and injured 19 others, Donald Trump took the ball to the hoop — and missed an uncontested layup.
Rather than condemning these groups he took an uncharacteristically muted approach — decrying what he called “this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides,” as if those bedecked in Nazi regalia and chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans exist on the same moral plain as those protesting such hatred.
The same man who has ruthlessly attacked Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Gold Star mother, the cast of Hamilton, Meryl Streep, and the department store chain Nordstrom chose to hold his tongue when it came to singling out white supremacists.
All of this is hard to square with Trump’s campaign-era statement that he is “the least racist person you ever met.” Even racist people condemn Nazis.
To many observers this is an indication of Trump’s reluctance to upset his political base — namely the racist, xenophobic white voters who helped propel him to the White House. Surely that’s a possibility.
Maybe Trump simply is being stubborn. Like a petulant adolescent, the more people push Trump to do something, the more he gets his back up and remains silent.
But perhaps there is another more basic explanation for Trump’s reticence — he’s a racist.
So, stubborn, stupid, or simply racist?
How about some or all of the above...
-
Yep and they were correct again. Trump uses language that act as dog whistles to the alt right because they are part of his base. Then he sends his spokesmen out to say he really means Trump is anti white supremacist and anti KKK and anti alt right as long as those words don't need to come out of his mouth. Heck, Ivanka said what her father should have said and didn't.
He uses blunt and direct language against his enemies but it seems he just can't be blunt against some things like racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists and even antisemitics.
Hum, there's somebody else who Trump seems unwilling to be blunt about Putin. Hum I wonder of there's a connection?
If a group of African Americans had turned up there one week before in paramilitary uniforms and armed to the teeth, what do people think would soon have happened? It looks as if every conclusion except for the obvious one is being entertained.
Trump has played with fire by equivocating over fascism, but I suppose if Bannon gets blamed and is kicked down the pecking order or even out then good of some kind will emerge.
-
You gotta feel sorry for the Nazis - they plan one peaceful protest with automatic rifles, body armour, helmets and riot shields and one idiot turns up and gives them a bad name. He's ruined it for the rest of them.
-
Yet another (nothing burger)
Probably not that much of a nothing burger for the family of the young lady that was killed.
-
It's not "normal" but it's not unheard off. Slobodan posted an article noting that some situations allow what's called "open carry" meaning carrying weapons clearly visible. This happens in more rural areas and smaller towns and not major cities. I can tell you if a group of armed men started walking down Broadway in NYC or Michigan Ave in Chicago, there would be a large armed response and the "militia" would likely be disarmed and arrested. Most big cities have very strict laws regarding firearms.
As to the second question, as far as I can tell, the armed militia was acting as unofficial "security" for the #UniteTheRight rally. The city and state police certainly saw these militia and there was apparently considerable space between the real police and the militia.
Also note that the militia didn't actually do much of anything other than help evacuate members of the #UniteTheRight rally when the cops shut down the rally. They didn't actually keep either groups of protesters from engaging with each other so I personally think it was just for show. But if the weapons were loaded, bad stuff could have happened if people started shooting–it would have been a friggin' bloodbath.
Thanks. It would be highly unusual, to say the least, to see such a thing anywhere here in Canada. Private security is one thing, but (presumably) unauthorized citizens roaming the streets with firearms seems out of this world to me.
Btw, we had an interesting news item hit the cycle here last week for a day or so. It seems that several American tourists had been recently stopped at the border crossing into Canada with firearms. The majority of them were not trying to conceal them, it was just normal for them to have the guns with them and never thought anything about it, but the border guards had to confiscate the weapons, and some of the tourists were charged and fined. The department in charge seemed a little apologetic about it, since the folks involved had not intended to break any Canadian laws, it had just never occurred to them to look into this. I guess word got around though, because my brother met an American tourist in the Rockies last month who found out in time and stopped on the US side before entering Canada and arranged to mail his gun to himself somewhere on the US side to pick up on his way back home later.
-
Thanks. It would be highly unusual, to say the least, to see such a thing anywhere here in Canada. Private security is one thing, but (presumably) unauthorized citizens roaming the streets with firearms seems out of this world to me.
Btw, we had an interesting news item hit the cycle here last week for a day or so. It seems that several American tourists had been recently stopped at the border crossing into Canada with firearms. The majority of them were not trying to conceal them, it was just normal for them to have the guns with them and never thought anything about it, but the border guards had to confiscate the weapons, and some of the tourists were charged and fined. The department in charge seemed a little apologetic about it, since the folks involved had not intended to break any Canadian laws, it had just never occurred to them to look into this. I guess word got around though, because my brother met an American tourist in the Rockies last month who found out in time and stopped on the US side before entering Canada and arranged to mail his gun to himself somewhere on the US side to pick up on his way back home later.
I keep a little Swiss Army knife on my keychain. Three times I've forgotten about it when I went through airport security and they took it away from me. They offered to allow me to leave the line and go back to mail it to myself. But it wasn't worth the aggravation. Plus I had to get on the plane.
Two weeks ago I had to go to court. They sent our stuff through Xray machines. I forgot again! When I got to the other side, the cop said I wasn't suppose to take a "knife" into court and told me not to bring it again. He had a little common sense and didn't seize it as the blade was probably 1 inch (22mm).
I don't own a gun so I won;t have similar problems with that.
-
There is no such thing as incitement of violence speech (noise pollution, maybe). Freedom of speech should never be infringed for fear of how some may violently react to that speech.
Banning hate speech is a short and sure road to tyranny and incompetence, because the truth often gets censored alongside the hate.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
Our commitment to the premise of freedom of political expression is never more tested then when it is applied to a group of people we may adamantly disagree with.
-
I keep a little Swiss Army knife on my keychain. Three times I've forgotten about it when I went through airport security and they took it away from me. They offered to allow me to leave the line and go back to mail it to myself. But it wasn't worth the aggravation. Plus I had to get on the plane.
Two weeks ago I had to go to court. They sent our stuff through Xray machines. I forgot again! When I got to the other side, the cop said I wasn't suppose to take a "knife" into court and told me not to bring it again. He had a little common sense and didn't seize it as the blade was probably 1 inch (22mm).
I don't own a gun so I won;t have similar problems with that.
:)
At one point in my life, I owned 4 Swiss Army knives and now can't find any of them. I bought them jic and kept them, each in turn, in my camera bags. I used one to peel an apple once.
If we ever got around to collecting all the stuff in our houses and cars, we might never have to mine for ore again.
-
Thing about learning from history
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1548260861930699/
-
Thing about learning from history
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1548260861930699/
There apparently were two versions of this film. The first release was in 1943. In 1947, after World War II was over, an updated version was produced. This Facebook link has been edited down from the full 1947 version. Here's a link (https://archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947) to the complete 1947 film. It's not clear whether it was made available for theatrical release. (Some films produced by the U.S. Office of War Information, the War Office, and other domestic propaganda agencies were shelved after the war either because their theatrical release was no longer considered necessary or because members of Congress were concerned about the propriety of the federal government trying to influence public opinion.)
-
There apparently were two versions of this film. The first release was in 1943. In 1947, after World War II was over, an updated version was produced. This Facebook link has been edited down from the full 1947 version. Here's a link (https://archive.org/details/DontBeaS1947) to the complete 1947 film. It's not clear whether it was made available for theatrical release. (Some films produced by the U.S. Office of War Information, the War Office, and other domestic propaganda agencies were shelved after the war either because their theatrical release was no longer considered necessary or because members of Congress were concerned about the propriety of the federal government trying to influence public opinion.)
You can find plenty of propaganda in the NY Times and Washington Post.
-
Thing about learning from history
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1548260861930699/
Since when do the majority of people learn from history? I no longer have hope for that; people fall into the same traps, fall for the same slick-talkers again and again.
-
There is no such thing as incitement of violence speech (noise pollution, maybe). Freedom of speech should never be infringed for fear of how some may violently react to that speech.
Banning hate speech is a short and sure road to tyranny and incompetence, because the truth often gets censored alongside the hate.
I think that most people in most countries just shake their heads with this sort of talk.
Inciting a crime IS a crime in most countries, even if the people being incited do not actually commit the crime.
Free speech and freedom and liberty are enjoyed in most countries. Nothing special there. It is not an excuse for violence.
A few weeks ago I stood in the place where the Liberty Bell is housed. On a building next door are the words of George Washington talking of Liberty and Freedom. For a 100 years after that there were slaves. When Lincoln freed the slaves then for a 100 years after that there was segregation. The Germans do not like the Nazi symbol because it is a symbol of a bad past and they have moved on. Yet if you wander around the US you will see Confederate flags on houses and baseball caps and you say that is pride?
The first step in fixing a problem is to realise that you have a problem.
Please explain your version of liberty and freedom?
-
Inciting a crime IS a crime in most countries, even if the people being incited do not actually commit the crime.
The law here is similar, but with a presumption favoring free expression. The Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the enforcement of any statute abridging speech (or any other form of expression) unless the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969.)
(Edited to clarify a technical point. I originally wrote that "the U.S. Constitution prohibits the enactment of a statute . . . ", but obviously there is no way to prevent Congress or a state legislature from passing an unconstitutional law. However if they do, the courts will not enforce it.)
-
Did Germans change their national flag?
-
Australia has already started to ban synagogues in Sydney out of fear of Islamic attacks. I guess being Jewish qualifies as hate speech ( a.k.a. "incitement of violence") nowaday. I'm sure the Left in America laud Australia's crackdown on free speech as "progressive."
Sources?
-
Australia has already started to ban synagogues in Sydney out of fear of Islamic attacks. I guess being Jewish qualifies as hate speech ( a.k.a. "incitement of violence") nowaday. I'm sure the Left in America laud Australia's crackdown on free speech as "progressive."
Bullshit.
-
Bullshit.
Sadly, it's true...a local council decided to prevent the construction of a new synagogue because of the possibility of it becoming the target of a radical Islamist attack.
AUSTRALIA BANS SYDNEY SYNAGOGUE OVER ISLAMIST ATTACK FEARS, PROMPTING OUTRAGE AMONG JEWISH COMMUNITY (http://www.newsweek.com/australia-ban-sydney-synagogue-over-attack-fears-has-jews-arms-646686)
Australia's Jewish community has expressed dismay after a local council's decision to prevent the construction of a new synagogue because of the possibility of it becoming the target of a radical Islamist attack.
The New South Wales Land and Environment Court supported the decision of the local council to prevent the building of the place of worship in the Sydney suburb of Bondi, near the country's most famous beach. It said the risk assessment at the site was "inadequate" and that a "more sophisticated risk assessment process" may be required for the extremist threat that would face the site.
However, a statement that "Australia has already started to ban synagogues in Sydney out of fear of Islamic attacks" would be incorrect...construction of one proposed synagogue has been held up pending a security review. And, the outcry is pretty strong.
But hey, why let actual facts interfere with a good fake news story and cartoon?
-
Man in Hostage Video Forced to Recite Words Not His Own (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/man-in-hostage-video-forced-to-recite-words-not-his-own)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5991ed66d400582753d90bcc/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-Man-in-Hostage-Video-Forced-Recite-Own-Words.jpg)
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A disturbing hostage video surfaced on Monday showing an American man woodenly reciting words that were not his own.
The video, which was broadcast on all the major news networks, raised concerns for the man, whose robotic performance indicated that he was reading a prepared statement under duress.
While the man appeared well fed and, to a certain extent, healthy, his facial expressions and body language convinced experts that the act of reciting the prepared text was an extraordinary ordeal for him.
Harland Dorrinson, a forensic psychologist, compared the man’s performance with hours of earlier footage of him and said that the man had “never expressed these sentiments before.”
“He did not seem to understand what he was saying,” the psychologist said. “At times, he appeared to be reading these words phonetically.”
Additionally, Dorrinson said, the man’s speech patterns in the hostage video were strikingly different from those in earlier videos of him. “From the moment he began speaking, the subjects in his sentences agreed with the verbs,” he said. “That set off alarm bells.”
The way Trump ran from the room yelling Fake News at Jim Acosta of CNN only gives more credence that Trump was forced into his statement.
By the late afternoon, President Snowflake was whining that nothing is ever enough...
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied...truly bad people!
3:29 PM - 14 Aug 2017
Very, very bad people...
-
That's why I called for sources - I wasn't prepared to do his work for him.
It's a typical tactic to grossly exaggerate something and attribute an incorrect cause or driver to better suit a particular agenda.
Bear in mind that the area has a strong and large Jewish population (hence the synagogue) and that the local council accordingly has numerous Jewish representatives. Doing the required assessment will almost certainly result in approval being given if they address any concerns raised by the assessment.
-
In case you are wondering about some of the image links in a previous post going bad, it seems The Daily Stormer has be taken off line...
GoDaddy Severs Ties With Daily Stormer After Charlottesville Article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/godaddy-daily-stormer-white-supremacists.html?_r=0)
GoDaddy Inc., the web hosting company, severed ties with The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi and white supremacy website, after the site posted an article mocking Heather D. Heyer, the 32-year-old woman who was killed when a man drove into a crowd during a rally of white nationalists in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday.
Dan C. Race, a GoDaddy spokesman, said in an email on Monday that his company had given the site 24 hours to find another domain provider. “Given The Daily Stormer’s latest article comes on the immediate heels of a violent act, we believe this type of article could incite additional violence, which violates our terms of service,” he said.
Later on Monday he confirmed that the transfer of the domain had been completed.
The Daily Stormer later transferred its domain name to Google, according to reports and a screenshot of the registration posted on Twitter. Shortly after, Google announced that it, too, would distance itself from The Daily Stormer. “We are canceling Daily Stormer’s registration with Google Domains for violating our terms of service,” it said in a statement.
Now if you go to https://www.dailystormer.com/ you get this:
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/stormer.gif)
:~)
Let's hope it stays that way...
-
If you don't want your face to go viral, stay out of the light...
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/08/14/gettyimages-830617844_wide-006947b4521dc33694eb7f92cd393b795982bde8-s800-c85.jpg)
Peter Cvjetanovic (right) chants while holding torches at a march organized by neo-Nazi, white supremacist and white nationalist organizations in Charlottesville, Va., on Friday night.
On The Internet, Everyone Knows 'You're A Racist': Twitter Account IDs Marchers (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/14/543418271/on-the-internet-everyone-knows-you-re-a-racist-twitter-account-ids-marchers)
They didn't wear hoods as they chanted "Jews will not replace us." They weren't hiding their faces as they waved Confederate flags, racist signs and swastikas. They looked straight at a sea of cameras as they made the Nazi salute.
As Matt Thompson wrote for The Atlantic, the white supremacist march and rally this past weekend wasn't a KKK rally: "It was a pride march."
The bare-faced shamelessness was the point. But it was also an opening.
On the Internet, some people are crowd-sourcing efforts to identify and shame the people participating in the rally. Most prominently, on Twitter, the account called "Yes, You're Racist" has been soliciting help and posting IDs. "I'll make them famous," the account pledged.
Yes, You're Racist @YesYoureRacist (https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2017%2F08%2F14%2F543418271%2Fon-the-internet-everyone-knows-you-re-a-racist-twitter-account-ids-marchers)
If you recognize any of the Nazis marching in #Charlottesville, send me their names/profiles and I'll make them famous
#GoodNightAltRight (https://twitter.com/hashtag/GoodNightAltRight?src=hash)
11:43 AM - Aug 12, 2017
So far, at least one protester is no longer employed after being publicly named and shamed.
Cole White, who used to work at a hot dog restaurant in Berkeley, Calif., "voluntarily resigned" on Saturday after his employer confronted him about his participation in the event, according to the Berkeleyside news site.
@YesYoureRacist is not a new Twitter account. Since 2012, the account has been calling out "casual racism on Twitter," according to the user's fundraising page. (https://www.patreon.com/yesyoureracist). It would post screenshots of deleted racist tweets (https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/868974199284547584), highlight offensive comments by elected officials (https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/866472782170869760) and retweet https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/865279625584402432 (https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/865279625584402432) who would say "I'm not racist but (https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/864972563281215491)" followed by something, well, racist (https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist/status/865220685886607360).
But after the rally in Charlottesville, Yes You're Racist pivoted from highlighting online remarks to identifying real-world marchers.
Many of the people it named had publicly declared their plans to go to Charlottesville. The account identified one man as "Illegal Aryan," who wrote on the white supremacist site Daily Stormer last month, "See you in Charlottesville!"
Of course, The Daily Stormer is now offline...
Ironically, the guy that started @YesYoureRacist got doxed and his identity was reported on Breitbart but the fellow was later interviewed by CNN so it's not like he was trying to hide :~)
HuffPo Contributor Outed as Leader of Charlottesville Doxing Campaign (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/14/huffpo-contributor-outed-as-leader-of-charlottesville-doxing-campaign/)
So, the lesson? Don't go on a march if you don't want your identity released...I'm ok with my identity being known for marching with scientists on Earth Day!
(http://schewephoto.com/GeekMarch/content/images/large/IMG_4425.jpg)
(http://schewephoto.com/GeekMarch/content/images/large/_DSC1051-Edit.jpg)
Oooops, how did that image get there :~)
-
Did Germans change their national flag?
The current German flag (black/red/yellow) was used in 1848, 1863-1866, 1919-1933 and 1949 to now
During the Nazi regime the national flag was red, with a white circle/black swastika in the middle.
-
Oh, and on the synagogue approval being refused, there were three general areas of concern:
· The proposal does not respond to the context, character and streetscape of the area or provide sufficient residential amenity
· Unacceptable amenity impacts such as adequate solar access, noise and loss of privacy; and
· The site is unsuitable for a synagogue because of the potential risk to users and other members of the general public.
So there are multiple issues, all of which are open to being addressed with a new application. Note that the application as submitted included building features specifically designed to deal with a terrorist attack, so that risk was already acknowledged by those making the submission.
-
Contrary to the advice he got from several members posting here Trump changed his tune on the incidents in Charlottesville
From The Guardian:
Donald Trump has bowed to overwhelming pressure and directly condemned the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and white supremacists, two days after violent clashes left one woman dead.
“Racism is evil,” the US president said at the White House. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”
Full article (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/14/donald-trump-charlottesville-response-washington?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=239399&subid=13584431&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2)
Btw, I agree with Rob C, planning to remove Lee's satue (which triggered the violent and tragic events) makes no sense to me, you can't rewrite history by making it conform to today's norms.
-
What's telling is that he really did take his time in finally condemning the Nazis. I'm guessing his real sympathies lie with those he's been forced to denounce. As Donald 'Il Duce' Trump might put it, sad.
-
you can't rewrite history by making it conform to today's norms.
Nobody is trying to rewrite history, they are just saying that Lee is not someone we admire or think worthy of public appreciation.
-
I think we should start burning books again.
-
you can't rewrite history by making it conform to today's norms.
Nobody is trying to rewrite history, they are just saying that Lee is not someone we admire or think worthy of public appreciation.
Who is "we"? Maybe "we" should accept that in the times the statue was erected there was appreciation for the figure pictured and just let it stand. I see no justification changing that > 130 years after the fact.
-
you can't rewrite history by making it conform to today's norms.
Nobody is trying to rewrite history, they are just saying that Lee is not someone we admire or think worthy of public appreciation.
Where does this stop? Should we tear down all paintings and statues of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and all the other founding fathers, the people who created our country, because they were slave owners ?
This is all about the left and Democrats trying to separate us from being American through division politics. Rich vs poor, white vs black, male vs female, multiculturalism, etc. Anything to divide us to cause us too fight and to pick up votes.
Where were these sacrosanct newspapers when Obama invited to the white house Al Sharpton, a black bigot, racist who hates whites and anti - Semite? Then CNN gives him his own show. Where were these papers when Obama without any evidence blamed white cops for bigotry and crimes when they were later exonerated?
This is all about trying to destroy Trump. No mattet what he does he'll be castigated, his words will be distorted.
-
Who is "we"?
"We" is the residents of Charlotteville. I guess they have the right to say who they want to be honoured in their town.
-
What's telling is that he really did take his time in finally condemning the Nazis.
Well, you wouldn't want him to make a hasty snap decision on whether to denounce white supremacists and Nazis would you? These things take time!!
-
Who is "we"?
"We" is the residents of Charlotteville. I guess they have the right to say who they want to be honoured in their town.
Are you a resident of Charlottesville?
And yes, the residents of Charlottesville (via the city council) have the right to take the statue down. However I think I have the right to find that a stupid decision.
-
No I am not, and nor did I suggest that I am.
You are of course welcome to your view. However, it find it illogical.
Suppose that the city of Amsterdam wanted to put up a statue of Van Gogh. Would you object on the grounds that he was not honoured in his lifetime and that we are effectively rewriting history?
If it were later discovered that he had not painted anything, just bought the works from a car boot sale, would you object to the statue bring removed?
Does a statue have eternal life as a record of what was thought at one moment in time, or is it an emblem of what we appreciate today?
-
No I am not, and nor did I suggest that I am.
You are of course welcome to your view. However, it find it illogical.
Suppose that the city of Amsterdam wanted to put up a statue of Van Gogh. Would you object on the grounds that he was not honoured in his lifetime and that we are effectively rewriting history?
If it were later discovered that he had not painted anything, just bought the works from a car boot sale, would you object to the statue bring removed?
Does a statue have eternal life as a record of what was thought at one moment in time, or is it an emblem of what we appreciate today?
So "we" is the people of Charlottesville + you, OK I understand ;)
Regarding your comparison, we're talking about General Lee, not about Van Gogh and we're talking about removing a statue of a general and not raising a new one for a painter. So I don't see the connection you're trying to make and I don't see why you call my position illogical. If anything is illogical it's you're story of trying to compare the two.
Whether you (or I) like everything he did or not, Lee is still a historical figure and the support for removing the statue is not unanimous. I find it a stupid decision to remove it, but I understand many people don't agree with me, and that's fine.
-
No. I didn't state my position on the Lee statue, so we is the people of Charlotteville, or at least a significant number of them.
I actually think it was foolish to make a big thing about the statue but it has nothing to do with rewriting history. After all, a lump of stone is just that - it doesn't have a story of its own. Children may ask who Lee was and then the parents can say a good man or a bad man as they wish. The history remains.
My analogy with VG was simply to point out that as our views change we (we) may decide to honour or not honour someone. If VG turned out to have been a fraud we are not doing anything strange by removing his statue. It's a lump of stone. Likewise, the absence of honour does not have to persist forever just because he was not honoured at a particular time.
An interesting additional question - suppose a building embodies a political ideology that we now find repugnant - eg Mussolini's fascist architecture - is there a case for pulling it down? I would say not, but I recognise that some people may say that this is not consistent with my comments about the Lee statue.
-
Emotion and logic don't always sleep well together.
Rob
-
More examples - exceptions to prove (sensu stricto) the rule:
Statues of Buddha in Afghanistan
Statues of Stalin
Statues of Hitler
Milan railway station (as above)
Statue of "Bomber" Harris (WW2 RAF hero/villain)
-
I actually think it was foolish to make a big thing about the statue but it has nothing to do with rewriting history. After all, a lump of stone is just that - it doesn't have a story of its own. Children may ask who Lee was and then the parents can say a good man or a bad man as they wish. The history remains.
But will they ask the question when the public sight is erased? Maybe rewriting history is too strong, but it's certainly erasing history.
My analogy with VG was simply to point out that as our views change we (we) may decide to honour or not honour someone. If VG turned out to have been a fraud we are not doing anything strange by removing his statue. It's a lump of stone. Likewise, the absence of honour does not have to persist forever just because he was not honoured at a particular time.
I think taking away "honours" by removing a statue that was raised 57 years after his death (he died 137 years ago) because some people who from a current perspective weigh his actions as less desirable is what I'm questioning. Lee wasn't a fraud, he did what he thought was right at the time and after his death apparently many other people thought so as well. Who are we to "rejudge" this behaviour looking through the glasses of the current time. Should we remove statues of older politicians because they didn't allow women's voting rights? Should we remove statues of Julius Ceasar because he was a dictator (by current standards)? Should Florence remove the statue of Macchiavelli because he did some shady politics at the time? I don't think all Lee did was right and I fully support abolition of slavery and despise racism, but removing the statue so long after all these events makes no sense to me.
An interesting additional question - suppose a building embodies a political ideology that we now find repugnant - eg Mussolini's fascist architecture - is there a case for pulling it down? I would say not, but I recognise that some people may say that this is not consistent with my comments about the Lee statue.
I agree with you, as long as it's functional there's no point taking it down because it "represents" certain political views in past times. When it's no longer functional no problem to take it down either, but not "just because" it was built by facists.
-
Copied from elsewhere -
There's a massive statue of the Duke of Sutherland on the hill above Golspie. This was the man directly responsible for the forced eviction of his tenants in order to replace them with sheep. Many died as a result, either through homelessness, being forced to work at sea or during the journey to the US/Canada etc. There have been various campaigns to have the statue removed, some official, some involving pick-axes and dynamite. The statue remains. As a result, many tourists ask about it and this offers an opportunity to tell them about the Highland Clearances, something they may not have otherwise come across. By leaving the statue in place, it has therefore become a rather ironic reminder of one mans greed and a system that allowed him to get away with it.
-
Pieter - I think we largely agree, but maybe if we had been born with a different skin colour and a different history and a different life experience we'd have a different viewpoint. Just a suggestion.
-
Pieter - I think we largely agree, but maybe if we had been born with a different skin colour and a different history and a different life experience we'd have a different viewpoint. Just a suggestion.
I think so too, but why couldn't the Lee statue serve the same purpose as the one from the Duke of Sutherland? I think it's much more important to fight racism today vs. trying to give a signal about racism that happened 140 or more years ago.
Regarding some of your other examples, I have no problem with statues of dictators that they raised for themselves to be removed quickly after their regime falls (Hitler, Stalin, Sadam, ....)
-
You could well be right about the value of keeping the Lee statue.
I suspect that the difference is that there are not any longer Scots who are suffering from the Highland Clearances and nobody regarding him as a hero whereas racial discrimination is still very real in the US. That's just an impression from a distance
-
More examples - exceptions to prove (sensu stricto) the rule:
Statues of Buddha in Afghanistan
Statues of Stalin
Statues of Hitler
Milan railway station (as above)
Statue of "Bomber" Harris (WW2 RAF hero/villain)
Like I suggested about starting to book burn again, where does it end? I could justify ISIS destroying the temple of Baal in Palmyra. After all, Baal represented idol worship and multiple Gods. It seems perfectly reasonable to destroy an edifice that is sacrilegious if you can destroy a statue that may represent slavery. In fact, the next step could be destroying people who refuse to conform and switch their faith to Sunni Islamism. Wait, ISIS did that already didn't they?
-
Jurisdictions change their public monuments from time to time and they have every right to do so. It's not book burning, it's not re-writing history, it's not the alt-left practising mind control.
How many slavery museums are there? How many museums commemorating the genocide of American Indians are there? How many kids learn THAT history in schools? THAT's re-writing history, THAT's mind control.
-
Jurisdictions change their public monuments from time to time and they have every right to do so. It's not book burning, it's not re-writing history, it's not the alt-left practising mind control.
How many slavery museums are there? How many museums commemorating the genocide of American Indians are there? How many kids learn THAT history in schools? THAT's re-writing history, THAT's mind control.
Interesting you mention American Indians. Should we tear down statues of General Custer who killed Indians and help take their lands away. Well then we should tear down statues of President Grant who ordered Custer as president to do it. But wait, didn't we honor and build statues for Grant when he was General of the northern Army for winning the Civil War that ended slavery and freed the South? Gee, this is getting all so confusing.
The point is statues represent history. And no man or woman, as famous as they are, doesn't have warts. But the reason we build statues is because they are famous and have effected our history and the world in a great way. I recently was watching a NatGeo show on some archeological digs of pharaohs and kings. I thought it odd when the panned the camera over painted relief walls depicting the history of wars won by various pharaohs. In many you only see their bodies because their faces had been chopped out by subsequent leaders who wanted to erase their memory. It was sad and disappointing to see that destruction as if we can change history with an eraser.
-
On the lighter side, the famous 1984 New Yorker Magazine cartoon on famous men who cannot be appreciated:
https://condenaststore.com/featured/new-yorker-may-7th-1984-mischa-richter.html
-
North Korea backs down on firing missiles towards Guam. Kim changes his mind.
Funny, google only had NPR article and a few other unknown links, none of the usual NY Times or Washington Post link to articles. I guess those newspapers would rather knock Trump about statues and racism instead of giving Trump any credit for resoluteness and no more "leading from behind". The assault on Trump is going to backfire. People aren't stupid. At the end of the day, if Trump gets things done, he'll have a list of accomplishments and the left will have empty, ad-hominin, political epithets only. The Dems ran on that in 2016 and lost. They're going to lose again unless they start leading with positive stuff about their side.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/15/543603140/north-korea-says-it-wont-fire-missiles-at-guam-after-all
-
Interesting you mention American Indians. Should we tear down statues of General Custer who killed Indians and help take their lands away. Well then we should tear down statues of President Grant who ordered Custer as president to do it. But wait, didn't we honor and build statues for Grant when he was General of the northern Army for winning the Civil War that ended slavery and freed the South? Gee, this is getting all so confusing.
The point is statues represent history. And no man or woman, as famous as they are, doesn't have warts. But the reason we build statues is because they are famous and have effected our history and the world in a great way. I recently was watching a NatGeo show on some archeological digs of pharaohs and kings. I thought it odd when the panned the camera over painted relief walls depicting the history of wars won by various pharaohs. In many you only see their bodies because their faces had been chopped out by subsequent leaders who wanted to erase their memory. It was sad and disappointing to see that destruction as if we can change history with an eraser.
No. I never said nor implied any of that.
How many statues of Robert E. Lee are there? How many slavery museums are there? NOT putting up memorials to certain things is the very definition of re-writing history. Removing one statue from one town from a park in which it may not be appropriate (from a previous poster's comment) is not the thin edge of the alt-left edge, please let's be serious.
I don't think you can justifiably argue that the fact of the confederacy has been kept hidden from the public and that evil forces are trying to hush it all up. That's simply not a reasonable position to take.
-
This is all about the left and Democrats trying to separate us from being American through division politics. Rich vs poor, white vs black, male vs female, multiculturalism, etc. Anything to divide us to cause us too fight and to pick up votes.
Knowledgeable vs ignorant?
So, it would be useful if your "opinion" was based in realities vs your own prejudice. Rather than be a left/democrat vs a right/GOP situation, it reality it's a bipartisan movement to address the past and make sure that the messages being sent by local, city and state governments does not unfairly denigrate any particular group.
It was Republican Governor Nikki Haley who asked the South Carolina legislature to take up the issue of removing the Confederate flag from South Carolina’s statehouse grounds. The flag was removed and placed in a museum for storage. The debate and decision to remove the flag came after the mass shooting of nine worshipers at a historic black church in Charleston.
So, it seems it's not just the left and Democrats dealing with the issue, huh?
Guess what southern Senator supported removing the statue of Jefferson Davis from the Kentucky statehouse? Would you consider Senator Mitch McConnell to be on the left? Last I heard he was a Republican, right?
Following a massacre at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, a bipartisan mix of officials across the country is calling for the removal of Confederate flags and other symbols of the Confederacy from public places.
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) ordered the immediate removal of four different Confederate banners, including the battle flag, from an 88 -foot-tall memorial that stands at the Capitol entrance nearest the governor's office. Jefferson Davis, the lone president of the Confederacy, is said to have laid the cornerstone at a ceremony in 1886.
Leaders of the Republican-controlled state are divided on whether to alter the Mississippi flag, a corner of which is made up of the Confederate battle flag. U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker (R) joined state House Speaker Philip Gunn (R) on Wednesday in saying the emblem is offensive and must be removed.
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan's press secretary says the Republican leader opposes the use of the Confederate flag on the state's license plates.
A spokesman for North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory says the Republican plans to ask the General Assembly to pass a law that would discontinue the use of the Confederate flag on specialty license plates for the Confederate Veterans. Like those in other states, the plate features the group's logo, which has the flag.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers from Tennessee called for a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and an early leader in the Ku Klux Klan, to be removed from an alcove outside the Senate chambers at the Statehouse. The bust, inscribed with the words "Confederate States Army," has been at the Capitol for decades.
In Texas, the Supreme Court ruled last week that the state was within its rights to refuse to issue personalized license plates showing the Confederate flag. The court rejected a free-speech challenge. The Sons of Confederate Veterans had sought a Texas plate bearing its logo with the battle flag.
Are you getting the drift here? This ain't the left wing socialist democrats trying to force things down the fine, upstanding Alt Right, Neo-Nazi, KKK White Supremacists' throats.
-
Interesting that you bring up Custer...(course he was a Civil War hero before fighting Native Americans)
Interesting you mention American Indians. Should we tear down statues of General Custer who killed Indians and help take their lands away.
(http://www.ohiohistoryhost.org/ohiomemory/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/custer1.jpg)
Memorial statue of General Custer, located in New Rumley, Ohio.
Custer statues did not fare well (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/curt-eriksmoen/custer-statues-did-not-fare-well/article_7bca5882-64ba-11e1-8849-001871e3ce6c.html)
What I call a mystery, some might call a curse. Four major attempts to memorialize George A. Custer with large bronze statues have resulted in strange twists.
Plans were made to erect statues of Custer at the West Point Academy in New York; Washington, D.C.; Monroe, Mich.; and Fort Abraham Lincoln. Of those plans, only two were erected.
Only one statue can still be accounted for, and it was moved from a city’s public square to what Custer’s widow, Libbie, claimed to be “stuck in the woods.”
In 1879, a statue of Custer was unveiled at West Point. Five years later, because of Libbie’s disapproval, it was removed and has since disappeared. As a result, the reported plan to erect a statue in the nation’s capitol was consequently scuttled.
In 1910, his statue in the public square at Monroe was unveiled and has been relocated three times. Plans were made to erect a statue of Custer at Fort Lincoln in 1954, but after the model was molded, the chief sponsor died and the project came to a halt.
I was first alerted about a Custer statue on Oct. 24, 2011, when I received an email from Major Andrew Swedberg, an instructor at West Point. Swedberg, a native of Detroit Lakes, Minn., had been researching the whereabouts of the statue that stood at the academy from 1879 to 1884. I had no luck tracking down the statue after 1900, and also became fascinated about other proposed and actual statues of Custer.
And from Indian Country Today comes this...
5 Monuments Guaranteed to Drive Natives Nuts (https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/5-monuments-guaranteed-to-drive-natives-nuts/)
Statue of Liberty
Mount Rushmore
Columbus Circle
Andrew Jackson Monument
George Armstrong Custer Equestrian Monument
Read the article to find out why...
-
No. I never said nor implied any of that.
How many statues of Robert E. Lee are there? How many slavery museums are there? NOT putting up memorials to certain things is the very definition of re-writing history. Removing one statue from one town from a park in which it may not be appropriate (from a previous poster's comment) is not the thin edge of the alt-left edge, please let's be serious.
I don't think you can justifiably argue that the fact of the confederacy has been kept hidden from the public and that evil forces are trying to hush it all up. That's simply not a reasonable position to take.
First off, I'm a northerner from New York, never owned a slave nor did my family. My grandparents came to America around 1900 long after the Civil War. Regarding statues anywhere, outsiders should mind their business. It's up to the locals to decide.
Regarding Lee, all I'm saying is that we don't want to start ripping down representations of our history. He was a very consequential man. Lee was a Union officer for 32 years who fought in the US Army in the Mexican War. He was superintendent of New York's West Point - the US Military Academy. In any case, Lee represented more than slavery which was legal at the time. He thought the south was wrong for wanting to leave the Union. But during a time when people still said The United States of America are....rather than the singular ...is..., people had loyalty as much maybe more to the State they came from. He was offered to lead a Union army when the Civil War broke out. But he refused as his honor would not allow him to raise his sword against his beloved State (Commonwealth) of Virginia, where this statue issue in Charlottesville, VA is happening.
He was a very interesting man. A great leader and humanist despite his approval of slavery. A big contradiction just like other slave owners like Washington, Jefferson and others earlier. If he was alive today, I think he'd be at the forefront of equal liberties for everyone. If you'd like to read more about this impressive man, here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
-
Funny, google only had NPR article and a few other unknown links, none of the usual NY Times or Washington Post link to articles.
From Google:
North Korea Says It Will Wait 'a Little More' Before Acting on Guam ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjA6vXBvNnVAhVG5GMKHROLDJAQqQIIOSgAMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F08%2F15%2Fworld%2Fasia%2Fsouth-korea-trump-north-korea.html&usg=AFQjCNH7E5SG3OhjpP-SzwxFvlwvrOdGsA)
New York Times-4 hours ago
North Korea’s Kim Jong Un appears to ease rhetoric in standoff over nuclear weapons (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/joint-chiefs-chairman-stresses-north-korea-diplomacy-but-notes-full-range-of-military-options-at-ready/2017/08/14/de8f91ac-80da-11e7-82a4-920da1aeb507_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_koreadunford-722am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.5aa63b9f22f4)
WaPo: By Anna Fifield and Dan Lamothe August 14 at 8:23 PM
Maybe your Google is broken?
-
WAPO did have this story...
After Charlottesville, Trump retweets — then deletes — image of train running over CNN reporter (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/15/after-charlottesville-trump-retweets-then-deletes-image-of-train-running-over-cnn-reporter/?utm_term=.d5e44f31ad61)
President Trump's war with CNN went off the rails Tuesday morning after he retweeted an image of a Trump train running over a CNN reporter, then quickly deleted it after the meme sparked criticism as inappropriate just days after the Charlottesville violence.
Trump was in the middle of his usual morning tweetstorm when he sent the image, posted by a supporter who added “Nothing can stop the #TrumpTrain!!," to his nearly 36 million followers.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHRFv_UVoAAtVYR.jpg:small)
The president quickly deleted his handiwork but not before the original tweet had been retweeted hundreds of times and was captured on screen shots by journalists and activists.
Trump's promotion of the image came three days after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned into a violent clash between the supremacists and counterprotesters.
So, idiot or asshole or both?
-
Interesting that you bring up Custer...(course he was a Civil War hero before fighting Native Americans)
Custer statues did not fare well (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/curt-eriksmoen/custer-statues-did-not-fare-well/article_7bca5882-64ba-11e1-8849-001871e3ce6c.html)
And from Indian Country Today comes this...
5 Monuments Guaranteed to Drive Natives Nuts (https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/5-monuments-guaranteed-to-drive-natives-nuts/)
Read the article to find out why...
Yes, our forebears were terrible people. I think all we Americans should pack our bags and move back to where we came from.
-
Has there been a history in the United States of either states or local communities removing statues unrelated to the Civil War? I am trying to research that now.
-
Veni, vidi, vici.
-
From Google:
North Korea Says It Will Wait 'a Little More' Before Acting on Guam ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjA6vXBvNnVAhVG5GMKHROLDJAQqQIIOSgAMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F08%2F15%2Fworld%2Fasia%2Fsouth-korea-trump-north-korea.html&usg=AFQjCNH7E5SG3OhjpP-SzwxFvlwvrOdGsA)
New York Times-4 hours ago
North Korea’s Kim Jong Un appears to ease rhetoric in standoff over nuclear weapons (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/joint-chiefs-chairman-stresses-north-korea-diplomacy-but-notes-full-range-of-military-options-at-ready/2017/08/14/de8f91ac-80da-11e7-82a4-920da1aeb507_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_koreadunford-722am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.5aa63b9f22f4)
WaPo: By Anna Fifield and Dan Lamothe August 14 at 8:23 PM
Maybe your Google is broken?
I just clicked on my regular Google news link and got nothing this time on this NK backdown.
I think the headlines you posted tell it all. The way they write it, so blasé. "...Wait a Little More..." and "...appears to ease rhetoric..." Neither liberal, anti-Trump paper used words like "Kim Backs Down", or "Trump Pressure Causes Kim to Reverse Threat." It's the same "fake" news biased to never give Trump credit for anything.
-
Veni, vidi, vici.
In what way do you mean, Slobodan?
-
Ooooh, this is funny!
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3411015.1502738821!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/usa-trump-giant-rat.jpg)
Meet the Man Behind the Big Inflatable Trump Rat Mocking Him in New York (http://time.com/4901112/donald-trump-rat-balloon/?xid=homepage)
Donald Trump might not make it onto Mount Rushmore, but he's popped up in unflattering balloon form again.
This time, it's in his hometown in the style of the inflatable rats that union workers use to strike against construction sites employing non-union labor. This new 15-foot, unmissable Trump inflatable piece appeared at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 59th Street, down the street from Trump Tower, hours before the President was scheduled to arrive on Monday.
The orange-faced, rat-human hybrid has extra voluminous ears, pursed lips, buck teeth, that unmistakable red tie, a long tail, and an extra dig: Confederate flag cufflinks. Unsurprisingly, the spectacle drew crowds and tourists for selfies.
It's all the brainchild of New York City-based BravinLee art gallery owners John Lee and his wife Karin Bravin, who view Trump as "unprepared" to lead. Inspiration came when Lee saw a grotequse looking rat on Jackson Avenue in Queens right after the election. "I was just always impressed with how grotesque the rat was as public art," he told TIME.
-
Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark!
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/ouch.png)
Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval (http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx?utm_source=facebookbutton&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=sharing)
President Donald Trump's job approval rating in Gallup Daily tracking is at 34% for the three-day period from Friday through Sunday -- by one point the lowest of his administration so far.
It is difficult to pinpoint the precise cause of the new low rating, but the changes were apparent on Friday, with his day-by-day ratings near 34% across Saturday and Sunday as well. Trump has consistently been in the news over the past week, including the continued focus on North Korea, even while taking a working vacation at one of his golf properties in New Jersey. The events in Charlottesville, Virginia, that resulted in the deaths of a 32-year-old woman and two Virginia State Police officers dominated news coverage on Saturday and Sunday. Trump's prior three-day low reading was 35%, registered March 26-28.
From a broader perspective, Trump's rating of 36% for the week ending Aug. 13 was also by one point his lowest on a weekly basis. The president has talked in recent days about doing well with his "base," but Republicans' latest weekly approval rating of 79% was the lowest from his own partisans so far, dropping from the previous week's 82%. Democrats gave Trump a 7% job approval rating last week, while the reading for independents was at 29%. This is the first time independents' weekly approval rating for Trump has dropped below 30%.
Maybe Gallup should rename the Poll to the Gallup Disapproval Rating?
-
The assault on Trump is going to backfire. People aren't stupid.
Sorry, but yes, they are. They elected him.
At the end of the day, if Trump gets things done, he'll have a list of accomplishments and the left will have empty, ad-hominin, political epithets only.
So far, other than earning the astonished derision of most of the rest of the world, running a demonstrably dysfunctional White House, failing the most basic test of any President (ie statesman-like behaviour) alienating more than half of his nation's citizens, lining the pockets of the corporations he promised to rein in and eliminating regulations protecting Americans from environmental, sociological and economic damage, what precisely constitutes his "list of accomplishments"?
C'mon, Alan. Let's see the list.
There is no concerted, organized leftist "assault" on Trump. That's just your opinion. You cannot excuse his repetitive failures with this lame excuse. What you're seeing is a global response, not a leftist response. Trump is his own worst enemy.
-
I just clicked on my regular Google news link and got nothing this time on this NK backdown.
I think the headlines you posted tell it all. The way they write it, so blasé. "...Wait a Little More..." and "...appears to ease rhetoric..." Neither liberal, anti-Trump paper used words like "Kim Backs Down", or "Trump Pressure Causes Kim to Reverse Threat." It's the same "fake" news biased to never give Trump credit for anything.
Alan, You clearly have not been reading/paying attention to the initial news release coming from North Korea. They said that their Military would develop a plan and present it to their leader, who then would decide whether to act on the plan.
BTW, plenty of reporting on the subject (your Google is broken by your previous search patterns):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-report-kim-idUSKCN1AV0FA
North Korea said last week it was finalizing plans to launch four missiles into the waters near the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam, and its army would report the strike plan to leader Kim Jong Un and wait for his order.
Of course, Kim never had such intentions, after all, who'd want to self-destruct. But now that Trump has taken his bait, he has a better reason to continue the nuclear armament of his country, as a deterrent against aggressive nations who threaten his country with Fire and Fury.
Analysts also say that as long as Kim is in charge, there will be little reason to fear him. Only when his regime starts to fail, others will try to grasp power in a destabilized situation, which may well result in someone gaining access to the nuclear arsenal and threaten the surrounding countries. So the more Trump tries to destabilize the regime, the larger the risk becomes (and he needs a war or similar outside enemy to unite the homefront).
Trump is not causing a retreat, he is causing a disaster.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In what way do you mean, Slobodan?
I meant it as a reminder to snowflakes that we "came, we saw, we conquered" ... deal with it.
Otherwise, they be still hunting their lunch with a bow and arrow, instead of having the privilege to whine about the greatest civilization on Earth while using the very tools it created for them.
-
Alan, You clearly have not been reading/paying attention to the initial news release coming from North Korea. They said that their Military would develop a plan and present it to their leader, who then would decide whether to act on the plan.
BTW, plenty of reporting on the subject (your Google is broken by your previous search patterns):
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-report-kim-idUSKCN1AV0FA Of course, Kim never had such intentions, after all, who'd want to self-destruct. But now that Trump has taken his bait, he has a better reason to continue the nuclear armament of his country, as a deterrent against aggressive nations who threaten his country with Fire and Fury.
Analysts also say that as long as Kim is in charge, there will be little reason to fear him. Only when his regime starts to fail, others will try to grasp power in a destabilized situation, which may well result in someone gaining access to the nuclear arsenal and threaten the surrounding countries. So the more Trump tries to destabilize the regime, the larger the risk becomes (and he needs a war or similar outside enemy to unite the homefront).
Trump is not causing a retreat, he is causing a disaster.
Cheers,
Bart
Sorry, but Kim blinked.
-
This should worry everybody...
Web firm fights DoJ on Trump protesters (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40935770)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/5526/production/_93689712_protesterswashingtonlinkedarms.jpg)
Protesters linked arms in the street on Inauguration Day
A US service provider is fighting government demands for it to hand over details of millions of activists.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) wants all visitors' IP addresses - some 1.3 million - to a website that helped organise a protest on the day of President Trump's inauguration.
DreamHost is currently refusing to comply with the request and is due in court later this month.
The DoJ has not yet responded to requests for comment from the BBC.
It is unclear why it wants the internet protocol addresses of visitors to website disruptj20.org, which organised a protest against President Trump on 20 January - the day of his inauguration.
"The website was used in the development, planning, advertisement and organisation of a violent riot that occurred in Washington DC on January 20, 2017," it wrote in its motion to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which sought to compel DreamHost to hand over the information.
It suggested that "a particular customer" was the subject of the warrant, but does not explain why it needed so much information on other visitors.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is helping DreamHost fight its case, said: "No plausible explanation exists for a search warrant of this breadth, other than to cast a digital dragnet as broadly as possible."
So is the DOJ creating an enemies list for Trump? Kinda sounds like it...
-
Has there been a history in the United States of either states or local communities removing statues unrelated to the Civil War? I am trying to research that now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/nyregion/lenin-statue-lower-east-side.html
-
This should worry everybody...
Web firm fights DoJ on Trump protesters (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40935770)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/5526/production/_93689712_protesterswashingtonlinkedarms.jpg)
Protesters linked arms in the street on Inauguration Day
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is helping DreamHost fight its case, said: "No plausible explanation exists for a search warrant of this breadth, other than to cast a digital dragnet as broadly as possible."
So is the DOJ creating an enemies list for Trump? Kinda sounds like it...
Waiting for Alan or other Trumpettes to defend freedom of speech ... ... ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump hits back at CEOs over response to Virginia violence
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-idUSKCN1AV0WT
QUOTE August 15, 2017 / 12:07 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump hit back on Tuesday at business leaders who quit a presidential advisory panel in protest over his response to a rally by far-right groups that turned deadly in Virginia, calling the executives "grandstanders."
Trump has faced a storm of criticism from Democrats and members of his own Republican party over his initial response to Saturday's violence around the rally in Charlottesville.
Three business leaders quit a Trump panel in protest on Monday and on Tuesday Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said on Twitter he was also resigning from the initiative "because it is the right thing for me to do."
Trump bowed on Monday to two days of pressure for a more forceful response to the Charlottesville violence, singling out groups behind the "Unite the Right" rally that were widely seen as stoking the disturbances, in which a woman was killed.
But he was still clearly frustrated over the reaction to his response.
"For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!" Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday.
The head of pharmaceutical company Merck & Co Inc, Kenneth Frazier, quit the president's American Manufacturing Council in protest on Monday. The CEOs of sportswear manufacturer Under Armour Inc and semiconductor chip maker Intel Corp, Kevin Plank and Brian Krzanich, followed suit later in the day."
[...]
Writing in the Financial Times on Tuesday, former U.S Treasury Secretary Larry Summers hailed Frazier for taking a stand against what Summers said had been Trump's "manifestly inadequate" response to the Charlottesville violence.
Leaders in American industry should look to the Merck executive's example, said Summers, who was treasury secretary under Democratic former President Bill Clinton.
Slideshow (4 Images)
"Every member of Mr Trump's advisory councils should wrestle with his or her conscience and ponder Edmund Burke's famous warning that 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,'" Summers wrote.
Several have preceded these latest leaders who have quit a presidential advisory panel, more will follow...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Booyah
Screw you Donny!!!
Donald Trump Lost a 6-Year Legal Battle to a Trumpet Player (http://fortune.com/2017/08/15/donald-trump-itrump-trumpet-app/)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/itrump.png)
iTrump's website (http://itrump.spoonjack.com)
The owner of Trump Tower, Trump Golf Links, and The Donald J. Trump Signature Collection can’t claim this one as his own: iTrump.
That’s because the trademark resides with a 40-year-old-engineer and amateur musician who created an iPhone app designed to teach people how to play the trumpet. This month, Tom Scharfeld prevailed in his grueling six-year legal fight against Donald Trump. And Scharfeld’s triumph is even more impressive because he succeeded without a lawyer.
Legal experts say it’s no surprise that Trump waged a fierce campaign to capture a name that he said screams DONALD TRUMP. After all, The Trump Organization has affixed the moniker to everything from real estate, vodka and golf courses to an airline, clothing and steaks. Long before Trump embarked on his run for the White House, the tycoon had sued to block upstarts from using the name, and he and his family have recently expanded their marks around the world.
“When you are representing yourself, it is almost impossible to win, so coming out a winner is one of the great long shots," said Harley Lewin, a New York lawyer not involved in the case. “Even if you are bright and perhaps right on the issues, the lack of knowledge of litigation procedure almost dooms you from the start."
Trump’s lawyers "didn’t seem to respect that I could do this," Scharfeld said. “We won all the claims and defeated those against us.”
James Weinberger, the lawyer for Trump in the iTrump case, declined to comment.
Is it wrong to enjoy it when Trump gets his just deserts?
-
Trump to revoke Obama-era flood risk building standards
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-infrastructure-idUSKCN1AV1ZI
QUOTE August 15, 2017 / 6:55 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump will revoke an Obama-era executive order on Tuesday that required strict building standards for government-funded projects to reduce exposure to increased flooding from sea level rise, sources said.
[...]
Flood policy expert Eli Lehrer, president of the libertarian R Street Institute, has been critical of many Obama initiatives. But he said revoking this order was a kneejerk political reaction by the Trump administration, which will end up costing taxpayers money.
"The Trump administration is acting very rashly in part out of the desire to undo a climate measure under the Obama administration," he said. "This is an enormous mistake that is disastrous for taxpayers. The (Obama) rule would have saved billions of dollars over time." "
Anything to further his personal causes, and screw the taxpayers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/nyregion/lenin-statue-lower-east-side.html
Thank you!
-
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is helping DreamHost fight its case, said: "No plausible explanation exists for a search warrant of this breadth, other than to cast a digital dragnet as broadly as possible."
So is the DOJ creating an enemies list for Trump? Kinda sounds like it...
The government collecting the identities of people who criticize the current administration? What could possibly go wrong?
-
Thing about learning from history
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1548260861930699/
A belated thanks for this referral. I had kind of forgotten of the paranoia against Catholics. I think the argument was that Catholics would have greater loyalty to the Pope than to their country. When the speaker in the film was talking about returning the country to "us", or however it was phrased, I wondered, who does he mean, Quakers and Presbyterians?
-
Scott Pruitt is dismantling EPA in secret for the same reason the GOP health care bill was secret (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/14/16142150/scott-pruitt-epa-secrecy-republican)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/w3Vz6ev1rR3KSxFgNQoXd4dvbJs=/0x0:2408x1810/920x613/filters:focal(1008x285:1392x669)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56185421/AP_17171038368614.0.jpg)
“So, mum’s the word, then?” AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
The New York Times had a big story (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa.html?_r=1) on Friday about EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s propensity to operate in secret. It offers a detailed and damning review of the evidence, but it stops short of drawing the broader conclusion: namely, that the approach of serving industry under cover of secrecy is not idiosyncratic to Pruitt, nor is it distinctively Trumpian. Rather, it is the standard approach of today’s GOP, as reflected in such recent initiatives as the failed health care bill. It is, in fact, the only approach possible to advance an agenda that is unpopular and intellectually indefensible.
--snip--
An agenda that no one likes is better kept hidden
First, Pruitt operates in secrecy — by history, by habit, by instinct, and by necessity — because what he’s doing has no policy justification and very little public support, like most of the contemporary GOP agenda.
There used to be some detail in conservative arguments about environmental regulations, some nuance about which ones did and didn’t operate effectively, or pass cost-benefit, or conform to proper interpretations of statute.
But Pruitt is wielding a scythe, not a scalpel. He is dismantling rules, customs, practices, and the budget at his agency without discernment. There is no conceivable intellectual or policy argument to make on behalf of that kind of nihilism. There’s no evidence (http://www.epi.org/publication/combined-effect-obama-epa-rules/) that Obama-era rules had any negative effects on the economy or overall employment, much less that every single one did. If there were any evidence, Pruitt’s every statement to the press or the public wouldn’t be packed with gobbledygook (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/22/15836136/epa-originalism-nonsense).
So why would Pruitt meet with environmentalists or conservationists or public health groups? There’s nothing to say, no policy merits to discuss, no real argument to have. His side won, so his guys, the fossil guys, get what they want. It’s not policy, it’s dominance.
And the public doesn’t support the strategy either (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/29/trumps-rollback-of-obamas-environmental-legacy-is-all-kinds-of-unpopular/). Large majorities in America support regulations to limit pollution (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/14/most-americans-favor-stricter-environmental-laws-and-regulations/) (and, specifically, regulations to limit CO2 (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/nearly-80-registered-voters-support-taxes-andor-regulations-pollution-causes-global-warming/)). Even most Republicans (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/majority-of-republicans-support-regulation-of-carbon-dioxide-as-a-pollutant/) support regulating greenhouse gases. Moves to weaken environmental regulations are wildly unpopular outside of the hardcore right-wing base.
So why engage with the public? Why talk with the mainstream media? Anything that draws public attention to what’s going on will only hurt Pruitt politically. He’s not going to be able to con the broad public into supporting more polluted waterways. Even a smooth talker couldn’t, and Pruitt is ... not that.
In sum, Pruitt is keeping his agenda as hidden as possible for the very same reasons Republicans in Congress tried to keep their recent health care bill a secret: Virtually no one likes it and there’s not a coherent policy case to be made for it.
Interestingly, in the case of the health care bill, GOP radicalism went so far that not even the health care industries and constituencies that fought against Obamacare supported it. Given the chance to enact a longtime policy priority, the GOP went too far and fell on its face. We’re seeing some of that crop up around Pruitt as well.
If we're not careful w'll end up with environmental problems like the Love Canal, the river in Cleveland catching fire and smog in LA like China is fighting in Beijing. This will hurt people–and potentially cause diseases and ultimately death.
Proof?
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. (http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829)
Researchers from MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment have come out with some sobering new data on air pollution’s impact on Americans’ health.
The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2017/06/170628183211_1_540x360.jpg)
Take the reigns off the EPA and it'll only get worse, not better.
-
"Durham County Sheriff: We Will Identify Those Who Pulled Down Confederate Statue"
So, Jeff, outing seems to be a double-edged sword.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/nyregion/lenin-statue-lower-east-side.html
One down, four more to go (in the USA alone):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statues_of_Vladimir_Lenin
EDIT: To clarify: I am using the phrase ("down...") rhetorically, not to advocate it
-
So, Jeff, outing seems to be a double-edged sword.
I'm fine with the people who pulled the statue down getting outed and prosecuted...it's up to the community not a mob to decide if they want to take a statue down, don't ya think?
-
I'm fine with the people who pulled the statue down getting outed and prosecuted...it's up to the community not a mob to decide if they want to take a statue down, don't ya think?
I do.
-
Abraham Lincoln was a racist.
I believe that 'quote' doesn't belong to Abraham Lincoln, but to Reverend James Mitchell of Indiana., later appointed Commissioner of Emigration, when he presented Lincoln with additional reasons why the Negroes should be colonized.
What is your answer to that?
I'm not an American, maybe you are? If so, you should probably know your own history better than me unless American education is really as bad as people say. So tell me, is it Lincoln's quote?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ahmmm...
-
Trump to revoke Obama-era flood risk building standards
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-infrastructure-idUSKCN1AV1ZI
QUOTE August 15, 2017 / 6:55 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump will revoke an Obama-era executive order on Tuesday that required strict building standards for government-funded projects to reduce exposure to increased flooding from sea level rise, sources said.
[...]
Flood policy expert Eli Lehrer, president of the libertarian R Street Institute, has been critical of many Obama initiatives. But he said revoking this order was a kneejerk political reaction by the Trump administration, which will end up costing taxpayers money.
"The Trump administration is acting very rashly in part out of the desire to undo a climate measure under the Obama administration," he said. "This is an enormous mistake that is disastrous for taxpayers. The (Obama) rule would have saved billions of dollars over time." "
Anything to further his personal causes, and screw the taxpayers.
Cheers,
Bart
Another stupid regulation that costs too much and provides nothing. First, the government rarely builds near the ocean. Second, all these elevations in sea level even if they come will be decades away. We are broke. We are 20 trillion in debt; $625 billion this year alone. We have to put to work quickly without delay and lower the cost for building construction. I worked in public construction and I can tell you that it is so costly as it is. We could build for a meteor strike too. But you have to stop somewhere.
Bart, you're a foreigner. Please stop wasting our tax money! They'll be nothing left for us to give to NATO to defend Europe.
-
Ahmmm...
At least that one is funny, and not an attempted defamation of character.
But maybe Lincoln did say the words about colonization?
I don't know, so I'm looking forward to the explanation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Scott Pruitt is dismantling EPA in secret for the same reason the GOP health care bill was secret (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/14/16142150/scott-pruitt-epa-secrecy-republican)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/w3Vz6ev1rR3KSxFgNQoXd4dvbJs=/0x0:2408x1810/920x613/filters:focal(1008x285:1392x669)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56185421/AP_17171038368614.0.jpg)
“So, mum’s the word, then?” AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
If we're not careful w'll end up with environmental problems like the Love Canal, the river in Cleveland catching fire and smog in LA like China is fighting in Beijing. This will hurt people–and potentially cause diseases and ultimately death.
Proof?
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. (http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829)
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2017/06/170628183211_1_540x360.jpg)
Take the reigns off the EPA and it'll only get worse, not better.
Trump is reversing King Obama's edicts. Good. That's what we elected him to do. Elections have consequences.
-
Bart, you're a foreigner.
Not according to my countrymen and women. And we know a thing or two about conquering water.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not according to my countrymen and women. And we know a thing or two about conquering water.
Cheers,
Bart
Good. Spend their money. :)
-
Abraham Lincoln was a racist.
As for the Lincoln Monument. . . . Burn it down!
Oh wait, he freed the slaves didn't he?
When I saw the Academy Award winning movie about Lincoln, what shocked me is how his campaign manager, with Lincoln's knowledge, bribed voters at the Republican convention to win the nomination and go on to win the Presidency. Then I remembered from childhood that it was slave owner, Honest George Washington who never told a lie. I guess I got my presidents mixed up. But both were very good men. After all, we erected statues of them in Washington DC, didn't we? We even put their likenesses on our dollars and everyone wants our money, don't they?
-
This should worry everybody...
Web firm fights DoJ on Trump protesters (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40935770)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/5526/production/_93689712_protesterswashingtonlinkedarms.jpg)
Protesters linked arms in the street on Inauguration Day
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is helping DreamHost fight its case, said: "No plausible explanation exists for a search warrant of this breadth, other than to cast a digital dragnet as broadly as possible."
So is the DOJ creating an enemies list for Trump? Kinda sounds like it...
I don't believe in mass searches. I don't like general surveillance like the NSA does. However, it appears this group executed illegal operations to block inauguration activities. They used their website to organize, plan and execute illegal disruptions. That appears to be the reason the courts are allowing investigators to see who the perpetrators were by who communicated with the web site. It would be like the FBI wanting to get the names of people who used a web site where terrorist bombings were planned and carried out. No. I'm not saying these people were terrorists. I'm only saying they carried out illegal acts by similarly using a website.
The web site even acknowledges they planned illegal activities:
"On the day of Inauguration, DisruptJ20 had 12 direct actions: one at each of the security checkpoints leading onto the inaugural parade route and the commencement ceremony. At seven of these checkpoints, activists’ explicit goal was to prevent people from passing through, and they achieved that goal. In total, we estimate that more than 2,400 folks were willing to risk arrest that morning to prevent folks from peacefully attending the inaugural ceremonies. At noon, more than 5,000 people marched from Union Station to McPherson Square, where DisruptJ20 had an ongoing presence all day, including 30 local organizations tabling under our warming tent. These numbers do not include the numerous autonomous actions that happened throughout DC, including the anti-capitalist bloc, Workers World Party marches, a march by Refuse Fascism blocking Route 395, and many others."
http://www.disruptj20.org/fck-yea-we-disrupted-it/
-
I don't believe in mass searches. I don't like general surveillance like the NSA does. However, it appears this group executed illegal operations to block inauguration activities. They used their website to organize, plan and execute illegal disruptions. That appears to be the reason the courts are allowing investigators to see who the perpetrators were by who communicated with the web site. It would be like the FBI wanting to get the names of people who used a web site where terrorist bombings were planned and carried out. No. I'm not saying these people were terrorists. I'm only saying they carried out illegal acts by similarly using a website.
The web site even acknowledges they planned illegal activities:
"On the day of Inauguration, DisruptJ20 had 12 direct actions: one at each of the security checkpoints leading onto the inaugural parade route and the commencement ceremony. At seven of these checkpoints, activists’ explicit goal was to prevent people from passing through, and they achieved that goal. In total, we estimate that more than 2,400 folks were willing to risk arrest that morning to prevent folks from peacefully attending the inaugural ceremonies. At noon, more than 5,000 people marched from Union Station to McPherson Square, where DisruptJ20 had an ongoing presence all day, including 30 local organizations tabling under our warming tent. These numbers do not include the numerous autonomous actions that happened throughout DC, including the anti-capitalist bloc, Workers World Party marches, a march by Refuse Fascism blocking Route 395, and many others."
http://www.disruptj20.org/fck-yea-we-disrupted-it/
By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the FBI is looking into doing the same thing to see if the white nationalist who used his car to run over people in Charlottesville was part of a conspiracy to get others who may have been involved. By checking web sites where he communicated with, they are going to get court orders to find out who else communicated on that web site. That way they can arrest other perpetrators who may have been involved. Would you object to the same kind of search warrant in this case?
-
Trump is stealing my lines. Comments he made today regarding Charlottesville riot.
"“Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Mr. Trump said. “This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”
He noted that the first American president had owned slaves.
-
Would you object to the same kind of search warrant in this case?
I would object to any far reaching warrent to obtain the IP numbers, names, addresses and other data for potentially millions of people...yes. Do all the public searches ya want but get a warrent for all ip addresses for people who "visited" a website? Yeah I have a huge problem with that...
-
I would object to any far reaching warrent to obtain the IP numbers, names, addresses and other data for potentially millions of people...yes. Do all the public searches ya want but get a warrent for all ip addresses for people who "visited" a website? Yeah I have a huge problem with that...
I agree with you for a web site that appears to have no illegal activities. But this site promoted illegal activities that were actually carried out. I have a feeling the courts agreed to the warrant because of that. The people who ran the site could also face prosecution.
Should the courts allow the FBI to check the web site the white nationalist who ran over those people used to plan his activity to see if there were co-conspirators?
-
Was that white nationalist driving a sports car? If so, more reason to ban them.
People don't kill people, high horsepower vehicles do.
(https://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200706/europe-to-ban-cars-c_600x0w.jpg)
Let's be reasonable. Only assault cars should be banned. :)
-
post deleted...
-
I think reasonable minds will interpret my post as a humorous jab at extreme gun control advocates, not vehicular homicide. You're smarter than that.
I think reasonable people would think your post was disgusting...too bad you don't-it says something about you.
-
Where does it end?
Next stop: burning Dr. Seuss books as "racist":
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/reading-racism-in-dr-seuss/536625/#article-comments?utm_source=fbb
-
I don't believe in mass searches. I don't like general surveillance like the NSA does. However, it appears this group executed illegal operations to block inauguration activities. They used their website to organize, plan and execute illegal disruptions.
I'm interested. Please explain how organizing a protest is illegal in the USA?
The web site even acknowledges they planned illegal activities:
"On the day of Inauguration, DisruptJ20 had 12 direct actions: one at each of the security checkpoints leading onto the inaugural parade route and the commencement ceremony. At seven of these checkpoints, activists’ explicit goal was to prevent people from passing through, and they achieved that goal.
Well, according to Trump they failed miserably. Just look at the description by Trump of the crowds that somehow managed to get through ...
Anyway, it is not about being successful or not, it's about illegal(?) organizing, no? What does your First Amendment have to say about it?
In total, we estimate that more than 2,400 folks were willing to risk arrest that morning to prevent folks from peacefully attending the inaugural ceremonies.
Are you suggesting that violence was planned to prevent the masses from getting in? Did fights break out? What did the police do? Any police records available that show links to the organizers of the protest? Any court cases recorded that clearly implicate the organizers of the protest (one of several)?
What was criminal? What is the basis for the request for the personal details of website visitors? What's supposed to be done with the information?
Cheers,
Bart
-
But because this thread is your pleasure, I will delete my post.
That's appreciated, thank you...
Now maybe Alan can edit his quote.
-
Meanwhile, by contrast to Trump's response to Charlottesville's violence,
Obama’s response to Charlottesville violence is one of the most popular in Twitter’s history (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/15/obamas-response-to-charlottesville-violence-is-one-of-the-most-popular-in-twitters-history/?utm_term=.f92a417d2898)
Barack Obama (https://twitter.com/BarackObama) Verified account
@BarackObama
"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion..."
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DHEXH7RV0AAUwKj.jpg)
5:06 PM - 12 Aug 2017
Barack Obama (https://twitter.com/BarackObama) Verified account
@BarackObama
"People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love..."
5:06 PM - 12 Aug 2017
Barack Obama (https://twitter.com/BarackObama) Verified account
@BarackObama
"...For love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite." - Nelson Mandela
5:06 PM - 12 Aug 2017
Unlike some former presidents, Barack Obama is showing no signs of completely abandoning public life.
Since leaving office, Obama has commented on major events or controversies, including the terrorist attack in Manchester, England, and Sen. John McCain's brain cancer diagnosis. He did so again on Saturday, after the deadly violence in Charlottesville.
“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion … People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love … For love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite,” Obama said, quoting former South African president Nelson Mandela in tweets.
The first tweet, which shows a picture of Obama smiling at four children, has been retweeted more than 1 million times and liked 2.6 million times as of Tuesday afternoon.
According to Favstar, a Twitter-tracking site, it's one of the most-liked tweets in the history of Twitter, second to singer Ariana Grande's response to the deadly terrorist attack during her concert in Manchester. It also ranks No. 7 among the most retweeted tweets.
Compare the above to Trump's response on Sat, his 2nd response on Monday and the off the rails response today.
-
(https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/GGmT3aqEbHI-ToqCnOUOtF5Lr0k=/950x534/filters:quality(90)/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F564951%2Fea8b0a7a-129b-4aef-b3ab-5647a4156aa7.jpg)
TRUMP DEFENDS WHITE SUPREMACISTS (https://news.vice.com/story/donald-trump-blames-alt-left-for-charlottesville-violence)
President Donald Trump defended the group of white supremacists who marched on Charlottesville, Virginia, last weekend, telling reporters they were largely justified and being unfairly vilified by the media. The protests ended Saturday when one of the white supremacists drove his car into a crowd of people, killing one woman and injuring 19 others.
“What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch,” he said at a Tuesday press conference in New York. “But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want but that’s the way it is.”
The press conference, which took place in the gold-plated lobby of Trump Tower, was to focus on infrastructure. But Trump quickly veered off-script into defending the white supremacists, pointing out that they had a permit to “innocently” protest, while the people who came to protest against them did not.
“The night before people innocently protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Trump said, in reference to the group of white supremacists who spent the evening carrying torches, shouting Nazi slogans, and delivering Nazi salutes. “You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group on the other side that came charging in — without a permit — and they were very, very violent.”
Maybe Trump hasn't seen the the nicely edited video that Vice News did...
Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News Tonight on HBO (https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/charlottesville-race-and-terror-vice-news-tonight-on-hbo/59921b1d2f8d32d808bddfbc)
"VICE News Tonight" correspondent Elle Reeve went behind the scenes with...
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/news-shield.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/c5/bc545380-7cf7-541b-91ab-b642e6a129e0/598f180796161.image.jpg?resize=760%2C507)
My, those "Unite the Right" rally members had their chants down pat, didn't they?
"You will not replace us!"
"Jews will not replace us!"
"Blood and soil!"
"Whose streets? Our Streets!"
"White lives matter!"
TRUMP: Excuse me. You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name.
There were some very fine folks in that "Unite the Right" rally or so says Trump.
-
(https://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/42/42ef7b0f-25c0-4e20-a925-2fbda9703931.jpg)
David Duke (https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke) @DrDavidDuke
Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/897554574663442432 …
3:45 PM - Aug 15, 2017
2,379 2,379 Replies 2,369 2,369 Retweets 1,447 1,447 likes
When David Duke thanks you, you screwed up "bigly" Donald...
-
NBC had a camera trained on WH Chief of Staff John Kelly during some of Trump's "news conference/train wreck" today...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/kelly-1.jpg)
WATCH: White House chief of staff John Kelly reacts to President Trump's latest remarks on violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. (https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/897616420854317056)
He has an inscrutable face and gave away little, but the wheels were turning...and some emotion escaped.
-
In case you didn't see it...
Read the transcript of Donald Trump's jaw-dropping press conference (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/read-the-transcript-of-donald-trumps-jaw-dropping-press-conference.html)
It doesn't read any better than it sounded live...it's actually worse in print.
-------------
Here's a link to the entire press conference from NBC...
President Trump's Press Conference Discussing Race and Charlottesville Violence (Full Video) (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/president-trump-full-press-conference-on-race-and-charlottesville-violence-1025303107697)
17:02
Edited to add video link.
-
I'm interested. Please explain how organizing a protest is illegal in the USA?
Well, according to Trump they failed miserably. Just look at the description by Trump of the crowds that somehow managed to get through ...
Anyway, it is not about being successful or not, it's about illegal(?) organizing, no? What does your First Amendment have to say about it?
Are you suggesting that violence was planned to prevent the masses from getting in? Did fights break out? What did the police do? Any police records available that show links to the organizers of the protest? Any court cases recorded that clearly implicate the organizers of the protest (one of several)?
What was criminal? What is the basis for the request for the personal details of website visitors? What's supposed to be done with the information?
Cheers,
Bart
Protests aren't illegal. Illegally blocking others from protesting legally is, well, illegal. The web site didn't just advocate protest. They appear to have advocated illegal protest. That's criminal if they did so. While I didn't see the papers presented to the court, the court apparently felt there was enough evidence of apparent illegal activities that the judge granted a subpoena to the website to furnish information to investigators. That "search warrant" process is constitutional and therefore legal. The search and evidence gathered will help investigators determined which laws were broken, if any, and who the perpetrators were. Assuming the evidence makes it appear that a crime was committed, it will be brought before a Grand Jury made up of citizens who will vote. If they determine a crime was committed, than charges will be filed and a trial will be held to determine guilty or non-guilt of the persons charged.
-
Add the following clarification to my last post. That the web site apparently planned and coordinated as well as advocated illegal protest.
-
(https://scontent.ford4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20799084_10159096019650517_7197879448927452039_n.jpg?oh=43f5880f1a054a8f407d82892be3c657&oe=5A1BCBD1)
"Take It Down" (https://www.facebook.com/studioedel/photos/a.468565605516.378762.70565260516/10159096019650517/?type=3)
Image by Edel Rodriguez (https://www.facebook.com/studioedel/?hc_ref=ARSG2Z2gJwdJqghZR9JGjuNAbNO1Kzf5yTizmba7dBemDDZtqy8qNPDOFYRgLDGRSeU&fref=nf)
He's done a variety of images including a cover for Der Spiegel and Time.
Great graphics...
(Trump prolly wouldn't agree).
-
They're outraged (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/trump-charlottesville-ryan-republicans-241668?lo=ap_b1) now.
From the outside (out of the USA, I mean) this all looks a little like people who let loose a monster in their midst to buy some votes and are now surprised at the bad outcome. A day late and a dollar short.
The limits of freedom, the limits of government power, these issues are perpetually under debate and modification as culture evolves, but I am pretty sure no one expected or wanted Nazi salutes in the streets to be excused by a sitting president. This is not a good situation.
-
Some thoughts (http://www.dw.com/en/what-philosopher-hannah-arendt-would-say-about-donald-trump/a-36766400) on the subject.
-
Some thoughts (http://www.dw.com/en/what-philosopher-hannah-arendt-would-say-about-donald-trump/a-36766400) on the subject.
Interesting ideas there, thank you for posting the link, but I suspect skirting round the central point to emerge from all this: the USA has a huge problem with race which is still unresolved despite the Civil War. The present leadership appears to be stoking this up because their political support depends on it. For example, "Make America Great Again" might have been a patriotic if rather trite slogan thirty years ago but when used today the context is completely different and it's read as "Make America White Again" by the leadership's political base. The leadership knows this, of course, which is why they constantly repeat it (twice today already, in capital letters). My fear is that if this very inflammatory behaviour continues then it will end in serious civil unrest in a country awash with guns.
The smarter foreign governments probably saw this coming long before the inauguration and they can't do much more than repudiate the most egregious claims and stay well clear. There's almost nothing the rest of the world can do beyond hope enough people of courage and conviction within the USA come together to stop the turmoil. I remember being shocked during my visit to Georgia a few years ago at the number of African Americans still living in what looked like shacks in the bush and we know that the stats for poverty and deprivation in some parts of the South are on the level of a newly developing country. The reality is that this will take decades to work out, but the sooner the work is started the sooner it will be done.
-
In case you didn't see it...
Read the transcript of Donald Trump's jaw-dropping press conference (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/read-the-transcript-of-donald-trumps-jaw-dropping-press-conference.html)
It doesn't read any better than it sounded live...it's actually worse in print.
-
So Trump does not like corporations that make their products in factories outside the United States.
Let's just think about that for a moment. Maybe he means that he does not like other corporations to make their products in foreign factories?
But yeah, the way that man speaks is truly painful to experience. I guess everything on his TV show was scripted.
-
Interesting ideas there, thank you for posting the link, but I suspect skirting round the central point to emerge from all this: the USA has a huge problem with race which is still unresolved despite the Civil War. The present leadership appears to be stoking this up for all its worth because their political support depends on it. For example, "Make America Great Again" might have been a patriotic if rather trite slogan thirty years ago but when used today the context is completely different and it's read as "Make America White Again" by the leadership's political base. The leadership knows this, of course, which is why they constantly repeat it (twice today already, in capital letters). My fear is that if this very inflammatory behaviour continues then it will end in serious civil unrest.
The smarter foreign governments probably saw this coming long before the inauguration and they can't do much more than repudiate the most egregious claims and stay well clear. There's almost nothing the rest of the world can do beyond hope enough people of courage and conviction within the USA come together to halt it. I remember being shocked during my visit to Georgia a few years ago at the number of African Americans still living in what looked like shacks in the bush and we know that the stats for poverty and deprivation in some parts of the South would shame a newly developing country. The reality is that this will take decades to work out, but the sooner the work is started the sooner it will be done.
You've got it backwards. It's the Democrats and the left that play identity politics for power. They're the ones who always play the race card, gender card, etc. Black vs white, rich class vs poor class, male vs female, gay vs straight, etc. This division politics causes people to take sides for their own identity and protection. Most American don't care about these things. They just want to be left alone, treated fairly, and allowed to get on with their lives.
Making America Great Again is about making Americans, ALL Americans, great again. It's about doing away with these artificial separations. It's about making One country great again and not divided, not being the largest debtor nation in the world but rather being the largest creditor nation in the world as we once was, having countries respect us if not like us, giving everyone equal opportunity to be free and advance, etc.
There are huge swaths of America that are poor. But you only looked at the black poor. There are a lot of white America poor like that as well. Both black and white poor were forgotten about by the Democrats and Obama since the 2008 recession. Trump ran on telling them that he won't forget them. That he will get them jobs and turn the economy around for them as was for the better healed Americans over the last 8 years. All those black and white people who lost jobs to foreign countries, and bad trade deals, and the elite Democrats and Republicans who ignored them. That's why he won.
The Left and Democrats who keep stoking the ambers of hatred to divide us for their own power are the real un-Americans.
-
... From the outside (out of the USA, I mean) this all looks a little like people who let loose a monster in their midst to buy some votes and are now surprised at the bad outcome....
You mean Obama and BLM and other alt-left violent perennial protesters? I agree 100%.
-
So Trump does not like corporations that make their products in factories outside the United States.
Let's just think about that for a moment. Maybe he means that he does not like other corporations to make their products in foreign factories?...
You mean "other than his" corporations? The dissonance/hypocrisy is duly noted. However, it doesn't invalidate the objection. Smoking is wrong for you even if the doctor telling you that smokes, right?
-
Alt-left? What's that?
-
You've got it backwards. It's the Democrats and the left that play identity politics for power. They're the ones who always play the race card, gender card, etc. Black vs white, rich class vs poor class, male vs female, gay vs straight, etc. This division politics causes people to take sides for their own identity and protection. Most American don't care about these things. They just want to be left alone, treated fairly, and allowed to get on with their lives.
Making America Great Again is about making Americans, ALL Americans, great again. It's about doing away with these artificial separations. It's about making One country great again and not divided, not being the largest debtor nation in the world but rather being the largest creditor nation in the world as we once was, having countries respect us if not like us, giving everyone equal opportunity to be free and advance, etc.
There are huge swaths of America that are poor. But you only looked at the black poor. There are a lot of white America poor like that as well. Both black and white poor were forgotten about by the Democrats and Obama since the 2008 recession. Trump ran on telling them that he won't forget them. That he will get them jobs and turn the economy around for them as was for the better healed Americans over the last 8 years. All those black and white people who lost jobs to foreign countries, and bad trade deals, and the elite Democrats and Republicans who ignored them. That's why he won.
The Left and Democrats who keep stoking the ambers of hatred to divide us for their own power are the real un-Americans.
I was going to add a third paragraph to my post but you have helpfully answered the point for me. The Left is mistaken in concentrating on racial hatred as if they themselves were unaffected by it. In doing so Left is only playing into the leadership's hands because the leadership then cites moral equivalence and cranks up the blame game. The claims of equivalence are utterly spurious, of course, but they enable the turmoil to continue and the leadership's political base to be kept constantly primed. The answer is that the whole country - Left, Right and middle - accepts there is an unresolved problem with racial identity in the United States and starts to heal the wound. Until that happens, the blame game of Democrats vs Republicans will go round and round, nothing will change and the slide towards something very ugly indeed will continue. I agree with what you say about poverty and inequality but that's not the driver here: racial identity is the driver here, in my view at least.
-
The Left and Democrats who keep stoking the ambers of hatred to divide us for their own power are the real un-Americans.
Is it not the President's primary job to unite the nation?
Is he doing so?
-
I was going to add a third paragraph to my post but you have helpfully answered the point for me. The Left is mistaken in concentrating on racial hatred. In doing so Left is only playing into the leadership's hands because the leadership then cites moral equivalence and cranks up the blame game. The claims of equivalence are utterly spurious, of course, but they enable the turmoil to continue and the leadership's political base to be kept constantly primed. The answer is that the whole country - Left, Right and middle - accepts there is an unresolved problem with racial identity in the United States and starts to heal the wound. Until that happens, the blame game of Democrats vs Republicans will continue, nothing will change and the slide towards something very ugly indeed will continue. I agree with what you say about poverty and inequality but that's not the driver here: racial identity is the driver here, in my view at least.
Most Americans have gotten past race. After all we elected a black president twice. Most of us thought this would put racial division to bed. But the left and the Democrats keep race baiting and playing the race card going because of the black vote. Democrats get 90% of the black vote. So they keep stirring the pot of racial division to keep blacks in their pocket.
Keeping unfair policies like entrance qualifications based on the color of your skin to get into a college adds to the division. Maybe there was a time a few decades ago when that policy seemed fair. But that time has gone. Especially when the economy is lousy, people don't like some getting favored treatment. That's divisive. It creates racial tension. We should stop it but the Supreme Court has lost it's way and still supports it. If I was a public figure saying these things, I would be condemned by the left liberal media as racist, and lose my job.
White people are tired of being called racist because they object to unfair policies that don't give them the same opportunity. Sure there are racists like the KKK and Nazi's. But Trump doesn't want to lump them with regular white people who are not racist but who feel that their concerns about unfairness are not being addressed. These are the "good" people he is referring too and not the KKK that the biased-media tries to put words to in his mouth. He also said their were good people on the left there as well. I'm sure he didn't mean the anti-protestors who came with bats and started fights but the people who legitimately felt the statue should come down. But the biased media will continue to twist his words into something negative.
-
Alt-left? What's that?
Good question. Both terms sort of have crept into conversations as of recently, without really being well defined. For me, alt-left would be the violent loonie-left.
-
Is it not the President's primary job to unite the nation?
Is he doing so?
Based on his increasing "disapproval" numbers in the public opinion polls, it appears the answer is yes.
-
Based on his increasing "disapproval" numbers in the public opinion polls, it appears the answer is yes.
Funny.
-
Is it not the President's primary job to unite the nation?
It is a pretty sad commentary on our culture and as a nation that we would need one person to unite us.
No it is not the primary job of the president to unite the nation. The primary job of the president is to run the executive branch of the federal government.
We should be united independently of which political party is in office.
-
The ambers (sic) of hatred are hardly the problem, but then we may be speaking traffic lights and I just took the wrong lane...
The American "problem" isn't really the American problem alone. Most of Europe shares it, and it exists as pay-back time for the sins of a few centuries ago.
We all have to accept that, not blame those stuck unwillingly (I think they guessed those chains were not to stop them falling overboard) into cheap tourist-class accommodation on primitive sailing ships; as far as my limited research goes, it was mainly a black-selling-black situation in Africa with plenty of European buyers lining up with transport. Seems like not a lot has changed today, other than instead of galleons we are using inflatable rafts supplied at high cost to the travellers themselves; ironic, no? Their final destination today is just as watery, or at best, will involve a life as grim. Maybe not on a cotton farm, but is the underbelly of a bridge more comfortable, less vulnerable to the elements and the people of the night than a farm shack? Even than one back in today's Africa?
Is there any thought within US black culture about those blacks back in Africa who rounded them up to sell? In the past as today? Do there exist revenge movements today towards those guys? Are there Pakistani groups on the Internet ready to jihad against the fellow mid-eastern countries who treat those travelling Pakistani citizens as slaves to build palaces to football or simply labour as maids-without-rights?
Race is one mother of a topic, and were we all able to hold our cool, it would be fascinating to understand how different colours really think and feel about their own situation and its relationship to that of others. I am certain it isn't as simple as black/white at all. From my mid-youth in India I do recall problems associated with the caste system there, and how it struck me that it was just accepted as the way things were and would remain. Seventy years after the Brits retired from that particular fray, I see on tv the Indian head honcho still claiming to be desirous of closing that caste situation down... really? How?
And colour is simply one manifestation of the problem, the divide and hatred. European whites can be just as detested by dumb Brits incapable of seeing the wood of their own making for the trees put out there by politicians. That some Brits prefer to live off 'benefits' than do low-paid labour opens the door to those Europeans willing to do that work. And that doesn't just mean white Brits: I've seen tv snippets of brown Asian Brits as well as black Brits chanting the chants; the irony appears totally lost to them too.
Rob
-
... No it is not the primary job of the president to unite the nation. The primary job of the president is to run the executive branch of the federal government...
Agreed. Than again, what does it even mean to "unite the nation"? So that we all think the same? Agree on everything?
-
Agreed. Than again, what does it even mean to "unite the nation"? So that we all think the same? Agree on everything?
A war with N-Korea could accomplish this...
A effective well proven tool to unite, but not a very nice one.
-
A war with N-Korea could accomplish this...
A effective well proven tool to unite, but not a very nice one.
Equally, if the response to that were to spread, it could just melt the nation rather than unite it. Now that would solve many things. For ever. For everyone.
-
Agreed. Than again, what does it even mean to "unite the nation"? So that we all think the same? Agree on everything?
Yah. I agree. Poorly worded question. I stand corrected on his primary job, which is to be the chief executive according to the rules laid out in the constitution.
So, I'll rephrase my question.
Isn't it the President's job to lead the nation?
-
You can't even trust those loonie-left corporate leaders anymore: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/346821-trumps-business-advisory-council-disbands-report (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/346821-trumps-business-advisory-council-disbands-report).
-
So, I'll rephrase my question.
Isn't it the President's job to lead the nation?
Perhaps the question is still ill-formed?
No, the president's job is to lead the executive branch of the federal government. There are also the judicial and legislative branches that need their own leadership as each has different missions and responsibilities separate from but equal to the executive branch.
Also there are 50 states, one district, and a few territories each with their own executive. These executives provide the leadership for their respective state/district/territory.
So what are you really asking?
-
"Uniting" a nation is a difficult concept to define, no doubt. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't include condoning neo-Nazis and the clan.
-
He's got a speech problem. It's discombobulated. His brain works faster than his tongue. He needs training on to speak so he's clear.
He'll say Nazis are bad. Then think about the people who were there who are not Nazis but should be allowed free speech and then say.... and they are good people not meaning then Nazis. Of course, people will conflate that to sound like he really likes Nazis. I've been looking at this from the beginning. I notice he does this all the time. Of course people misinterpret what he really means. He thinks people are reading his mind. He needs to slow down. He needs speaking lessons.
-
He's got a speech problem. It's discombobulated. His brain works faster than his tongue. He needs training on to speak so he's clear.
He'll say Nazis are bad. Then think about the people who were there who are not Nazis but should be allowed free speech and then say.... and they are good people not meaning then Nazis. Of course, people will conflate that to sound like he really likes Nazis. I've been looking at this from the beginning. I notice he does this all the time. Of course people misinterpret what he really means. He thinks people are reading his mind. He needs to slow down. He needs speaking lessons.
Imagine writing that about the beloved leader in NK if you live in NK!
Funny old world...
Rob
-
Trump disbands business councils after CEOs exit in protest
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKCN1AW0AN
QUOTE August 16, 2017 / 7:20 AM "WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump disbanded two high-profile business advisory councils on Wednesday after corporate CEOs quit in protest at his remarks blaming violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, not only on white nationalists but also on the protesters who opposed them.
A parade of prominent Republicans and U.S. ally Britain rebuked Trump after his Tuesday comments on Saturday's bloodshed further enveloped his seven-month-old presidency in controversy and paralyzed his policy aims.
Trump announced the break-up of the advisory councils after 3M Co's (MMM.N) Inge Thulin became the latest of several chief executives to leave Trump's American Manufacturing Council, and the president's Strategic and Policy Forum broke up of its own will. "
A bit of a contrast to Trump's earlier remarks that many leaders were lining up to replace the ones that had left.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Agreed. Than again, what does it even mean to "unite the nation"? So that we all think the same? Agree on everything?
Not agree on everything, but we're in trouble if we can't agree on anything.
Can we agree that white supremacists, antisemites, neo-nazis and the KKK are bad?
Can we get a president to say just that without ANY qualification?
If not, we need to get a different president...
-
He's got a speech problem. It's discombobulated. His brain works faster than his tongue. He needs training on to speak so he's clear.
He'll say Nazis are bad. Then think about the people who were there who are not Nazis but should be allowed free speech and then say.... and they are good people not meaning then Nazis. Of course, people will conflate that to sound like he really likes Nazis. I've been looking at this from the beginning. I notice he does this all the time. Of course people misinterpret what he really means. He thinks people are reading his mind. He needs to slow down. He needs speaking lessons.
I get it that not everyone is quick on their feet speaking in public. I'm certain I would not be. But 2 days delay? From a guy who tweets daily on all manner of irrelevant nonsense. Sorry, those excuses don't cut it. First, the original delay in denouncing, then followed by the unhinged de facto condoning...
It's not even close to good enough.
-
This should give everybody pause...(this is exactly what Putin wanted)
IS DONALD TRUMP LOSING CONTROL OF THE MILITARY? (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/donald-trump-military-white-supremacism-response)
Military leaders are distancing themselves from the commander in chief over his Charlottesville comments.
Perhaps no president in recent memory has so empowered the military—and disempowered himself—as Donald Trump. Whereas Barack Obama famously “signed off” on nearly every drone target, Trump has taken a deliberately hands-off approach. While he claimed on the campaign trail to “know more” than U.S. generals, since taking office the commander in chief has mostly relinquished responsibility for matters of war, preferring to shout suggestions from the sideline on Twitter. He has given the U.S. military the authority to set its own troop levels in Afghanistan and the Pentagon the flexibility to set troop levels in Iraq and Syria, although he has reportedly tired of this position of late, blaming his secretary of defense for “losing” in Afghanistan. The result has been a sometimes weaker-than-usual chain of command: when Trump announced on Twitter that transgender people would be barred from serving in “any capacity” in the United States military, with no clarification from the White House, the Defense Department effectively chose to ignore the order, pending more information.
This week saw the further breakdown of the traditional relationship between the commander in chief and the military when Trump insisted at a press conference on Tuesday that there were “very fine people” marching alongside the white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, where an apparent ISIS-style car attack by one right-wing extremist left an anti-racist protester dead and more than a dozen injured. Military leaders quickly rebuked both the attack and, implicitly, the president’s response, which was widely panned as a defense of the pro-Confederate rally.
Adm. John Richardson ✔ @CNORichardson
Events in Charlottesville unacceptable & musnt be tolerated @USNavy forever stands against intolerance & hatred...http://ow.ly/o8NF30emLNA
7:31 PM - Aug 12, 2017
403 403 Replies 4,735 4,735 Retweets 11,727 11,727 likes
Robert B. Neller ✔ @GenRobertNeller
No place for racial hatred or extremism in @USMC. Our core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment frame the way Marines live and act.
5:51 PM - Aug 15, 2017
2,469 2,469 Replies 22,152 22,152 Retweets 61,336 61,336 likes
GEN Mark A. Milley ✔ @ArmyChiefStaff
The Army doesn't tolerate racism, extremism, or hatred in our ranks. It's against our Values and everything we've stood for since 1775.
3:50 AM - Aug 16, 2017
1,869 1,869 Replies 18,308 18,308 Retweets 52,248 52,248 likes
--snip--
With his comments on Charlottesville, Trump has put military leaders in a bind. While they all ultimately report to the president, the Defense Department has also made commitments to diversity and civil-rights protections that are difficult to square with the rhetoric coming out of the White House.
I have no doubt that the US military stands ready to execute the orders given to it, but how can Trump be an effective commander in chief when what he says flies in the face of years of civil rights protections and advancement in the military?
Trump is weakening our country, day by day...the sooner Trump supporters realize that, the sooner that right minded people will regain control over the country. It's clear that Trump is endangering our country and is fast becoming a domestic enemy of the vast majority of the people.
When you have David Duke thanking you, you are helping the wrong people.
-
Not agree on everything, but we're in trouble if we can't agree on anything.
Can we agree that white supremacists, antisemites, neo-nazis and the KKK are bad?
Can we get a president to say just that without ANY qualification?
If not, we need to get a different president...
Trump said these people are bad. Would you like him to shoot them? I wonder, where were you when Obama invited Al Sharpton to the White House and made him his race relations "go to" contact? Sharpton, mainly acknowledged by most people to be an anti-Semite, a black provocateur and racist who instigated a riot in Harlem that inflamed the situation and caused white people to get killed. And Obama made him a key advisor.
See here for his full history of anti-white racist behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#Crown_Heights_riot
What did you have to say about Obama's minister, Jeremiah Wright, who's church Obama attended for twenty years and married him. Wright, whose comments and preaching where often anti-white and anti-American. Eventually, Obama had to disown the minister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy
-
Why so much Donald when we could enjoy Melania a bit more?
But we better hurry: the domestic strain is showing badly now:
https://eldiariony.com/2017/08/15/la-postura-de-melania-trump-sobre-ataque-en-virginia/
Love to comfort her, but I'm so busy doing not much of anything...
;-)
Rob
-
Trump said these people are bad. Would you like him to shoot them? I wonder, where were you when Obama invited Al Sharpton to the White House and made him his race relations "go to" contact? Sharpton, mainly acknowledged by most people to be an anti-Semite, a black provocateur and racist who instigated a riot in Harlem that inflamed the situation and caused white people to get killed. And Obama made him a key advisor.
See here for his full history of anti-white racist behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#Crown_Heights_riot
What did you have to say about Obama's minister, Jeremiah Wright, who's church Obama attended for twenty years and married him. Wright, whose comments and preaching where often anti-white and anti-American. Eventually, Obama had to disown the minister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy
How much real power did those two individuals have? How was it exercised?
-
Why so much Donald when we could enjoy Melania a bit more?
But we better hurry: the domestic strain is showing badly now:
;-)
Rob
Still better than Hillary's fat thighs and big butt. And her cackle gives you chills up and down your spine. :)
-
Is disbanding the Corporate Advisors part of the swamp cleaning?
-
He's got a speech problem.
Oh, he's got a speech problem all right...when he's not on teleprompter, he speaks from his true self.
Make no mistake about yesterday's "press conference". While his staff may have thought he was just gonna make a few statements and leave, that was not his plan at all. He came locked & loaded for what he wanted to do. He came with the Sat speech he gave typed up on big type in his pocket.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/20785740_1983522258561176_5768118927642398738_o.png)
Pablo Martinez Monsivais from AP got a great shot of him reaching into his pocket as he pulled it out.
Trump had, by all accounts been stewing since Sat when the #FAKENEWS reported his statement and roundly criticized it for not mentioning Natzi, KKK, white supremacists and antisemites. The Sun shows had all sorts of people including a lot of GOP criticizing Trump and even had the White House release an anonymous saying OF COURSE Trump meant the Natzi, KKK, white supremacists and antisemites when he condemned whenever he condemned in his speech on Sat.
He was convinced by his staff and came out and read a statement on Monday which DID call out the Natzi, KKK, white supremacists and antisemites. He was stiff and wooden and completely insincere in his presentation and while the language was much better, it seemed like he was a hostage being forced to read a message...you could almost see his eyes blinking saying in morse code "I'm being forced to read this, I don't really believe what I'm saying". Andy Borowitz of The New Yorker had is down pat: Man in Hostage Video Forced to Recite Words Not His Own (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/man-in-hostage-video-forced-to-recite-words-not-his-own).
So, naturally Trump was pissed off because the #FAKENEWS didn't fawn over his new speech.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrump
Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied...truly bad people!
3:29 PM - 14 Aug 2017
So, when Trump stepped out of that elevator, he was all set to go off on the #FAKENEWS and rather than simply thank everybody after giving his remarks about infrastructure, he went off...
That was the real Donald J Trump...a deranged, malignant narcissist who can't stand being criticized and carries a grudge forever...
Re doubled down and basically admitted that his Mon statement trying to clarify his condemnation of Natzi, KKK, white supremacists and antisemites was a complete fabrication...a lie that he read off of a teleprompter while under duress.
What he spewed forth with was from his soul. That's what the man actually believes...he's a closet racist. He "pretends" to believe in equal rights but that's not in his heart. He didn't even bother to use a dog whistle...he said Natzi, KKK, white supremacists and antisemites were no worse than the people protesting Natzi, KKK, white supremacists and antisemites. He made a moral equivalence and the Natzi, KKK, white supremacists and antisemites thanked him for it.
The Natzi, KKK, white supremacists and antisemites thanked him for it.
Naw Trump is who we thought he was...he's who Trump supporters voted for.
But he ain't my president...
-
How much real power did those two individuals have? How was it exercised?
If Obama wanted to help get the country past negative race relations, you don't hire Al Sharpton. But, he had an ulterior motive. Obama could outwardly make it seem like he was an honest broker between the races. Meanwhile, his close relation with Sharpton was a "wink and a nod" to the black community to remind them he really was on their side. Whites aren't stupid. They saw through the façade. Obama was a phony when it came to race relations.
-
Regarding the statue issue, it turns out that there are eight statues of Confederate leaders installed in the U.S. Capitol where Congress meets. Of course, the leaders were all Democrats. Maybe that's why they're still all there. :)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/16/how-statues-of-robert-e-lee-and-other-confederates-got-into-the-u-s-capitol/#comments
-
If Obama wanted to help get the country past negative race relations, you don't hire Al Sharpton. But, he had an ulterior motive. Obama could outwardly make it seem like he was an honest broker between the races. Meanwhile, his close relation with Sharpton was a "wink and a nod" to the black community to remind them he really was on their side. Whites aren't stupid. They saw through the façade. Obama was a phony when it came to race relations.
This idea that Obama is somehow responsible for worsening the racial divide by daring to acknowledge systemic racism is seriously repugnant, Alan. Just because Obama brought attention to the fact that black people suffer inequitably harsh penalties in the justice system for similar crimes, or the fact that a resume with the name "DeShawn" is more likely to be passed over than one with the name "Sean" despite having equal qualifications *doesn't make him responsible for worsening racial tensions.*
I can't believe anyone even has to make that point. Black people didn't suddenly decide to get ticked off when they had a black president just for the hell of it, Alan. Minorities have suffered from incongruent treatment largely in silence, and when a prominent voice spoke up, they finally had a platform. The guilty party isn't the one that gave them the voice, the guilty parties are the ones that benefit from and propagate the inequity, even if they do so unintentionally.
-
This idea that Obama is somehow responsible for worsening the racial divide by daring to acknowledge systemic racism is seriously repugnant, Alan. Just because Obama brought attention to the fact that black people suffer inequitably harsh penalties in the justice system for similar crimes, or the fact that a resume with the name "DeShawn" is more likely to be passed over than one with the name "Sean" despite having equal qualifications *doesn't make him responsible for worsening racial tensions.*
I can't believe anyone even has to make that point. Black people didn't suddenly decide to get ticked off when they had a black president just for the hell of it, Alan. Minorities have suffered from incongruent treatment largely in silence, and when a prominent voice spoke up, they finally had a platform. The guilty party isn't the one that gave them the voice, the guilty parties are the ones that benefit from and propagate the inequity, even if they do so unintentionally.
You ask Trump to reject the racist KKK and racist Nazis, which he did and should. Yet you approve or ignore Obama hiring the equivalent in racist Al Sharpton. Obama worsened the divide by hiring Sharpton, a race baiter. Obama was playing racial politics for power like all Democrats and leftists. Conflict was and is good for the left and Democrats. That's why they keep playing that game while trying to give the appearance of fairness and balance and trying to resolve racial issues. It's all hypocritical.
-
Trump said these people are bad. Would you like him to shoot them? I wonder, where were you when Obama invited Al Sharpton to the White House and made him his race relations "go to" contact? Sharpton, mainly acknowledged by most people to be an anti-Semite, a black provocateur and racist who instigated a riot in Harlem that inflamed the situation and caused white people to get killed. And Obama made him a key advisor.
See here for his full history of anti-white racist behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#Crown_Heights_riot
What did you have to say about Obama's minister, Jeremiah Wright, who's church Obama attended for twenty years and married him. Wright, whose comments and preaching where often anti-white and anti-American. Eventually, Obama had to disown the minister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy
Alan,
The questions many of us are asking ourselves here is whether there is something, anything, that Trump could do to cause you to drop that silly unconditional support of yours?
The guy just isn't fit for presidency. I never thought I'd write that, but I now really think I would be doing a better job. If that doesn't emphasize the extent to which he is reducing the aura of the function, I don't know what would.
Because... he is not just making a fool of himself again and again, he is making a fool above all of the job of president of the USA. Now, I would agree that it was largly romanticized till date, but do U really want this to continue?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You ask Trump to reject the racist KKK and racist Nazis, which he did and should. Yet you approve or ignore Obama hiring the equivalent in racist Al Sharpton. Obama worsened the divide by hiring Sharpton, a race baiter. Obama was playing racial politics for power like all Democrats and leftists. Conflict was and is good for the left and Democrats. That's why they keep playing that game while trying to give the appearance of fairness and balance and trying to resolve racial issues. It's all hypocritical.
Alan, I'm no Al Sharpton fan - not at all. However, I'm understanding of voices of frustration and anger coming from a historically marginalized people who have suffered slavery, segregation, codified discrimination and ongoing disenfranchisement. Let's also not pretend that Donald Trump and Steve Bannon aren't making identity politics the very cornerstone of their message. I mean, come on. The difference is, black folks are ACTUALLY disenfranchised. Trumpers, by and large, just... aren't. ::)
-
You ask Trump to reject the racist KKK and racist Nazis, which he did and should. Yet you approve or ignore Obama hiring the equivalent in racist Al Sharpton.
Nice deflection, but unless you come up with a time machine and can go back in time, there's ZERO we can do about the past. Whether or not Obama did or didn't make things worse is irrelevant to dealing with what Trump has done now.
And seriously, while you may hate Sharpton, he's not in the same class as the KKK and neo-Nazis...has be ever advocated hanging whites or putting jews in ovens?
Squeal all you want but Trump screwed the pooch badly yesterday. Nobody can or should condone what has said.
Now, what's he gonna do about it?
The White House is trying to tell GOP lawmakers to say 'the president was entirely correct' about Charlottesville. The White House is trying to pass this off as the fault of #FAKENEWS and that President Trump "has been a voice for unity and calm" following the deadly protests in Charlottesville and subsequent controversy over his statements Tuesday.
President Trump "has been a voice for unity and calm"
Actually, it's now coming out that Trump tipped his hand yesterday in a way that may eventually doom him.
Trump’s Aides Tried to Conceal His Crazy, Racist Beliefs From the Country (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/trumps-aides-tried-to-conceal-his-crazy-racist-beliefs.html)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/16/16-trump-aides.w710.h473.jpg)
Chief of staff John Kelly looks on as Donald Trump defends white-supremacist protesters. Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Donald Trump’s aides have been angry with him frequently — indeed, usually — since the beginning of his presidential campaign. But they have rarely registered their dismay as nakedly as they did Tuesday night, when he spontaneously altered a plan to deliver remarks on infrastructure without taking questions into a free-form defense of white supremacists. One official told NBC News that Trump had “gone rogue.” Mike Allen reports that chief economic adviser Gary Cohn is “between appalled and furious,” and that there is a danger one or more high-level officials could resign. Chief of Staff John Kelly’s disgust was registered on his face.
It is impossible to recall a presidential aide contemporaneously broadcasting his disgust with his own president.
But it is important to understand the precise nature of their distress. It is emphatically not because they are shocked to learn their boss is a racist, a fact that has been established through numerous episodes, such as Trump’s insistence a Mexican-American judge was inherently biased against him, his call for a Muslim immigration ban, his slander of Ghazala Khan, and so on. They are angry that Trump revealed beliefs they wish to keep hidden. “Members of the president’s staff, stunned and disheartened, said they never expected to hear such a voluble articulation of opinions that the president had long expressed in private,” reports the New York Times.
So, how can America deal with having a racist president? How can he possibly govern? How can you support a racist?
-
The disbanding of the Trump administration is already happening...
What led 2 White House economic councils to abruptly disband (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/led-white-house-economic-councils-abruptly-disband/story?id=49257079)
Fallout from President Donald Trump's response to the Charlottesville, Virginia, violence Wednesday cost the White House two key economic advisory councils made up of the nation's top CEOs and business leaders.
Trump announced via Twitter that he was ending both the American Manufacturing Council and the Strategic and Policy Forum, rather than “put pressure” on the leaders involved in both councils.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!
12:14 PM - Aug 16, 2017
54,279 54,279 Replies 15,245 15,245 Retweets 58,505 58,505 likes
The development deals a major blow to the president's signature initiatives to create jobs, and to his claim of harnessing the best and brightest of America's business leaders to get it done.
Just 24 hours earlier, as more business leaders stepped down from Trump’s manufacturing council, the president remained bullish and said he had many candidates to replace those who had left.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!
10:21 AM - Aug 15, 2017
65,710 65,710 Replies 24,389 24,389 Retweets 104,524 104,524 likes
But, on a conference call convened shortly after 11:30 a.m. ET, members of the president's Strategic and Policy Forum -- formed in December 2016 and loosely known as the "CEO council" -- agreed to disband amidst growing concerns following Trump's statements on Charlottesville in recent days, sources familiar with the call told ABC News.
News of the move broke publicly around 12:50 pm ET. A source close to the forum said the panel had informed the White House of its decision to disband before 1 p.m. ET.
Following Trump's press conference Tuesday, all the CEOs on the forum were invited to a mandatory phone call Tuesday night to discuss the panel’s future, and the discussion led to many wanting to quit, according to sources familiar with the call. The group unanimously voted to end the panel then.
The panel, chaired by Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, released a statement around 1.40 p.m. ET Wednesday on its decision.
“As our members have expressed individually over the past several days, intolerance, racism and violence have absolutely no place in this country and are an affront to core American values,” the statement read.
What's next?
-
Still better than Hillary's fat thighs and big butt.
Excellent, Alan. You've finally revealed the true you.
-
Excellent, Alan. You've finally revealed the true you.
Yes, I imagine that if Hillary had been more "gropable", she'd have received more votes from Trumpeters and the like.
-
Ego-squared: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/16/trump-charlottesville-temper-chaos-241721 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/16/trump-charlottesville-temper-chaos-241721).
-
Regarding the statue issue, it turns out that there are eight statues of Confederate leaders installed in the U.S. Capitol where Congress meets. Of course, the leaders were all Democrats. Maybe that's why they're still all there. :)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/16/how-statues-of-robert-e-lee-and-other-confederates-got-into-the-u-s-capitol/#comments
I personally don't care much about statues one way or the other but I came across this: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/16/regime-change-in-charlottesville-215500 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/16/regime-change-in-charlottesville-215500).
-
Looking from the outside (Canada) in, I wonder why Congress often seems to continue to support the President, even in the face of such controversies as is currently occurring, and especially as it relates to Congress continuing on with it's business.
It's as if they (not all but many) are afraid to speak up and anger him because of how the soured relationship may be bad for business. Why can't Congress just carry on and enact legislation that is in line with their priorities and why do they need the President, to be able to do so. I understand that the President has veto power but do they expect, that if they p***ed him off, he would routinely veto everything just to get back at them, in spite of how good that legislation may be.
I get that the Vice President has to be a lap-dog but why Congress??
(sorry if this posts twice - I got a warning that while I was typing a new reply was posted and I may wish to review my post - so I hit "Post" a second time)
Regards,
Marv
-
So, how can America deal with having a racist president? How can he possibly govern? How can you support a racist?
you have no issues with slave owning "founding fathers" who did not bother about women's rights... so you will carry on.
-
you have no issues with slave owning "founding fathers" who did not bother about women's rights... so you will carry on.
Pretty sure Schewe and lots of Americans do have issues there in a modern context.
-
you have no issues with slave owning "founding fathers" who did not bother about women's rights... so you will carry on.
If George Washington said what Trump said yesterday I would have a problem with that.
In point of fact of 9 US presidents that owned slaves, Washington was the only one that free his slaves upon his death. Pretty remarkable for his times...
-
Pretty sure Schewe and lots of Americans do have issues there in a modern context.
sure, he probably still shops @ B&H = https://www.dpreview.com/news/3113418569/b-h-photo-will-pay-3-2-million-to-settle-federal-discrimination-case
-
If George Washington said what Trump said yesterday I would have a problem with that.
why single out GW ? there plenty of others whose memory shall be dealt with like w/ those statues...
-
you have no issues with slave owning "founding fathers" who did not bother about women's rights...
... Or the rights of those who didn't own property. The founders of the United States created a document that reaches for an ideal, even if they didn't always live by those ideals. Fortunately over time we've become more enlightened, though there's still far to go, and some want to go backward. What's your point again?
-
why single out GW ? there plenty of others whose memory shall be dealt with like w/ those statues...
I played your game and mentioned our 1st president and looked up his position regarding slaves and learned something. Go play in the street now...
-
Trump is shooting himself in the foot.
Trump is sabotaging himself by attacking the media after Charlottesville (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/16/trumps-hatred-of-the-media-is-ruining-his-judgment/?utm_term=.7c5865b1754b)
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/59935a1414000020002c2e2f.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
President Trump first asked reporters to define the "alt-right," before saying members of the "alt-left" were also to blame for violence in Charlottesville, while taking questions from reporters on Aug. 15 at Trump Tower in New York.
What would possess the president of the United States, after he finally called out white supremacists Monday, to return a day later to the flimsy position that attracted so much criticism in the first place? Part of the answer is that he hates the media and just can't stand to give reporters what they want — or admit that he was wrong.
--snipp--
Contempt for the press is, however, ruining Trump's judgment. Whatever he truly believes, the president made an unforced error Tuesday by again spreading blame for the violence in Charlottesville. No adviser would recommend such a move. I mean that literally.
Trump was not scheduled to answer reporters' questions in New York. The Washington Post's Ashley Parker and David Nakamura reported that the president's decision to engage — angrily — with the press “caught senior aides watching from the lobby by surprise.”
The New York Times's Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman reported that “members of the president's staff, stunned and disheartened, said they never expected to hear such a voluble articulation of opinions that the president had long expressed in private.”
This was Trump, furious at the media, freelancing in self-destructive fashion.
The worry is that Trump's freelancing self-destructive fashion will leave our country without a functioning leader.
-
The President says what half of the county thinks.
-
Well that's not good.
-
Speaking of unity... the country is 100% united that what happened in Charlotteville is unacceptable. Except, 50% thinks it is unacceptable that other people can say things they do not like, and the other 50% thinks it is unacceptable to attack free speech with baseball bats.
-
And about Trump's "Alt-Left"?
Yes, What About the “Alt-Left”? (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html)
By Dahlia Lithwick
(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2017/08/063_830759682-e1502559592707-635x357.jpg)
What the counter-protesters Trump despises were actually doing in Charlottesville last weekend.
On Tuesday, after a weekend that included a white supremacist mowing down and killing a peaceful counter-protester in Charlottesville and Nazis marching on the University of Virginia with torches, the president of the United States stood in front of the American people and said, “What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right’? Let me ask you this: What about the fact they came charging—that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”
There were, as it turns out, a great number of Charlottesville locals present to witness the violence and lawlessness on display in this town—my town—last weekend. I asked local witnesses, many in the faith community, every one of whom was on the streets of Charlottesville on Saturday, whether there was a violent, club-wielding mob threatening the good people on team Nazi. Here’s what I heard back:
Brandy Daniels
Postdoctoral fellow at the Luce Project on Religion and Its Publics at UVA
It was basically impossible to miss the antifa for the group of us who were on the steps of Emancipation Park in an effort to block the Nazis and alt-righters from entering. Soon after we got to the steps and linked arms, a group of white supremacists—I’m guessing somewhere between 20-45 of them—came up with their shields and batons and bats and shoved through us. We tried not to break the line, but they got through some of us—it was terrifying, to say the least—shoving forcefully with their shields and knocking a few folks over. We strengthened our resolve and committed to not break the line again. Some of the anarchists and anti-fascist folks came up to us and asked why we let them through and asked what they could do to help. Rev. Osagyefo Sekou talked with them for a bit, explaining what we were doing and our stance and asking them to not provoke the Nazis. They agreed quickly and stood right in front of us, offering their help and protection.
Less than 10 minutes later, a much larger group of the Nazi alt-righters come barreling up. My memory is again murky on the details. (I was frankly focused on not bolting from the scene and/or not soiling myself—I know hyperbole is common in recounting stories like these, but I was legitimately very worried for my well-being and safety, so I was trying to remember the training I had acquired as well as, for resolve, to remember why I was standing there.) But it had to have been at least 100 of them this go around. I recall feeling like I was going to pass out and was thankful that I was locked arms with folks so that I wouldn’t fall to the ground before getting beaten. I knew that the five anarchists and antifa in front of us and the 20 or so of us were no match for the 100-plus of them, but at this point I wasn’t letting go.
At that point, more of the anarchists and antifa milling nearby saw the huge mob of the Nazis approach and stepped in. They were about 200-300 feet away from us and stepped between us (the clergy and faith leaders) and the Nazis. This enraged the Nazis, who indeed quickly responded violently. At this point, Sekou made a call that it was unsafe—it had gotten very violent very fast—and told us to disperse quickly.
While one obviously can’t objectively say what a kind of alternate reality or “sliding doors”–type situation would have been, one can hypothesize or theorize. Based on what was happening all around, the looks on their faces, the sheer number of them, and the weapons they were wielding, my hypothesis or theory is that had the antifa not stepped in, those of us standing on the steps would definitely have been injured, very likely gravely so. On Democracy Now, Cornel West, who was also in the line with us, said that he felt that the antifa saved his life. I didn’t roll my eyes at that statement or see it as an exaggeration—I saw it as a very reasonable hypothesis based on the facts we had.
Rabbi Rachel Schmelkin
Congregation Beth Israel
There was a group of antifa defending First United Methodist Church right outside in their parking lot, and at one point the white supremacists came by and antifa chased them off with sticks.
Rebekah Menning
Charlottesville resident
I stood with a group of interfaith clergy and other people of faith in a nonviolent direct action meant to keep the white nationalists from entering the park to their hate rally. We had far fewer people holding the line than we had hoped for, and frankly, it wasn’t enough. No police officers in sight (that I could see from where I stood), and we were prepared to be beaten to a bloody pulp to show that while the state permitted white nationalists to rally in hate, in the many names of God, we did not. But we didn’t have to because the anarchists and anti-fascists got to them before they could get to us. I’ve never felt more grateful and more ashamed at the same time. The antifa were like angels to me in that moment.
So, that description of what the "Alt-Left" was doing sounds a bit different that the description that Trump mentioned. It seems that what the Alt-Left was doing was defending the peaceful anti-hate and anti white supremacist protestors....
We got snippets of video that was poorly edited is it was edited at all. It seemed to me the the networks were just streaming the stuff as it came in.
It was confusing-particularly videos and photos of the Fri nite march. That's what Trump saw too...it didn't really sink in until I saw the VICE news video that it really hit home.
Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News Tonight on HBO (http://Charlottesville: Race and Terror – VICE News Tonight on HBO)
"You will not replace us!"
"Jews will not replace us!"
"Blood and soil!"
"Whose streets? Our Streets!"
"White lives matter!"
-
The President says what half of the county thinks.
Actually, it's far less than 50% dooode...he's at 34% approval and dropping and remember he was elected with only 27% of the eligible voters voting for him.
-
This idea that Obama is somehow responsible for worsening the racial divide by daring to acknowledge systemic racism is seriously repugnant...
What is truly repugnant is peddling "systemic racism," slavery, and Jim Crow at the very funeral where five cops were shot by a BLM member inspired by Obama's previous peddling of the "systemic racism," slavery, and Jim Crow.
-
Actually, it's far less than 50% dooode...he's at 34% approval and dropping and remember he was elected with only 27% of the eligible voters voting for him.
Here we go again... the same polls that never gave him a chance. And his opponent also had "only" 27% votes. People simply do not tell the truth to an anonymous caller. The only time people speak the truth is in the privacy of the voting booth.
-
Aaaah, Mr. Snowflake White Supremacist Chris Cantwell that sounded so bad-ass on the VICE News segment posted a video to his Facebook page in tears, TEARS I tell you...
(http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/08162017-chris-cantwell-mojo.png?w=990)
White Supremacist Cries After Realizing He Could Be Arrested (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/white-supremacist-cries-after-realizing-he-could-be-arrested/)
Christopher Cantwell recorded this video after being featured in a documentary on the Charlottesville violence.
Christopher Cantwell, the vocal white supremacist featured in VICE News Tonight‘s Charlottesville documentary, showed a different side of himself after he realized that law enforcement had issued a warrant for his arrest. Cantwell recorded a video that quickly circulated on social media, showing him crying in fear that the police might hurt him.
American Terrorist Christopher Cantwell balls his eyes out (https://youtu.be/lyeTj002DCo)
4:46
I gotta tell you, the dichotomy between this guy on the VICE video and his crybaby video is almost too perfect. Are Alt-Right White Supremacists really a bunch of cry babies? But them I remember the VICE video where he brags about how many guns he has and realize these kind of people are even MORE dangerous because they whimpy cowards that just act tough.
-
What is truly repugnant is peddling "systemic racism," slavery, and Jim Crow at the very funeral where five cops were shot by a BLM member inspired by Obama's previous peddling of the "systemic racism," slavery, and Jim Crow.
Right. A tasteless display at a funeral, disrespectful as it may be, is FAR more repugnant than generations of people harassed, beaten, killed and imprisioned due to the color of their skin. And the temerity of a black president daring to address that legacy... utterly reprehensible.
Don't be stupid. If you've bothered to explore even a cursory bit of the effects of systemic bias I can't believe you'd make such a goofy comparison. Here (https://constitutioncenter.org/amoreperfectunion/) are Obama's incindiary words, by the way. What's your problem with this message, exactly?
-
Excellent, Alan. You've finally revealed the true you.
Yup. You got me pegged. I favor Melania over Hillary. But that doesn't make me a bad guy does it? :)
-
Here we go again... the same polls that never gave him a chance. And his opponent also had "only" 27% votes. People simply do not tell the truth to an anonymous caller. The only time people speak the truth is in the privacy of the voting booth.
Shame and embarrassment can do that to a person.
-
Here we go again... the same polls that never gave him a chance. And his opponent also had "only" 27% votes. People simply do not tell the truth to an anonymous caller. The only time people speak the truth is in the privacy of the voting booth.
Yeah, well just don't say he represents 1/2 the country because that's a lie. He represents a minority that is growing smaller each time he opens his mouth.
-
Right. A tasteless display at a funeral, disrespectful as it may be, is FAR more repugnant than generations of people harassed, beaten, killed and imprisioned due to the color of their skin. And the temerity of a black president daring to address that legacy... utterly reprehensible.
Don't be stupid. If you've bothered to explore even a cursory bit of the effects of systemic bias I can't believe you'd make such a goofy comparison.
It's not the tasteless display at the funeral that is repugnant. Rather, it's the fact that 5 cops were killed that's repugnant. And you justify those killings because other repugnant acts against blacks occurred in the past? Your justification is repugnant and the reason these things happen because you say that its OK to killed pig cops because of what happened to others. You're dangerous. And Obama who attacked cops who were later exonerated, in effect gave license and approval for nut job blacks to assassinate other cops as what happened in Texas, Brooklyn and elsewhere. Obama was a disgrace for doing that. Instead of encouraging the legal system to play out, he went out of his way to attack cops. Pit them against blacks. And that's part of the reason for the response of nut jobs on the right now. Race relations went down during the Obama administration instead of being more resolved especially when so many white people went out of their way to give him, the first black man, the presidency for not one but two terms. Obama blew it and continued to play the race card for power for himself and other Democrats. What he did was criminal.
-
... Don't be stupid....
After calling me stupid, what's next? Baseball bat?
-
After calling me stupid, what's next? Baseball bat?
::) You're not stupid. Your comparison was stupid. Don't be such a snowflake.
-
It's not the tasteless display at the funeral that is repugnant. Rather, it's the fact that 5 cops were killed that's repugnant. And you justify those killings because other repugnant acts against blacks occurred in the past? Your justification is repugnant and the reason these things happen because you say that its OK to killed pig cops because of what happened to others. You're dangerous. And Obama who attacked cops who were later exonerated, in effect gave license and approval for nut job blacks to assassinate other cops as what happened in Texas, Brooklyn and elsewhere. Obama was a disgrace for doing that. Instead of encouraging the legal system to play out, he went out of his way to attack cops. Pit them against blacks. And that's part of the reason for the response of nut jobs on the right now. Race relations went down during the Obama administration instead of being more resolved especially when so many white people went out of their way to give him, the first black man, the presidency for not one but two terms. Obama blew it and continued to play the race card for power for himself and other Democrats. What he did was criminal.
1) I never did and never would condone, endorse, justify or do anything other than express disgust at the execution of innocent officers, civilians or anyone else. I'm not the one who brought up BLM in the first place, and my relationship with that specific group is far more complex than I could possibly express adequately.
2) Blaming Obama for propegatng racial animus is like blaming the Underground Railroad for poor treatment of slaves because hey, if they didn't try to escape, there wouldn't have been so many beatings, right? Just stop.
-
especially when so many white people went out of their way to give him
How lucky for him that so many white people deigned to lower themselves to vote for him.
Who gives a fuck about the colour of someone's skin?
-
1) I never did and never would condone, endorse, justify or do anything other than express disgust at the execution of innocent officers, civilians or anyone else. I'm not the one who brought up BLM in the first place, and my relationship with that specific group is far more complex than I could possibly express adequately.
2) Blaming Obama for propegatng racial animus is like blaming the Underground Railroad for poor treatment of slaves because hey, if they didn't try to escape, there wouldn't have been so many beatings, right? Just stop.
Hiring Al Sharpton was a dog whistle to blacks and to left liberals. A "wink-wink-nod-nod" "I'm one of you. Keep supporting me. I'm for you."
During the 2016 election he said to an African-American community to help stop Donald Trump, saying he would consider it a "personal insult" to his legacy if black voters didn't turn out for Hillary Clinton. Talk about dog whistles. That's an implicit argument to race and racial politics. We were suppose to be getting away from that under Obama. But here he was in his 8th year of president making that kind of argument. Can you imagine what the media would say if Trump argued that "I would take it as a personal insult if white people didn't support my agenda."??
-
How lucky for him that so many white people deigned to lower themselves to vote for him.
Who gives a fuck about the colour of someone's skin?
Phil, You're Australian. You live half a world away from America in another hemisphere. You really have no idea what goes on here and should have the sensibility to mind your own business. Why don't you address the biased attitude of Australians and your government blocking non-white immigrants to your country instead of spouting off and cursing about race issues in the USA that you know nothing about?
-
Phil, You're Australian. You live half a world away from America in another hemisphere. You really have no idea what goes on here and should have the sensibility to mind your own business. Why don't you address the biased attitude of Australians and your government blocking non-white immigrants to your country instead of spouting off and cursing about race issues in the USA that you know nothing about?
Can't make an argument, so you resort to trying to disqualify me from voicing an opinion based on my nationality. On a Canadian message board. On a thread started by someone who I bet is quite happy for me to comment.
Australia doesn't block non-white immigrants (however you might define that), but as usual you tell lies and offer no evidence for anything you say. Stop telling lies, Alan. Stop hating people because of their race or nationality. Grow up.
Also, that's not cursing - that's an intensive by usage.
-
Can't make an argument, so you resort to trying to disqualify me from voicing an opinion based on my nationality. On a Canadian message board. On a thread started by someone who I bet is quite happy for me to comment.
Australia doesn't block non-white immigrants (however you might define that), but as usual you tell lies and offer no evidence for anything you say. Stop telling lies, Alan. Stop hating people because of their race or nationality. Grow up.
Also, that's not cursing - that's an intensive by usage.
I've made plenty of arguments. But I wasn't going to make points with someone who lives 12000 miles away and who knows nothing first hand about American race relations. Did you ever work and socialize with blacks and other non-whites as I have? Did you ever hire a black employee like i have and work with him and pay him a salary and provide health care? Did you ever serve in the military and room with another black serviceman like I have. Have you lived through 72 years witnessing how race relations evolved in the US? Have you ever voted for American politicians who have taken positions on issues relating to race? Reading biased newspapers does not make you an expert. Finally, for you to insult whites who voted for a black man to become president because you think you understand their reasons and curse as if you have any first hand experience is just over the top.
-
But I wasn't going to make points with someone who lives 12000 miles away
10,000 miles, NY to Sydney (you're being loose with the facts, again).
and who knows nothing first hand about American race relations.
How would you possibly know that? Making up stories again.
Did you ever work and socialize with blacks and other non-whites as I have?
As you did? No idea. But did I in the US and Australia and elsewhere in the world (and do I continue to do so)? Yes. Daily.
Did you ever hire a black employee like i have and work with him and pay him a salary and provide health care?
Healthcare isn't a benefit usually paid here, but, yes I have hired (and fired) "non-white" people.
Did you ever serve in the military and room with another black serviceman like I have.
I've never served in the military, no. But I have shared rooms with numerous races/nationalities/etc.
Have you lived through 72 years witnessing how race relations evolved in the US?
No, I'm younger than you, but just as neither of us have been to the moon, I know it exists and quite a bit about it. Enough to voice an opinion. I also have my own experiences, including in the US, through US friends, colleagues, and so on, plus non-US experiences around the globe. On a daily basis.
Have you ever voted for American politicians who have taken positions on issues relating to race?
I've never voted for an American politician.
Reading biased newspapers does not make you an expert.
You have no idea what media I engage with. I never claimed expertise (and neither should you).
Finally, for you to insult whites who voted for a black man to become president
I did no such thing. I mocked you for characterising them as having "gone out of their way" as if they deigned to give their white-blessing. As if they weren't going to vote anyway (most of them) and for a Democrat. I called out the absurdity of caring about the colour of someone's skin as a valid basis upon which to decide whether they should represent you.
because you think you understand their reasons
I know first hand a few of them, but so what? You invented a premise that I never held or espoused. In other words, you told lies again.
and curse as if you have any first hand experience is just over the top.
But I do have first hand experience, but so what? Doesn't change my comment that you made a stupid remark about "going out of their way" and that I find the entire notion of caring about the colour of someone's skin to be utterly absurd and it drew an intense reaction (not cursing - learn the difference).
And, finally, you know virtually nothing about me. You don't know my race or ethnicity or cultural or genetic background, you don't know my experiences. So who are you to dismiss my opinion based on my nationality? I ended more than my fair share of fights as a youth when people thought that being racists was cool.
You remain very, very small, Alan.
-
On a thread started by someone who I bet is quite happy for me to comment.
I am quite happy to have you comment...
And since I've been to Australia (not sure Alan has) I do know that Australia has had a long history of racial problems that have had to be dealt with so I'm pretty sure you have perfectly valid and informational opinions.
-
Since we're talking about people from Australia having thoughts on the US political situation, I thought it would be fun to see what's hitting the Australia news.
Steven Bannon: Trump ‘puppet master’ believes America must be reborn through fire (http://www.news.com.au/world/steven-bannon-trump-puppet-master-believes-america-must-be-reborn-through-fire/news-story/15735cbfed49b61ef266ee75a2df487d)
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/0239bf3dea170b6707aa406b30bd04a2)
HE’s Trump’s top adviser. He believes prophecy destines America to a ‘trial by fire’. But now a blow-torch is being applied to alt-right banner man Steve Bannon’s extreme beliefs.
--snip--
Bannon only recently emerged triumphant from an internal White House power struggle with former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. But new Chief of Staff, retired General Kelly, laid down the law with Trump before accepting the job that he had final say on who said what, and when.
Little surprise, then, that Bannon’s future appears to have taken an abrupt about-face.
White House National Security Advisor Lt General H.R. McMaster has refused to say he can work with his security council colleague. Scaramucci — after doing him such a favour with Preibus — has lashed him publicly as a white nationalist.
All the while, replacement White House Chief of Staff General John F. Kelly has remained publicly silent on Bannon.
Bannon insists his job is safe. But White House leaks suggest a very different scene behind closed doors. These mutterings suggest Kelly will not tolerate Bannon’s machinations, manipulative leaks and direct disobedience.
Something has changed.
Bannon, once a fixture in every Oval Office gathering, has not been seen in recent days. Though he has apparently kept the President’s ear — reportedly advising him on how to respond to the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and North Korea.
But his advice — not to antagonise his far-right power base, and to ram a hard-line home on Kim Jong-un — appears to have backfired.
In a big way.
Trump hasn’t had an easy relationship with Bannon. He resented the way his 2016 victory was attributed to his campaign adviser. He also bristles at suggestions Bannon is his puppet-master.
Suddenly, Trump has refused to rule out the disruptive proponent of the far right’s agenda will remain in the White House beyond the week.
“We’ll see what happens with Mr Bannon,” Trump said.
But firing Bannon won't fix the self inflicted wounds Trump caused himself...truth be told, after hearing a days worth of news (CNN and FOX) I just see how Trump can fix this...I don't think he can unring this bell.
We'll see...never a dull moment on Trump's Presidential Reality Show!
-
I am quite happy to have you comment...
And since I've been to Australia (not sure Alan has) I do know that Australia has had a long history of racial problems that have had to be dealt with so I'm pretty sure you have perfectly valid and informational opinions.
Unfortunately, we continue to have racial issues - we are currently debating the need for constitutional change and recognition for first peoples of Australia (who have been here for at least 50,000 years - an increase of around 10,000 years over previous estimates - based on some recent finds). I am no less appalled by my fellow countrymen who make absurd, racially charged or ignorant comments than those from anywhere else.
-
Since we're talking about people from Australia having thoughts on the US political situation, I thought it would be fun to see what's hitting the Australia news.
And before someone scream bias, note that Newscorp is definitely a right-leaning organisation (Murdoch).
-
And some follow-up on the militia discussion earlier in this thread: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/17/white-supremacists-militias-private-police-215498 (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/17/white-supremacists-militias-private-police-215498).
-
The President says what half of the county thinks.
Are there any polls to back up that statement?
Just voting for one of a limited number of candidates doesn't mean that everything that candidate stands for is accepted.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The irony of this article appeals to me: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/17/trump-lindsey-graham-criticism-charlottesville-241725?lo=ap_b1 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/17/trump-lindsey-graham-criticism-charlottesville-241725?lo=ap_b1).
Trump is basically accusing that Senator of shooting his mouth off. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I don't think the writer intended the piece to be funny but I laughed.
-
... I am no less appalled by my fellow countrymen who make absurd, racially charged or ignorant comments than those from anywhere else.
Then you shouldn't have implied as you did earlier that white people who voted for Obama are closet racists. You could have just as easily callrd them enlightened and helped racial divisions.
By the way, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Australian senator wears a burqa in Parliament.
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-australia-burqa-20170817-story.html
-
By the way, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Australian senator wears a burqa in Parliament.
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-australia-burqa-20170817-story.html
Not sure what your point is.
Do you think it's okay, e.g. for security reasons, that people hide their identity when entering a Parliament, a bank, public transportation, etc.? Or are you of the mistaken impression that e.g. a burka or niqab is a religious (Islamic) requirement? Or do you reject such subjects being discussed by official representatives of the people?
Or is it that you see no limits to a freedom of expression, regardless of how the general public or law feel about that, or don't care if the larger public's safety is involved? Or is it a vote for positive discrimination of a fringe faction in a larger religious group, encouraging others to follow suit?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. maybe helpful to see what was actually being discussed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDf-5ygFXGk
-
Trump is shooting himself in the foot.
Trump is sabotaging himself by attacking the media after Charlottesville (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/16/trumps-hatred-of-the-media-is-ruining-his-judgment/?utm_term=.7c5865b1754b)
President Trump first asked reporters to define the "alt-right," before saying members of the "alt-left" were also to blame for violence in Charlottesville, while taking questions from reporters on Aug. 15 at Trump Tower in New York.
The worry is that Trump's freelancing self-destructive fashion will leave our country without a functioning leader.
Trump spoke his objection about Nazis and KKK. But he also blamed violence on both sides as being unacceptable. He stated that both sides have a right to free speech. (Note that the liberal ACLU American Civil Liberty Union helped the "right" secure permits for their march, something the alt-left didn't do) A president, any president, should support free speech. This is America. The left is always trying to shut down the speech of anyone they disagree with. They're the un-Americans. I don't support KKK or Nazis but support their right to speak and make asses out of themselves. Obama attacked white cops who were later exonerated but gave license to nut job blacks in the meanwhile to assassinate other white cops. He should have told everyone to cool it and let the legal process do its work instead of prematurely taking sides before all the facts were in. Of course he was playing racial politics all along. Of course, the same press ignored what Obama did.
Free speech is a blessing that we should encourage regardless of the vile and prejudicial beliefs some people have. It's Constitutionally protected. It acts as a safety valve for people to blow off steam. People will resort to violence if you shut them down and not let them be heard. Frankly, this is what the left wants. To create racial and social violence in the hope of enacting major social change in America. All we're going to get, I'm afraid, is another civil war. And the biased media, so hateful of Trump, they're playing along. In their attempt to destroy him they're pouring gasoline on these situations and will be largely to blame if a conflagration occurs.
-
Their posture looks defensive, not offensive, to me.
What does it take to turn one into the other?
-
And then, as if to pound another nail into the coffin of dignity, Trump took the opportunity, near the end of a press conference about a public tragedy, to shill his Virginia winery, which may or not be stilled owned by him, or his son, or somebody. And he lied then too, wildly exaggerating its size. He is such a flagrant embarrassment.
-
And then, as if to pound another nail into the coffin of dignity, Trump took the opportunity, near the end of a press conference about a public tragedy, to shill his Virginia winery, which may or not be stilled owned by him, or his son, or somebody. And he lied then too, wildly exaggerating its size. He is such a flagrant embarrassment.
"Sorry to hear about that incident and to the Heyer family, really sorry about your tragic loss, but hey, I care about Charlottesville. Did you know that I have the yugest winery there. It's fantastic. It's bigger than any other winery. But hey, enough about me, let's talk about you. What did you think of my yuge inauguration crowds?"
(facepalm)
The man is like a vacation from school -- no class.
-
Not sure what your point is.
Do you think it's okay, e.g. for security reasons, that people hide their identity when entering a Parliament, a bank, public transportation, etc.? Or are you of the mistaken impression that e.g. a burka or niqab is a religious (Islamic) requirement? Or do you reject such subjects being discussed by official representatives of the people?
Or is it that you see no limits to a freedom of expression, regardless of how the general public or law feel about that, or don't care if the larger public's safety is involved? Or is it a vote for positive discrimination of a fringe faction in a larger religious group, encouraging others to follow suit?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. maybe helpful to see what was actually being discussed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDf-5ygFXGk
The article had nothing to do with wearing burqas in the Australian parliament or hiding identity. The woman wearing is an Australian senator trying to get legislation passed to prevent them from being worn in public. In America, Muslims can wear burqas in public. I see it all the time and don't feel threatened. It's part of their faith, culture and is considered free speech as well. It is protected by our Constitution. What's next? Bar Jews from wearing yarmulkes (head coverings), blacks from having dreadlocks, Catholics from displaying crosses and rosary beads, Sikhs from wearing their turbans?
What are you afraid of? It seems you're the one who's prejudiced against others who don't look, think and act like you. Seems to be a common problem in Europe as it is in Australia.
-
Phil, You're Australian. You live half a world away from America in another hemisphere. You really have no idea what goes on here
I've got a word for you, Alan. Are you ready?
"telecommunications"
Look it up.
-
Australia doesn't block non-white immigrants
true... so why don't AU takes some illegal aliens from USA instead of sending us some of yours ? I bet Trump in a spirit of cooperation will gladly ship you a million or so latinos ;D
-
your government blocking non-white immigrants
his gov't put illegal aliens (he will agrue that those are not immigrants) in pretty much concentration camps outsourced to other nations
-
I played your game and mentioned our 1st president and looked up his position regarding slaves and learned something. Go play in the street now...
you single out what is convenient for you... and you being a well known hypocrite continue to patronize racist & misogynist outlets like B&H ;D
-
I've got a word for you, Alan. Are you ready?
"telecommunications"
Look it up.
You're not serious, are you? That's like saying you experienced India because you read a Travel magazine about it or that you have a lot of business experience because you took some business courses in college. At least there probably is little prejudice in these things. When you're watching and listening to biased media like the Washington Post, the NY Times, CNN, the truth is much more distorted. So your viewpoints are prejudiced. There's nothing like first-hand experience.
-
To echo Jeff's claim "who cares about yesterday, only today matters":
-
By the way, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
What an utter crap reply! Because one extremist pulls a stunt in parliament all her countryman (who probably don't even agree with her) should refrain from making comments about racism in another country. Reminds me of kindergarten politics: "na-na-na-na-poo-poo, you do it too".
-
Does anyone know where I can get a Trump-branded Nazi flag? Asking for a fiend.
-
The article had nothing to do with wearing burqas in the Australian parliament or hiding identity. The woman wearing is an Australian senator trying to get legislation passed to prevent them from being worn in public.
And what was the result? Was legislation changed? Or should they not be allowed to discuss things like that?
In America, Muslims can wear burqas in public. I see it all the time and don't feel threatened.
So do they in Australia, in my Country, and in many other places in the world.
It's part of their faith, culture and is considered free speech as well.
That's up for debate. AFAIK, Islam as such does not prescribe the wearing of such clothing, or the vast majority of Muslims are not obeying the teachings on that aspect since most women do not wear a niqab and can still be considered faithful Muslims, and men also do not wear such clothing.
It is protected by our Constitution.
What is? Clothing rules? Is it allowed to walk around in the nude in public places?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Does anyone know where I can get a Trump-branded Nazi flag? Asking for a fiend.
;D
-
What an utter crap reply! Because one extremist pulls a stunt in parliament all her countryman (who probably don't even agree with her) should refrain from making comments about racism in another country. Reminds me of kindergarten politics: "na-na-na-na-poo-poo, you do it too".
Hmmm. So because a few extremist white guys who carry Nazi signs and wear white KKK sheets start dancing around a statue of General Lee and say they support Trump, we should just believe that Trump supports Nazis and Clansmen and Trump should refrain from making statements in support of freedom of speech.
-
And what was the result? Was legislation changed? Or should they not be allowed to discuss things like that?
So do they in Australia, in my Country, and in many other places in the world.
That's up for debate. AFAIK, Islam as such does not prescribe the wearing of such clothing, or the vast majority of Muslims are not obeying the teachings on that aspect since most women do not wear a niqab and can still be considered faithful Muslims, and men also do not wear such clothing.
What is? Clothing rules? Is it allowed to walk around in the nude in public places?
Cheers,
Bart
Well, from what I've seen some women look like, they'd be better off wearing burqas. :)
-
Hmmm. So because a few extremist white guys who carry Nazi signs and wear white KKK sheets start dancing around a statue of General Lee and say they support Trump, we should just believe that Trump supports Nazis and Clansmen and Trump should refrain from making statements in support of freedom of speech.
Alan, can you point to where I said that? I bet you can't because I never did. You shouldn't continuously stereotype people based on your own ideas of "good" and "bad.
-
Well, from what I've seen some women look like, they'd be better off wearing burqas. :)
Are you sure you're talking about European women ;)
-
That's like saying you experienced India because you read a Travel magazine about it or that you have a lot of business experience because you took some business courses in college. At least there probably is little prejudice in these things. When you're watching and listening to biased media like the Washington Post, the NY Times, CNN, the truth is much more distorted. So your viewpoints are prejudiced. There's nothing like first-hand experience.
You didn't look it up, did you Alan?
The media are not telecommunications. They are the media.
-
Are you sure you're talking about European women ;)
Good point. That's why we approve of burqas in America. :)
-
Alan, can you point to where I said that? I bet you can't because I never did. You shouldn't continuously stereotype people based on your own ideas of "good" and "bad.
I didn't say you said it. I'm sorry if it seemed like that. I was making a comparable statement to your example of one extremist in parliament. I gave an example that you can't judge all people on the right because you assume some of them are Nazis. Actually, people on the right don't want to have anything to do with Nazis or KKK. They don't represent Republican, conservative or libertarian thinking which is not bigoted and let's people be who they are. What the left is doing is their usual "shtick" of biasing news. Associating Trump and his supporters with Nazis and KKK or racists, or uncaring, etc. This is the game that's always been played by the left and liberals. If you want to reduce welfare, well then you're a racist. You must be against blacks. If you support free speech of Nazis because you believe in the Constitution, well then you must be a Nazi too. These attacks and innuendos have gone on for decades in America. I've never seen the absolute dedication and level to these kind of racist charges and the kinds of ad hominin political attacks that have occurred since Trump's presidency.
I'm afraid this is going to lead to pitched battles between different groups. I don't think it's going to end well for the country.
-
... What the left is doing is their usual "shtick" of biasing news ...
Oh, the irony of complaining about tarring those on the right with one brush, whilst at the same time engaging in just that sort of behaviour. Priceless.
-
... Actually, people on the right don't want to have anything to do with Nazis or KKK. They don't represent Republican, conservative or libertarian thinking which is not bigoted and let's people be who they are ...
Too bad Trump doesn't understand this and keeps fanning the flames: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346929-trump-revives-defense-of-confederate-monuments (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346929-trump-revives-defense-of-confederate-monuments).
Or does anyone actually believe that he has deep feelings for those statues? Everyone clan member knows EXACTLY what those words mean.
For some reason he is deliberately choosing to alienate everyone over and over again, including Republicans. The only people left who are listening to these nutty messages are the neo-Nazis and the KKK members. Is this good for the country?
-
Poll on whether to keep confederate statues. I'm surprised that a majority of blacks say to keep them, more than Democrats in general. Of course Republicans overwhelmingly say to keep them. But they're bigots anyway so of course they feel that way. I'm curious when they do polls how many will agree to remove statues of Washington and Jefferson because they were slave owners. Shucks. I've never been to the Washington or Jefferson Monuments. I better hurry up before they're gone.
"There is little polling of public opinion over what to do with Confederate monuments. An NPR/PBS survey conducted on Monday and Tuesday by Marist College found that 62 percent said statues honoring Confederate leaders should remain as a historical symbol; 27 percent said they should be removed because they are offensive to some people.
That poll found a large political divide: Republicans prefer to keep statues by 86 percent to 6 percent, while Democrats split 44 percent for keeping them and 47 percent for removing them. African Americans in the survey were roughly split on the question (44 percent keep, 40 percent remove)."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/17/trump-mourns-loss-of-beautiful-statues-and-monuments-in-wake-of-charlottesville-rally-over-robert-e-lee-statue/
-
Oh, the irony of complaining about tarring those on the right with one brush, whilst at the same time engaging in just that sort of behaviour. Priceless.
That's a fair charge, Bill. I agree there's too much of both sides accusing the other of terrible deeds. There's no reasonableness anymore. No compromise. Everyone is looking to get the goods on the other side to make them look the worse. Everyone has to win 100%.
I'm all for taking a step back. Maybe we can get to the point where we actually listen to what the other side is saying. What their needs are. We're all very defensive and won't listen. After 265 pages, has anyone changed their minds or at least gotten some understanding of where the other side is coming from?
I don't know. Politics has been this way a lot if you look back at history. Are we worse or better for it? Maybe it's just a form of entertainment.
What do you suggest?
-
I've never seen the absolute dedication and level to these kind of racist charges and the kinds of ad hominin political attacks that have occurred since Trump's presidency.
I'm afraid this is going to lead to pitched battles between different groups. I don't think it's going to end well for the country.
I've actually seen much worse, just last year!
-
Too bad Trump doesn't understand this and keeps fanning the flames: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346929-trump-revives-defense-of-confederate-monuments (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/346929-trump-revives-defense-of-confederate-monuments).
Or does anyone actually believe that he has deep feelings for those statues? Everyone clan member knows EXACTLY what those words mean.
For some reason he is deliberately choosing to alienate everyone over and over again, including Republicans. The only people left who are listening to these nutty messages are the neo-Nazis and the KKK members. Is this good for the country?
Maybe he's keeping the left and Democrats off balance as he did during the campaign. While he's focusing on the economy and making America safe, the Democrats are still playing the race card and identity politics. People still need to feed their families and need jobs, good jobs. During the next election, no one is going to remember or care about a bunch of bronze statues of dead people sitting on dead horses. Democrats are staying trapped in the same thinking as during the campaign rather than addressing the real concerns of most Americans as Trump is doing: jobs, debt, terrorism, immigration, health, trade, security. As long as Republicans and Trump stay focused on these things, Dems will be left on the dock and miss the boat again.
Bon voyage!
-
What do you suggest?
Well, I have certain guiding principles, namely Freedom, Equality and Fairness. You can put them in any order you like because no one is more important than the other. If you fetishise one thing, you end up in a bad place. Treating everyone equally when their needs are different, isn't fair, but few of us are likely to say that we should set out to create inequality. Freedom is essential, but when it's freedom to continue being unfair, it simply entrenches privilege which in turn promotes inequality. So we have to navigate a way forward that honours all three principles. We're never going to agree on the precise route, but if we agree that we want a society in which people are relatively free, that has low levels of inequality & in which people experience fairness, we're all going to have to talk about how that might be best achieved. It requires understanding and compromise. It requires tolerance, and ironically a determination to not tolerate intolerance. And it is likely to work best when we're prepared to look at the facts, at the evidence, and go with what works best for the common good. Unfortunately, what I see of US politics, and much of the politics here in the UK, is politicians who really don't give a shit about the common good, compromise and tolerance, but who are set on self-aggrandisement and self-interest (usually monetary self-interest), and imposing their ideas on others. The answer is to elect better politicians, but given the money involved in politics, and where power currently resides, our choices are likely to be limited.
-
Well, I have certain guiding principles, namely Freedom, Equality and Fairness. You can put them in any order you like because no one is more important than the other. If you fetishise one thing, you end up in a bad place. Treating everyone equally when their needs are different, isn't fair, but few of us are likely to say that we should set out to create inequality. Freedom is essential, but when it's freedom to continue being unfair, it simply entrenches privilege which in turn promotes inequality. So we have to navigate a way forward that honours all three principles. We're never going to agree on the precise route, but if we agree that we want a society in which people are relatively free, that has low levels of inequality & in which people experience fairness, we're all going to have to talk about how that might be best achieved. It requires understanding and compromise. It requires tolerance, and ironically a determination to not tolerate intolerance. And it is likely to work best when we're prepared to look at the facts, at the evidence, and go with what works best for the common good. Unfortunately, what I see of US politics, and much of the politics here in the UK, is politicians who really don't give a shit about the common good, compromise and tolerance, but who are set on self-aggrandisement and self-interest (usually monetary self-interest), and imposing their ideas on others. The answer is to elect better politicians, but given the money involved in politics, and where power currently resides, our choices are likely to be limited.
I agree with many of the principals you espouse. Fortunately, in America, we have a very strong and respected constitution. It protects individual liberties despite, or should I say because of the nastiness and self-centeredness of people and groups. Of course, with freedom comes inequality. It is these two conflicting principals that causes all the conflict in most societies. All the arguments are about where to put the fences; where one starts and ends and the other begins. Moving a society towards equality, like the Soviet Union tried and Cuba and NK still operate, means removal of freedoms and dictatorial governments. Going the other way means high levels of freedom but with a chance some people will be unable to take care of themselves leaving them to live on the street. Most countries have found a middle ground, including America and Britain. We can argue how much should be Socialist and how much laissez-faire. Frankly, I think America has reached a reasonable point. But then again, I'm retired and collecting Social Security and Medicare. :)
-
On the subject of "rewriting history", this is an interesting account of something that has been alluded tp before on this board, that these confederate statues are not contemporaneous, and were erected later in pursuit of more modern political ends.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/confederate-monuments-civil-war-history-trump?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
Where does it end?
We are far from the end. It is just the beginning:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
"Abraham Lincoln monument torched in Chicago"
-
Where does it end?
We are far from the end. It is just the beginning:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/17/abraham-lincoln-monument-torched-in-chicago-an-abs/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
"Abraham Lincoln monument torched in Chicago"
From my earlier post:
I'm afraid this is going to lead to pitched battles between different groups. I don't think it's going to end well for the country.
-
Just for the record, Bill, I am against everything you posted above as a peddler's unicorn daydream. As most project managers would tell you, if you want it "fast, good, and cheap" pick two. Your "fairness" is particularly troublesome as life is inherently unfair.
-
Corker: Trump hasn't demonstrated the stability or competence to be successful (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/bob-corker-criticizes-trump-charlottesville/index.html)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/597fb21174fb2f222e58e1c9/4:3/w_620,c_limit/Cassidy-Donald-Trump-v-American-Democracy.jpg)
(CNN)Sen. Bob Corker slammed President Donald Trump's handling of the racially motivated protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, charging that the President "has not demonstrated he understands the character of this nation."
The Tennessee Republican told reporters in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Thursday that he thinks there must be "radical changes" within the White House.
"The President has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to be successful," Corker said, according to a video posted by local news website Nooga.com.
"He has not demonstrated that he understands what has made this nation great and what it is today, and he's got to demonstrate the characteristics of a president who understands that," Corker added.
Then Barcelona...
The Donald tweets a reference to a fake story about U.S. Gen. John Pershing executing Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pig's blood...uh, what?
President Trump Praises Fake Story About Shooting Muslims With Pig's Blood-Soaked Bullets (http://time.com/4905420/donald-trump-pershing-pigs-blood-muslim-tweet/)
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!
1:45 PM - Aug 17, 2017
29,314 29,314 Replies 11,959 11,959 Retweets 39,213 39,213 likes
Hours after a deadly terror attack in Barcelona, President Donald Trump suggested that Islamic terrorists should be executed with bullets soaked in pig's blood, praising a discredited story (http://time.com/4235405/donald-trump-pig-blood-muslims-story/) of a 20th-century atrocity.
"Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught," Trump tweeted Thursday afternoon. "There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!"
The tweet referenced a false story (http://time.com/4235405/donald-trump-pig-blood-muslims-story/) that Trump told at rallies more than once on the campaign trail. Trump claimed that during the Moro rebellion in the Philippines between 1901 and 1913, U.S. Gen. John Pershing executed Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pig's blood. Trump's retelling of the myth has changed each time
His reality is dissolving before our eyes...
-
Of course, with freedom comes inequality.
Potentially. It's why we shouldn't fetishise one above the other
Moving a society towards equality, like the Soviet Union tried and Cuba and NK still operate
That's a joke, right? The regimes in Soviet Russia and later the USSR were never much interested in equality. The same can be said about North Korea, and whilst Castro may have had such ideals regarding Cuba, he seems to have quickly given up on them.
Most countries have found a middle ground, including America and Britain. We can argue how much should be Socialist and how much laissez-faire. Frankly, I think America has reached a reasonable point. But then again, I'm retired and collecting Social Security and Medicare. :)
Ah, those great socialist achievements of pensions, social security and socialised medicine, the latter some on the US Right would seek to deny to the less well-off. I trust you understand the irony of supporting a regime set on such a path.
-
How about Barcelona reality?
-
"1. Well, I have certain guiding principles, namely Freedom, Equality and Fairness. You can put them in any order you like because no one is more important than the other. If you fetishise one thing, you end up in a bad place. Treating everyone equally when their needs are different, isn't fair, but few of us are likely to say that we should set out to create inequality. Freedom is essential, 2. but when it's freedom to continue being unfair, it simply entrenches privilege which in turn promotes inequality. So we have to navigate a way forward that honours all three principles. We're never going to agree on the precise route, but if we agree that we want a society in which people are relatively free, that has low levels of inequality & in which people experience fairness, we're all going to have to talk about how that might be best achieved. It requires understanding and compromise. It requires tolerance, and ironically a determination to not tolerate intolerance. And it is likely to work best when we're prepared to look at the facts, at the evidence, and go with what works best for the common good. Unfortunately, what I see of US politics, and 3. much of the politics here in the UK, is politicians who really don't give a shit about the common good, compromise and tolerance, but who are set on self-aggrandisement and self-interest (usually monetary self-interest), and imposing their ideas on others. The answer is to elect better politicians, but given the money involved in politics, and where power currently resides, our choices are likely to be limited. "
Bill,
1. That reads very well, but what the hell is fairness and, just as awkwardly, what equality?
These are socialist mantras I have heard since I became aware of political differences, but nobody I've asked has ever come up with a watertight explanation. There isn't one: these are all concepts that apply to games, to entities/workplaces with set rules and to competitive sports. These have no real application to the vastly more difficult and complex matter of life and making one's way through it.
I have no idea of how you earn your crust, but should you ever have run a business you wouldn't believe in these things as holy grails, because you'd have understood from the first day that no such guidelines exist in the real world of earning an independent living. There is no 'fair', there has never been 'equality'; these are daydreams that simply distract one from the grim reality that it life. If the working life consists of turning up, clocking a card at seven-thirty in the morning and later clocking back in after lunch (I'd done that for years before I left industry) then yes, you will have a strange, conditioned expectation that life runs - or should run - by the clock set, if not by your employer then by your favourite colour of government. Even if it were possible to force all of humanity to live by factory rules, you'd not have achieved any imaginary fairness: the foreman would always earn more than the drudge making the tea or the other one just turning out the widgets as he dreams of the holiday season. Neither would your notion of equality be any the more fulfilled by this, for the faster guy would produce more cash-value widgets per shift than you can, and as for freedom, hey, you left that at the factory gates and sold your soul to the shop steward when you joined the union which was perhaps compulsory in the first place, though such requirements are less common than they were.
2. What do you mean by privilege? The dictionary offers one little group of meanings, but in common political parlance it's used to mean something quite else; in fact, that's being generous: it's really used to imply, to suggest some unspoken and guilty reason or factor that lends one person more success than another. The truth is that success comes from a million different factors, and is seldom based simply on some measureable quantity/quality of ability. It can be as much about your accent, your religion, your schoool, university or even on whether you have bad teeth or, worse, bad breath. Be a woman, and these things are multiplied many times over. Is that fair? What the hell is fair, I have to ask again; it's what it is and what it will always be: human interaction and reaction: do people just like to be around you? Twenty pretty girls turn up at a casting, only one will get the gig. I've had to do that many times, and I truly feel sorry for them, far more sorry than, it turns out, do they feel for themselves; on asking the 'chosen one' when out on trip with her, she said: we do several of these castings a day, sometimes; it's not getting called to the casting that's the problem, the fear. We all know there's only room for one or, perhaps, two on the actual gig.
So why pìck that one? They pretty all much all look equally good, but one may have a better 'book' to prove she has mileage, and that's vital for confidence: you want pictures from her, not a roll in the hay. Your client won't pay you for you to have your jollies, and won't pay you at all if the work sucks! Get confused over that and you won't last long.
So, does the top model create inequality? I use model as example because I know how that used to work; I guess you can interchange her with any other trade or business where personal characteristics come into play. Should all models be kicked out of work because the rest of the women may not match them for looks? (There are many pretty women around who wouldn't dream of doing what models have to do.) Political correctness would seem to suggest so; discrimination against beauty, then.
3. Yes, and seldom has it been more obvious than in the way coats were turned over the Brexit mess. In fact, Cameron, to me, ended up being the most honest of them all: he fell upon his sword. The rest are shameless.
Money resides in all sorts of strange nooks; there are millionaire Socialist benefactors as there are Conservative ones; unions have an obvious agenda and it's not even hidden: they think it perfectly right that a collection of workmen, uncouth union officials, unemployed and unemployables should call the shots from Downing Street and represent Britain on the world stage; the people working for the 'state' are more than willing - usually - to vote for anyone at all who preaches the sanctity, untouchability and pretty pensions of public sector employees; no wonder that so few gave a shit about what was going to happen to the City and all that that means to the economy; borders in N. Ireland? Who cares? Let them all try to kill one another off again; northern, rust-belt Jack's all right! He hopes.
Do you think perhaps that the public sector heroes make for better managers of, and ambassadors for Britain than those with great backgrounds, wonderful breeding and worldwide connections of influence that can be used to British benefit? Yes, I'm sure there would be many fortunes enhanced en route, but at least the fucking train hauling us all behind it would be leaving the station! As it is, I fear we'll end up rusted to the tracks in some old shed somewhere.
But Mr Trump. We do not seem to have anyone remotely as schizophrenic in UK politics - all of ours seem to fly a single party (theirs) flag to which they pretty much adhere. The odd clement gesture is made to the other groupings at some stages, but all in all, you know where you stand with them and their beliefs - or you did, until the Scot Nats and then Brexit! That changed everything, and created a nation of headless chickens.
Rob
-
Apparently Trump doesn't use a computer and only has one app on his phone so other than cable TV and the The President's Daily Brief (PDB) his other source of news and information is what he reads on his Twitter feed.
So, now you can see what Trump sees on Twitter...
Now you can see what Donald Trump sees every time he opens Twitter (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/08/17/now-you-can-see-what-donald-trump-sees-every-time-he-opens-twitter/?utm_term=.d8aaf9c2c8c8)
For all of the work John Kelly has put into his new role as White House chief of staff, instituting new limits on whom President Trump speaks with and what information he sees, Trump has an escape hatch: his phone. Put limits on who can reach Trump at the White House? Fine, but then Trump just calls them from his cell later that night. Limit the data that lands on his desk? Great, until he fires up Twitter and sees whatever he wants to see. (Twitter, Axios reported in May, is the only app on his phone.)
It's really scary to see the echo chamber that the President of the United States lives in...
Users of Twitter will understand, however, that it can be tricky to know what someone else sees when he or she fires up the application. Everyone follows a different group of people, and that colors the information they receive.
To that end, we’ve created @trumps_feed (http://twitter.com/trumps_feed), an account that checks whom Trump follows every five minutes and then retweets any new tweets from them over that period. The net result is a replication of what Trump would see on those occasions that he switches over from the Mentions tab.
It’s this. This is what Trump would see right now if he opened Twitter.
Tweets by Trump's Feed Retweeted (https://twitter.com/trumps_feed)
Trump's Feed Retweeted
Newt Gingrich ✔ @newtgingrich
Since Charlottesville 11 people killed and 40 wounded in Chicago, 5 killed in Baltimore, but at least the left can argue over statues
2h
Trump's Feed Retweeted
DRUDGE REPORT @DRUDGE_REPORT
Plans abandoned for infrastructure council... https://bloom.bg/2v5RgMb
Photo published for Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure
Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure
President Donald Trump will not move forward with a planned Advisory Council on Infrastructure, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.
bloomberg.com
30m
Trump's Feed Retweeted
DRUDGE REPORT @DRUDGE_REPORT
CIA REACHES DEAL WITH ACLU OVER INTERROGATIONS... http://bit.ly/2v5T9ZD
40m
Trump's Feed Retweeted
DRUDGE REPORT @DRUDGE_REPORT
Cars disappear into waves of foam as lake froths again... http://bit.ly/2v5oVG3
Photo published for Watch: Cars disappear into waves of foam as Bengaluru’s Bellandur Lake froths again
Watch: Cars disappear into waves of foam as Bengaluru’s Bellandur Lake froths again
Residents report ‘terrible stench’ as fresh frothing seems to turn the clock back on efforts to clean the lake that has been polluted by sewage and industrial waste
hindustantimes.com
40m
Trump's Feed Retweeted
The White House ✔ @WhiteHouse
Intern Series: Forgotten No Longer http://45.wh.gov/UPFERt
47m
This is the news feed that Trump uses to make decisions as the President...oh, boy, we're totally screwed.
-
Trump drops plan to create infrastructure council: White House
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-infrastructure-idUSKCN1AX2NS
QUOTE August 17, 2017 / 10:50 PM "[...] On Wednesday, Trump disbanded two high-profile advisory groups after several chief executives quit in protest over his remarks blaming violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, last weekend on anti-racism activists as well as white nationalists.
Trump said he dissolved the American Manufacturing Council and the Strategic and Policy Forum "rather than putting pressure" on its members, although both groups were preparing to disband on their own when Trump made his announcement on Twitter.
The snubs from chief executives raised questions about Trump's ability to marshal the business community behind his policy goals. [...]"
Alienating Senators and Top business CEOs doesn't seem like a good tactic for moving the economic agenda forward ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
And, don't forget the Russian investigation quietly going on in the background...
Donald Trump Is a Lame-Duck President (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/is-trump-already-a-lame-duck/537198/)
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/08/RTS1BS3I/lead_960.jpg?1502990490)
Just seven months into his presidency, Trump appears to have achieved a status usually reserved for the final months of a term.
In many ways, the Trump presidency never got off the ground: The president’s legislative agenda is going nowhere, his relations with foreign leaders are frayed, and his approval rating with the American people never enjoyed the honeymoon period most newly elected presidents do. Pundits who are sympathetic toward, or even neutral on, the president keep hoping that the next personnel move—the appointment of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, say, or the long-rumored-but-never-delivered departure of Steve Bannon—will finally get the White House in gear.
But what if they, and many other people, are thinking about it wrong? Maybe the reality is not that the Trump presidency has never gotten started. It’s that he’s already reached his lame-duck period. For most presidents, that comes in the last few months of a term. For Trump, it appears to have arrived early, just a few months into his term. The president did always brag that he was a fast learner.
Republican senators are striking back in Trump's public war of words (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/senate-republicans-war-trump/index.html)
GOP Sen. Bob Corker
GOP Sen. Tim Scott
GOP Sen. Jeff Flake
GOP Sen. Cory Gardner
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham
GOP Sen John McCain
And the GOP has a slim 2 vote majority...
Can anybody imagine a way for Trump to actually work with Congress on anything now? Trump is picking fights with his own GOP congressmen for the simple reason that pissed him off by not doing what Trump wanted then to do...MacCain who didn't vote for TrumpCare? Or that Senator from South Carolina that just wants publicity or that Trump's happy a wing nut is gonna run against Senator Jeff Flake.
Wow, just wow...each day brings more crap from his mouth or twitter feed...and somehow his supporters still support him?
I think that's changing...
-
Fortunately, in America, we have a very strong and respected constitution.
It is always interesting that the US Constitution and Freedom and Liberty are held up as some bastions of uniqueness. Every country probably has a constitution and most have freedom and liberty. Most constitutions probably cover how the government is made up and the rules for replacing the government. The elected government of the day is then tasked with making laws that suit the day. Constitutions do not generally have laws in them, because they are too hard to change if they become obsolete. The last amendment to the US constitution took 200 years to approve. So when you put say a gun law in a Constitution, you are probably stuck with it forever, regardless of how stupid it is and what it was originally designed to do.
Alan, I saw in separate posts somewhere in this 260 pages that you had not actually seen the Washington Monument or the Lincoln Memorial and you had been in the US some 60 years? I take it then that you have not been to your nation's capital? Not a personal attack, but I think that this is common in the US.
I haven't travelled a lot, but I have seen all states and capital cities in my country of Australia (same size as continental US), I have been to 4 continents, 28 countries, 14 states in the US and 4 provinces in Canada. My son who is 29 has seen some 80 countries. Australians travel a lot. These days young people in most countries travel a lot because they can work in most countries for two years on an Under 31 work visa.
We have also seen US television for 60 plus years. We saw Martin Luther King shot and we saw Rodney King bashed. In high school we studied other countries such as the US, Canada, USSR, European countries and of course UK as well as Australia. Most countries have similar global education. So you should not assume that people in other countries don't see or understand what is going on.
In contrast I was in the US (and Canada) for 5 weeks only recently. Almost all of the US people I spoke to had not seen as much of the US as I had. Some literally did not know where Australia was. I was speaking to a guy at Nashville airport before flying out. He was about 60 and wore a Confederate baseball cap. He had never been more than 200 miles from where he lived.
A big factor in prejudice is ignorance and lack of experience of things different to what you know. Unfortunately living standards and the standards of literacy, numeracy and general knowledge in the US appear to have slipped.
Yes, we have some minor racial issues in Australia. A quarter of Australians were born overseas. However my father was a boy in the early 1900's and black stockmen worked side by side with white stockmen on sheep stations. Chinese miners and all nationalities fought together at Eureka Stockade in 1854. Since WW2 we have had strong migrant immigration. Melbourne is the third largest Greek City in the world. My wife's family raised an Aboriginal girl. She was part of what some people like to call the "Stolen Generation" of Aboriginal people, (except that white children were also affected). However she was not stolen, she was dumped at a hospital by her parents because she was blind. That girl is now a university lecturer. So there are always two sides and the media reports what sells news.
Aboriginal people are more like native Americans in that they are first peoples. It is a totally different situation to the African American situation.
-
Aboriginal people are more like native Americans in that they are first peoples. We did not sent in the Cavalry to wipe them out and it is a totally different situation to the African American situation.
What?
List of Massacres of Indigenous Australians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians)
Note at the top of the page, "Not included in this list of massacres is the breeding (eugenics) programs which institutionalised aboriginal survivors of whom most were assimilated into the "white" community after the established 3x rule, or three-generations of selective breeding." Holy ... does that sound like some creepy program. I have to wonder who dreamed that up.
My point here is that many speak as if these problems only exist in the USA, but they are prevalent every where else in the world. Let's not talk as if there is something wrong only with the USA here.
-
And, don't forget the Russian investigation quietly going on in the background...
Donald Trump Is a Lame-Duck President (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/is-trump-already-a-lame-duck/537198/)
(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2017/08/RTS1BS3I/lead_960.jpg?1502990490)
Republican senators are striking back in Trump's public war of words (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/senate-republicans-war-trump/index.html)
GOP Sen. Bob Corker
GOP Sen. Tim Scott
GOP Sen. Jeff Flake
GOP Sen. Cory Gardner
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham
GOP Sen John McCain
And the GOP has a slim 2 vote majority...
Can anybody imagine a way for Trump to actually work with Congress on anything now? Trump is picking fights with his own GOP congressmen for the simple reason that pissed him off by not doing what Trump wanted then to do...MacCain who didn't vote for TrumpCare? Or that Senator from South Carolina that just wants publicity or that Trump's happy a wing nut is gonna run against Senator Jeff Flake.
Wow, just wow...each day brings more crap from his mouth or twitter feed...and somehow his supporters still support him?
I think that's changing...
Take down that painting of George Washington. After all, he owned a 100 slaves.
-
Corker: Trump hasn't demonstrated the stability or competence to be successful (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/bob-corker-criticizes-trump-charlottesville/index.html)
Then Barcelona...
The Donald tweets a reference to a fake story about U.S. Gen. John Pershing executing Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pig's blood...uh, what?
President Trump Praises Fake Story About Shooting Muslims With Pig's Blood-Soaked Bullets (http://time.com/4905420/donald-trump-pershing-pigs-blood-muslim-tweet/)
His reality is dissolving before our eyes...
84% of Republicans want to keep confederate memorials. Of course, that will probably change with all the hoopla. But the point is, Trump support for the memorials are in line with Republican voters. Republican Senators and Congressman who go against him are walking on dangerous grounds. The idea they would try to impeach him over disagreements on policy is a pipe dream. After all, he throws loyal allies under the bus. He wouldn't think twice about bad-mouthing a Republican in a State nomination process. Any republican up for re=election has to be careful. In the end, both sides need each other. Trump wants bills passed to fulfill his promises. And Republican legislators have to pass bills if they want to be re-elected. As someone said during the American Revolution that the American patriots will "...have to all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately,"
-
Let's not talk as if there is something wrong only with the USA here.
Ok. Deleted the bit from the 19th century. Lets talk about the present day.
-
Ok. Deleted the bit from the 19th century. Lets talk about the present day.
Bob, you can't not say what you said. By deleting what you said, you make your entire post phony, just made up. Why would anyone even consider it and respond to your other points? Actually all your arguments were based on the incorrect point about how you treated your own aborigines against America's blacks. Maybe you should just delete your entire post.
-
Republican Senators and Congressman who go against him are walking on dangerous grounds.
Oh yeah, what about conservative intellectuals who strongly supported Trump like Julius Krein?
Julius founded Americal Affairs (https://americanaffairsjournal.org), which has been described as a "pro-Trump journal launched in an effort to give the Trump movement some intellectual heft. A quick glance at the articles reads like a modern-day version of National Review...it's a Trump Conservative (read Trump-luver's) manifesto for the defense of Trumpism. Serious, Julius was a high level Trump defender...then Charlottesville happened.
I dare anybody who has any support left for Trump to read this and consider the implications...
I Voted for Trump. And I Sorely Regret It. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/sunday/i-voted-for-trump-and-i-sorely-regret-it.html?ref=opinion)
By JULIUS KREINAUG. 17, 2017
When Donald Trump first announced his presidential campaign, I, like most people, thought it would be a short-lived publicity stunt. A month later, though, I happened to catch one of his political rallies on C-Span. I was riveted.
I supported the Republican in dozens of articles, radio and TV appearances, even as conservative friends and colleagues said I had to be kidding. As early as September 2015, I wrote that Mr. Trump was “the most serious candidate in the race.” Critics of the pro-Trump blog and then the nonprofit journal that I founded accused us of attempting to “understand Trump better than he understands himself.” I hoped that was the case. I saw the decline in this country — its weak economy and frayed social fabric — and I thought Mr. Trump’s willingness to move past partisan stalemates could begin a process of renewal.
It is now clear that my optimism was unfounded. I can’t stand by this disgraceful administration any longer, and I would urge anyone who once supported him as I did to stop defending the 45th president.
Far from making America great again, Mr. Trump has betrayed the foundations of our common citizenship. And his actions are jeopardizing any prospect of enacting an agenda that might restore the promise of American life.
***
So, yes, Trump is successfully whittling away his support, group by group and person by person. At some point the only people willing to support him will be the bottom of his base which ironically is the group that is the most likely to help bring down his presidency...the Alt-Right, white supremacist, neo-nazi, antiseminite "deplorables" that helped elect him.
-
Maybe you should just delete your entire post.
Maybe you can delete the racial problems in the US by just ignore them.
The major point was that racial problems are largely caused by ignorance.
If only 55% of people vote then you can't really keep blaming the President.
-
It continues:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/begins-democratic-strategist-calls-statues-washington-come/
"Democratic Strategist Calls for Statues of Washington to ‘Come Down’"
-
There are no racial problems in the USA. There are only made-up "problems," as the left desperately needs to perpetuate victimhood in order to have something to whine about.
-
Oh yeah, what about conservative intellectuals who strongly supported Trump like Julius Krein?
Julius founded Americal Affairs (https://americanaffairsjournal.org), which has been described as a "pro-Trump journal launched in an effort to give the Trump movement some intellectual heft. A quick glance at the articles reads like a modern-day version of National Review...it's a Trump Conservative (read Trump-luver's) manifesto for the defense of Trumpism. Serious, Julius was a high level Trump defender...then Charlottesville happened.
I dare anybody who has any support left for Trump to read this and consider the implications...
I Voted for Trump. And I Sorely Regret It. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opinion/sunday/i-voted-for-trump-and-i-sorely-regret-it.html?ref=opinion)
By JULIUS KREINAUG. 17, 2017
So, yes, Trump is successfully whittling away his support, group by group and person by person. At some point the only people willing to support him will be the bottom of his base which ironically is the group that is the most likely to help bring down his presidency...the Alt-Right, white supremacist, neo-nazi, antiseminite "deplorables" that helped elect him.
Trump isn't a conservative or a Republican. He's a populist. Trump, probably with Bannon, is going to try to peel off Democrat populists and Republican populist voters and incorporate them into a new Republican party. Elites like Corker and Romney and intellectuals like Krein who represent the old guard will be replaced with Republicans who refute the liberal, intellectual, race baiting, identity politics of the Democrats and elite Republican fellow travelers. I think that's what we're starting to see. A total remake of the American political landscape. I don't know if it will work or if there are enough people who will follow his populism. But, if things continue to get out of hand, like Charlottesville, all Americans will have to choose sides and many will choose a populist President. I think we're in for some tough times.
-
... Freedom is essential, but when it's freedom to continue being unfair, it simply entrenches privilege which in turn promotes inequality. ...
Hey Bill, I think I saw your friend, or at least someone who shares your views on freedom ;)
-
I wonder where are the Left's instruments of teaching love (a.k.a. baseball bats) when it comes to Muslim Supremacy? Where is the outrage, counter-protests, violent attacks?
-
There are no racial problems in the USA. There are only made-up "problems," as the left desperately needs to perpetuate victimhood in order to have something to whine about.
"It continues:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/begins-democratic-strategist-calls-statues-washington-come/
"Democratic Strategist Calls for Statues of Washington to ‘Come Down’"
“For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” (Hosea 8:7)
For years Democrats have played the race card to divide Americans to get the vote. They support prejudicial college entrance requirements based on the color of your skin instead of the character of your soul and grades. They should have been trying to heal America and move forward. But they thought it politically expedient to play the race card. Now, Trump is turning their methods on its head and the Democrats shall reap the whirlwind. Who's going to take down Washington statues, the man who cut down the cherry tree but told the truth about it, who freed America from the Brits in battle, the father of our country and our first president? So what if he owned 100 slaves? The Dems are falling into Trump's trap. And elite Republicans will either change their ways and join Trump or lose to more populist members of their party.
-
“For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” (Hosea 8:7)
For years Democrats have played the race card to divide Americans to get the vote. They support prejudicial college entrance requirements based on the color of your skin instead of the character of your soul and grades. They should have been trying to heal America and move forward. But they thought it politically expedient to play the race card. Now, Trump is turning their methods on its head and the Democrats shall reap the whirlwind. Who's going to take down Washington statues, the man who cut down the cherry tree but told the truth about it, who freed America from the Brits in battle, the father of our country and our first president? So what if he owned 100 slaves? The Dems are falling into Trump's trap. And elite Republicans will either change their ways and join Trump or lose to more populist members of their party.
You see, for years, especially during the last eight years during economic hardship, the "deplorables", the white, the straight, the citizen, non-Wall Street worker, the poor, have been marginalized, disrespected and laughed at by the Democrat liberal left and Republican elites who played the race card, who favored gays, and illegal immigrants, and bailed out the rich, who spit on America the "deplorables" believed in.
So now these same anti-Trump people are continuing to play the same games of identity politics and race baiting. And the white, the straight, the citizen, the non-Wall Street worker, the poor, will rise up and demand attention and support. And the Dems will continue the same methods that will drive even moderate people into the Trump camp. All because of the divisive methods of the Democrats,
-
Quote from: Alan Klein on Today at 12:28:00 AM
“For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” (Hosea 8:7)
For years Democrats have played the race card to divide Americans to get the vote. They support prejudicial college entrance requirements based on the color of your skin instead of the character of your soul and grades. They should have been trying to heal America and move forward. But they thought it politically expedient to play the race card. Now, Trump is turning their methods on its head and the Democrats shall reap the whirlwind. Who's going to take down Washington statues, the man who cut down the cherry tree but told the truth about it, who freed America from the Brits in battle, the father of our country and our first president? So what if he owned 100 slaves? The Dems are falling into Trump's trap. And elite Republicans will either change their ways and join Trump or lose to more populist members of their party.
You see, for years, especially during the last eight years during economic hardship, the "deplorables", the white, the straight, the citizen, non-Wall Street worker, the poor, have been marginalized, disrespected and laughed at by the Democrat liberal left and Republican elites who played the race card, who favored gays, and illegal immigrants, and bailed out the rich, who spit on America the "deplorables" believed in.
So now these same anti-Trump people are continuing to play the same games of identity politics and race baiting. And the white, the straight, the citizen, the non-Wall Street worker, the poor, will rise up and demand attention and support. And the Dems will continue the same methods that will drive even moderate people into the Trump camp. All because of the divisive methods of the Democrats,
Doode...when you quote yourself it's like somebody walking down the street talking to themselves...either they are totally nuts or they are talking on their cell phone...which are you?
As for the second post, you wrote "And the white, the straight, the citizen, the non-Wall Street worker, the poor, will rise up and demand attention and support."
They did...and it got them Trump who not only isn't going to do anything to actually help them, he's doing things that will hurt them. The only support Trump will end up with are the Alt-Right, Neo-Nazi, White Supremacists and Antisemites.
What is the percentage of white people in the United States?
The percentage of non-Hispanic white people in the U.S. population has reached an all-time low: 63%. That is 197.7 million white people out of 313.9 million Americans. In 2000, whites were 69% of the population. In 1980, they made up 80%.
See a trend? Guess how many whites were in 2015? Do you think it when up or down? Yeah, the percent dropped to 62%. No dat on 2016...wonder how many there will be in 2018 for the midterms?
From a recent Census Bureau report (according to The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/332970-voter-turnout-dipped-in-2016-led-by-decline-among-blacks)
The percentage of eligible Americans who showed up to the polls in November dipped slightly to the lowest rate in sixteen years, led by a sharp drop-off in the number of black voters casting ballots.
New data released Wednesday by the Census Bureau shows an estimated 61.4 percent of Americans over the age of 18 cast ballots, down from the 61.8 percent who voted in 2012 and well below the 63.8 percent who voted in 2004, the recent high-point of voter participation.
White voters were most likely to turn out; 65.3 percent of whites told Census Bureau surveyors they voted in 2016, more than a full percentage point higher than their participation rate in 2012.
But voter turnout among black voters fell almost seven percentage points, to 59.4 percent, the Census figures show — after hitting an all-time high of 66.2 percent in 2012.
Fewer than half of Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans turned out to vote; 49 percent of Asians and 47.6 percent of those of Hispanic origin showed up to the polls last year.
Hum, guess which voting block Trump is activating with his blatant racism?
Trump is successfully driving away college educated white men and women...he gonna end up with the Alt-Right, Neo-Nazi, White Supremacists and Antisemites. Wonder what the GOP will do about that? Likely a move away from the right towards the middle don't ya think? I can deal with a centrist GOP...
-
White House Celebrates “Infrastructure Week” By … Canceling Infrastructure Council (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/17/white-house-celebrates-infrastructure-week-canceling-infrastructure-council/)
(https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2017/229/16725151-80e7-42f9-90e7-19c710b6fdfc.jpg)
Actually, I don’t know if this week technically qualifies as “infrastructure week.” The real “infrastructure week” was back in June. And that was a sh*tshow too (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/337046-trumps-infrastructure-week-goes-off-the-rails)
It was supposed to be a big week for infrastructure, though. That’s why Trump called that press conference in Trump Tower on Tuesday, remember — he was announcing an executive order to expedite the permitting process for infrastructure projects generated by whatever bill ends up passing Congress. The new infrastructure council, which the White House formed last month, was going to make recommendations on priorities for the bill. That was before he decided to spend 15 minutes riffing on the “very fine people” protesting via torchlight in Charlottesville last Friday.
--snipp--
What’s it going to take to get his agenda back on track? Maybe … it never gets back on track (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-military-jews-ceos.html?nytmobile=0):
The president’s top advisers described themselves as stunned, despondent and numb. Several said they were unable to see how Mr. Trump’s presidency would recover, and others expressed doubts about his capacity to do the job…
Many in the White House said they still held on to the hope, however slim, that the new White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, could impose order on the disarray even as Mr. Trump hopscotches from one self-destructive episode to the next.
“The Kelly era was a bright, shining interlude between failed attempts to right the Trump presidency and it has now come to a close after a short but glorious run,” said a GOP operative to WaPo. A senior official who’s thinking of whether to resign told Reuters, “After yesterday, it’s clear that there is no way for anyone, even a Marine general, to restrain his (Trump’s) impulses or counter what he sees on TV and reads on the web.” Expectations that Kelly would impose more discipline on Trump are one major casualty of Tuesday. It’s YOLO from here on out.
I won't bother to copy the stuff about Congress...we know that's totally screwed, but there's this:
Investors sell stocks, dollar on fears Trump agenda is foundering (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKCN1AY03U)
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Asian stock investors joined a global retreat from riskier assets on Friday and the dollar wavered on rising doubts about U.S. President Donald Trump's ability to deliver his economic agenda.
European stock markets are also set for a negative start, with financial spreadbetter CMC Markets expecting Britain's FTSE 100 to open 0.5 percent lower, and Germany's DAX and France's CAC 40 to start the day down 0.7 percent.
While many people thought Trump was responsible for the stock market, he wasn't...it was the hope that economic reform, debt ceiling and tax reform would spur the economy and with the likes of Gary Cohn, Steven Mnuchin & Wilbur Ross, the markets were comfortable that those guy could handle Trump. Well...not so much. They may take off...
Market concerned Trump will scare away best advisors with Gary Cohn at the top of the list (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/market-concerned-trump-will-scare-away-best-advisors.html)
Stocks sold off and the Dow saw its biggest drop in three months amid market worries that President Donald Trump's advisers will jump ship, leaving him unable to push his pro-growth agenda.
White House economic advisor Gary Cohn, well regarded on Wall Street as a voice of reason, was rumored to be among those preparing to leave, but the White House denied the rumor.
The president's comments that appeared to defend some of the people who marched at a white nationalist rally after deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, have driven corporate leaders away from the White House.
(https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/08/16/104656147-GettyImages-831967600.530x298.jpg?v=1502890068)
Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin look on as US President Donald Trump delivers remarks following a meeting on infrastructure at Trump Tower, August 15, 2017 in New York City.
(https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2017/08/16/104656140-GettyImages-831999062.530x298.jpg?v=1502889839)
White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly looks on as US President Donald Trump speaks following a meeting on infrastructure at Trump Tower, August 15, 2017 in New York City.
You Trump supporters, keep telling yourself everything is gonna be all right.
-
Now even James Murdoch is barking at the Trumpster...wonder what daddy Murdoch is gonna tell Trump?
'No good Nazis': James Murdoch criticises Donald Trump over Charlottesville (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/18/james-murdoch-criticises-donald-trumps-response-to-charlottesville)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/de6b255fa379f8dbdf647c799b13452f3d6f2363/546_108_2274_1364/master/2274.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=5d190455ae54980f41d0763e598bd354)
Rupert Murdoch with his son James, the CEO of 21st Century Fox.
21st Century Fox boss breaks with father, major Trump ally Rupert Murdoch, to tell staff that president’s reaction ‘concerns all of us as Americans and free people’
James Murdoch – chief executive of 21st Century Fox and son of Donald Trump ally Rupert Murdoch – has become one of the most prominent voices yet to condemn the US president’s response to neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville.
In a memo to colleagues obtained by the Hollywood Reporter, Murdoch pledged to donate $1m to the Anti-Defamation League, which works to combat anti-semitism.
Rupert Murdoch is known to speak regularly to the US president and 21st Century Fox is the parent company of Fox News, which is a regular cheerleader for Trump.
“What we watched this last week in Charlottesville and the reaction to it by the president of the United States concern all of us as Americans and free people,” Murdoch, 44, writes in the memo.
“These events remind us all why vigilance against hate and bigotry is an eternal obligation – a necessary discipline for the preservation of our way of life and our ideals. The presence of hate in our society was appallingly laid bare as we watched swastikas brandished on the streets of Charlottesville and acts of brutal terrorism and violence perpetrated by a racist mob.”
Murdoch adds: “I can’t even believe I have to write this: standing up to Nazis is essential; there are no good Nazis. Or Klansmen, or terrorists. Democrats, Republicans, and others must all agree on this, and it compromises nothing for them to do so.”
He goes on to say that he and his wife, Kathryn, are donating $1m to the Anti-Defamation League in the wake of the tragedy, which left one civil rights activist dead. On Wednesday, Kathryn tweeted a link to a Politico article headlined, Time for My Fellow Republicans to Stand Up and Be Counted, (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/16/republicans-stand-up-trump-215494?cid=apn), in which Matt Latimer, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, denounced Trump and called on politicians to put country before party.
Still supporting Trump?
Really?
-
So, does the top model create inequality? I use model as example because I know how that used to work; I guess you can interchange her with any other trade or business where personal characteristics come into play. Should all models be kicked out of work because the rest of the women may not match them for looks? (There are many pretty women around who wouldn't dream of doing what models have to do.) Political correctness would seem to suggest so; discrimination against beauty, then.
And if the models that you choose from already have the (say) Jewish candidates removed from the list, that's OK - because people will always have a scapegoat, right? I don't hear anybody demanding equality of outcome. What you seem to be defending is inequality of opportunity.
-
when it comes to Muslim Supremacy?
Remind us when was the last time Muslims marched in the streets with assault rifles declaring their supremacy?
-
“For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” (Hosea 8:7)
For years Democrats have played the race card to divide Americans to get the vote. They support prejudicial college entrance requirements based on the color of your skin instead of the character of your soul and grades. They should have been trying to heal America and move forward. But they thought it politically expedient to play the race card. Now, Trump is turning their methods on its head and the Democrats shall reap the whirlwind. Who's going to take down Washington statues, the man who cut down the cherry tree but told the truth about it, who freed America from the Brits in battle, the father of our country and our first president? So what if he owned 100 slaves? The Dems are falling into Trump's trap. And elite Republicans will either change their ways and join Trump or lose to more populist members of their party.
Well, since you seem to beckon towards serious civil unrest in a country awash with guns, perhaps you'll get it. The most notable thing about your recent posts is the insistence that absolutely everything is somebody else's fault. But be careful what you wish for. The last time this kind of populism caught on it resulted in a rally at Madison Square Garden attended by 20,000 people led by a fellow called Fritz Julius Kuhn.
Most of the rest of the world probably now sees a rage-fuelled maverick on a one-man mission to exact revenge on the America which elected a black president and tear down every last vestige of it. But rage isn't a plan and destruction isn't achievement. If you stick with this guy he may well lead you to bloodletting and chaos but it's very unlikely he will lead you to the jobs and prosperity your country sorely needs. For that you need someone with a coherent programme for government and the skills to bring people together, not drive them apart. This guy has neither. Get rid of him while you still can.
-
Then you shouldn't have implied as you did earlier that white people who voted for Obama are closet racists. You could have just as easily callrd them enlightened and helped racial divisions.
By the way, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Australian senator wears a burqa in Parliament.
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-australia-burqa-20170817-story.html
Firstly, that's not what I said. Not ever. Not even close. You know it. Stop telling lies, Alan.
As for the burqa? The Attorney-General rebuked her in a reply to her question in the Senate. His response was only a few minutes long, but it elicited a standing ovation from the opposition and cross benches (his direct and very vocally opposed political opponents), such was the clarity and honesty and virtue of his rebuke to Hanson. I have *never* seen the opposition rise to a standing ovation for a government minister on anything. So, I don't know what your point is? We have a racist senator. Yes. There are racists in Australia, just as there are all over the world. But the government and the opposition and the main cross bench party the Greens, who between them represent well over 90% of the population, rebuked her strongly. She also managed to prove that her point (that you can't wear a burqa in a security environment) was wrong, since she was IDed before being allowed into the senate (as all senators are) and then proceeded to carry out her business. Easy.
But, again, Alan - stop telling lies. I responded to each of your points and all you manage to do is lie about something I never said and then bring up an issue that really shows you have no idea.
-
true... so why don't AU takes some illegal aliens from USA instead of sending us some of yours ? I bet Trump in a spirit of cooperation will gladly ship you a million or so latinos ;D
That's a great idea! Guess what? That's EXACTLY what the deal is with the US. The US takes some illegal aliens from Australia who are seeking asylum and Australia takes a similar number of from America. You might want to check facts before making silly statements.
-
his gov't put illegal aliens (he will agrue that those are not immigrants) in pretty much concentration camps outsourced to other nations
Concentration camps? What's a load of rubbish. Illegal aliens seeking asylum (who sailed past numerous places of sanctuary to try to get to Australia) are under detention (they attempted illegal entry), pending investigation and processing to test their claims of asylum. They are not starved, forced to work, tortured, beaten, etc. at all. They are under detention, yes, with internet, access to telephones, TV, entertainment, food and drinks, recreational facilities and so on.
If you can't argue without making up lies, I will have to call you Alan.
-
So, does the top model create inequality? I use model as example because I know how that used to work; I guess you can interchange her with any other trade or business where personal characteristics come into play. Should all models be kicked out of work because the rest of the women may not match them for looks? (There are many pretty women around who wouldn't dream of doing what models have to do.) Political correctness would seem to suggest so; discrimination against beauty, then.
And if the models that you choose from already have the (say) Jewish candidates removed from the list, that's OK - because people will always have a scapegoat, right? I don't hear anybody demanding equality of outcome. What you seem to be defending is inequality of opportunity.
Congrats. You have just proved how little you know about that world.
Thr fashion world, magazines and much of publishing and movies is almost exclusively Jewish-run or Jewish owned. Why? Because they have talent and they look after their own where they can.
Take a closer peek at Hollywood and TVtown for further proof of how strong is the Jewish hand. They don't need your protection or protests!
As for what you suggest I am 'defending' - you are simply proving again how little able you have been to follow my argument. There cannot be equality of outcome, as I wrote, there can only be one winner for any gig. Is that too difficult for you to get? Making an assumption on something different, as you have, is just a device to ward off attention to the real point you can't answer. Such a common ploy.
Rob
-
Bill,
1. That reads very well, but what the hell is fairness and, just as awkwardly, what equality?
These are socialist mantras I have heard since I became aware of political differences, but nobody I've asked has ever come up with a watertight explanation. There isn't one: these are all concepts that apply to games, to entities/workplaces with set rules and to competitive sports. These have no real application to the vastly more difficult and complex matter of life and making one's way through it.
I disagree that they have no application beyond games and the like. You're right that's there's no definitive 'fair', nor 'equal', which is why I said that these concepts should form the basis of an ongoing dialogue to find a way forward in society, one that balances the competing tensions between freedom, fairness and equality. Like you say, life is complex, and simplistic statements just don't address that complexity. The irony here is that you seem to be expecting me to give those simplistic answers. Every complex question has a simple wrong answer, and I'd rather work towards finding right ones. And note, right ones; there is no one right answer, because living together requires compromise and what is right is subjective.
... Even if it were possible to force all of humanity to live by factory rules, you'd not have achieved any imaginary fairness: the foreman would always earn more than the drudge making the tea or the other one just turning out the widgets as he dreams of the holiday season. Neither would your notion of equality be any the more fulfilled by this, for the faster guy would produce more cash-value widgets per shift than you can, and as for freedom, hey, you left that at the factory gates and sold your soul to the shop steward when you joined the union which was perhaps compulsory in the first place, though such requirements are less common than they were.
Yeah. You know that bit where I said it's about balancing freedom, equality & fairness, well guess what, it's about balancing freedom, equality & fairness. You can take any one principle & carry it to extremes and then say, "See, it doesn't work very well, does it?", but then you're sort of missing the bit about balancing these things. The reason I said it's about finding a way to balance them is because that's what we need to do - hence the need for dialogue, compromise, tolerance. I'm sure I mentioned them earlier.
2. What do you mean by privilege? The dictionary offers one little group of meanings, but in common political parlance it's used to mean something quite else; in fact, that's being generous: it's really used to imply, to suggest some unspoken and guilty reason or factor that lends one person more success than another. The truth is that success comes from a million different factors, and is seldom based simply on some measureable quantity/quality of ability. It can be as much about your accent, your religion, your schoool, university or even on whether you have bad teeth or, worse, bad breath. Be a woman, and these things are multiplied many times over. Is that fair? What the hell is fair, I have to ask again; it's what it is and what it will always be: human interaction and reaction: do people just like to be around you? Twenty pretty girls turn up at a casting, only one will get the gig. I've had to do that many times, and I truly feel sorry for them, far more sorry than, it turns out, do they feel for themselves; on asking the 'chosen one' when out on trip with her, she said: we do several of these castings a day, sometimes; it's not getting called to the casting that's the problem, the fear. We all know there's only room for one or, perhaps, two on the actual gig.
I don't understand your issue here. You seem to have chosen to conflate privilege with things that afford some success and others not. Making the best of the hand that fate has dealt you is one thing, but playing against a stacked deck is something quite different. We all live in societies where some are privileged and others are not. Rich parents, getting a private education, the Old School Tie and all that sort of thing, enable some people to do better than they otherwise would. You're never going to eradicate it, but we can act to reduce its negative effects, and certainly not to entrench it even more in our societies. Again, if you go back and read what I said, you'll find that is pretty much what I said. In the meantime, have you met Straw Man? :)
-
you are simply proving again how little able you have been to follow my argument. There cannot be equality of outcome, as I wrote, there can only be one winner for any gig. Is that too difficult for you to get?
Seems like you are the one with the comprehension difficulties since I explicitly wrote that nobody is advocating equality of outcome. What we can aim for is equality of opportunity.
As for my knowledge of the fashion industry - indeed - minimal, which was why I caveated my example with "say" - replace Jewish with any other group - the point remains the same. You claim m that it is the responsibility of others to get to the same starting line as you - a white Anglo Saxon male. You seem blissfully ignorant of what that means in real life.
-
Instead of removing these statutes, why not erect informative plaques on these statues explaining the history and its effects concerning the topic of the statue?
Our citizens and future citizens are not well served by hiding our history from them; but are better served by acknowledging our history (the good, the bad, and the ugly) and by educating the people on that history.
-
Some interesting diversions and deflections in the last couple of days about fairness and confederate statues, but all mostly beside the main point. Making a few statues a flash point is a diversionary tactic. The truth probably is that the number of people who knew about those statues, or who they commemorated, or even read the accompanying plaques, rounds to zero. As if statues of politicians are important. Maybe to pigeons, they are.
Suddenly a statue of Robert E Lee is important to mouth-breathing clansmen, sure it is, but the absence of slavery museums or museums about the American Indian genocide (as obvious examples) is set aside another day. Well, they were conquered I guess, no need to study THAT history. What can that possibly teach us? In this bizarro world, American-born neo-nazis see their birthright violated because of a statue of some guy they don't know the first thing about.
-
you are simply proving again how little able you have been to follow my argument. There cannot be equality of outcome, as I wrote, there can only be one winner for any gig. Is that too difficult for you to get?
Seems like you are the one with the comprehension difficulties since I explicitly wrote that nobody is advocating equality of outcome. What we can aim for is equality of opportunity.
As for my knowledge of the fashion industry - indeed - minimal, which was why I caveated my example with "say" - replace Jewish with any other group - the point remains the same. You claim m that it is the responsibility of others to get to the same starting line as you - a white Anglo Saxon male. You seem blissfully ignorant of what that means in real life.
Oh dear, let's try again, as the fabled actress once said to the bishop. (This is perhaps another grievous example of an unlevel bed playing field if only because there were apparently no Jewish, Moslem or Buddhist folks of the cloth around to invite as well.)
I made no reference to starting lines in that particular post - though it was written with one eye half-shut as I was really supposed to be asleep (so I may have and don't remember), but LuLa just wouldn't let go.
But anyway, you brought 'em up, so let's look at 'em.
"You claim m that it is the responsibility of others to get to the same starting line as you - a white Anglo Saxon male. You seem blissfully ignorant of what that means in real life."
No, In earlier posts I was claiming that it's up to everybody to get themselves together if they want to play. That includes your current concern on behalf of the Jewish people (who are often just as white as I may be - and who have been top kittens in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit editions, to boot). Jews know all about success; they don't really need anyone else's help to find it today. Non-whites? Look at Google's top line and the computer world worldwide. You don't see anything beyond paleface? Then you're using the blind eye technique. Those non-whites get there as do their white buddies: talent, and guts to push, study and dedicate themselves. Of the many thousands of poor whites around (did you forget them?) any big western city, you may wonder whether their dedication to self-improvement has mainly consisted of taking a toke or a tin of Tennents. But naturally, that'll be somebody else's fault.)
As for the white anglo-saxon - even the supposedly successful one - he has to contend, in some worlds, with being Catholic where he'd have been better advised being Protestant (these errors of judgement and situation ethics can get you killed, both ways around). Glasgow has bars where you best not enter unless you know the right chants, wear the right scarf and can recite the right team's history without reference to a notebook. There are as many white tossers as of any other tone.
The problem with many so-called losers is that they start with that expectation and study it hard thoughout school. They then graduate with an advanced degree in losing and go on to do exactly that. Except for the ones that deal drugs, get a job with a plumber or an electrician or even in a scrapyard, whereupon they learn all about the black economy and can end up very rich in anyone's money.
Anyway, back to the models point:
"And if the models that you choose from already have the (say) Jewish candidates removed from the list, that's OK - because people will always have a scapegoat, right? I don't hear anybody demanding equality of outcome. What you seem to be defending is inequality of opportunity."
No, read it again. I'm trying to tell you, and anyone who will listen, that there can be no equal opportunity. It's an impossibilty. When you look for a pretty girl for a job, you will not invite an ugly one to the casting, and her agency (there are such specialists) will not make the daft mistake of sending her along. That opportunity cannot exist! It's horses for courses, and if you can't bear to face that reality in human life, how about the truth as expressed in the world of the actual horse I just mentioned? You'd pit a Clydesdale against an Arab at the races? Or expect that Arab to pull a waggon loaded with whisky kegs? It's all the same thing: what fits one hole doesn't always fit another, and some things (people, too) fit nowhere. And taking that last point, I often feel myself matching that very description; it hasn't prevented me from ploughing and ploughing, as far as it was fertile, whichever furrow I managed to scratch for myself on this planet.
And at the end, that's the point: it's your life, your calls. Don't expect others to make 'em for you: generally, they can't and they won't.
Rob
-
No, read it again. I'm trying to tell you, and anyone who will listen, that there can be no equal opportunity. It's an impossibilty.
Oh. Ok then. Let's all give up and accept that negroes sit at the back of the bus and women stay home and cook dinner. No sense in working for a world where all can contribute.
Really - you speak with the authentic voice of privilege - the white man who can't comprehend how others have to live.
-
I disagree that they have no application beyond games and the like. You're right that's there's no definitive 'fair', nor 'equal', which is why I said that these concepts should form the basis of an ongoing dialogue to find a way forward in society, one that balances the competing tensions between freedom, fairness and equality. Like you say, life is complex, and simplistic statements just don't address that complexity. 1. The irony here is that you seem to be expecting me to give those simplistic answers. Every complex question has a simple wrong answer, and I'd rather work towards finding right ones. And note, right ones; there is no one right answer, because living together requires compromise and what is right is subjective.
Yeah. You know that bit where I said it's about balancing freedom, equality & fairness, well guess what, it's about balancing freedom, equality & fairness. You can take any one principle & carry it to extremes and then say, "See, it doesn't work very well, does it?", but then you're sort of missing the bit about balancing these things. The reason I said it's about finding a way to balance them is because that's what we need to do - hence the need for dialogue, compromise, tolerance. I'm sure I mentioned them earlier.
2. I don't understand your issue here. You seem to have chosen to conflate privilege with things that afford some success and others not. Making the best of the hand that fate has dealt you is one thing, but playing against a stacked deck is something quite different. We all live in societies where some are privileged and others are not. Rich parents, getting a private education, the Old School Tie and all that sort of thing, enable some people to do better than they otherwise would. You're never going to eradicate it, but we can act to reduce its negative effects, and certainly not to entrench it even more in our societies. Again, if you go back and read what I said, you'll find that is pretty much what I said. 3. In the meantime, have you met Straw Man? :)
1. No, Bill, I'm saying that there are no realistic answers to your juggling desire. It can't be done without the imposition of a very heavy dictatorhip of one kind or another allied with extreme social and genetic engineering. Not something I'd imagine you advocating.
2. I think that's what I'm saying all along... as you are unwilling to redefine 'privilege' beyond my own suggestion of what some think it to be, then I see no way forward on this point. You are just going on from that to restate how it makes you resent the reality of life as it is.
3. Funny you should ask: I had lunch with him the other day and we got on just fine until he tried to coerce me into buying his hat. I let him pay the bill.
Rob
-
1. No, Bill, I'm saying that there are no realistic answers to your juggling desire. It can't be done without the imposition of a very heavy dictatorhip of one kind or another allied with extreme social and genetic engineering. Not something I'd imagine you advocating.
No, I wouldn't advocate such things, but then I don't see those as the only means forward
2. I think that's what I'm saying all along... as you are unwilling to redefine 'privilege' beyond my own suggestion of what some think it to be, then I see no way forward on this point. You are just going on from that to restate how it makes you resent the reality of life as it is.
Resent the reality of life? Wow, talk about putting words into someone's mouth. Let me put it quite simply, we don't have to accept the shit our ancestors dealt us; we can change the rules. It's been done before - we don't do slavery anymore, we don't burn heretics, we don't send children up chimneys or down mines. Now, you might think we should have simply accepted these 'realities of life', fortunately, many of us don't agree.
-
No, read it again. I'm trying to tell you, and anyone who will listen, that there can be no equal opportunity. It's an impossibilty.
Oh. Ok then. Let's all give up and accept that negroes sit at the back of the bus and women stay home and cook dinner. No sense in working for a world where all can contribute.
Really - you speak with the authentic voice of privilege - the white man who can't comprehend how others have to live.
Seating arrangements are not about equal opportunity as much as they are about race segregation. (That split should open up an entire world of polemic!) At the back or the front, the bus still takes you where you are going, so the opportunity for getting there is the same, front or rear seating. In a head-on crash into a motorway bridge, you might rather be at the back. The very fact you ride in a goddam bus is a leveller in itself, don't you think?
As to whether all black people think there's something wonderful missing in their past because they didn't sit next to white ones is not something I'm able to say; all I can say is that there are millions of white people I'd miss the bus to avoid rather than sit beside. Avoiding our fellow - in the broader sense, and roadkill notwithstanding - man is something that the car allowed us to manage very well for a long time. As with so much, when too many share the 'privilege' then all end up losing out, destroying the equality/fairness myths yet again without any political input to blame, only the cussedness of reality. Just like with professional photography of yesteryear.
" ... and women stay home and cook dinner. No sense in working for a world where all can contribute."
So, you mean that those women who stay at home, and run the home/household are not in a world where they are contributing? I'd find a cupboard and hide, were I you.
Those women are made of gold and pure bloody diamonds! They are amongst the most valuable assets humanity has ever had, far more useful than, and making infinitely greater contributions to life than nutters spending zillions of bucks fulfilling schoolboy dreams of flying off into space.
There is little difficulty in comprehending how others have to live; there is great difficulty in comprehending why others should fight their fights for them when most of their problems begin at home, right back at the ranch. There's even greater difficulty in comprehending why those who have bettered their lot should deny themselves or their families that betterment's benefits. I can just see it in the next electoral promise: 100% death duties! the house you sweated to build back to the State, to the people from whom you stole it! Yeah! let's all have another drink!
See what I mean?
;-)
Rob
-
Rob - the most charitable interpretation I can put on your post is that you simply don't understand the meaning of the words "equality of opportunity". The alternative is too depressing to contemplate.
-
No, I wouldn't advocate such things, but then I don't see those as the only means forward
Resent the reality of life? Wow, talk about putting words into someone's mouth. Let me put it quite simply, we don't have to accept the shit our ancestors dealt us; we can change the rules. It's been done before - we don't do slavery anymore, we don't burn heretics, we don't send children up chimneys or down mines. Now, you might think we should have simply accepted these 'realities of life', fortunately, many of us don't agree.
Nope, I'm not advocating any of that, but what makes you imagine it's ended? Think the Middle East; think Haiti; think parts of South America, Africa and the metaphorical chains are still there, the fires all still well aglow. Think human trafficking, whores, and then think Tuscany and the UK. Sweatshops and child labour are very much with us on the High Street where you can buy the products and even compare prices. The trouble is, remove that labour and the products from it, and those kids are even worse off. What else is there for them to do except hang around outside bars waiting for first-world child-molestors to fly in and say hello...
I don't think our ancestors dealt us a bum deal: they got us this far, didn't they? I think WE are selling our grandkids one, the basic one of a non-clean world. What social changes the 'advanced' world has gone through have happened the way all major changes happen: wars and battles and lost lives as one creed fights another for supremacy. The alternatives are simply another evolutionary step along to the next stage, but I don't think those steps come through politicians and dogmas, just through pragmatism doing its thing, and mainly in the marketplace. We shall see what we have done. If we survive that long.
-
the absence of slavery museums or museums about the American Indian genocide (as obvious examples) is set aside another day.
The U.S. federal government's Smithsonian Institution includes a museum of African-American History and Culture (https://nmaahc.si.edu/) and a museum of the American Indian (http://www.nmai.si.edu/), both on the National Mall in downtown Washington, D.C.
There has been an increasing amount of research into African-American slavery in recent years, including the slaves owned by Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The curators of Jefferson's Virginia plantation home, Monticello—which is on a hill overlooking the city of Charlottesville—have recently added displays on the daily life of the slaves who lived there and, using archaeological evidence, have recreated the quarters used by Sally Hemings, who is believed to have been Jefferson's mistress.
-
The U.S. federal government's Smithsonian Institution includes a museum of African-American History and Culture (https://nmaahc.si.edu/) and a museum of the American Indian (http://www.nmai.si.edu/), both on the National Mall in downtown Washington, D.C.
There has been an increasing amount of research into African-American slavery in recent years, including the slaves owned by Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The curators of Jefferson's Virginia plantation home, Monticello—which is on a hill overlooking the city of Charlottesville—have recently added displays on the daily life of the slaves who lived there and, using archaeological evidence, have recreated the quarters used by Sally Hemings, who is believed to have been Jefferson's mistress.
Thank you for that. I was hoping to hear things weren't as dire as I thought.
-
Thank you for that. I was hoping to hear things weren't as dire as I thought.
I went through Washington's estate in Mount Vernon Virginia. I seem to recall them showing the slave quarters and where the slaves did their work. It wasn't as if it was being hidden from view. It was acknowledged.
-
Thank you for that. I was hoping to hear things weren't as dire as I thought.
NYC has a museum of the American Indian as well. The Met Museum of art in NYC and other museums throughout the country in and out of Indian lands also have museums and historical sites providing the history, art and people. I've been to some and these are all very educational. Of course, many American Indian tribes have gotten past their history and have built gaming resorts like Foxwoods in CT were non-Indians are always welcome to stay and leave their greenbacks. :).
-
Bye bye Bannon, bye bye!
Don't let the door hitya on the way out.
Who's next?
I vote to get rid of Miller...who's your choice to eliminate?
-
Bye bye Bannon, bye bye!
Don't let the door hitya on the way out.
Who's next?
I vote to get rid of Miller...who's your choice to eliminate?
The harder question is who to keep!
-
Bye bye Bannon, bye bye!
Don't let the door hitya on the way out.
Who's next?
I vote to get rid of Miller...who's your choice to eliminate?
Is Trump a valid choice?
-
Bannon opened his big mouth regarding NK saying war is out of the picture undermining Trump's strong position. I think Generals Mattis and McMaster said he had to go to give some credibility back to Trump's position. This may have been Kelly also trying to get the White House into order.
I think the interesting question is whether Bannon gave Trump his political thinking or whether Trump had the main view of where he's going anyway. We'll see soon enough. If Trump changes, then it was Bannon. If it stays the same, then it's been Trump all along as Trump himself has been claiming.
-
Trump elevates Cyber Command. Something important for US security.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/18/trump-us-cyber-command-elevated-unified-combatant-command-241783
-
Trump elevates Cyber Command.
Good, maybe Trump will listen to them about the risk of continued Russian interference in our elections :~)
-
Trump elevates Cyber Command. Something important for US security.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/18/trump-us-cyber-command-elevated-unified-combatant-command-241783
Ok, this is a good call.
-
It begins...
The Week When President Trump Resigned (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/sunday/president-trump-resignation.html?_r=0)
Frank Bruni AUG. 18, 2017
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/20/opinion/sunday/20bruni/20bruni-master768.jpg)
Credit Ben Wiseman
As the worst week in a cursed presidency wound down, I spotted more and more forecasts that Donald Trump would resign, including from Tony Schwartz, who wrote “The Art of the Deal” for Trump and presumably understands his tortured psyche.
They struck me not as wishful or fantastical.
They struck me as late.
Trump resigned the presidency already — if we regard the job as one of moral stewardship, if we assume that an iota of civic concern must joust with self-regard, if we expect a president’s interest in legislation to rise above vacuous theatrics, if we consider a certain baseline of diplomatic etiquette to be part of the equation.
By those measures, it’s arguable that Trump’s presidency never really began. By those measures, it’s indisputable that his presidency ended in the lobby of Trump Tower on Tuesday afternoon, when he chose — yes, chose — to litigate rather than lead, to attend to his wounded pride instead of his wounded nation and to debate the supposed fine points of white supremacy.
He abdicated his responsibilities so thoroughly and recklessly that it amounted to a letter of resignation. Then he whored for his Virginia winery on the way out the door.
Trump knew full well what he should have done, because he’d done it — grudgingly and badly — only a day earlier. But it left him feeling countermanded, corrected, submissive and weak, and those emotions just won’t do for an ego as needy and skin as thin as his. So he put id before country and lashed out, in a manner so patently wrong and transcendently ruinous that TV news shows had to go begging for Republican lawmakers to defend or even try to explain what he’d said.
--snipp--
Trump hasn’t been exercising the duties of his office. He’s been excising them, one by one. The moral forfeiture of the past week was the capper.
And as I watched the Bushes and the generals and Trump’s former rivals for the Republican presidential nomination step into the public square to enunciate their own principles about murderous bigots and domestic terrorists, I realized that they weren’t going through any typical this-is-what-makes-us-Americans motions. They weren’t preening.
They were, in the words of The Washington Post’s James Hohmann, “filling the void.” If Trump wasn’t going to do his job, others had to.
I kept coming across variations on the verdict that he had “failed to lead,” and that phraseology is off. “Fail” and “failure” imply that there was an effort, albeit unsuccessful.
Trump made none. He consciously decided that he didn’t care about comforting or inspiring those Americans — a majority of them — who weren’t quick and generous enough with their clapping. He was more interested in justifying himself.
So he picked division over unity, war over peace. And make no mistake: He didn’t merely shortchange the presidency. He left it vacant.
Think the article is wrong?
The chance of Donald Trump resigning is at its highest yet, say bookies (http://www.cityam.com/270495/chance-donald-trump-resigning-its-highest-yet-say-bookies)
The odds on President Trump resigning are now the shortest they've been since betting opened.
Paddy Power said it's reporting a stream of bets on the President calling it a day, piling into the 6/4 on offer for Trump to resign, which has made the bookmaker cut the odds into Evs. That is the shortest price it has been since betting opened just after Trump's inauguration in January.
he news comes after the ghostwriter of Donald Trump's book The Art of the Deal, Tony Schwartz, predicted that Trump will resign before the end of the year.
Paddy Power said:
Tony Schwartz spent 18 months with Trump when helping ghost-write his memoir and while that must have been totally unbearable – it also means he knows The Donald pretty well.
After an awful week for the President that has seen other issues like North Korea pushed into the shadows it’s no surprise punters are latching onto the fact Trump might call it a day.
It is offering odds of 2/1 for Trump to be impeached in 2017.
-
Watch Fox News Host Report That They Are Unable To Book Any Republicans To Defend Trump (http://samuel-warde.com/2017/08/fox-news-unable-get-republicans-defend-trump/)
(http://samuel-warde.com/samuel-warde.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Shepard-Smith.jpg)
Shepard Smith reports that Fox News is unable to book any Republicans to defend Trump’s latest comments on Charlottesville and white supremacy.
Fox News' Shepard Smith Reporting: (https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/08/16/fox-news-shep-smith-couldnt-get-any-republicans-come-fox-defend-trumps-racist-comments/217662)
:44
SHEPARD SMITH (HOST): Our booking team -- and they're good -- reached out to Republicans of all stripes, across the country today. Let's be honest, Republicans often don't really mind coming on Fox News Channel. We couldn't get anyone to come and defend him here, because we thought, in balance, someone should do that. We worked very hard at it throughout the day, and we were unsuccessful. And of those that are condemning the president's condemnable actions, I've not heard any prominent leaders, former presidents, members of the House or the Senate use his name while speaking in generalities.
-
I am not a Republican, but have them call me.
-
It begins...
The Week When President Trump Resigned (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/sunday/president-trump-resignation.html?_r=0)
Frank Bruni AUG. 18, 2017
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/20/opinion/sunday/20bruni/20bruni-master768.jpg)
Credit Ben Wiseman
Think the article is wrong?
The chance of Donald Trump resigning is at its highest yet, say bookies (http://www.cityam.com/270495/chance-donald-trump-resigning-its-highest-yet-say-bookies)
If Trump leaves, this thread will shut down; CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and all the others will lose half their viewers. Pence is a big yawn. No one's going to care. We will be able to shoot more pictures.
-
It continues:
-
I am not a Republican, but have them call me.
Out of curiosity, are you defending him (multiple answers possible)?
- because you think his action is good for the country?
- because you feel represented well by the values he has been putting forward?
- because you are sick of non Americans commenting about US politics?
- because you think there is no better alternative?
- because you are afraid about the consequences for the US bipartisan system if he were to be impreached?
- because of the valuable intellectual challenge of defending the in-defendable?
- because of others reasons? Then what are these?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bannon opened his big mouth regarding NK saying war is out of the picture
War is out of the picture hopefully. If it happened it would be the shortest war in history, but there would be no winners.
Remember Vietnam? They had no navy, no air force, 8 million tons of bombs dropped on them and none came back.... Result?
Watch the movie "On The Beach".
As for Trump saying "Your Fired" to himself, not likely.
-
It continues:
Madness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/18/new-york-subway-tiles-look-like-confederate-flags-altered/
-
War is out of the picture hopefully. If it happened it would be the shortest war in history, but there would be no winners.
Remember Vietnam? They had no navy, no air force, 8 million tons of bombs dropped on them and none came back.... Result?
Watch the movie "On The Beach".
As for Trump saying "Your Fired" to himself, not likely.
Bannon's comment made war more likely. Bannon, a subordinate, undermined the president's military posturing. Trump was trying to effect NK to stop making nuclear weapons and missiles and worry China enough that they would help by pressuring NK. Now, NK and China know Trump was bluffing because of Bannon's comment. This makes war more not less likely.
-
The killers in Barcelona aimed to copycat the racist terrorism attack in Charlottesville, says CNN
Radical Islam Is not to blame, xenophobia and racism are. Could Trump be partly responsible, too, since he refuses to disavow racism?
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-msnbc-wonder-if-barcelona-terror-attack-inspired-charlottesville (http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-msnbc-wonder-if-barcelona-terror-attack-inspired-charlottesville)
(https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Wolf-Blitzer-Was-Barcelona-a-Copycat-of-Charlottesville.jpg)
-
Trump doesn’t seem to like being president. So why not quit? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-doesnt-seem-to-like-being-president-so-why-not-quit/2017/08/18/83c2e38e-842a-11e7-902a-2a9f2d808496_story.html?utm_term=.7dfdee044f41)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/08/18/Editorial-Opinion/Images/2017-08-18T170116Z_190111_RC197B73DA50_RTRMADP_3_USA-AFGHANISTAN-2432.jpg?uuid=ew3GHoQ-EeezWRWjYXx2ew)
Evidence is piling up that Donald Trump does not really want to be president of the United States.
He certainly doesn’t look happy in the job. In his previous life, Trump met whomever he wanted to meet and said whatever he wanted to say. But like all presidents, he finds himself ever more isolated, and his displeasure shows on his face. The loneliness of the job — which so many of his predecessors have ruefully reported — is wearing on him.
And it’s more than that. Past presidents also tell us that no one can fully appreciate the dimensions of the job in advance. With no previous political experience, Trump’s learning curve has been even steeper than usual, and the more he sees of the job, the less he wants to do it. He balks at the briefings, the talking points, the follow-through.
He was drawn to the fame of it, as he once told me aboard his private jet. “It’s the ratings . . . that gives you power,” then-candidate Trump explained. “It’s not the polls. It’s the ratings.” He loves being the most talked-about man on Earth.
But unlike reality TV stars, presidents aren’t famous for being famous. They command the world’s attention because they are the temporary embodiments of America’s strength, aspirations and responsibilities.
It is a paradoxically self-effacing fame. The job demands that hugely competitive, driven, ambitious individuals — for that’s what it takes to win the job — inhabit a role that requires them to be something other than nakedly themselves.
As some Trump associates tell it, he never intended to be elected. But having won the part, he doesn’t want to play it, a fact irrefutable after Charlottesville. Rather than speak for the nation — the president’s job — he spoke for Trump. Rather than apply shared values, he apportioned blame.
Think this is off base? Remember the Reuter's inteview (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-100days-idUSKBN17U0CA)?
“I loved my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier. You’re really into your own little cocoon, because you have such massive protection that you really can’t go anywhere. I like to drive. I can’t drive any more.”
Poor President Snowflake...the #FAKENEWS is so mean to him!
Remember: 'No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly,'
Just resign Donny before you get forced out!
-
Bannon's comment made war more likely. Bannon, a subordinate, undermined the president's military posturing. Trump was trying to effect NK to stop making nuclear weapons and missiles and worry China enough that they would help by pressuring NK. Now, NK and China know Trump was bluffing because of Bannon's comment. This makes war more not less likely.
Unfortunately I think you're correct here. Maybe that's what Bannon actually wants though - the guy is a total loon.
-
Madness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/18/new-york-subway-tiles-look-like-confederate-flags-altered/
Eh... this sort of idiocy will pass sooner rather than later I suspect.
-
Bannon: 'The Trump Presidency That We Fought For, and Won, Is Over.' (http://www.weeklystandard.com/bannon-the-trump-presidency-that-we-fought-for-and-won-is-over./article/2009355)
(http://cdn.weeklystandard.biz/cache/780x438-n_a33a030c9030d08e4ea7526fc619eaae.jpg)
White House strategist Steve Bannon can be seen through the window of Marine One after it landed with he and President Donald Trump aboard on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC in April 2017.
With the departure from the White House of strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who helped shape the so-called nationalist-populist program embraced by Donald Trump in his unlikely path to election, a new phase of the Trump presidency begins. Given Trump’s nature, what comes next will hardly be conventional, but it may well be less willfully disruptive—which, to Bannon, had been the point of winning the White House.
“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,” Bannon said Friday, shortly after confirming his departure. “We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”
Bannon says that he will return to the helm of Breitbart, the rambunctious right-wing media enterprise he ran until joining the Trump campaign as chief executive last August. At the time, the campaign was at its nadir, and Trump was trailing Hillary Clinton in the polls by double digits.
Well, I agree that the Trump presidency as we knew it is over...I'm really not sure his presidency can recover...we'll see, but understand it's only been 210 days and counting and so far, everything about Trump has been an unmitigated disaster.
-
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-msnbc-wonder-if-barcelona-terror-attack-inspired-charlottesville (http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/cnn-msnbc-wonder-if-barcelona-terror-attack-inspired-charlottesville)
(https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Wolf-Blitzer-Was-Barcelona-a-Copycat-of-Charlottesville.jpg)
LOL...
So, ya got your image from rushlimbaugh.com and the story from truthrevolt.org? Those are the sorts of media you enjoy? I won't bother to comment on Rush (is he still a drug addict?) but I had to look up truthrevolt.org because it is pretty obscure...here's what Media Bias/Fact Check had to say...
Truth Revolt (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/truth-revolt/)
(https://i2.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/extremeright02.png?w=700&ssl=1)
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Some Fake News
Notes: Truth Revolt is a website with extreme right wing bias in reporting and wording. Often refers to African Americans as thugs and has published false stories. (10/2/2016) Updated (6/20/2017)
-
I'm glad about one thing regarding Bannon. Back at Breitbart, he'll be able to lead investigations like this one: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/ (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/). He'll be back where he belongs and will be a much happier person.
-
I'm glad about one thing regarding Bannon. Back at Breitbart, he'll be able to lead investigations like this one: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/ (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/). He'll be back where he belongs and will be a much happier person.
An interesting read - if you are sixteen or thereabouts.
The only women I've known well enough to discuss the pill with me (to the extent of do they or do they not use it), if only in an academic interest kind of discussion - have appeared quite normal to me, with an exception where one seemed to develop rather powerful-looking shoulder areas over some time.
Armed with this new informtion from those who obviously know, I shall enjoy my lunchtime people-watchng activities even more, with a greatly enhanced technique for understanding that which I may see... I'm sure my photography will improve by leaps and bounds. No, not bounds - those require a coiled mechanism.
Isn't photography fascinating?
-
Isn't photography fascinating?
At least as interesting as humans.
-
Remember Vietnam? They had no navy,
they had navy - remember the classical US lies akin to WMD in Iraq ? Gulf of Tonkin
no air force
They had air force, for example the history of one US pilot downed by the said air force and then captured when he was bombing civilian targets = https://www.pownetwork.org/bios/t/t038.htm
, 8 million tons of bombs dropped on them
plus a lot of chemicals ("agent orange") were used by the county which likes to moralize a lot about others
-
owned by Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
those two despicable bastards deserve their statues to put down immediately
Ron Chernow's magisterial biography Washington: A Life makes clear, while he lived, the nation's first president extracted his pound of flesh from those whom he preferred to call his "servants", or "family".
Washington saw himself as a benevolent master, but he did not tolerate suspected shirkers on his farm, even when they were pregnant, elderly or crippled.
He once scolded a slave who pleaded that he could not work because his arm was in a sling.
As Chernow writes, Washington picked up a rake and demonstrated how to use it with one arm.
"If you use your hand to eat," he said, "why can't you use it to work?"
He was not averse to shipping refractory slaves to the West Indies, such as one man named Waggoner Jack, where the tropical climate and relentless toil in sugarcane brakes tended to abbreviate life expectancy.
"There are few Negroes who will work unless there be a constant eye on them," Washington advised one overseer, warning of their "idleness and deceit" unless treated firmly.
Washington, Chernow notes, wholly approved in 1793 when one of his estate managers, Anthony Whitting, whipped a slave named Charlotte.
Martha, the president's wife, had deemed her to be "indolent".
"Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper," Washington wrote, "and if she or any other of the servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered."
Washington badgered Whitting to keep another slave named Gunner hard at work to "continue throwing up brick earth". Gunner was 83 years old.
With his Mount Vernon plantation creaking under financial pressure owing to his long absences serving the country, Washington would fire off angry letters to his overseers insisting on greater crop productivity.
Given these reprimands it is perhaps hardly surprising that another of his estate managers, Hiland Crow, was notorious for brutally flogging slaves.
In early 1788 the Potomac river froze over for five weeks, but even with nine inches of snow on the ground, Washington did not spare them from gruelling outdoor labour.
He sent the female slaves to dig up tree stumps from a frozen swamp.
During this Arctic snap, Washington ventured to ride out and inspect his farms, but noted in his diary that, "finding the cold disagreeable I returned".
When some of his slaves absconded during the Revolutionary War to find protection - humiliatingly, for him - with the enemy, Washington did not let up in his efforts to reclaim what he saw as his property.
One internal British memo portrayed him after victory as demanding the runaways be returned "with all the grossness and ferocity of a captain of banditti". The British refused.
Whenever George and Martha's bondmen and women did flee, the first couple seemed to regard them as disloyal ingrates.
In one runaway notice Washington posted in a newspaper, he wrote that a slave named Caesar had escaped "without any cause whatever".
That these enslaved human beings might thirst for freedom, or even the opportunity to learn to read and write, did not seem to occur to him.
Jefferson, as every American schoolchild knows, is the nation's third president, and a genius political theoretician who penned arguably the five most important words in modern history - "all men are created equal" - in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.
He also owned up to 140 slaves.
A bon vivant who lived in luxury at a palatial Virginia estate, Jefferson knew America's original sin was a "depravity", as he described it.
But his statements about black people are rarely taught in classrooms today.
Here are some Jefferson quotes that visitors will not find on his memorial, a Roman pantheon-style temple to liberty where the Sage of Monticello's graven image keeps vigil over the Tidal Basin in Washington DC.
To his friend, French social reformer the Duc de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, Jefferson confided that he envisaged eventual manumission to entail "exporting to a distance the whole black race".
The duke wrote: "He [Jefferson] bases his opinion on the certain danger… of seeing blood mixed without means of preventing it".
And yet Jefferson, historians say, fathered up to six children by one of his mixed-race slaves, Sally Hemings.
In his book Notes on the State of Virginia, he prophesied a race war in America and "convulsions which will probably never end but on the extermination of the one or the other race".
Jefferson also opined in this work that black people's "unfortunate difference of color" made them less beautiful than whites.
"They are more ardent after their female," he continued, "but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.
"Their griefs are transient… in reason much inferior."
And so on.
-
Slavery was despicable and widely practiced. Washington and Jefferson lived 250 years ago when it was very prevalent.
What's your point? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Do you think you'd be any different if you were born then? How do you know what you're doing today won't be criticized tomorrow as being unenlightened as well? Are we all so noble and sin free today that we can judge people in the past so harshly? Do you ever have a feeling of forgiveness or do you harbor ill feeling forever especially if you weren't personally effected? Even if you were personally effected? When can you let go and move on? Do you want history to condemn the present to disharmony and anger and hatred?
-
those two despicable bastards deserve their statues to put down immediately
You're on a roll today, but have you actually read Chernow's books? Other American history with an abundance of primary sources? Anything from the Enlightenment philosophies that guided our founders?The practical foundations of this country are indeed cruel in some ways, utterly inhumane in others. Nevertheless, the structures we created are far different (and not just by degree) and far superior that the rule of the Tsars, or of Stalin or Lenin, for example. We are a flawed execution of a perfect premise, but there are far worse things to be.
-
Democratic State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal: "I hope Trump is assassinated."
The Left at their finest.
source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/18/i-hope-trump-is-assassinated-a-missouri-lawmakers-facebook-comment-leads-to-calls-for-her-resignation/?utm_term=.b82453e5350d)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-08-17/AP/Missouri_Legislator_Trump_Threat_40054-acaa6.jpg&w=480)
-
Democratic State Senator: "I hope Trump is assassinated."
She doesn't sound very Democratic to me.
The Left at their finest.
source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/18/i-hope-trump-is-assassinated-a-missouri-lawmakers-facebook-comment-leads-to-calls-for-her-resignation/?utm_term=.b82453e5350d)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-08-17/AP/Missouri_Legislator_Trump_Threat_40054-acaa6.jpg&w=480)
She doesn't sound very Democratic to me.
-
De
The Left at their finest.
She doesn't speak for me and othe democrats...pretty sure she stepped out of bounds and will be forced out...
Make no mistake I want Trump gone but I want it to happen legally!
-
She doesn't speak for me and othe democrats...pretty sure she stepped out of bounds and will be forced out...
Make no mistake I want Trump gone but I want it to happen legally!
Likewise.
-
She doesn't speak for me and othe democrats...pretty sure she stepped out of bounds and will be forced out...
Make no mistake I want Trump gone but I want it to happen legally!
Pretty crazy by this lady and indeed very undemocratic.
I'm even not sure I want Trump out, does anybody really think we'd be better off with Pence? A Christian hypocrit who steals from the poor to give to the rich and still smiles when he tries to explain that it's better for everybody. He's way more polished then Trump but in my mind rotten to the core.
-
Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal is not a hate criminal; she is a "social justice warrior." How dare you denounce her by creating a "moral equivalence" between fighting hate and hate itself. She is a hate fighter, not a fighting hater.
[Caution: ingredients may contain satire byproducts]
(http://5b0988e595225.cdn.sohucs.com/images/20170814/2f2d7866ede94a279b7f97d9690f9fc4.jpeg)
My message: Say yes to free speech and no to violence.
-
This is getting well beyond amazing. This is getting dangerously close to the Great American Meltdown (GAM).
I wonder: could Mr Putin really have been this clever? If so, he's backed the greatest Horse since Troy.
Rob C
-
with an exception where one seemed to develop rather powerful-looking shoulder areas over some time.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Rob.
-
This is getting well beyond amazing. This is getting dangerously close to the Great American Meltdown (GAM).
I wonder: could Mr Putin really have been this clever? If so, he's backed the greatest Horse since Troy.
Rob C
Pretty true. The rest of the world worries about dying from Cholesterol, bee stings and terrorism in that order.
Putin enjoys 80% popularity in his own country.
-
Pretty true. The rest of the world worries about dying from Cholesterol, bee stings and terrorism in that order.
Putin enjoys 80% popularity in his own country.
Funny how that works when you kill dissenters, eh?
-
The Big Orange Buffoon™ won't like this one...
The Failing Trump Presidency (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/19/opinion/trump-nazism-republican-party-failing.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/20/opinion/sunday/20sun1/20sun1-master768.jpg)
Illustration by Doug Chayka; Photograph by Doug Mills/The New York Times
With each day, President Trump offers fresh proof that he is failing the office that Americans entrusted to him. The rolling disaster of his presidency accelerated downhill last week with a news conference on Tuesday at which he seemed determined to sow racial strife in a nation desperate for a unifying vision.
Since the 1930s it has not typically been a challenge for an American leader to denounce Nazism. But there is nothing typical about this president; urged by some of his advisers and family members to summon the majesty and moral authority of the presidency to heal the wounds of last weekend’s neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville, to put the good of the country before personal pique, he chose instead to deliver a defense of white supremacists that raised as never before profound doubts about his moral compass, his grasp of the obligations of his office and his fitness to occupy it.
This, in essence, is where we are now: a nation led by a prince of discord who seems divorced from decency and common sense. The alarm bells were loud and swift. Five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff delivered a rare rebuke, condemning race-based extremism in the military and the nation. Foreign leaders, from Secretary General António Guterres of the United Nations to Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain, condemned intolerance and a failure of leadership in the White House.
--snip--
The deeper question, to Mr. Trump’s remaining supporters, is not political but moral. It is whether they will continue to follow a standard-bearer who is alienating most of the country by embracing extremists. Yes, other Republican leaders, while claiming the mantle of Abraham Lincoln, have subtly and not so subtly courted bigots since the days of Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy.” But Mr. Trump has now made that subtext his text. Last week, he stripped away the pretense and the camouflage. In deciding to split Americans apart rather than draw them together, he abandoned the legacy of Lincoln for the legacy of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. He chose to summon not America’s better angels, but its demons.
-
The Rise and Fall of Steve Bannon (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-rise-and-fall-of-steve-bannon)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59975384e7e57c7bfef97c84/master/w_649,c_limit/Lizza-Rise-Fall-Steve-Bannon.jpg)
With most of his policy proposals blocked, Steve Bannon’s legacy will likely be one of xenophobia
and hostility to nonwhites.
...
Voices on the nationalist right now fear that, with Bannon gone, Trump will be guided by the globalists. After the news of Bannon’s sacking became public, an editor at Breitbart tweeted, “#WAR.” I’m skeptical that Bannon’s exit will mean much. His policy legacy is mixed. He and Trump have mostly stamped out the immigration-reform wing of the G.O.P., though the business class and important leaders, like Paul Ryan, are still sympathetic.
But on economic policy, such as trade, and his recent attempt to push Republicans to raise taxes on the super-wealthy, Bannon made no progress to win allies in Congress. He failed to secure Trump’s repeal of Obamacare, and the nationalist trade agenda, including Bannon’s effort to pull out of nafta, has been stymied. The travel ban is still tied up in the courts. Trump’s recent attacks on the Republican senators Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham have made the Senate more hostile to any Presidential proposals and more interested in driving its own traditional Republican agenda. Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville further eroded any influence he has, both in Congress and with Americans outside his shrunken base.
The lasting legacy of Bannonism is the xenophobia and hostility to nonwhites that emanates from the White House and has remained a political fire that this Administration is constantly fanning. But, as we learned this week, Trump doesn’t need Bannon to keep those flames alive.
Now we just need to get rid of Miller and Gorka and we'll have a democratic, New York Jewish White House :~)
-
This is what I call "delicious irony", the Boston Free Speech Coalition which organized their rally today ended up having a couple of dozen people in their rally but got upwards of 40,000 people to counter protest racism, bigotry & hate. Only 27 arrests and only minor injuries...I call that a very successful rally in support of true American values...course, it's likely NOT what organizers were expecting.
Heck, even Trump congratulated the large group's efforts:
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
I want to applaud the many protestors in Boston who are speaking out against bigotry and hate. Our country will soon come together as one!
1:41 PM - 19 Aug 2017
I was watching Fox News and truth be told, the newscasters seemed a bit disappointed there wasn't massive violence. They kept moving from camera to camera but couldn't find anything other than a young counter protester trying to grab a Trump supporter's flag out of here hand. They played it over and over that passed judgement that it was a clear case of assault! But while I hope the lady wasn't injured (she did fall down in the grass) the newscaster used it to claim there was violence at the rally. But it was clearly trumped up (pun intended).
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/08/19/ap_17231549587094-51c51c9858d2cf98fed25188080f94e425d33462-s800-c85.jpg)
But in the end when the rally members were bussed out and the main body of protesters peacefully left, there were a few skirmishes with anarchists that got taken into custody, sometimes "aggressively". But I think the cops did a really good job and the vast majority of people got their messages across...America doesn't accept racism, bigotry & hate. And nobody's "free speech rights" were denied...
Boston Right-Wing 'Free Speech' Rally Dwarfed By Counterprotesters (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/19/544684355/bostons-free-speech-rally-organizers-deny-links-to-white-nationalists)
A small number of right-wing "Free Speech Rally" demonstrators disbanded early from Boston Common after they were confronted by thousands of counterprotesters shouting anti-Nazi and anti-KKK slogans.
Deborah Becker, a reporter with member station WBUR in Boston, said that "a few dozen" rally attendees were escorted from Parkman Bandstand by police and placed into police vehicles "for their own safety."
"The counterdemonstrators cheered as the group was escorted out of the area in police wagons," reports WGBH's Phillip Martin.
"I didn't realize how unplanned of an event it was going to be," Samson Racioppi, a Libertarian candidate for Congress who was expected to speak at the rally, was quoted by WCVB-TV as saying. "I really think it was supposed to be a good event by the organizers, but it kinda fell apart."
The conservative activists had insisted they have no connection to last week's violent protests in Charlottesville, Va., which drew white nationalists and sparked violent clashes and a deadly vehicle attack. But that did not satisfy those who opposed their message. Many of them handed out stickers showing the face of 32-year-old Heather Heyer, who was killed in Charlottesville when a man who attended the white nationalist rally allegedly rammed his car into a crowd of counterdemonstrators.
Earlier, a speaker who addressed the crowd condemned what many see as President Trump's tepid response to events last week in Charlottesville.
"If you don't condemn it, you condone it," the speaker said. Demonstrators also chanted "black lives matter" and "our streets."
" 'The courts have made it abundantly clear that they have the right to gather, no matter how repugnant their views are,' said Mayor Martin J. Walsh. 'They don't have the right to create unsafe conditions. ... They must respect our city.' "
-
Good policing makes all the difference. Boston, MA did what Charlottesville, VA should have done. Keep the groups apart. That allows everyone to make their point respecting free speech without descending into chaos and violence.
Frankly I think the Virginia Democrat Governor McAuliffe, who's looking to become president, told his state police to back off hoping to spark a conflict that he then played too. Watch his speeches in ads when the Democrat nomination process starts in a few years.
-
I was watching Fox News and truth be told, the newscasters seemed a bit disappointed there wasn't massive violence.
There is a saying in media, "Good news is NO news."
Funny how that works when you kill dissenters, eh?
If you are saying Putin wins because there is no valid political alternative then he would probably have the same opinion on Trump's win.
I haven't been there, but I know a few who have and enjoyed it.
The disposable income of Russians has apparently increased 7 times since 2000.
-
The disposable income of Russians has apparently increased 7 times since 2000.
Russian GDP per capita hit a low around 1999 of USD1,330- and was USD1,771- in 2000 and hit a high in 2013 of USD15,543- and in 2016 was down to USD8,748-. The last 3 years have not been good for Russia economically and it sits somewhere in the 60s in terms of nations GDP per capita. Also, that includes a lot of new billionaires - I don't have quick access to the data that excludes outliers.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=GDP+per+capita+russia+per+year&gws_rd=cr&ei=RxuZWb_3Bcj78gWD3JroCQ
-
Jeff, are you kidding!? 40,000 protesters AGAINST free speach and you call it "true American values"!? I call it a tragedy.
-
I was reading yesterday an article in Le Monde listing the list of members of the Trump administration that either left or got fired and I thought... not a single CEO of a company with more than 1,000 employees could survive more than a few weeks in front of such obvious evidence about the inability to run a critical team.
Not one.
I would of course not mention this had Trump not decided to run his presidency as a business. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
She doesn't sound very Democratic to me.
Does she not have a right to free speech (American style that is, not European style which e.g. does prohibit hate speech)?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Mob links’ killed Trump’s casino bid. This isn't major news but it is in Murdoch's prime Australian conservative newspaper.
"Donald Trump’s plan to build and operate Sydney’s first casino was killed off in 1987 by the NSW government on the back of a high-level police report that warned against the now-US President’s bid because of his “mafia connections’’.
The secret report by the NSW Police Board into the suitability of tenderers for the inner-city Darling Harbour casino project cautioned that it would be “dangerous’’ to go ahead with Mr Trump’s joint venture with the Queensland-based Kern Corporation, headed by the late developer Barry Paul.'"
That an Australian journalist was able to post this article in a Murdoch newspaper is intriguing.
Hope yet!
Sorry, I have no link due to subscription issues.
An idea of what happened.
article (https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/trump-casino-mob/)
-
I was reading yesterday an article in Le Monde listing the list of members of the Trump administration that either left or got fired and I thought... not a single CEO of a company with more than 1,000 employees could survive more than a few weeks in front of such obvious evidence about the inability to run a critical team.
Not one.
I would of course not mention this had Trump not decided to run his presidency as a business. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
He's still at it, dismissing the protestors in Boston as anti-police agitators then sending a carefully ambiguous tweet which pointedly fails to say who, exactly, is speaking out against whose "bigotry and hate".
The Bannon method is all he has. You use white nationalism to promote civil unrest then in the resulting chaos you try to build a new constituency by forcing middle-of-the-road people to take sides and back an authoritarian strongman. It sounds so plausible for as long as one forgets that America doesn't want that at all and anyway the "strongman" is an unstable nutter with a serious jones for cash.
I'm hoping we're moving towards an endgame. Either the institutions of America succeed in locking him down very firmly and keeping him well away from any weapons or the indictments will start arriving, the withdrawal of support will continue and it will be President Ryan by next Easter.
-
Jeff, are you kidding!? 40,000 protesters AGAINST free speach and you call it "true American values"!? I call it a tragedy.
And there was me thinking it was a demonstration against hate speech and Nazis. Silly me.
-
Steve Bannon pledges to 'go nuclear' on 'West Wing Democrats' and vows to target Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/19/steve-bannon-go-nuclear-west-wing-democrats-may-start-tv-network/
QUOTE "teve Bannon, the ousted White House chief strategist, is reportedly considering starting a television network which would allow him to "go nuclear" as he settles vendettas with moderate advisers in the White House and pressures President Donald Trump to pursue a populist agenda of economic nationalism.
Allies of Mr Bannon compared him to a "tiger freed from his cage," suggesting things would get "ugly" as he targets the Republican establishment and what he calls "West Wing Democrats".
The departure of Mr Bannon came amid one of Mr Trump's worst weeks as president."
It ain't over yet ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I wonder if any of these Nazi groups of late are making money by suing cities that won't let them protest. If so, we've all been trolled big time.
Remember these morons? They don't get their money from the offering plate. They get their money from you. Suckers!
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-the-reviled-westboro-baptist-church-makes-money-2015-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-the-reviled-westboro-baptist-church-makes-money-2015-6)
(http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_4_libby_westboro_tk_ss_131016_ssh.jpg)
-
Every 4 years the losing side complains the winning side doesn't have a mandate, whatever that means. Its an attempt to deligitimize the presidents authority.
In 1992, Democratic Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote. Trump won with 46%.
Trumps electoral win was 57-43%. A handy majority all that counts.
You'll get another chance in 4 years.
-
He's still at it, dismissing the protestors in Boston as anti-police agitators then sending a carefully ambiguous tweet which pointedly fails to say who, exactly, is speaking out against whose "bigotry and hate".
The Bannon method is all he has. You use white nationalism to promote civil unrest then in the resulting chaos you try to build a new constituency by forcing middle-of-the-road people to take sides and back an authoritarian strongman. It sounds so plausible for as long as one forgets that America doesn't want that at all and anyway the "strongman" is an unstable nutter with a serious jones for cash.
I'm hoping we're moving towards an endgame. Either the institutions of America succeed in locking him down very firmly and keeping him well away from any weapons or the indictments will start arriving, the withdrawal of support will continue and it will be President Ryan by next Easter.
It is true that many white people and all people on the right have taken sides. The problem is that this is a reaction to the race baiting and racial politics of the left, Democrats and many black Americans including Obama who keep playing identity politics. We should be getting away from that. Most Americans thought when Obama was elected with a major support of whites, we could put race behind us finally. That would have been Obama's great legacy for America, not Obamacare. But as President, he continued to play race politics for the vote and power for him and Democrats. But he blew it by going to bed with people like Al Sharpton. Many white people who voted for him feel that they were thrown under the bus. The president didn't address their concerns and was favoring his race over everyone else's when he should be treating everyone fairly as Americans. He also favored the rich and connected, as Hillary did. So now we are faced with reactionary politics from the right.
Additionally, the politics of the left regarding gender, gay, etc. are not addressing the issues that many people are concerned with including the economy and jobs. Instead of Democrats and Republicans working together to see how we can improve these things, they have become wedge issues on both sides for political votes. We're biting our noses off to spite our faces.
-
It is true that many white people and all people on the right have taken sides. The problem is that this is a reaction to the race baiting and racial politics of the left, Democrats and many black Americans including Obama who keep playing identity politics. We should be getting away from that. Most Americans thought when Obama was elected with a major support of whites, we could put race behind us finally. That would have been Obama's great legacy for America, not Obamacare. But as President, he continued to play race politics for the vote and power for him and Democrats. But he blew it by going to bed with people like Al Sharpton. Many white people who voted for him feel that they were thrown under the bus. The president didn't address their concerns and was favoring his race over everyone else's when he should be treating everyone fairly as Americans. He also favored the rich and connected, as Hillary did. So now we are faced with reactionary politics from the right.
Additionally, the politics of the left regarding gender, gay, etc. are not addressing the issues that many people are concerned with including the economy and jobs. Instead of Democrats and Republicans working together to see how we can improve these things, they have become wedge issues on both sides for political votes. We're biting our noses off to spite our faces.
I agree: jobs and prosperity are way up the list for an America which is hurting in this regard. And most people of most political persuasions probably don't have much time for the latest studenty muppet one-legged transgendered experiment in something or another. They might not much care one way or the other but they don't want it put before their jobs and their families. However, there are ways of working towards these things and ways of blowing the whole thing apart into one big pile of chaos and, ominously, inter-racial unrest. This is playing with fire. The problem is that the Trump-Bannon method involves blowing everything apart - and the results are there for all to see in a failing government. America has deep reserves of good government and it should have deep reserves of politicians skilled at bringing people together, not driving them apart, and skilled at stopping the crazy blame game between two opposing camps which just use it as an excuse to avoid facing up to reality and getting stuff done.
I'm a huge supporter of America and it saddens me to see it descending into this. Forget going on about whose fault it might be - that won't lead anywhere. I just think Trump is a big mistake who'll probably end up imploding anyway. Get beyond the guy. The Republicans would still hold the reins, much though the Democrats might not like it, and under another and this time sane and skilled leader there is much more chance of making progress on the jobs and prosperity front. There is zero chance with Trump, imho, except more chaos, scandal, broken alliances and all the rest. At best he'll have to be tied up, kept away from the gun cabinet and retained as a lame duck while the actual job of government is left to people who are up to the task. That's just four wasted years.
-
Every 4 years the losing side complains the winning side doesn't have a mandate, whatever that means. Its an attempt to deligitimize the presidents authority.
In 1992, Democratic Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote. Trump won with 46%.
In 92, Ross Perot took 19% of the popular vote. Trump wasn't in a 3-horse race, so your comparison is at best misleading.
-
Jeff, are you kidding!? 40,000 protesters AGAINST free speach and you call it "true American values"!? I call it a tragedy.
Silly boy...those 40K weren't protesting free speech, they were engaged in exercising their free speech against hatred, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, xenophobia and anything else that keeps individuals or groups from their rights as America citizens. And hey, they were invited...
This is what the Boston Free Speech (https://www.facebook.com/BostonFreeSpeech/) group that organized the rally said on their Facebook page:
We are a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents and we welcome all individuals and organizations from any political affiliations that are willing to peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties. Join us at the Parkman Bandstand where we will be holding our event. We look forward to this tide-changing peaceful event that has the potential to be a shining example of how we, in the city of Boston, can come together for the common goal of preserving freedom of speech for all and respectfully discussing our differences of opinion without engaging in violence.
So, 40,000 or so people showed up in support of free speech! Only a very, very small minority misbehaved and the cops handled them well.
(http://68.media.tumblr.com/f94ac99896a4c99dc49a461f199b19e4/tumblr_n47lrvZmU01qz6f9yo1_1280.png)
Questions?
[Edited to cross out "silly boy"]
-
I would of course not mention this had Trump not decided to run his presidency as a business. ;)
Well, to be fair to Trump, he _IS_ running the presidency like a business, a family business where as the head of the business he answers to nobody. Oh, wait, yeah, sorry, that won't work. Trump doesn't have THAT much power...only 1/3 of the Federal government. Darn, maybe THAT's why he's going down in flames!!!
Saw this somewhere...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/now-you-see-em.jpg)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/now-ya-don't.jpg)
NEXT???
(pretty well done but the empty shelves are a give away :~)
-
Well, at least he's making American graphic arts for cover great again!!!
The Best Magazine Covers of Trump’s Presidency (http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-best-magazine-covers-of-trumps-presidency)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/170817-brockway-magazine-covers-hero_rs2f2d.jpeg)
From KKK cloaks to a decapitated Statue of Liberty, a roundup of the best magazine cover art insults from Donald Trump’s first seven months in office.
In the wake of the weekend’s violence in Charlottesville, Virginia—and an unsettling lack of condemnation by the commander in chief—magazines have responded with art. And their critique is anything but subtle.
Over his first 200 days in office, President Trump has inspired his fair share of negative magazine cover art. Here, some of the best:
Worth a click :~)
(unless you are a disgruntled Trump supporter regretting your vote)
I really like the cover from Bloomberg Businessweek!
-
New Bill Would Require Donald Trump To Undergo Mental Health Evaluation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-democrat-bill-trump-mental-health_us_5998d558e4b0a2608a6cb6b1)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) isn’t a psychiatrist, but she wants to make the president see one.
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5998e22b1f00003d001aa05f.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives would require President Donald Trump to undergo a physical and mental health exam to determine if he is stable enough to stay in office.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) introduced the bill on Friday. Should the results of the said exam be unfavorable, the bill calls for Vice President Mike Pence and members of the Cabinet to remove Trump from office.
The move would invoke the 25th Amendment, a rarely-used constitutional provision that allows the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members to jointly remove the president from office and replace him with the vice president.
“Does the President suffer from early stage dementia,” Lofgren asked in a statement announcing the bill.
“Has emotional disorder so impaired the President that he is unable to discharge his duties,” she continued. “Is the President mentally and emotionally stable?”
Lofgren pointed out that Trump has not yet released a “serious” medical evaluation to the public.
Yeah, it's highly unlikely to pass, but it does have people talking about the issue. I mean, why is Trump so, well, unhinged?
-
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/files/2017/08/Civil-War.jpg)
President Donald Trump's White Supremacist Problem Is Deeper Than You Think - SOME NEWS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwEzOaivNQ4)
13:04 video
Rated PG-13 for elements of exaggerated meanness and ridicule of Donald J Trump, and for some mild language.
(not intended for disillusioned Trump supporters who regret voting for Trump)
Published on Aug 19, 2017
Some news this week: It's not the 1800s or 1940s, but somehow murderous Nazis and Confederate statues celebrating slaves still exist. Plus, President Donald Trump is probably a white nationalist himself -- and we said 'probably' not 'definitely' so no one can sue us for slander.
-
I agree: jobs and prosperity are way up the list for an America which is hurting in this regard. And most people of most political persuasions probably don't have much time for the latest studenty muppet one-legged transgendered experiment in something or another. They might not much care one way or the other but they don't want it put before their jobs and their families. However, there are ways of working towards these things and ways of blowing the whole thing apart into one big pile of chaos and, ominously, inter-racial unrest. This is playing with fire. The problem is that the Trump-Bannon method involves blowing everything apart - and the results are there for all to see in a failing government. America has deep reserves of good government and it should have deep reserves of politicians skilled at bringing people together, not driving them apart, and skilled at stopping the crazy blame game between two opposing camps which just use it as an excuse to avoid facing up to reality and getting stuff done.
I'm a huge supporter of America and it saddens me to see it descending into this. Forget going on about whose fault it might be - that won't lead anywhere. I just think Trump is a big mistake who'll probably end up imploding anyway. Get beyond the guy. The Republicans would still hold the reins, much though the Democrats might not like it, and under another and this time sane and skilled leader there is much more chance of making progress on the jobs and prosperity front. There is zero chance with Trump, imho, except more chaos, scandal, broken alliances and all the rest. At best he'll have to be tied up, kept away from the gun cabinet and retained as a lame duck while the actual job of government is left to people who are up to the task. That's just four wasted years.
Your first paragraph was reasonable. But it's been the Democrats that have played the race card for decades. What you're seeing from the right now is a reaction from people who feel they've been marginalized by the elites, by people who don't care about their problems. All they want is an even break. I'm not talking about the Nazis or KKK. There a tiny group. You're blaming the victim of social policies that have favored the poor, black, outsiders, illegal immigrant, business sending jobs overseas, globalists who favor foreign countries over America, and well-connected rich supported by liberals and Democrats.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, you say get beyond the guy. Why would I? Do I want to support people who don't care about me? Your idea that he should be tied up is an insult. He intends and I intend that he stay for 4 more years. If Americans think otherwise, they get to elect another president then. In the meanwhile, you and everyone else in the world will have to deal with him. He won't be easy to control. Like Obama was.
-
America’s Founding Father Would Be Outraged By Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-father-of-our-country-would-be-outraged-by-trump_us_599a0a49e4b01f6e801f4880)
(http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/george-washington-and-the-touro-synagogue.jpg)
George Washington by John Trumbull
You’d know why if you were in the Touro Synagogue in Rhode Island on Sunday.
NEWPORT, R.I. ― What would our first president think of our 45th?
George Washington would be horrified by Donald J. Trump’s claim that there were “fine people” among those who rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, with neo-Nazis, Klansmen and white nationalists, and that they were morally equivalent to those who protested the event.
How do we know that?
Read his famous letter of 1790 to the Jewish congregation here in Newport. It is arguably the first official commitment of the new federal government to religious and other forms of tolerance, written by the “Father of our country” more than a year before ratification of the Bill of Rights. It also was the first and clearest statement of a principle now honored worldwide, in theory, though sadly not in fact.
“It is no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights,” he wrote to the members of the Touro Synagogue. Stephen B. Kay, a descendant of prominent 19th century Newport Jews, read the passage aloud on Sunday in the restored colonial-era synagogue.
“For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction and to persecution assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
If you were in present at the historic synagogue on Sunday, you would have been even more convinced, as the still-surviving congregation presented its 70th annual public rereading of the letter. Speeches given there by religious leaders of the three Abrahamic faiths, elected officials and Martha L. Minow, a professor and former dean of the Harvard Law School, reverberated throughout the house of prayer.
The phrase rolling over in his grave comes to mind :~(
-
America’s Founding Father Would Be Outraged By Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-father-of-our-country-would-be-outraged-by-trump_us_599a0a49e4b01f6e801f4880)
The phrase rolling over in his grave comes to mind :~(
Washington was a great man. But to use him as a symbol of equal rights for all mankind is taking things a little too far.
"When George Washington was eleven years old, he inherited ten slaves; by the time of his death, 317 slaves lived at Mount Vernon, including 123 owned by Washington, 40 leased from a neighbor, and an additional 153 "dower slaves.""
-
I agree: jobs and prosperity are way up the list for an America which is hurting in this regard. And most people of most political persuasions probably don't have much time for the latest studenty muppet one-legged transgendered experiment in something or another. They might not much care one way or the other but they don't want it put before their jobs and their families. However, there are ways of working towards these things and ways of blowing the whole thing apart into one big pile of chaos and, ominously, inter-racial unrest. This is playing with fire. The problem is that the Trump-Bannon method involves blowing everything apart - and the results are there for all to see in a failing government. America has deep reserves of good government and it should have deep reserves of politicians skilled at bringing people together, not driving them apart, and skilled at stopping the crazy blame game between two opposing camps which just use it as an excuse to avoid facing up to reality and getting stuff done.
I'm not following. How does worrying about transgender rights decrease the number of jobs available? New social issues arise all the time as society evolves, always have. It's not jobs or social issues. It's jobs AND social issues. You try to look after everything all the time. When has it ever been any other way?
-
But to use him as a symbol of equal rights for all mankind is taking things a little too far.
Wow, so you are so desperate to defend Trump you are willing to throw George Washington under the bus to do so?
Did you even read what George wrote to the leaders of the Touro Synagogue, America's oldest synagogue?
It is no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction and to persecution assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
You know, what George wrote was the basis of America's religious freedom, right? That at the time of the writing, Jews were worried what would become of them during the creation of our new nation? That George was trying to let the Jewish leaders know that he supported their religious freedom.
Yeah, ok, George owned slaves-kinda hard to farm back then without them and George did give his slaves their freedom upon his death. But I'm pretty sure what the article I posted was referring to George rolling in his grave was about Nazis...because those neo-Nazi's marching with the torches weren't yelling about lynching blacks, they were spouting Nazi slogans like "Jews will not replace us!". So, while George was a slave owner, he respected the Jewish faith enough to measure them there would be a place for them in America. I mean it's not like George threw anybody into gas chambers like the Nazis did, right?
While Trump may not be a Nazi, he sure did give comfort and aid to them in in his press conference. That's why they thanked him for being the ‘Most Honest President (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-nationalists-praise-trump-most-honest-president-washington-n793171)’ since Washington...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DHhh5odWsAACiwE.jpg)
German magazine cover shows Trump wearing KKK hood (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/347101-german-magazine-cover-shows-trump-wearing-kkk-hood)
The German magazine Der Spiegel has become the latest to depict President Trump as a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan in recent days, posting an image of their upcoming cover on Twitter on Friday afternoon.
Deputy foreign desk editor Mathieu von Rohr posted an image of the upcoming cover on Twitter, which is titled "the true face of Donald Trump" in German. The same editor dubbed Trump's White House a "Confederate presidency" in an earlier tweet.
Das wahre Gesicht des Donald Trump translates to The true face of Donald Trump
And Germans are pretty good at spotting Nazis these days...just sayin'
-
Yeah, I was gonna save this for later but since Trump brought it up...
President Trump is a 'liar' and his wine is 'not good' says Patricia Kluge, six years after Donald bought bankrupt socialite's vineyard, renamed it Trump Winery and then fired her (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4803476/Patricia-Kluge-Donald-Trump-liar-not-good-wine.html)
President Trump is getting slammed by one of the very few people in the world who also knows what it is like to be both a billionaire and bankrupt.
In an interview with Town & Country (http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a12026751/patricia-kluge-trump-winery-interview/), socialite Patricia Kluge says that President Trump is a 'liar' who produces sub-par wine, two claims that are sure to rile up the Commander-in-Chief.
That second claim is a bit of a shock coming from Kluge, as Trump Winery is produced on the vineyard she spent two decades building in Charlottesville, Virginia.
She does not seem to be all that sentimental about the vineyard these days though, offering a very blunt and too the point assessment of the grappa which bears the Trump name.
'The wine is not good anymore,' says Kluge.
She did not stop there either, noting towards the end of the interview: 'I have had several people in Palm Beach lament that it's the only wine they have at the menu at Mar-a-Lago.'
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/18/22/435D103D00000578-4803476-image-a-51_1503090569728.jpg)
Compliment sandwich: Kluge did have some positive things to say as well in her interview, particularly about
how Eric Trump (above in 2011 with his father and Kluge) does a 'great job with maintenance'
--snip--
And on Tuesday, President Donald Trump took some time at a press conference about infrastructure that devolved into a back-and-forth with the media about racial unrest in Virginia to talk about the winery he owns in Charlottesville.
Trump Winery is 'one of the largest wineries in the United States' the President told those assembled at Trump Tower in New York City, a perplexing aside given the serious nature of the topic being discussed.
That aside was also factually incorrect, with the 1,300-acre vineyard dwarfed in size by the likes of E. & J. Gallo in California (23,000 acres).
The 36,000 cases of wine that Trump Winery produces each year is also much less than the likes of Pindar Vineyards (100,000 cases per year) and Wolffer Estate (75,000 cases per year) on Long Island.
'Does anyone know I own a house in Charlottesville? Oh boy. It's in Charlottesville, you'll see,' said President Trump on Tuesday.
'It is the winery. I know a lot about Charlottesville. Charlottesville is a great place that's been very badly hurt over the last couple of days. But I own, actually, one of the largest wineries in the United States. It's in Charlottesville.'
'He lies a lot, and he knows that, and everybody knows that, but he can’t stop himself,' explained Kluge during the interview.
'All of us who have known Donald in New York for a long time have always known that, and you have to find a way of working around it because it's part of his makeup.'
And Kluge did have some positive things to say as well in her interview, particularly about how Eric Trump does a 'great job with maintenance' while running the vineyard, which is in his name.
'The vineyard looks absolutely fabulous and everything looks polished,' said Kluge.
Ironic that the Donald says he owns the vineyard because according to the Town & country article:
"I own actually one of the largest wineries in the United States," he said, referring to the property. There were several things wrong with that statement. The vineyard is not even one of the largest on the East Coast, and has a disclaimer on its website that reads, "Trump Winery is a registered trade name of Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing LLC, which is not owned, managed or affiliated with Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their affiliates."
But that's ok because we all know Trump is a liar! And this person is the President of the United States of America, for now.
-
Silly boy...
I would appreciate if you'd refrain from personal insults.
-
So, this happened (no I didn't do it)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHrFb_MWsAEEhsx.jpg)
The disturbing thing is that trump has a Hollywood star...did he deserve that? I mean I'm ok with Ronald Reagan having a star...heck he actually was an actor and arguably a movie star. But all Trump did was say "You're fired" (which he seems to have done a lot lately).
-
I would appreciate if you'd refrain from personal insults.
What was insulting?
Silly? or Boy?
Wait, are you seriously saying you are insulted?
Wow...ok.
Sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.
There, I went back and edited the post to cross out "silly boy".
-
What It’s Like To Have Your Anti-Trump Art Go Mega-Viral (https://www.fastcodesign.com/90137053/the-story-behind-the-anti-nazi-anti-trump-symbol-all-over-your-feeds)
“When something really pisses me off, I get a little extra inspired,” Austin-based artist Mike Mitchell says.
(https://assets.fastcompany.com/image/upload/w_707,f_auto,q_auto:best,fl_lossy/wp-cms/uploads/sites/4/2017/08/p-1-the-story-behind-the-symbol-that-hopefully.jpg)
In the wake of the Charlottesville demonstrations, many calls to impeach President Trump have been accompanied by a powerful image: the number “45” rendered like a Swastika behind the international “No” symbol. It’s already appearing on homemade signs carried by protesters, it has flooded Twitter, Facebook, an Instagram, and it is quickly becoming an emblem of who Trump really is.
The person behind the symbol is the Austin-based artist Mike Mitchell. He’s no stranger to activist artwork, but this symbol, which so evocatively represents President Trump’s sanctioning of white supremacy, has quickly become face of a renewed and united resistance movement. “When something really pisses me off, I get a little extra inspired,” Mitchell tells Co.Design via email. The Pussyhat was January 2017. This is August 2017.
#MAGA #DUMPTRUMP :~)
-
I'm not following. How does worrying about transgender rights decrease the number of jobs available? New social issues arise all the time as society evolves, always have. It's not jobs or social issues. It's jobs AND social issues. You try to look after everything all the time. When has it ever been any other way?
It's about perspective and priorities. Both are important but voters will always be changing the order of importance of one thing or another. I'd wager it's fair to say that across a large part of the US there's a feeling that something pretty big needs to be done about jobs and the economy. Inevitably that means social issues while still important won't get the prominence they once did. Voters may not want to see a government elected to tackle jobs above all, for example, expending all its energies on social issues instead. A government won't want to do that either because it knows that it will be heavily marked down by voters at the next election if it has failed to deliver on its main promises.
Normally this gets sorted out amid the messy haggling and compromises of democracy. The difference here is the use of deliberately divisive tactics intended to force people into antagonistic camps with the aim of big-upping an authoritarian generalissimo figure. Anyway, it's all backfired, at least so far. When the risks of civil unrest became clear support started to be withdrawn and the generalissimo figure was soon shown up as eccentric to say the least. The author of much of this - memorably described as like "a haggis drawn from memory" - has been shown the red card and sent off the pitch.
-
Your first paragraph was reasonable. But it's been the Democrats that have played the race card for decades. What you're seeing from the right now is a reaction from people who feel they've been marginalized by the elites, by people who don't care about their problems. All they want is an even break. I'm not talking about the Nazis or KKK. There a tiny group. You're blaming the victim of social policies that have favored the poor, black, outsiders, illegal immigrant, business sending jobs overseas, globalists who favor foreign countries over America, and well-connected rich supported by liberals and Democrats.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, you say get beyond the guy. Why would I? Do I want to support people who don't care about me? Your idea that he should be tied up is an insult. He intends and I intend that he stay for 4 more years. If Americans think otherwise, they get to elect another president then. In the meanwhile, you and everyone else in the world will have to deal with him. He won't be easy to control. Like Obama was.
There you go again: the blame game. And the race card. Nothing will change while this goes on. It will likely just get worse. I'd wager that a lot of people think locking Trump down is exactly what the institutions of America have in mind, which is why McMaster and Kelly among others are getting a grip and exerting more and more influence. If that fails then, yes, I'd say it would be quite likely that Trump stepping down will happen in one way or another, though it would depend on the GOP. The US has long-term interests that go far, far beyond four years of potential chaos. Sure, Trump stepping down might not happen but with every new foot-in-mouth tweet or important supporter distancing themselves, the chances of it increase. Meanwhile Mr Mueller and his grand juries are still out there, sifting and sorting away.
-
Interesting podcast about how the Trump administration is altering lobbying-related rules: http://www.npr.org/2017/08/16/543876454/in-trumps-government-the-regulated-have-become-the-regulators (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/16/543876454/in-trumps-government-the-regulated-have-become-the-regulators).
There used to be a 2 year period during which a former industry lobbiest could not be put into a federal regulatory job (in that same field, I believe) without special dispensation, and if so, that dispensation had to be made public for transparency reasons. The rules have been changed, doing away with that 2 year period.
Cleaning the swamp, my butt. This is just institutionalized old-fashioned back-room cronyism, the kind of thing people used to find repugnant in banana republics. I guess it's comforting in a way, knowing that all that talk about eliminating corruption and government meddling was just cover, same-old same-old hypocrisy, familiar territory. We're not dealing with a new species after all.
-
Democratic State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal: "I hope Trump is assassinated."
I would look to that state to start impeachment proceedings against her.
This was not a "slip of the lip" type of mistake. She had to take the effort to type all those words, in that order and posted it. One does not accidentally post things.
While she still retains her First Amendment rights as a State Senator, she, like the rest of us, are not immune from the consequences of her free speech.
I do NOT think that any criminal charges should be levied against her as her typed message probably (to be investigated by the USSS) is not a legitimate threat.
However, I feel that it is completely unacceptable for an elected official to advocate, in any way, the assassination of any other elected official in the US. We need to have zero tolerance for this. This is something that we should not even joke about.
Her taking the time and deliberately posting that sort of message makes her, in my opinion, unfit to hold such an elected office.
-
What was insulting?
Silly? or Boy?
Wait, are you seriously saying you are insulted?
Wow...ok.
Sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.
There, I went back and edited the post to cross out "silly boy"
Cute.
But remember, this is your thread an you just opened the door...
-
I would appreciate if you'd refrain from personal insults.
While I'd agree that making critical responses personal is not the best way of keeping the discussions civil, you often provoke such responses with out-of-context (or without context) 'quotes' and one-liners ...
Without offering an introduction/context for a comment, or a reference to what is being reacted, discussions become unnecessarily difficult. Maybe that's the goal, just throwing some oil on a fire and running away, in which case you might succeed although some may take the bait and treat you in kind and provoke a response. One tends to reap what one sows.
Cheers,
Bart
-
While I'd agree that making critical responses personal is not the best way of keeping the discussions civil, you often provoke such responses with out-of-context (or without context) 'quotes' and one-liners ...
Without offering an introduction/context for a comment, or a reference to what is being reacted, discussions become unnecessarily difficult. Maybe that's the goal, just throwing some oil on a fire and running away, in which case you might succeed although some may take the bait and treat you in kind and provoke a response. One tends to reap what one sows.
Cheers,
Bart
The Left, liberal and Democrats have always used insults and demeaning comments and jokes against their opponents. As a kid, I saw it against Eisenhower, a guy who was never a politician until he became president. He also had awful speech leaving dangling modifiers and malapropisms. Often, you couldn't understand the point he was trying to get too. The Democrat press made fun of him. Likewise with Dole, Nixon, and of course Reagan who they always implied was dumb and losing his mind. Schewe uses it on every post, calling Trump Nazi, and jokes about everything about him. He's accepted the left way of insulting their opposition for political points with relish. Of course it works to a certain extent. Especially for people who only read headlines. But, it failed in the last election when enough people were pissed off that they saw through the insults and elected Trump anyway.
If Trump and the Republicans are able to get their act together and pass meaningful legislation that helps the American economy, jobs, trade, health, security, Supreme Court, etc., it won't matter. The Democrats will lose again if they run on "Trump is a Nazi" "Trump is Unqualified" "Trump is Disturbed" "etc." and have no meaningful platform that helps Americans.
Frankly, I wonder if this is Trump's strategy. Keep the Democrats focused on wedge issues so they won't have anything important to say about the real issues Americans care about. If all they'll talk about are bronze statues, white hoods, LGBT bathroom issues, his mental stability, and stuff like that, they're going to lose worse. It didn't work in the last election. Why would it work next time?
Insult away.
-
...you often provoke such responses with out-of-context (or without context) 'quotes' and one-liners ...
... although some may take the bait and treat you in kind and provoke a response. One tends to reap what one sows.
Examples, Bart?
When was the last time my comments were not civil, in order to provoke a "response in kind"? You seem to be blaming a victim for your (rhetorically) own incivility? It is my fault? Was I dressed "provocatively" as well?
-
What was insulting?
Silly? or Boy?
Wait, are you seriously saying you are insulted?
Wow...ok.
Sorry, I had no idea you were so sensitive.
There, I went back and edited the post to cross out "silly boy".
old fart is true to himself
-
Examples, Bart?
Okay, let's take the recent comment, which you happened to address at Jeff (who can respond for himself should he want to, and he did):
QUOTE (from Reply #5341):
Jeff, are you kidding!? 40,000 protesters AGAINST free speach and you call it "true American values"!? I call it a tragedy.
First, I have come to know you as an intelligent person, so I have to assume that your misrepresentation of the goal of the 40,000 protesters was not out of stupidity, but it rather was a provocation. You didn't provide a link to a source, so we have to assume it is your summary of events. You knew full well that they didn't protest against free speech, but against White Supremacists, Nazi ideology supporters, etc. That's all (both positions) fully in line with the USA version of free speech, regardless of the level of repulsiveness, but they (the 40,000 protesters) also have the full right to peacefully protest against such toxic ideologies. Your twisting of the actual events is not funny, and even if it were intended as funny, it's a lame attempt at distorting the truth, a provocation.
So, when you sow (childish) provocation, expect to reap (childish, in kind) provocation.
When was the last time my comments were not civil, in order to provoke a "response in kind"? You seem to be blaming a victim for your (rhetorically) own incivility? It is my fault? Was I dressed "provocatively" as well?
Maybe it was lost in translation (we're both not native English speakers), but my reference to civil was a general introductory remark about making remarks aimed at specific persons or groups, in an attempt to demean them or their remarks, which is not a civil thing to do and often used as an attempt to derail a discussion (to get a thread closed) by provoking the other party into overreacting.
Most of the participants in this thread are too smart to fall for that, but it might trigger some less civil responses, leading to a premature end to the thread. Premature, because it is still (after this many posts) an interesting exchange of viewpoints, a compilation of some great covers of professional illustrators, and other creative cartoons, and useful sources of information. It also prevents pollution of other threads with distractions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
but they (the 40,000 protesters) also have the full right to peacefully protest against such toxic ideologies.
alt right had to apply for a permit first to protest (which is their right)... alt left also must apply for a permit fitst to counter protest (which is their right)... then whoever approves counter protest within physical proximity is responsible for the outcome... that simple... counter protest w/o permit issued shall be suppressed, with live rounds if necessary...
PS: refrain from labels "toxic", your ideology is as "toxic" as theirs.
-
Cute.
But remember, this is your thread an you just opened the door...
I'm still waiting to be told what was personally insulting about the term 'silly boy'...your responce to me about 40k protesting free speech was silly...and calling somebody 'boy' (if the person being called it isn't black) isn't insulting in my book. It's like calling somebody doode or bud or pal.
Seriuosly I don't see how silly boy is an insult...can anybody else take a stab at explaining it?
-
and calling somebody 'boy' (if the person being called it isn't black) isn't insulting in my book.
so you agree that I can call you as I wish, for as long as it is not "insulting" in "my" book, old fart ?
-
So, when you sow (childish) provocation, expect to reap (childish, in kind) provocation.
an intelligent (?) person like you shall see the difference between provocation and personal insult
-
I wouldn't interpret "silly boy" as a personal insult.
-
The Left, liberal and Democrats have always used insults and demeaning comments and jokes against their opponents. As a kid, I saw it against Eisenhower, a guy who was never a politician until he became president. He also had awful speech leaving dangling modifiers and malapropisms. Often, you couldn't understand the point he was trying to get too. The Democrat press made fun of him. Likewise with Dole, Nixon, and of course Reagan who they always implied was dumb and losing his mind. Schewe uses it on every post, calling Trump Nazi, and jokes about everything about him. He's accepted the left way of insulting their opposition for political points with relish. Of course it works to a certain extent. Especially for people who only read headlines. But, it failed in the last election when enough people were pissed off that they saw through the insults and elected Trump anyway.
If Trump and the Republicans are able to get their act together and pass meaningful legislation that helps the American economy, jobs, trade, health, security, Supreme Court, etc., it won't matter. The Democrats will lose again if they run on "Trump is a Nazi" "Trump is Unqualified" "Trump is Disturbed" "etc." and have no meaningful platform that helps Americans.
Frankly, I wonder if this is Trump's strategy. Keep the Democrats focused on wedge issues so they won't have anything important to say about the real issues Americans care about. If all they'll talk about are bronze statues, white hoods, LGBT bathroom issues, his mental stability, and stuff like that, they're going to lose worse. It didn't work in the last election. Why would it work next time?
Insult away.
Please, when haven't politicians and the press insulted each other? Laying this exclusively or even primarily on the "left" (whatever that is) is nonsense.
-
PS: refrain from labels "toxic", your ideology is as "toxic" as theirs.
Which ideology would that be?
Cheers,
Bart
-
so you agree that I can call you as I wish, for as long as it is not "insulting" in "my" book, old fart ?
Old fart is fine with me...it's descriptive and accurate. Now if you called me a young whipper snapper, I would be offended.
-
It didn't work in the last election. Why would it work next time?
Cos next time Trump will have to run on his record which so far is nothing but a list of failures rather than relying on just not being Hillary.
-
Another reason for Trump to resign? He's costing American taxpayers way too much money!!!
Exclusive: Secret Service depletes funds to pay agents because of Trump's frequent travel, large family (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/21/secret-service-cant-pay-agents-because-trumps-frequent-travel-large-family/529075001/)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d0f5c00219cd5c3b2d9847845e0f2b3189886ef1/c=1064-0-5367-3235&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2017/01/20/USATODAY/USATODAY/636205381665252986-Parade015.JPG)
Secret Service agents walk the parade route as President Donald J. Trump's motorcade moves along.
WASHINGTON — The Secret Service can no longer pay hundreds of agents it needs to carry out an expanded protective mission – in large part due to the sheer size of President Trump's family and efforts necessary to secure their multiple residences up and down the East Coast.
Secret Service Director Randolph "Tex" Alles, in an interview with USA TODAY, said more than 1,000 agents have already hit the federally mandated caps for salary and overtime allowances that were meant to last the entire year.
The agency has faced a crushing workload since the height of the contentious election season, and it has not relented in the first seven months of the administration. Agents must protect Trump – who has traveled almost every weekend to his properties in Florida, New Jersey and Virginia – and his adult children whose business trips and vacations have taken them across the country and overseas.
"The president has a large family, and our responsibility is required in law,'' Alles said. "I can't change that. I have no flexibility.''
Alles said the service is grappling with an unprecedented number of White House protectees. Under Trump, 42 people have protection, a number that includes 18 members of his family. That's up from 31 during the Obama administration.
-
...and calling somebody 'boy' (if the person being called it isn't black) isn't insulting in my book..
Out of curiosity, why would that be insulting for a black guy, but not for a white guy?
-
Please, when haven't politicians and the press insulted each other? Laying this exclusively or even primarily on the "left" (whatever that is) is nonsense.
Nine out of 10 articles on Trump try to show him as a racist a misogynist a cheater a liar stupid insane needs therapy. You got to be kidding that the discussion is on levels above that from the left Democrat liberals. It's smear politics. Trump supporters get it. Its fake news. All of it.
-
Out of curiosity, why would that be insulting for a black guy, but not for a white guy?
Because that's what white slave owners used to call male black slaves...and it's still used in a rasist context of white on black insults...and although you and haven't met, I was under the impression you were of eastern european decent and as far as I know, would not be a culterural insult.
If I'm wrong I apologize...it was not intended to insult you. It was intended to attack your argument that 40k protesters were protesting free speach-which was and still is of course ridiculous as my response indicated.
-
... So, when you sow (childish) provocation...
It is only childish because you are intellectually incapable, ideologically blinded, or simply lazy not willing to invest a modicum of effort to see what I wrote as genuine concern of mine, not a provocation.
-
...and although you and haven't met...
We actually did, at an Epson Academy in Chicago, years back. I approached you and asked a question during a break, and you were just as rude in a face-to-face contact as you are online. Maybe because I was indeed just a boy a few years ago, and you were a grown-up, fat jerk expert in your field?
-
We actually did, at an Epson Academy in Chicago, years back. I approached you and asked a question during a break, and you were just as rude in a face-to-face contact as you are online.
If it was at a break, I was working... I was prolly consumed with making sure the the next speaker was ready to go and that we were staying on schedual. And if it was back at one of the early Print Academies, that was prolly back when I was still a smoker and was on my way out for a smoke. Either way, it wasn't anything personal and as you've noted, I'm consistent. Although if you think I've actually been rude at any time in this thread, you haven't ever seen me be rude. As Trump would say, believe me, I can be rude...I can be the rudest person on the planet!
In any event, are we clear 40K people weren't protesting free speech? I thought the cartoon on my post pretty much put an end to that argument.
-
... Its fake news. All of it.
Right. That's why he reverses himself every five minutes, has a staff turnover rate that no corporation could endure, has the White House and entire nation in chaos, has brought polarization in America to an all time high, lost the trust and respect of our allies, and failed on all but a couple things he has tied to do. And that's just for starters. He is undoubtedly the most incompetent President America has ever had.
As for this being the "normal" course of sour grapes after an election, I didn't like George W. Bush either, but he was a normal and reasonable person who just had ideas different than mine. OTOH Trump is a Twitter obsessed nut job with an obsessive need to personally "win" and tell everyone how great he is, and who seems to see life as a contest of him against everyone else. He definitely has a few screws loose. IMO.
-
We actually did, at an Epson Academy in Chicago, years back. I approached you and asked a question during a break, and you were just as rude in a face-to-face contact as you are online. Maybe because I was indeed just a boy a few years ago, and you were a grown-up, fat jerk expert in your field?
"Hypocrite: the man who murdered both his parents... pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan". -Abraham Lincoln
-
... In any event, are we clear 40K people weren't protesting free speech? I thought the cartoon on my post pretty much put an end to that argument.
No, we are not clear. I stand by my argument in full seriousness and I reject the logic in the cartoon. I am writing this at work and have no time to extrapolate, but I will at some point.
P.S. Now that we exchanged a couple of insults among ourselves, I hope we can stop and return to the regular programming, i.e., insulting only Trump
-
Ah, Andrew is baaaack!!! Welcome back!
-
insults with strikethrough are still insults. Once more will mean topic locked and bans.
-
Ah, Andrew is baaaack!!! Welcome back!
Thanks. I see the rubbish machine is still going full force in these parts.
-
It is only childish because you are intellectually incapable, ideologically blinded, or simply lazy not willing to invest a modicum of effort to see what I wrote as genuine concern of mine, not a provocation.
So you were concerned that people like Kyle Sean Chapman aka “Based Stickman”, Joe Biggs, and a few other Alt-Right types, would be challenged (by 40,000 peaceful counter protesters) about their constitutional free (hate)speech contribution to an Alt-right Ralley? If so, then I apologize for not recognizing your true intentions, giving a podium to White Supremacists. The crystal ball apparently was still suffering (tear gas and smoke) from the Charlottesville events.
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, we are not clear. I stand by my argument in full seriousness and I reject the logic in the cartoon. I am writing this at work and have no time to extrapolate, but I will at some point.
By your logic, then, isn't anyone that's protesting anything guilty in your eyes? We've discussed this before - you and I are fairly closely aligned on the primacy of the right to expression, but let's not get caught up in the idea that the expression of white supremacists urging ethnic purity (or even cleansing) ought not be challenged. We're promised that the government shall not restrict our expression without crossing avery high bar. We're not guaranteed a public platform for ideas most people find abhorrent.
-
We're promised that the government shall not restrict our expression without crossing avery high bar. We're not guaranteed a public platform for ideas most people find abhorrent.
Indeed, that's what many do not understand. Constitutions limit the powers of the Government.
Cheers,
Bart
-
By your logic, then, isn't anyone that's protesting anything guilty in your eyes?... We're not guaranteed a public platform for ideas most people find abhorrent.
No, not anyone. My distinction is clear: protesting is ok, violently shutting down another group's protest is not. And yes, we are guaranteed a public platform. Register with the authorities, get approved location (public) and you should be free to exercise your right to free speech publicly, without the fear of being violently attacked. Just like Muslim Supremacist are doing in Europe, and nobody here (or there) protested that, let alone violently.
-
So you were concerned that people like Kyle Sean Chapman aka “Based Stickman”, Joe Biggs, and a few other Alt-Right types, would be challenged (by 40,000 peaceful counter protesters) about their constitutional free (hate)speech contribution to an Alt-right Ralley? If so, then I apologize for not recognizing your true intentions, giving a podium to White Supremacists. The crystal ball apparently was still suffering (tear gas and smoke) from the Charlottesville events.
Cheers,
Bart
In Slobodan's defense, it's right to be concerned that about infringement on speech that others find objectionable, both morally and Constitutionally/legally. What I find perplexing is the idea that the much larger crowd that favors alternative (to the alt-right) ideas is somehow more at fault. Somehow the folks that are not ok with advancing racial purity nonsense are more offensive than those that stand against it.
-
Indeed, that's what many do not understand. Constitutions limit the powers of the Government.
Once again, you resort to a condescending tone. It is not that we do not understand, it is that we have a different, broader, conceptual view on the freedom of speech, different than that narrow, technical focus on the government.
-
In Slobodan's defense, it's right to be concerned that about infringement on speech that others find objectionable, both morally and Constitutionally/legally. What I find perplexing is the idea that the much larger crowd that favors alternative (to the alt-right) ideas is somehow more at fault. Somehow the folks that are not ok with advancing racial purity nonsense are more offensive than those that stand against it.
Thanks for the defense.
And yes, I consider it more at fault, exponentially so. I see far more danger from the violence for democracy, precisely because it is "the much larger group" (revolutions need masses). KKK et al are fringe groups, a tiny minority, morally and otherwise discredited long time ago, which should be simply ignored.
EDIT: I re-read your argument and noticed that I need to make a distinction. I am talking about violence, not simply "favoring alternative."
-
As Linda Holmes of NPR wrote in 2010, “The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. … Because the ‘free’ in that concept means ‘free from government interference,’ not ‘free from consequences'.
As to Jeff's behavior at the Epson Print Academy, IF accurate: he should be applauded for his foresight of character (or lack thereof) ;D
-
... I apologize for not recognizing your true intentions, giving a podium to White Supremacists...
No need to apologize, you got it (almost) right. My intention is not that I should be the one to give a podium to them, but my intention is to respect their constitutional and legal right to get one when properly applying and getting it. Doing so is much more important for democracy, and negating that is much more dangerous, than anything they have to say at that podium.
-
Once again, you resort to a condescending tone. It is not that we do not understand, it is that we have a different, broader, conceptual view on the freedom of speech, different than that narrow, technical focus on the government.
Constitutions limit what the government can forbid with respect to free speech of its citizens. What he citizens say can still be morally repulsive, e.g. inciting hatred, and unlawful (depending on jurisdiction).
Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and also not meant as condescending:
Free Speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[5] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks for the defense.
And yes, I consider it more at fault, exponentially so. I see far more danger from the violence for democracy, precisely because it is "the much larger group" (revolutions need masses). KKK et al are fringe groups, a tiny minority, morally and otherwise discredited long time ago, which should be simply ignored.
EDIT: I re-read your argument and noticed that I need to make a distinction. I am talking about violence, not simply "favoring alternative."
And I would agree with you 100% on that point. Violence in the repression of expression - no matter how vile the expression, is an immediate threat to the core concepts of this country and should never be tolerated. (This isn't the thread for it really, but I will say that I do, sometimes, understand it, even if I don't think it's right.)
-
And back to the regular programming.
Wisconsin lawmakers vote to pay Foxconn $3 billion to get new factory
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/wisconsin-lawmakers-vote-to-pay-foxconn-3-billion-to-get-new-factory/
QUOTE "[...] Democratic opponents of the deal have pointed out that paying $3 billion to get 3,000 jobs means the state subsidy amounts to around $1 million per job.
That's $66,600 per employee for each of the next 15 years, according to an analysis by Prof. Michael Hicks, an economics professor at Ball State University who opposes the deal. Foxconn will pay the workers an average of just over $53,000 per year. (Those numbers are based on the initial count of 3,000 workers.)
"Voters might wish to ask just why each Wisconsin household is stuck with a nearly $1,200 bill to subsidize a company that is half as productive as Wal-Mart, and one-tenth as productive as Harley-Davidson," writes Hicks in an op-ed for MarketWatch. "It is an over-the-top bad deal for Wisconsin."
However, the full $3 billion in incentives only becomes available if Foxconn ends up creating 13,000 jobs. But there's no ironclad guarantee in the deal that Foxconn even meets its 3,000 job promise, so the opponents' "$1 million per job" argument could be true if the factory only ends up employing 1,500 people or fewer.
Even if the plant never expands beyond 3,000 jobs, though, Foxconn will get $1.35 billion for building the plant. Assuming even the beginning stages of the deal come together, Wisconsin will be paying $500,000 worth of incentives per job."
Is that the Art of the Deal in action? Subsidizing and let the taxpayer pay for it?
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Subsidizing and let the taxpayer pay for it?
I do not know other details of the deal, but economic investments, even if fully or over-subsidized, have what is known as a multiplier effect, i.e., growing a local economy (or broader) much more than just providing $53,000 a year to an individual.
-
I do not know other details of the deal, but economic investments, even if fully or over-subsidized, have what is known as a multiplier effect, i.e., growing a local economy (or broader) much more than just providing $53,000 a year to an individual.
Yes, I'm sure the average people of Wisconsin are overjoyed by the prospect of getting some(?) of their money back. BTW, Foxconn seems to have a poor track record of living up to their promises. And who cares about the environmental rules (for waste disposal) that will be lifted as part of the deal.
Cheers,
Bart
-
My distinction is clear: protesting is ok, violently shutting down another group's protest is not. And yes, we are guaranteed a public platform. Register with the authorities, get approved location (public) and you should be free to exercise your right to free speech publicly, without the fear of being violently attacked.
In Boston nearly 40k people peacfully marched in protest of hatred and bigotry-even the president was impressed. About 30 wingnutz were arrested-after the peaceful protesters were generally done and leaving. So what part of that violently shut down the "free speech" rally? It didn't. The violence was by a few anarchists against the police.
So your premise is wrong 40k people peacefully excersied their free speech any nobdy's rights were abridged.
-
In Boston nearly 40k people peacfully marched in protest of hatred and bigotry-even the president was impressed. About 30 wingnutz were arrested-after the peaceful protesters were generally done and leaving. So what part of that violently shut down the "free speech" rally? It didn't. The violence was by a few anarchists against the police.
So your premise is wrong 40k people peacefully excersied their free speech any nobdy's rights were abridged.
Ok, let's see...
I was basing my comments solely on your post that contained the following statements (some yours, some quoted - bold mine):
- "Free Speech Rally" demonstrators disbanded early from Boston Common after they were confronted by thousands of counterprotesters
- 27 arrests
- counter protester trying to grab a Trump supporter's flag out of her hand... she did fall down in the grass
- rally attendees were escorted from Parkman Bandstand by police and placed into police vehicles "for their own safety.
So, once again, solely based on your post, my conclusion was that the original protests were shut down forcefully, either violently ("27 arrests") or in fear of violence ("for their own safety").
There was nothing in your original post to clarify that "About 30 wingnutz were arrested-after the peaceful protesters were generally done and leaving."
The whole episode, even if the majority of the 40,000 were peaceful protesters (kudos to them), raises the question why was it then necessary for the police to escort the original protesters out, "for their own safety"?
-
(Off topic but here's an article about the limits of free speech in the US: http://news.psu.edu/story/341896/2015/01/27/research/probing-question-are-there-limits-freedom-speech (http://news.psu.edu/story/341896/2015/01/27/research/probing-question-are-there-limits-freedom-speech). I didn't want to start a new thread, although others may want to do so, but a reference to the topic seemed in order.)
-
Whatever limits there are, it is for the courts to determine and police to enforce, not mob, however lofty its ideals might be.
-
Once again, you resort to a condescending tone. It is not that we do not understand, it is that we have a different, broader, conceptual view on the freedom of speech, different than that narrow, technical focus on the government.
That's hardly a condescending tone, Slobo. Bart's right that it's demonstrably the case that many people don't understand the distinction that the constitution limits the government. Your broader view is not unique, but it's of no consequence when discussing someone's rights or the government's intervention (or not) with the exercise of those rights.
-
Whatever limits there are, it is for the courts to determine and police to enforce, not mob, however lofty its ideals might be.
Mob? That's a bit, no, a lot of a stretch.
Four men with weapons were among 33 people arrested by Boston police during Saturday’s “Boston Free Speech” rally and counterprotest on Boston Common, police said Sunday.
The charges included disturbing a public assembly, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest, according to Boston police.
According to the Boston Globe:
Police, protesters commended for Saturday’s show of peace
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/08/20/police-protesters-commended-for-saturday-show-peace/LiXbF7wCAq2LOYzsJIr2FM/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ReadMore_Pos9
So, 33 out of 40,000 got arrested (and we even don't know from which side), and you call that a mob????
Cheers,
Bart
-
The hysteria continues.
Man stabbed because his hair looked racist.
http://nypost.com/2017/08/19/man-stabbed-after-haircut-gets-him-mistaken-for-a-neo-nazi/ (http://nypost.com/2017/08/19/man-stabbed-after-haircut-gets-him-mistaken-for-a-neo-nazi/)
(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/20431635_487162431628701_4423022084116510379_n.jpg?oh=28acf05e048a16fd666ef7b46678a95a&oe=5A17DAE6)
-
... So, 33 out of 40,000 got arrested (and we even don't know from which side), and you call that a mob????
Where did I call that a mob?
Have you actually paid attention to what I was quoting when I used that term? The article was a general commentary on the limits of free speech, and not once was any particular event mentioned in it, let alone the last one in Boston. So, I replied to a general commentary with a general commentary. A mob is "a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence: a mob of protesters." - a dictionary definition. This is exactly who shouldn't "determine and enforce" the limits of free speech, as I said.
So, next time you want to criticize my post, read it carefully first.
-
That's hardly a condescending tone, Slobo. Bart's right that it's demonstrably the case that many people don't understand the distinction that the constitution limits the government. Your broader view is not unique, but it's of no consequence when discussing someone's rights or the government's intervention (or not) with the exercise of those rights.
Harping on about that narrow, technical aspect of the free speech is an excuse for some people to argue that "yes, the government can not limit it, but we can." However, the concept of free speech is so precious that democratic governments not only refrain from limiting it, but actively protect it. Hence the police protection, once it is properly registered and approved. And since my view is not unique, as you rightly noticed, but quite widespread, it is certainly of consequence.
-
I guess Antifa's bricks are strictly for self defense?
U.S. Civil Rights Commission votes 6-2 to legitimize Alt-Left violence.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450651/antifa-violence-willfully-ignored-civil-rights-commission-refuses-condemn (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450651/antifa-violence-willfully-ignored-civil-rights-commission-refuses-condemn)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/CH1Lb6z2JoePy1yTW9ljcl2okujAN2Gp5wP_oAMjTn4ZaYc42gQVaP-QNzu5LWNhm0P39zynPNWgyzVHu56DWmYu6tdbK7LXUgJanQzK9trH6aA0ggNulPWFQVPpQ5INvFQcqObx95cwl-JkP6ILUWxGzEoHFDIkv5O_HcYz46PBWGT58AWd1-qnvqzivgUuM3Xv4mNJ_srnmCcHTz12Pyp7GfkMn1jroj_wIqEPRvGd9-NGn1rFp94EGVqoN4xAGAni5FRSAPW5sT79mYhgHSgTZw=w530-h336-p)
-
Harping on about that narrow, technical aspect of the free speech is an excuse for some people to argue that "yes, the government can not limit it, but we can." However, the concept of free speech is so precious that democratic governments not only refrain from limiting it, but actively protect it. Hence the police protection, once it is properly registered and approved. And since my view is not unique, as you rightly noticed, but quite widespread, it is certainly of consequence.
There's no reason at all that private companies or individuals can't limit speech within their legal sphere of influence. The is not, and never has been, about such limitations. It has always been about communal limitations and that means, in a democracy, the government.
We've already seen limits on speech set in this thread by the moderator - ignoring it being a Canadian and not US website, where are the howls of protest? There are none, because we all accept the right of the operators to limit speech as they see fit (and we can participate or not as we see fit).
So any discussion about the broader principle of free speech is fine, but it's only the effect of it that counts. Where does the government (and the law) draw the line? Other matters of principle are grand and all, but they don't give rise to an effect.
-
What are you talking about Phil? This debate is not about private limits on free speech within private spaces, but about mob-imposed violent limits to free speech in public.
-
What are you talking about Phil? This debate is not about private limits on free speech within private spaces, but about mob-imposed violent limits to free speech in public.
It's all related, but it comes down to what the government has the power and the will to do as to what matters in a situation like this. Violence is illegal and relatively small group was arrested - that's what I've read from this. And that's good - they should have been arrested for being illegally violent. Both sides (that's wrong - let me correct - ALL sides) do it from time to time, some more than others. Some threaten it ("over my dead body" style comments), so do it.
Violent opposition to free speech is bad? Yes. Should every single piece of speech be protected? No, but it should be stopped through legal means by the authorities, not random, violent people.
-
The Left has found a new civil rights leader.
Chelsea Manning: "Open all borders, to everyone, always, no exceptions"
I'll hazard to guess what I'd be labeled if I voiced disagreement.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/21/chelsea-manning-imagine-world-without-borders-police-prisons/ (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/08/21/chelsea-manning-imagine-world-without-borders-police-prisons/)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/4JjhMeqmQ6N77XSaPxdsfQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MzgzO2g9NjAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-ca/homerun/cp.org/7a59e64937873c524dab29a32253a4a1)
-
I gather you've entirely missed the point, right? Imagine. That's the key, but that doesn't fit your agenda, of course.
-
I gather you've entirely missed the point, right?...
Do enlighten us, Phil :)
-
While the fake news continues to mock Trump with "nyah-nyah" and their continuing childish and supercilious derisive taunts, he goes about his duties as Commander-in-Chief and President making important policy decisions about Afghanistan that effect the world. He reverses his campaign promise to pull out like Obama did in Iraq, refuses to be an armchair general and turns military planning over to his commanders, he assures this will be war not nation building, we will destroy terrorists, we won't show our military hand, Pakistan better stop helping the terrorists or else, he urges India to support us strongly, he expects NATO to assist in Afghanistan and up their payments even more then they have, he will provide the military with the best arms to get the job done.
You can agree or disagree with his plans. I have my own doubts. But there is no lack of hesitancy on his will to lead despite the "nattering nabobs of negativism" from those who oppose him and urge him to resign or the Congress to "fire" him by impeachment. Those who do will have to come up with Plan B.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/347424-trump-vows-dramatic-shift-in-afghanistan-strategy
-
Do enlighten us, Phil :)
I already did, mate! Imagine. It's an ideal. Wouldn't it be good if that were possible? If we ever reached that point? It's a far cry from saying "this is what we should do right now in the current situation". Imagine - it's easy if you try :-)
-
While the fake news continues to mock Trump with "nyah-nyah" and their continuing childish and supercilious derisive taunts, he goes about his duties as Commander-in-Chief and President making important policy decisions about Afghanistan that effect the world.
Well, at least he didn't go blind looking at the eclipse...oh, wait, maybe he did...better get his eyes checked!
Donald Trump stares into solar eclipse without safety glasses, while aides shout 'don't look!' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-solar-eclipse-photo-stares-without-glasses-video-white-house-balcony-dont-look-aides-a7905771.html)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/trump-solar-eclipse.jpg)
Donald Trump has been caught looking at the solar eclipse without safety glasses, despite all expert advice saying this practice is dangerous.
“Looking directly at the sun is unsafe except during the brief total phase of a solar eclipse (“totality”), when the moon entirely blocks the sun’s bright face, which will happen only within the narrow path of totality,” Nasa wrote on a webpage discussing how to view the 2017 solar eclipse safely.
“The only safe way to look directly at the uneclipsed or partially eclipsed sun is through special-purpose solar filters, such as ‘eclipse glasses’ or or hand-held solar viewers.”
But this didn't stop the President, who has a reported tendency to act against the advice of his aides, from sneaking a peak after taking off his protective glasses. He squinted as he briefly looked up at the sun.
-
Two new impeachable offenses: bad wine and looking into the sun without 😎
-
56% of Americans Disapprove of President Trump's Response to Charlottesville (http://time.com/4910203/donald-trump-charlottesville-protest-poll/)
A majority of Americans disapproved of President Donald Trump's response to the deadly clashes at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., according to findings from a new poll (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-shows-strong-disapproval-of-how-trump-responded-to-charlottesville-violence/2017/08/21/4e5c585c-868b-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.7ea81b03ad9e#comments).
The Washington Post-ABC News (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-shows-strong-disapproval-of-how-trump-responded-to-charlottesville-violence/2017/08/21/4e5c585c-868b-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.7ea81b03ad9e#comments) poll found that 56% of adults disapproved of Trump's response, while just 28% approved. There was a stark difference along party lines, as 84% of Democrats said they disapproved and just 19% of Republicans said the same. Among independents, 55% disapproved compared to just 28% approving.
The survey was conducted after the press conference in which Trump defended people associated with white supremacist groups and said "both sides" were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville that left one counter-protester dead. The remarks earned him praise from white supremacists.
A full 42% of respondents said Trump was putting white supremacists on equal standing with their opponents, while 35% said Trump was not.
An overwhelmingly majority of Americans said it was unacceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views, and just 9% said those views were acceptable. The poll — which surveyed 1,014 adults by phone — was conducted Aug. 16 to Aug. 20 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
But hey, it's just a poll so it's like #FAKENEWS so Trump supporters don't have to believe it, right?
-
Two new impeachable offenses: bad wine and looking into the sun without 😎
Yer darn tootin'...particularly the bad wine part!
-
Trump on his 180 with Afganistan:
We don't have a war plan.
We don't have an exit strategy.
We don't have a timetable.
We don't have a budget.
We will no longer nation build.
We will no longer spread democracy by force.
We don't know what the future holds.
We don't know what victory looks like.
But we will win.
Uhhh?
(http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/afghani.jpg)
-
Another reason for Donny to resign!
Charities are hitting Trump where it hurts -- the wallet (http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/21/news/trump-mar-a-lago-charities-cancellations/index.html)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pYJGbPFBgSM/WDZuF6UYDnI/AAAAAAADQmQ/-cEwYsPP6kEhHU5syMSaaHH2bueAt8uagCLcB/s1600/PAY-EXCLUSIVE-Donald-Trumps-Mar-a-Lago-estate-in-Florida-where-hes-spending-his-first-Thanksgiving-a.jpg)
At least 11 organizations have canceled fundraisers at Mar-a-Lago, President Trump's Florida resort.
Who's next?
Two more organizations said Monday they are backing out of events at the Trump club. The Kravis Center for the Performing Arts will move its February wine auction, and Hearing the Ovarian Cancer Whisper will take its January luncheon to a nearby museum.
The Palm Beach Preservation Foundation and the Palm Beach Zoo and Conservation Society made similar moves over the weekend.
The exodus began after Trump said counter-protesters shared the blame for the violence at a white nationalist gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia. He also said that "very fine people" were mixed in with neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
The Cleveland Clinic, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army and the Susan G. Komen Foundation are among the other organizations that backed out of plans to hold events at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach.
Jennifer McGrath, executive director of Hearing the Ovarian Cancer Whisper, said the decision to move the luncheon was not political. "We just want to do what's best for the organization and focus on our mission," she said.
It was a bad week for Trump's businessman image. Both his business advisory councils disbanded as CEOs, one after another, distanced themselves from the president.
But the cancellations at Mar-a-Lago are more than just bad PR for Trump. Because he maintains an ownership interest in his real estate properties, including Mar-a-Lago, the defections also hit him in the wallet.
-
Well, at least he didn't go blind looking at the eclipse...oh, wait, maybe he did...better get his eyes checked!
Stop with the fake news. Your crying wolf is going to backfire come election time. He was just gesticulating for the press. Watch the whole movie. In the meanwhile, develop a real plan for defeating Republicans. Nyah-nyahing isn't going to work.
http://nypost.com/2017/08/21/trump-looked-directly-at-the-solar-eclipse-without-shades/
-
Another reason for Donny to resign!
Charities are hitting Trump where it hurts -- the wallet (http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/21/news/trump-mar-a-lago-charities-cancellations/index.html)
Yeah, he's going to resign. Right. You guys really believe this stuff. Is that the new Democrat plan for victory. "We're Taking Over When He Resigns."
-
I guess Antifa's bricks are strictly for self defense?
Those bricks look like they are in .... what was the expression you used ... "defensive posture".
-
Stop with the fake news. Your crying wolf is going to backfire come election time. He was just gesticulating for the press. Watch the whole movie.
I did (that's 6:30 minutes of my life I'll never get back) and he looked up into the sun a total of 4 times...no, he didn't stare, but as far as I know it doesn't take long. BTW, Your sweetheart Melania looked up into the sun a couple of times.
Heck even Tucker Carlson weighed in: “In a move that is not a complete surprise, he looked directly at the sun without any glasses,” Carlson marveled on his Fox News show, “perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done.”
So, I judge your FAKE NEWS claim to be FALSE...
-
Two new impeachable offenses: bad wine and looking into the sun without 😎
I fully support the first one!
-
I did (that's 6:30 minutes of my life I'll never get back) and he looked up into the sun a total of 4 times...no, he didn't stare, but as far as I know it doesn't take long. BTW, Your sweetheart Melania looked up into the sun a couple of times.
Heck even Tucker Carlson weighed in: “In a move that is not a complete surprise, he looked directly at the sun without any glasses,” Carlson marveled on his Fox News show, “perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done.”
So, I judge your FAKE NEWS claim to be FALSE...
Yeah. Didn't she look great with those shades? In any case, if you're right that they looked, the article is still fake news. The headline should have been, "President Trumpedly Stares Down Sun Amazing Opthomologsts Around the World." :)
-
I gather you've entirely missed the point, right? Imagine. That's the key, but that doesn't fit your agenda, of course.
Considering this article is on Breitbart, I have to wonder how accurate it actually is.
However, I am currently imagining a world without police and prisons, allowing all of our felons (some very violent) to roam free, which she directly suggested when questioned, and lets just say I never want to see that world. To even suggest it shows a serious lack in critical thinking.
As I said in the past, Snowden deserved a pardon for what he did. Manning is nothing more then an attention grabbing child who does and says things for her own good. She obviously put as little thought into these remarks as other things she did.
-
I did (that's 6:30 minutes of my life I'll never get back) and he looked up into the sun a total of 4 times...no, he didn't stare, but as far as I know it doesn't take long. BTW, Your sweetheart Melania looked up into the sun a couple of times.
Heck even Tucker Carlson weighed in: “In a move that is not a complete surprise, he looked directly at the sun without any glasses,” Carlson marveled on his Fox News show, “perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done.”
So, I judge your FAKE NEWS claim to be FALSE...
I read up on this just to get an idea of how long it really takes to go blind from looking at the sun. The reason I did was because as a photographer, every now and then I have to compose an image looking directly at the sun, so not looking at it is unavoidable sometimes, although I try my best to keep how much I do at a minimum.
Fortunately on a large piece of ground glass, I can easily avoid looking exactly where the sun is. It must be really hard with an SLR though.
To start permanent damage takes roughly ~100 seconds.
-
Yeah, he's going to resign. Right. You guys really believe this stuff. Is that the new Democrat plan for victory. "We're Taking Over When He Resigns."
He's NOT going to resign. That's a sign of losing and that's all he cares about; winning. At anyone's cost including this country!
Here's what I suspect he'll do if he's smart (that is questionable):
Call an aid to come into his office in 10 minutes to discuss the fake news or how large his crowds are or how high his polls really are or how he really has huge hands.
2 minutes before aid arrives, he finds a nice soft spot on the floor to lay on.
Aid enters, he's moaning on the floor. His fake doctor then tells the world he had a stroke (he is after all, fat, out of shape and 70 years old).
Doctor tells the nation he cannot continue or the stress of the office and playing so much golf, and tweeting, will kill him. He has to stop down.
He leaves office a hero to his base. Net result is a huge increase in his wealth. He wins.
We win?
-
He's NOT going to resign. That's a sign of losing and that's all he cares about; winning. At anyone's cost including this country!
Here's what I suspect he'll do if he's smart (that is questionable):
Call an aid to come into his office in 10 minutes to discuss the fake news or how large his crowds are or how high his polls really are or how he really has huge hands.
2 minutes before aid arrives, he finds a nice soft spot on the floor to lay on.
Aid enters, he's moaning on the floor. His fake doctor then tells the world he had a stroke (he is after all, fat, out of shape and 70 years old).
Doctor tells the nation he cannot continue or the stress of the office and playing so much golf, and tweeting, will kill him. He has to stop down.
He leaves office a hero to his base. Net result is a huge increase in his wealth. He wins.
We win?
Hi Andrew. Nice seeing you again. I don't think he'll resign because he's enjoying himself too much giving agita to everyone else. :)
-
He's NOT going to resign. That's a sign of losing and that's all he cares about; winning. At anyone's cost including this country!
Here's what I suspect he'll do if he's smart (that is questionable):
. . .
Doctor tells the nation he cannot continue or the stress of the office and playing so much golf, and tweeting, will kill him. He has to step down.
He leaves office a hero to his base. Net result is a huge increase in his wealth. He wins.
Interesting, but I would like briefly to indulge in what Trump aide Kellyanne Conway famously referred to as "alternative facts."
- Trump, addressing "the biggest political rally ever" in rural West Virginia, announces that he has already accomplished everything he set out to do as president—"many people are saying that I have done more in these few months than any other president has done in two full terms"—and that he now feels confident Vice President Mike Pence can tie up any minor loose ends "because he has learned so much from working with me."
- Therefore, he has decided to license the Trump Administration brand to the U.S. government for an undisclosed sum so Pence can follow the business model Trump has pursued so successfully with his properties all over the world.
- He feels it is time to do this because there are so many other countries that are in "very serious difficulty—deep, deep trouble," and therefore desperately need his governing expertise. "I'm the only one who can fix them."
- He is going to start with Canada and Mexico because, "although almost nobody is aware of this, they are Americans, too."
- As soon as he has reformed the other North American governments, he plans to license the Trump brand to a few other lucky countries that are in "bad, bad shape," including the United Kingdom and Germany. "I'll see about France when the time comes. Right now, they seem to be doing okay. The French have a president with a firm handshake who admires me very much."
After the West Virginia speech, anonymous White House sources inform the Failing New York Times that he has already donated the Trump brand to Russia in recognition of the "amazing" cooperation he has received from President Putin.
-
I don't think he'll resign because he's enjoying himself too much giving agita to everyone else. :)
I really do not think he is enjoying himself and I suspect he didn't think he'd win in the first place. And I don't think his main goal in life is giving agita, it's winning, making money and getting attention. The fake stroke is thus far, the best idea I've come up with for how he gets out of office without looking like a quitter and getting the heat from the Russia investigation to disappear.
Let's put it this way, I can't imagine he'll last 3 1/2 more years. So yes, he will not resign because that appears as failure and losing but a fake medical excuse would I believe, suite him as a fine way to get out of the job. And make him a martyr to his base.
-
...After the West Virginia speech, anonymous White House sources inform the Failing New York Times that he has already donated the Trump brand to Russia in recognition of the "amazing" cooperation he has received from President Putin.
Did Putin give him that Russian medal? Then he and Tillerson could compare. :)
-
I really do not think he is enjoying himself and I suspect he didn't think he'd win in the first place. And I don't think his main goal in life is giving agita, it's winning, making money and getting attention. The fake stroke is thus far, the best idea I've come up with for how he gets out of office without looking like a quitter and getting the heat from the Russia investigation to disappear.
Let's put it this way, I can't imagine he'll last 3 1/2 more years. So yes, he will not resign because that appears as failure and losing but a fake medical excuse would I believe, suite him as a fine way to get out of the job. And make him a martyr to his base.
Well, he hasn't "lost" yet. Winning the presidency is pretty heady. How about twice? The Trump brand probably will make more money as now the whole world knows him not just America. Even the Commie Chinese will be using his brand name if he doesn't make war on them. And he's certainly getting a lot of attention. He's making millions for the anti and pro-Trump cable stations. Even Breitbart and Bannon will get rich because he fired Bannon. I wish I could get fired by him. And everyone in the world either loves him or hates him. Hey. Attention is attention.
-
...
look who is back :D
-
look who is back :D
Even better... what brought him back 😊
-
He's NOT going to resign. That's a sign of losing and that's all he cares about; winning. At anyone's cost including this country!
Here's what I suspect he'll do if he's smart (that is questionable):
Call an aid to come into his office in 10 minutes to discuss the fake news or how large his crowds are or how high his polls really are or how he really has huge hands.
2 minutes before aid arrives, he finds a nice soft spot on the floor to lay on.
Aid enters, he's moaning on the floor. His fake doctor then tells the world he had a stroke (he is after all, fat, out of shape and 70 years old).
Doctor tells the nation he cannot continue or the stress of the office and playing so much golf, and tweeting, will kill him. He has to stop down.
He leaves office a hero to his base. Net result is a huge increase in his wealth. He wins.
We win?
He does step down but soon afterwards (or at least soon after any indictments have been dropped), his fake doctor announces that a miracle cure has been effected thanks to the extraordinary medicinal qualities of Trump-branded Extract of Covfefe Berries.
-
I wished I could ask Trump the same three questions I wanted to ask Bush jr and Obama concerning Afghanistan.
1. What is the objective(s) of the mission?
2. By what criteria will we measure progress or regress with respect to the objective(s)
3. What is the exit criteria for ending the effort for either meeting or not meeting the objective(s)?
I believe that before committing any US military forces these need to be understood. In the past administrations, I am not confident it was understood.
At what point do you stop digging?
-
I wished I could ask Trump
You can write to him... You probably mean = "I wish I could get answers", right ?
-
Somehow I don't see this as a beginning of a trend in designer drugs...I mean, really, who would want orange ecstasy?
German police seize thousands of ‘Trump’ ecstasy tablets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/german-police-seize-thousands-of-trump-ecstasy-tablets/2017/08/22/0162250c-8746-11e7-96a7-d178cf3524eb_story.html?utm_term=.d9abbc79fb42)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/Trump-E.jpg)
This undated picture provided by Polizeiinspektion Osnabrueck police shows an ecstasy pill. German police
say they have seized thousands of ecstasy pills in the shape of President Donald Trump’s head, a haul with
an estimated street value of 39,000 euros ($45,900). Police in Osnabrueck, in northwestern Germany, say
they found the drugs during a check Saturday evening on an Austrian-registered car on the A30 highway.
-
Even better... what brought him back 😊
The lord of light!
-
The lord of light!
So, how is Karl?
:~)
-
I wished I could ask Trump the same three questions I wanted to ask Bush jr and Obama concerning Afghanistan.
1. What is the objective(s) of the mission?
2. By what criteria will we measure progress or regress with respect to the objective(s)
3. What is the exit criteria for ending the effort for either meeting or not meeting the objective(s)?
I believe that before committing any US military forces these need to be understood. In the past administrations, I am not confident it was understood.
At what point do you stop digging?
As addendum, I'd add that the longer the US military remains in place in another country, the more the locals have reasons to resent American presence, especially if they don't see any noticeable improvement in their own conditions. And Trump did say last night that the US is no longer interested in nation-building, which is fair enough, the USA has the right to make that decision. But if that's the case, that's one less reason to be there. From the locals' point of view, the presence of foreign soldiers on their land is only tolerable if it provides some benefit to them. Now I understand that their concerns might be important to the USA, but there are consequences to that too.
-
So, how is Karl?
:~)
He's got a girlfriend! :P
-
Nice to see Trump's #DrainTheSwamp is going well. Oh, wait, the wife of US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin isn't supposed to brag about their wealth just before Trump tries to work with Congress on tax reform...does she think the wealthy are gonna get a huge tax break?
Steve Mnuchin's wife bashes a woman for being 'adorably out of touch' and paying less tax than her (http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-mnuchin-wife-instagram-louise-linton-air-force-two-2017-8)
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/599bb010f1a850c62a8b6351-553/linton1.png)
Louise Linton, the wife of US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, posted a photo on Instagram that apparently got some unwelcome attention on Monday night.
The photo shows Linton and Mnuchin stepping off a government jet with the caption: "Great #daytrip to #Kentucky!"
Linton, a 36-year-old actress who married Mnuchin in an extravagant ceremony in June, tagged several high-end designers — like Tom Ford, Hermès, Roland Mouret, and Valentino — in her Instagram post.
The comments, however, were less than charitable.
One person wrote: "Glad we could pay for your little getaway. #deplorable."
Linton replied:
"Aw!!! Did you think this was a personal trip?! Adorable! Do you think the US govt paid for our honeymoon or personal travel?! Lololol. Have you given more to the economy than me and my husband? Either as an individual earner in taxes OR in self sacrifice to your country? I'm pretty sure we paid more taxes toward our day 'trip' than you did. Pretty sure the amount we sacrifice per year is a lot more than you'd be willing to sacrifice if the choice was yours. You're adorably out of touch. Thanks for the passive aggressive nasty comment. Your kids look very cute. Your life looks cute. I know you're mad but deep down you're really nice and so am I. Sending me passive aggressive Instagram comments isn't going to make life feel better. Maybe a nice message, one filled with wisdom and hunanity [sic] would get more traction. Have a pleasant evening. Go chill out and watch the new game of thrones. It's fab!"
Linton then made her Instagram account private.
The phrase "let them eat cake" comes to mind (also the 'C' word but my wife doesn't let me even think the whole word, just the letter 'C').
This goes back to the tone deaf approach the GOP seems to have towards people of "normal means". Really, they wanted to give wealthy people tax cuts and pay for it by cutting Medicaid?
I guess you have to give her a break because, well, she's just a 'B' grade actress that married a super rich but rather ugly Steven Mnuchin (seriously, look at him)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Steven_Mnuchin_official_portrait.jpg/220px-Steven_Mnuchin_official_portrait.jpg)
It's a typical problem of the nouveau riche, they can't help but rub "normal people's" noses in the fact that they have so much money, they literally have no idea what to do with it. It takes a couple of generations to understand that with great wealth come an obligation to go do something useful with it to help their fellow man. Some people learn in a single generation like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both of whom have done more with their money than Mnuchin and his #BarbieDollWife likely will. But hey, Steve and Louise have great role models, right? Donny and Melania Trump.
(http://im.rediff.com/news/2016/nov/09first-lady1.jpg)
Photograph: Melania Trump/Facebook
-
Bannon opened his big mouth regarding NK saying war is out of the picture undermining Trump's strong position. I think Generals Mattis and McMaster said he had to go to give some credibility back to Trump's position. This may have been Kelly also trying to get the White House into order.
I think the interesting question is whether Bannon gave Trump his political thinking or whether Trump had the main view of where he's going anyway. We'll see soon enough. If Trump changes, then it was Bannon. If it stays the same, then it's been Trump all along as Trump himself has been claiming.
Well, to answer my own question, it seems it was Bannon. Although regarding Afghanistan he originally wanting to pull out too. I think he's been captured by the dark side of the swamp. Just like Bush and McCain and Hillary. The left will never accept him and the right will start too leave him. He should have pulled out and let the Afghans fight it out themselves just warning them that whoever wins better not support terrorists again like they did with Al Khaida. Or we'll be back.
-
Nice to see Trump's #DrainTheSwamp is going well. Oh, wait, the wife of US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin isn't supposed to brag about their wealth just before Trump tries to work with Congress on tax reform...does she think the wealthy are gonna get a huge tax break?
Steve Mnuchin's wife bashes a woman for being 'adorably out of touch' and paying less tax than her (http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-mnuchin-wife-instagram-louise-linton-air-force-two-2017-8)
(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/599bb010f1a850c62a8b6351-553/linton1.png)
The phrase "let them eat cake" comes to mind (also the 'C' word but my wife doesn't let me even think the whole word, just the letter 'C').
This goes back to the tone deaf approach the GOP seems to have towards people of "normal means". Really, they wanted to give wealthy people tax cuts and pay for it by cutting Medicaid?
I guess you have to give her a break because, well, she's just a 'B' grade actress that married a super rich but rather ugly Steven Mnuchin (seriously, look at him)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Steven_Mnuchin_official_portrait.jpg/220px-Steven_Mnuchin_official_portrait.jpg)
It's a typical problem of the nouveau riche, they can't help but rub "normal people's" noses in the fact that they have so much money, they literally have no idea what to do with it. It takes a couple of generations to understand that with great wealth come an obligation to go do something useful with it to help their fellow man. Some people learn in a single generation like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both of whom have done more with their money than Mnuchin and his #BarbieDollWife likely will. But hey, Steve and Louise have great role models, right? Donny and Melania Trump.
(http://im.rediff.com/news/2016/nov/09first-lady1.jpg)
Photograph: Melania Trump/Facebook
Oh well, the bed looks relatively large, so plenty of room to hide and get a bit of sleep! Unless, of course, a toe gets stubbed on those dreadful carvings castings before the flop into it. But it's nice to know there are a couple of Chanel 5 mists in the toolbox - always dependable!
Why does your wife have a problem with the "C" word? It's quite harmless unless you produce too much of it.
Oh - I forgot: Mr T doesn't want to stop making it. Sorry, now that I get it, she's right!
Rob
P.S. I may be a bit consevative but isn't there just a tiny touch, a mere soupçon of vulgarity in that bedroom scene? I mean, two Louis Vuitton pieces? Or are they Gucci playing bedtime hide-and-seek as well?
-
... comes to mind (also the 'C' word but my wife doesn't let me even think the whole word, just the letter 'C')...
Ah, that would explain your grumpiness ;)
-
Ah, that would explain your grumpiness ;)
I was always advised to take my vitamins, Slobodan.
Rob
-
P.S. I may be a bit consevative but isn't there just a tiny touch, a mere soupçon of vulgarity in that bedroom scene? I mean, two Louis Vuitton pieces? Or are they Gucci playing bedtime hide-and-seek as well?
I don't know...but the image is on her Facebook page so maybe you could ask and let us know what she says :~)
BTW, this just in, Louise Linton, Mnuchin's wife apologized...
"I apologize for my post on social media yesterday as well as my response. It was inappropriate and highly insensitive," Linton said in a statement from her publicist.
Wow, considering the comment she posted to Jenni Miller, a mother of three from Oregon I'm thinking the apology should maybe have been, well, a bit more apologetic, ya know what I mean? It was more than "inappropriate and highly insensitive" it was mean and nasty but hey, she still has her money!
BTW, now that she's stuck her head up I thought it would be interesting to check out the jewels she wore to her fancy wedding...
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/gettyimages-621679402-1497470106.jpg?crop=1.00xw:0.334xh;0,0.0402xh&resize=768:*)
Here's the story she had in Town & Country All the Jewels Louise Linton Wore to Her Wedding (http://www.townandcountrymag.com/the-scene/weddings/a9933935/louise-linton-wedding-jewelry/)
On June 24, Scottish-born actress Louise Linton married Steven Mnuchin in Washington, D.C., where he currently serves as the Secretary of the Treasury. As befits the future wife of a former Goldman Sachs exec and Hollywood producer (his credits include American Sniper, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Wonder Woman), Linton had no shortage of cinematic pieces to wear for her big day. Below, she gave T&C an exclusive sneak peak inside her wedding jewelry box.
The engagement ring
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/ajp-003-1497471755.jpg?crop=0.588xw:0.591xh;0.261xw,0.273xh&resize=768:*)
"We were at Art Basel in Miami a few years ago and we walked past a jewelry store. We stopped to admire the shape of an oval engagement ring in the window. It’s quite an old-fashioned shape but I love it. Three years later he proposed to me with an oval ring just like the one we saw in the window."
Poor little rich snowflake, this has probably been a terribly traumatic experience...
-
And now for something serious...
Trump nominee Sam Clovis: 'As far as we know' homosexuality's a choice, 'logical' LGBT protections could lead to legalization of pedophilia (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/kfile-sam-clovis-lgbt-comments/index.html)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170821112647-kfile-sam-clovis-again-exlarge-169.jpg)
(CNN)Sam Clovis, Donald Trump's pick to be chief scientist for the Department of Agriculture, has argued that homosexuality is a choice and that the sanctioning of same-sex marriage could lead to the legalization of pedophilia, a CNN KFile review of Clovis' writings, radio broadcasts, and speeches has found.
Clovis made the comments between 2012 and 2014 in his capacity as a talk radio host, political activist, and briefly as a candidate for US Senate in Iowa. His nomination has drawn criticism from Senate Democrats, who argue his lack of scientific background makes him unqualified for the USDA post overseeing science.
Clovis has repeatedly argued that the science on homosexuality is unsettled and that "LGBT behavior" is a choice. The American Psychological Association has said that while there is no scientific consensus on the causes of sexual orientation, "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
Asked for comment on Clovis' beliefs surrounding the science of homosexuality, a USDA spokeswoman told CNN: "The Supreme Court settled the issue in 2015." The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Wait, what?
This is the guy Trump thinks would be a good nominee to to be chief scientist for the Department of Agriculture?
Come on man...can't we get some people who have half a friggin' clue in jobs where the safety and advancement of the American food industry is at stake?
From his wikipedia page:
Samuel H. Clovis Jr. (born Sept. 18, 1949) is a radio host, academic, and United States Air Force veteran who is the senior White House adviser to the United States Department of Agriculture. He was national co-chair of the Trump-Pence campaign in the 2016 presidential election. In July 2017, President Donald Trump said he would nominate Clovis as Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics in the United States Department of Agriculture.
Clovis was born in Salina, Kansas and grew up in Medora, Kansas. As a high school senior he was appointed to the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy. He graduated from Buhler High School and went on to attend the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs where he earned his bachelor's degree in political science. He served in the Air Force for 25 years from 1971 to 1996 as fighter pilot and instructor. During his time in the Air Force he also served in the Pentagon, the Middle East, and as commander of the 70th Fighter Squadron. He became a colonel and retired as the Inspector General of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the United States Space Command.
He also holds an MBA from Golden Gate University and attended the national security program at Georgetown University and earned a Ph.D. in public administration from the University of Alabama.
Well, he DOES have a Ph.D in public administration...I'll bet that helped a lot in his role as a radio show host!
-
Christie would have been a better USDA choice for the job, but Clovis beat him to it.
Sorry, I had to go there.
(http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/440601/27010844/1462462041933/5.5.16blogphoto10.jpg?token=Js0tGc5Kd%2B1JSyqZle3iom7AjsI%3D)
-
Well, he DOES have a Ph.D in public administration...I'll bet that helped a lot in his role as a radio show host!
All other things aside, I find it generaly very disturbing that the Republican party seems to be drawing so many of its public servants from the depths of talk radio. It doesn't speak well of the voters, IMO, that they prefer to elect bomb-throwing ideologues that have no grounding in the actual application of policy or governance, and gain following/popularity by playing to the red meat base of the party.
-
There are no racial problems in the USA. There are only made-up "problems," as the left desperately needs to perpetuate victimhood in order to have something to whine about.
Sometimes, Slobodan, you've said stuff that was relevant, even challenging, for "The Loonie Left", as you call us.
However with this, you've lost all credibility. That is just hopeless, blind idiocy.
I'm a little late with this. I've been away, photographing, so I'm a little behind the curve of hopeless, blind idiocy here.
-
The insanity continues.
ESPN pulls announcer from the football game because his name is Robert Lee (Asian not Confederate).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-university-virgini/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-university-virgini/)
(http://www.austin360.com/rf/image_md/Pub/p8/Statesman/Blog/Statesman_Austin_Found/2017/08/16/Images/4499_jwj-robert-e-lee-road-0076b.jpg)
-
The insanity continues.
ESPN pulls announcer from the football game because his name is Robert Lee (Asian not Confederate).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-university-virgini/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-university-virgini/)
(http://www.austin360.com/rf/image_md/Pub/p8/Statesman/Blog/Statesman_Austin_Found/2017/08/16/Images/4499_jwj-robert-e-lee-road-0076b.jpg)
it is high time to rein in the alt left mob mentality that is spreading like an bubonic plague online ...
-
... However with this, you've lost all credibility. That is just hopeless, blind idiocy.
Cite me one law in the U.S. that racially discriminates.
-
You opined that there's no racial problem, not that discrimination isn't codified.
I mean... This isn't even debatable.
http://people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/sentencing.pdf
-Highlighting racial and gender disparity in sentencing
http://fortune.com/2014/11/04/hiring-racial-bias/
-Harder to get an interview with a "black" name
http://news.stanford.edu/2016/06/28/stanford-researchers-develop-new-statistical-test-shows-racial-profiling-police-traffic-stops/
-Blacks and hispanics MORE likely to be searched at traffic stops, but LESS likely to have drugs.
I can do this all day...
-
... I can do this all day...
I bet you can, but that doesn't prove anything. It just lists things that you interpret one way, and I another. That is, there is a perfectly viable explanation for each of those, other than "systemic" racism or discrimination.
-
I bet you can, but that doesn't prove anything. It just lists things that you interpret one way, and I another. That is, there is a perfectly viable explanation for each of those, other than "systemic" racism or discrimination.
I'm gobsmacked. Seriously. Your position is really, "I know there's no problem, so any proof to the contrary is invalid." You kidding me?
-
I'm gobsmacked. Seriously. Your position is really, "I know there's no problem, so any proof to the contrary is invalid." You kidding me?
There is no "proof to the contrary," just your opinion.
-
There is no "proof to the contrary," just your opinion.
On what then, do you base your "opinion" that these unequal outcomes are not evidence of a racial bias? Because it's not my opinion that these unequal outcomes exist - it's fact.
-
... http://fortune.com/2014/11/04/hiring-racial-bias/
-Harder to get an interview with a "black" name...
Ok, foreign sounding names. Let's see:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/01/pf/jobs/foreign-names-jobs-discrimination/index.html?sr=limoney120114foreignname1140story
"Foreign name? Expect a tougher job hunt"
From the article:
Here's a list of the worst call-back rates, representing the number of applications migrants have to send relative to those without an immigrant background:
...
Men from former Yugoslavia in Switzerland 2.5
...
Blacks in the U.S. 2
...
Seems that I would be more "racially" discriminated in Switzerland than blacks in the U.S.
Have you ever heard me whine how I am racially discriminated against?
The explanation is simpler: human psychology. If you study the psychology of influence, you will find that it is a common human trait that we like more those who are like us. It is just human.
-
Ok, foreign sounding names. Let's see:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/01/pf/jobs/foreign-names-jobs-discrimination/index.html?sr=limoney120114foreignname1140story
"Foreign name? Expect a tougher job hunt"
From the article:
Seems that I would be more "racially" discriminated in Switzerland than black in the U.S.
That's distinctly possible. However, the fact that one would discard a resume with the name "Slobodan," thus depriving him or herself of a highly qualified MBA, in no way means that they aren't also willing to pass on "Ebony".
We're also not talking about Switzerland, and just because a culture is xenophobic does not mean they aren't also racist. From your own article: In the United States, the situation is the worst for people with distinctively "Black names," such as Jamal and Lakisha, researchers noted.
-
Michelle Obama's "proof" of racism was that she was several times approached in a retail store and mistook for a sales lady. Say what!? I am a middle-aged white man who was also approached several times in a retail store and mistook for a salesman, in several different countries. Did I cry "racism"?
-
...it's not my opinion that these unequal outcomes exist - it's fact.
I am not disputing unequal outcomes. I am disputing the cause that you claim is racism and I see a perfectly logical alternative explanation.
-
... From your own article: In the United States, the situation is the worst for people with distinctively "Black names," such as Jamal and Lakisha, researchers noted.
And yet the country elected (twice) a guy with the "worst" of both worlds name: black and Muslim.
I personally hired a black guy with a name Zakee, again a combination of black and Muslim.
-
Michelle Obama's "proof" of racism was that she was several times approached in a retail store and mistook for a sales lady. Say what!? I am a middle-aged white man who was also approached several times in a retail store and mistook for a salesman, in several different countries. Did I cry "racism"?
No, Michelle Obama's example[ /i]of racism is that she is/was repeatedly mistaken for a sales lady. That's anecdotal - I can't say if that 's fact, or just her "opinion" or her perception, but it's not "proof" of any sort. I'm also not going to argue that every case of a minority receiving an unequal outcome is proof of, or a result or, racism.
Those things are, however, wholly irrelevant. Michelle Obama can suffer an indignity without it being racist. Michael Obama can be pulled over without it being racially motivated. Michelle Obama could be sentenced to 20 years in jail without race being a causal factor. BUT... when you look at 77,000 Michelle Obamas and 77,000 Slobodan Blagojevics, and the Obamas are suspected of having drugs more often than the Blagojevics, despite the fact that stats show that the Blagojevics actually have a higher incidence of drug possession, well, something is amiss.
-
Are you suggesting that whites are disproportionately more involved in drug trade than blacks?
What is amiss is research methodology. They first set a goal (to prove racism) and then massage data until they get what they want.
-
And yet the country elected (twice) a guy with the "worst" of both worlds name: black and Muslim.
I personally hired a black guy with a name Zakee, again a combination of black and Muslim.
That's fantastic - most likely he was the most qualified for the position. But while it may be relevant to whether or not YOU display racial bias, it's wholly irrelevant to the question of a *systemic* bias. The argument isn't that *everyone* is racist - it's a matter of what happens on aggregate and what the causes of those discrepancies are.
Out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the correlation in the differing outcomes I cited at the outset of this discussion?
-
Are you suggesting that whites are disproportionately more involved in drug trade than blacks?
What is amiss is research methodology. They first set a goal (to prove racism) and then masage data until they get what they want.
I don't have any knowledge about who is or is not involved in the drug trade on a macro scale. As per the study cited, drugs were found in the possession of whites on a higher percentage basis than they were found in the possession of blacks.
As for your dispute with the methodology, what evidence do you have that supports that idea?
-
... Out of curiosity, to what do you attribute the correlation in the differing outcomes I cited at the outset of this discussion?
Traffic stops? Higher statistical probability that blacks are engaged in illegal activity. Which is an undeniable statistical fact.
-
... drugs were found in the possession of whites on a higher percentage basis than they were found in the possession of blacks...
If you are a black dealer or user, and you know that police will stop you disproportionally, would you be that stupid to keep it in the car?
-
Traffic stops? Higher statistical probability that blacks are engaged in illegal activity. Which is an undeniable statistical fact.
If you are a black dealer or user, and you know that police will stop you disproportionally, would you be that stupid to keep it in the car?
So... blacks are both more likely AND less likely to be possessing drugs at any given traffic stop? ;)
Seriously though, why would you assume that every study that shows a bias was automagically constructed to show said bias? And would you assume that a study that showed no bias was constructed to "prove" that outcome as well?
-
And yet the country elected (twice) a guy with the "worst" of both worlds name: black and Muslim.
I personally hired a black guy with a name Zakee, again a combination of black and Muslim.
Who was that?
-
Cite me one law in the U.S. that racially discriminates.
Come on, Slobo - you were just telling us in regard to freedom of speech that it wasn't he law that mattered but the overall, broad view. It's rather inconsistent to now say that there are no racially discriminating laws and therefore there are no racial issues in the US. Actually, it's absurd.
-
When you piss off the Senate majority leader, your life as president will tend to become "uncomfortable".
McConnell, in Private, Doubts if Trump Can Save Presidency (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/23/us/23dc-mcconnell/merlin-to-scoop-124918625-310044-master768.jpg)
Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, has fumed over President Trump’s regular threats against fellow Republicans
and criticism of Senate rules. Credit Eric Thayer for The New York Times
The relationship between President Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, has disintegrated to the point that they have not spoken to each other in weeks, and Mr. McConnell has privately expressed uncertainty that Mr. Trump will be able to salvage his administration after a series of summer crises.
What was once an uneasy governing alliance has curdled into a feud of mutual resentment and sometimes outright hostility, complicated by the position of Mr. McConnell’s wife, Elaine L. Chao, in Mr. Trump’s cabinet, according to more than a dozen people briefed on their imperiled partnership. Angry phone calls and private badmouthing have devolved into open conflict, with the president threatening to oppose Republican senators who cross him, and Mr. McConnell mobilizing to their defense.
So, does Trump know that his executive powers are limited? That he can't sign into laws, bills that he writes? That 1/3 of the government can't tell the other 2/3 (Congress and the courts) what to do? That if the GOP wants to do anything for the next x# years (I doubt he makes it till the next major election and I suspect he'll be gone before the midterms) they are going to have to work completely around an unhinged and unfit president?
-
#FAKENEWS for real!!! (only problem is that it's the Tennessee GOP that made it). Wow, maybe they were just trying to bolster Trump's "crowd size" since we all know that size matters to Donny!
Fake news? Trump supporters circulate photo of Phoenix rally crowds ... but it's not (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/08/22/trump-phoenix-rally-fake-photo-cleveland/592199001/)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5d407ac4b899d8409f25b90f8b4b92a3f2f03ccd/c=0-19-566-445&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2017/08/22/Phoenix/Phoenix/636390297567645456-Capture.jpg)
The Twitter account @TEN_GOP tweeted a photo of the crowd in Phoenix for the Trump rally, but the photo was actually taken in 2016 in Cleveland.
The image was taken looking down at the intersection of St. Claire Ave. and Ninth Street in downtown Cleveland, along the parade route where tens of thousands celebrated the Cavs NBA title last June.
The photo shows a bird's-eye view of thousands gathered in a downtown area as they waited for the parade for the Cleveland Cavaliers to begin.
The Twitter account @TEN_GOP, which says its an unofficial account for Republicans in Tennessee, tweeted the photo with the caption: "Massive crowd waiting outside for the Trump rally in Phoenix!"
They weren't done...seems they wanted to show the Trump protesters being a small size (you know, because size matters)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/09a6a2384d019a70cf29d399d63b8130713129ba/c=12-0-508-373&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2017/08/22/Phoenix/Phoenix/636390300831498378-Anti-Trump.jpg)
Ya think this was what Donny was screaming about tonite at his rally? #REALFAKENEWS
-
Who was that?
Barack Hussein
-
So, he still wants to build the wall and he's willing to shut down the government to do so?
Trump threatens to shut down government to build border wall (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/347588-trump-threatens-to-shut-down-government-to-build-border-wall)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170822221431-03-trump-phoenix-rally-0822-exlarge-169.jpg)
President Trump on Tuesday threatened to shut down the government, if necessary, to make sure his proposed wall at the Mexican border is approved and funded by lawmakers.
"Build that wall. Now the obstructionist Democrats would like us not to do it, but believe me if we have to close down our government, we're building that wall," Trump said Tuesday during a rally in Phoenix.
Is this really what you wanted?
-
Richard Spencer, a prominent white nationalist point out on Twitter today that President Donald Trump has not denounced the Alt-Right...
Richard Spencer: 'Trump has never denounced the Alt-Right' (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/347586-richard-spencer-trump-has-never-denounced-the-alt-right)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/spencerrichard.jpg?itok=6TRtIG2x)
Richard Spencer
Richard Spencer, a prominent white nationalist, said Tuesday that, despite President Trump's remarks denouncing white supremacists and neo-Nazis, the president has yet to condemn the alt-right.
"Trump has never denounced the Alt-Right. Nor will he," Spencer wrote on Twitter.
Richard ☝🏻SpencerVerified account
@RichardBSpencer
Trump has never denounced the Alt-Right. Nor will he.
#ArizonaTrumpRally
7:24 PM - 22 Aug 2017
Speaking at a campaign-style rally in Phoenix on Tuesday night, Trump insisted that he sufficiently denounced hate groups after violence erupted during a white nationalist demonstration in Charlottesville, Va., earlier this month. Instead, he said, the media failed to accurately cover his remarks in the wake of the violence that left one counterprotester dead.
-
Because, you know, blowing up stuff sending tons of material into the air couldn't possibly be bad for people's health, right?
Trump administration halts research on mountaintop coal mining's health effects (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-halts-research-mountaintop-224400038.html)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/iJXzRZx4CyFGMXgWZK4eQg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/the_independent_635/532dc956672cd6d505cd191b4d3fa8b7)
US Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke (nice hat doode!)
Donald Trump’s Department of the Interior has told the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to stop studying the effects of coal mining on health.
A branch of the interior department – the office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement – was funding an inquiry into the potential correlation between increased human health risks and living near surface coal mine sites in Central Appalachia.
Coal mining in Central Appalachia, where the committee’s work is focused, includes mountaintop removal in which peaks have been blasted off. Scientists have asserted that the practice is so harmful to the environment that the government should put an end to it.
According to a statement by the academy, the Trump administration told the organisation last week that “it should cease all work on the study”, as the interior department “has begun an agency-wide review of its grants and cooperative agreements in excess of $100,000”. The review was prompted largely by the department’s changing budget situation, the statement said.
-
Things that make you go hummmm...
Senate Judiciary Committee interviews figure behind Trump dossier (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-judiciary-committee-interviews-figure-behind-trump-dossier/)
(http://cdn.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/glenn-simpson-fusion-gps-575x326.jpg)
Glenn Simpson Fusion GPS Founder
WASHINGTON -- The co-founder of a Washington opposition research firm that produced a dossier of salacious allegations involving President Donald Trump spoke behind closed doors to congressional investigators.
Glenn Simpson appeared privately Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a transcribed interview, CBS News' John Nolen confirmed.
Simpson runs Fusion GPS, the firm that hired the British intelligence officer who produced the dossier containing allegations of ties between Trump and Russia.
Simpson's lawyer, Josh Levy, a partner at Cunningham Levy Muse LLP, said in a statement that Simpson had met with the congressional investigators "voluntarily" for the interview, which lasted a full day.
After the interview, Levy told reporters that Simpson answered "hundreds of questions" and suggested that in only a "minority of questions" that Simpson's answers may not have been complete because of his obligation to protect the confidentiality of his clients.
In his statement, Levy said that Simpson "cleared the record on many matters of interest to congressional investigators." He went on to say that the investigation involved Simpson because of "a desperate attempt by the Trump campaign and its allies to smear Fusion GPS because of its reported connection to the Trump dossier," which contained lurid allegations about Mr. Trump that the president has described as "phony." Fusion GPS still stands by the dossier.
Levy also said that the committee can disclose the transcript if it wishes and Levy indicated his client would not object.
It was also reported today that Christopher Steele gave the FBI the names of his sources for the "dossier"...
British spy Christopher Steele tells FBI sources for Trump 'dossier': report (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/christopher-steele-tells-fbi-sources-trump-dossier-report-article-1.3433372)
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/89d62465ac9d65ad0072d191a9ed7582)
The British spy behind a salacious “dossier” on President Trump has told the FBI about his sources for the document, according to a report.
Former MI6 agent Christopher Steele authored the 35-page unsubstantiated report published online in January, which alleged that blackmail against Trump was being used by Kremlin officials in an election interference plot.
Investigations into that alleged meddling have been trying to talk to Steele, who has experience in the former Soviet Union and disappeared after his dossier became public,with ABC News reporting that he has now met with the FBI.
He reportedly told investigators about the names of his sources, identified only by letters in the dossier.
But don't worry Trump supporters...this is just a #WitchHunt by the #FAKENEWS and nothing will come of it. The "Dodgy Dossier" is completely made up and Russia has nothing on Donald Trump because, you know, Donald has ALWAYS run his business totally above board and has never broken the law...but ya know, ya gotta wonder, is any of it true?
-
This is really weird...ya gott figure SOMEBODY should have checked to see all the people who were visible in the background behind Trump during his speech and maybe made sure there wasn't really weird stuff that showed up on the media feeds? I mean, GODS2.COM is pretty easy to see...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH4hqLEWsAQpDU8.jpg:small)
See the black guy in the background to the left of Trump? See his tee shirt? It says: Trump & Republicans are not racist. That part is ok...but then the bottom line is a god2.com.
Being curious, I went to the link...the first was simple but wasn't, weird...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/gods2.png)
Clicking on the Enter sent me to a very weird place.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/gods3.png)
Click on the top link and...
Real K K K Slave Master Revealed & is the Cherokee! The Real Reason Trump ran for President! Black& White Americans are really Hebrews,(Hos.4:6)&were in America before Cherokees.Solve America's Debt. make all Indians pay Taxes! Trick: we're all mixed with them, we pay taxes they don't & they Hate us, (r.36)! gods2.com
https://youtu.be/adj46fVONYs
But don't bother to click on the YouTube video link because you get:
This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech.
Scroll down and you'll see:
BLACKS FOR TRUMP 2018 Reveals:
Republican Senators blocking Trump are Cherokees & Mormons & are infiltraters in the Rep. Senate like McCain to block Trump & Muller are coming down with Great Wrath because their wicked time to block good policy is short, Rev.12:10 & Dan.8:25!
WTF? I mean, really WTF?
Wonder if anybody else picked this up and started tweeting?
Well, of course, this isn't the first time...this story is from Nov 2016
No, “Blacks for Trump” isn’t the work of white supporters faking diversity. It’s worse. (https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/1/13449340/blacks-for-trump-conspiracy-bad)
Their conspiracy theories make Trump’s look mild.
The ringleader of the group hoisting Blacks for Trump signs is a former cult member who goes by both Michael Symonette and “Michael the Black Man.” Pictured in the sunglasses in the video above, Symonette isn’t your typical Trump supporter, your typical conservative, your typical black Republican — or really your typical anything.
He’s the creator of the Gods2.com website that’s advertised on many of the Blacks for Trump signs, and a conspiracy theorist at a level that makes Trump’s claims of “vote rigging” look harmless. His political worldview centers on what he’s convinced is an upcoming battle in which black and white Americans will have to fight together against “Arabs” — and a belief that Hillary Clinton is a white supremacist determined to destroy black women in particular.
Although Trump welcomes the displays of support, it seems unlikely that the GOP nominee has much familiarity with the ideological basis for this enthusiastic support, or the agenda of the individuals behind it.
-
It's what's making America great again...
Hard act, replacing John Wayne. Never knew he was a Cherokee. Truth to tell, it's all the fault of the Chinese: they now want to buy out Fiat/Chrysler and thus, Jeep: and you know where that'll get us all! Imagine: Maserati owned by China. Well, not as bad as losing some flash gun jobs, I suppose.
-
Why do these two guys get a free pass?
http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/blacks.htm (http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/blacks.htm)
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/f09ffe70029f916a5fcec79924880a03?AccessKeyId=2C98F9ECB8EF6E1CF315&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
-
So, he still wants to build the wall and he's willing to shut down the government to do so?
If the government shuts down because we don't have enough money to cover our debts, Trump wants to spend more money on the wall??
Because it is sound business practice that when you find yourself in debt to borrow more money in order to fix it. ::)
Someone, please tell Mr. Trump that as president he can't just declare bankruptcy and take a mulligan.
-
Barack Hussein
Fake News if ever there was. Oh, and its Barack Hussein Obama.
Slobodan, you are capable of much better.
Embarrassing really,
-
-Harder to get an interview with a "black" name
very true - just like "asian" name makes it harder to be considered for a field & track 100m sprinter position in team that aims for a gold ... they certainly can run, just not as good as negroes ... I run into several "male" candidates for HR rep role yesterday ... and I discriminated by name (I am male) - I do not want to spend time & money taking chances, because statistically females make better reps (exceptions just prove the rule)
-
While the left liberal Democrats blast Trump with vile ad hominin attacks and fake news, Trumps goes about being President. The Dems will have to change their new campaign slogan from "A Better Deal" to "A Better Insult".
So now China is pissed off at him because we imposed sanctions on them over North Korea.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-bristles-at-us-imposed-sanctions-on-north-korea-trade/2017/08/23/32bfba3c-87ba-11e7-9ce7-9e175d8953fa_story.html
-
Things that make you go hummmm...
Senate Judiciary Committee interviews figure behind Trump dossier (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-judiciary-committee-interviews-figure-behind-trump-dossier/)
(http://cdn.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/glenn-simpson-fusion-gps-575x326.jpg)
Glenn Simpson Fusion GPS Founder
Levy also said that the committee can disclose the transcript if it wishes and Levy indicated his client would not object.
It was also reported today that Christopher Steele gave the FBI the names of his sources for the "dossier"...
British spy Christopher Steele tells FBI sources for Trump 'dossier': report (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/christopher-steele-tells-fbi-sources-trump-dossier-report-article-1.3433372)
(http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/89d62465ac9d65ad0072d191a9ed7582)
But don't worry Trump supporters...this is just a #WitchHunt by the #FAKENEWS and nothing will come of it. The "Dodgy Dossier" is completely made up and Russia has nothing on Donald Trump because, you know, Donald has ALWAYS run his business totally above board and has never broken the law...but ya know, ya gotta wonder, is any of it true?
The "secret" contacts Steele, a British free-lance spy, supposedly got info from were Russians agents. The FBI had already looked into this and didn't give the dossier credibility. They suspected it was Russian disinformation they use to smear potential political adversaries. The FBI told Obama and Trump about the dossier that it was being circulated. Another Schewe attempt to smear Trump.
What's interesting about the whole episode is that it was elite Republicans who hired Steele. They were trying to hurt Trump during the nomination process so Bush or another regular Republican would win. When Trump won the nomination, Democrats took over working with Steele to continue the smear campaign during the election against Hillary. If there was collusion with the Russians, it was the Democrats working with Russian spies through Steele. Of course, the anti-Trump press doesn't give us the whole story.
-
Fake News if ever there was. Oh, and its Barack Hussein Obama.
Slobodan, you are capable of much better.
Embarrassing really,
I have to assume that Slobodan is referring to someone else, a Muslim called Hussein. Barack Hussein Obama is a Protestant Christian.
And by focusing on the name Hussein, Slobodan just proved that names do matter when (pre)judging people.
Oh well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... they certainly can run, just not as good as negroes ...
My god, this thread is like a time machine to the 50's. :-\
-
I have to assume that Slobodan is referring to someone else, a Muslim called Hussein. Barack Hussein Obama is a Protestant Christian.
And by focusing on the name Hussein, Slobodan just proved that names do matter when (pre)judging people.
Oh well.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, You got it wrong. Slobodan said it was a Muslim name. Check his original post. The point being that during a time of strife with Muslim terrorists after 911, Americans ignored that strife and voted for Obama to be President two times despite his Muslim name and the fact he was black. It was a great time to put race behind us. Americans were ready. But the Dems and Obama continued to use racial identity politics which made racial relations worse during Obama's two terms. That unfortunately continues today.
-
I have to assume that Slobodan is referring to someone else, a Muslim called Hussein. Barack Hussein Obama is a Protestant Christian....
Once again, Bart, you are not reading carefully what I wrote. I wrote clearly that he has a Muslim NAME, not that he is one.
Then again, his father is a Muslim, his half-brother is also, he was educated in a Muslim religious school. He, as a highly educated liberal, is supposed to be a non-believer. He decided to become religious only when he decided to become a politician, knowing rather well that America would rather have a black president than an atheist one.
-
very true - just like "asian" name makes it harder to be considered for a field & track 100m sprinter position in team that aims for a gold ... they certainly can run, just not as good as negroes ... I run into several "male" candidates for HR rep role yesterday ... and I discriminated by name (I am male) - I do not want to spend time & money taking chances, because statistically females make better reps (exceptions just prove the rule)
Not sure I follow this post, but if you mean reps as in representatives to sell a service, you are right. On my personal statistics register of 1.
I chased a particular company for years, and couldn't land a meeting with anyone who counted. One day, out of the blue, I said to my wife: hey, why don't you try it - there's nothing to lose, is there? For some inexplicable reason she said okay. She was never in sales - she was an industrial chemist for two brief periods, the rest of the time she was a wife and mother. Anyway, she went out one morning and came back in time to make lunch, bearing me an invitation to go see the marketing director. From that, came six or seven years of very lucrative calendars.
She was in her thirties at the time, always elegantly dressed when in public, and spoke beautifully and correctly. And she never wore low necklines. Perhaps that made her unique amongst so-called agents or reps for the single time she repped. As ever, miss her.
Rob
-
but if you mean reps as in representatives to sell a service,
HR representative in HR department... to deal with pesky questions about benefits, timesheets, etc, etc
-
Once again, Bart, you are not reading carefully what I wrote. I wrote clearly that he has a Muslim NAME, not that he is one.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant to say.
Then again, his father is a Muslim, his half-brother is also, he was educated in a Muslim religious school.
So his father is a Muslim? And his half brother also? You forgot to mention his step great grandmother, who chose not to convert to Christianity and remain a Muslim. Antway, what has that to do with anything?
BTW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Family_and_personal_life
Obama is a Protestant Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life.[81] He wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he "was not raised in a religious household". He described his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as being detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He described his father as a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change."
In January 2008, Obama told Christianity Today: "I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life."
He, as a highly educated liberal, is supposed to be a non-believer. He decided to become religious only when he decided to become a politician, knowing rather well that America would rather have a black president than an atheist one.
Any proof that that was the reason?
Oh well, raising doubts about people's motivations is a favorite pass-time with some people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories
[...]From 1992 until 2008, he was a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ—a Reformed denomination.[...]
Cheers,
Bart
-
My god, this thread is like a time machine to the 50's. :-\
N-word is spelled differently, isn't it ?
-
Some opposing quotes.
"Let's not forget, 59 percent of Americans today believe that Barack Obama is still a Muslim."
Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr. is an American civil rights activist, Baptist minister, television/radio talk show host and a former White House adviser who, according to 60 Minutes, became President Barack Obama's "go-to black leader".
What is it, Obama is muslim or a supporter of Sharpton? You can't have it both ways.
What can I say?
-
Poor Robert Lee. No, the other one. The Korean Lee.
This is the result of the Left's, liberal Democrat political correctness gone amuck. Madness! This is why the Dems lost. Normal people don't think or act like this. Keep it up and keep losing as real Americans laugh at you.
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/08/espn_takes_stand_on_robert_lee.html
-
Some opposing quotes.
"Let's not forget, 59 percent of Americans today believe that Barack Obama is still a Muslim."
Alfred Charles Sharpton Jr. is an American civil rights activist, Baptist minister, television/radio talk show host and a former White House adviser who, according to 60 Minutes, became President Barack Obama's "go-to black leader".
What is it, Obama is muslim or a supporter of Sharpton? You can't have it both ways.
What can I say?
Sharpton is a black provocateur and racist. Obama's relationship with him damaged Black-White relations and added to the racial divide rather than putting it in the past. His "wink-wink, nod-nod" at Sharpton told Blacks that he's with them rather then for all Americans. His message to whites was thanks for your vote but I still favor blacks. That position set up a lot of the division we are now facing where whites feel that they were lied too and thrown under the bus by him. They blame the liberals, the left and Democrats for continuing to play the race card and identity politics. He blew the opportunity to go into the history books as the great conciliator, the man who put the Civil War and slavery behind us and advanced relations between the races. The only legacy he left is a failing health plan. What a shame.
-
BTW:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Family_and_personal_life
"He wrote ... He described ... He described ... Obama explained... Obama told ..."
seriously ? this is supposed to be a proof of something ? words of any american president ? ;D
-
Nice deflection today, guys. Trump goes off the deep end last night, giving a whacked-out speech, the kind of which if it were happening at a wedding or other public occasion would prompt a good friend to yank the guy off the stage. But rather than address that new low, you start talking Obama and Muslims and race.
As is often mentioned, the election is over. Obama is history. Sharpton was/is an irrelevant footnote. Give it a rest.
There is no point discussing inconsistencies of the past just for the hell of it because there is no end to that and it leads nowhere. For example, the other day Slobodan seemed to be in favour of government subsidy of some company setting up shop in Wisconsin (was it)? Yet a week or so ago, he said that he thought the USA was in danger of socialist collapse. I guess it's ok when governments give away taxpayer money to large successful corporations. What's that, new age capitalism? I'm surprised Alan didn't jump all over that, given how opposed he is to governments picking winners in the economy.
One argument in favour of those subsidies are the spin-off effects, was Slobodan's comment. I wonder what the spin-off effects are of universal medical coverage that prevents millions of people dying or getting sick and falling into bankruptcy. But that would be socialism, I guess.
Trump seems to be fixated on Mexico again. He seems to want to go to the wall over his Wall (sorry). I wish I could draw, but I can't. I have in mind a cartoon where we have a view of the end of the wall, as if in a drone over the Pacific, looking east at the Wall end on, towers with rifles into the distance. But right there, at the end of the wall, at low tide, are these Mexican workers sneaking around the end of the wall, being met by Trump who is loading them onto buses to go work at one of his hotels.
-
Sharpton is a black provocateur and racist. Obama's relationship with him damaged Black-White relations and added to the racial divide rather than putting it in the past. His "wink-wink, nod-nod" at Sharpton told Blacks that he's with them rather then for all Americans. His message to whites was thanks for your vote but I still favor blacks. That position set up a lot of the division we are now facing where whites feel that they were lied too and thrown under the bus by him. They blame the liberals, the left and Democrats for continuing to play the race card and identity politics. He blew the opportunity to go into the history books as the great conciliator, the man who put the Civil War and slavery behind us and advanced relations between the races. The only legacy he left is a failing health plan. What a shame.
I guess that you are saying that 59% of Americans are wrong for calling Obama muslim when he clearly supports a christian minister.
Just thinking,
-
Nine out of 10 articles on Trump try to show him as a racist a misogynist a cheater a liar stupid insane needs therapy. You got to be kidding that the discussion is on levels above that from the left Democrat liberals. It's smear politics. Trump supporters get it. Its fake news. All of it.
Wrong on all counts. This is not "fake news", most of what you complain about is verifiable, documented, obvious, visible truth. Do we really have to go over the list of lies again? Really?
From your list of accusations:
misogynist: self admitted
liar: obvious to anyone who listens to what he's said
stupid: also self evident. The guy can't put five words together in a sentence.
insane: who knows? He's certainly not "sane" by any rational judgement. He's systematically smearing himself.
needs therapy: debatable. We all do at some point in our lives.
The media cannot conspire against Trump. The media is not organized, nor is it a conspiracy directed by some higher power. The MSM is by and large an amorphous, international, sometimes governmental, self-policing reporting system with strict rules about who can say what and when.
That's called "governance" (look it up) (like that's gonna happen)
Governance does not apply on the Internet, where anybody (like you) can say anything they like, without verification or peer review. It doesn't have to be true at all.
And that, Alan, is "fake news".
-
There are no racial problems in the USA. There are only made-up "problems," as the left desperately needs to perpetuate victimhood in order to have something to whine about.
Like this, Alan. The perfect example of fake news.
Also a perfect example of excellent trolling.
-
HR representative in HR department... to deal with pesky questions about benefits, timesheets, etc, etc
Ha! Human Resouces?
We didn't have departments called that back in '66 when I left my last employment! Perhaps the closest was Personnel Department...
How hyped the world has become, what with "sanitary engineers" roaming the streets picking up garbage. The sad reality of everybody's a star - or photographer.
;-)
Rob C
-
Nice deflection today, guys. Trump goes off the deep end last night, giving a whacked-out speech, the kind of which if it were happening at a wedding or other public occasion would prompt a good friend to yank the guy off the stage. But rather than address that new low, you start talking Obama and Muslims and race.
That's just to break the tedium of having to repeat news about Trump being on a path of (self)destruction.
But it is already 'old news': Trump unshackled: President defends Charlottesville response at raucous rally
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKCN1B211U
With an interesting QUOTE "[...] James Clapper, a former director of U.S. national intelligence, expressed concern at Trump's performance, calling it "downright scary and disturbing."
"I question his fitness to be in office," Clapper told CNN. " [...]
Cheers,
Bart
-
In my company we no longer even have a Human Resources Office. We have something called People Operations. wtf? We have a Chief People Officer... that's actually the official job title.
One of their functions is People Analytics. huh? It turns out that People Analytics mostly pertains to maintaining our various internal and external web-based personnel services.
So in my company we went from Personnel Office, to Human Resources Office, to People Operations.
(facepalm)
-
This headline pretty much sums up last night's circus act.
Trump Has A Harsher Condemnation For The Media Than For White Supremacists.
Nothing fake about it, watch the speech, it's impossible for anyone using rational thinking to come to any other conclusion!
-
That's just to break the tedium of having to repeat news about Trump being on a path of (self)destruction.
But it is already 'old news': Trump unshackled: President defends Charlottesville response at raucous rally
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKCN1B211U
With an interesting QUOTE "[...] James Clapper, a former director of U.S. national intelligence, expressed concern at Trump's performance, calling it "downright scary and disturbing."
"I question his fitness to be in office," Clapper told CNN. " [...]
Cheers,
Bart
Clapper ? the dude of "WMD in Iraq were smuggled out to Syria" fame ;D ... good reference.
-
Clapper ? the dude of "WMD in Iraq were smuggled out to Syria" fame ;D ... good reference.
No wonder they couldn't find them! More bad information, then.
;-)
Rob C
-
Clapper ? the dude of "WMD in Iraq were smuggled out to Syria" fame ;D ... good reference.
Source? Was that what his service reported, or was that how it was sold by the Administration (like Colin Powell's presentation/show on February 5, 2003, at the UN Security Council)?
Cheers,
Bart
-
...As is often mentioned, the election is over. Obama is history. Sharpton was/is an irrelevant footnote. Give it a rest.
There is no point discussing inconsistencies of the past just for the hell of it because there is no end to that and it leads nowhere. For example, the other day Slobodan seemed to be in favour of government subsidy of some company setting up shop in Wisconsin (was it)? Yet a week or so ago, he said that he thought the USA was in danger of socialist collapse. I guess it's ok when governments give away taxpayer money to large successful corporations. What's that, new age capitalism? I'm surprised Alan didn't jump all over that, given how opposed he is to governments picking winners in the economy.
One argument in favour of those subsidies are the spin-off effects, was Slobodan's comment. I wonder what the spin-off effects are of universal medical coverage that prevents millions of people dying or getting sick and falling into bankruptcy. But that would be socialism, I guess.
Trump seems to be fixated on Mexico again. He seems to want to go to the wall over his Wall (sorry). I wish I could draw, but I can't. I have in mind a cartoon where we have a view of the end of the wall, as if in a drone over the Pacific, looking east at the Wall end on, towers with rifles into the distance. But right there, at the end of the wall, at low tide, are these Mexican workers sneaking around the end of the wall, being met by Trump who is loading them onto buses to go work at one of his hotels.
Obama and Sharpton are not irrelevant. They created during his 8 years racial tension that is now exploding in America again. Shame on them. Obama should get out there an try to cool things down. But he's too busy hanging out with liberal white billionaires. He's going to help stir the pot to help Democrats out as they continue to play racial and identity politics. Trump will counter it to secure his voters who are neither black, rich, poor, bankers, elite politicians, Muslim, globalist businesses, LGBT, or gay. Trump's voters are not any of these. So Trump defends their interests. What did you expect to happen when the last president played favorites instead of representing all the people? America is in for some hard times.
Regarding Wisconsin, I think they made a mistake. Foxconn may close down in three years and leave their taxpayers with the bill. Also, I think they just gave away too much. They should have asked Trump to negotiate the deal. But Wisconsin is not the same situation as I described earlier where government should not be picking winners and losers. Then, I was referring to when government picks certain products as their desire for where the market should go rather than letting free markets to determine. In Wisconsin, it's a little different. They're adjusting their taxes to entice business to come to their state rather than go to another state. It's more of a business decision. The question is whether the giveaways will return more in the long run.
I'm not in favor of the wall. It's a waste of money. All the government has to do is enforce existing law that makes it criminal to hire illegals. Just put two employers in jail who have done that, and illegal immigration will dry up over night. Other employers will hire citizens to avoid jail. Illegals will go back to Mexico since they'll be out of work. Mexicans will stay in Mexico.
-
Source? Was that what his service reported, or was that how it was sold by the Administration (like Colin Powell's presentation/show on February 5, 2003, at the UN Security Council)?
Cheers,
Bart
Clapper perjured himself before Congress. He lied. He told them the NSA was not collecting data on citizens. So now we're to trust him?
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/lawmakers-resume-calls-for-james-clapper-perjury-charges
He also may have salted the mine regarding WMD's by implying that Iraq may have hidden them in Syria even though it was obviously false.
Who trusts a CIA spook anyway?
-
The trouble with pissing off smart people is, well, they are smart and since Trump is dumb, he prolly won't even notice.
Trump's science envoy just quit. His resignation letter has a secret message calling for impeachment. (https://theweek.com/speedreads/720150/trumps-science-envoy-just-quit-resignation-letter-secret-message-calling-impeachment)
President Trump's science envoy resigned on Wednesday, leaving critics of the commander-in-chief a secret acrostic message to discover in his letter:
Daniel M Kammen
@dan_kammen
Mr. President, I am resigning as Science Envoy. Your response to Charlottesville enables racism, sexism, & harms our country and planet.
7:15 AM - 23 Aug 2017
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH65XoxVoAAhJMb.jpg)
The first letter of each paragraph of Professor Daniel Kammen's letter spells "impeach," some readers noticed (https://twitter.com/yashar/status/900379695895674880).
This letter of resignation follows this:
Trump's Committee on the Arts and Humanities put a secret message in their resignation letter (http://theweek.com/speedreads/719461/trumps-committee-arts-humanities-secret-message-resignation-letter)
There is a secret message waiting for readers of this resignation letter, penned by the members of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities:
Kal PennVerified account
@kalpenn
Dear @realDonaldTrump, attached is our letter of resignation from the President's Committee on the Arts & the Humanities @PCAH_gov
7:08 AM - 18 Aug 2017
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHhH9pLXoAAM44e.jpg)
The first letter of each paragraph spells "RESIST," keen-eyed readers on Twitter discovered. Kal Penn, who sat on the committee, confirmed (https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/898572013928947712) the Easter egg was intentional.
Ironically, Kal Penn (actual name Kalpen Suresh Modi) actually worked in the White House. On April 8, 2009, it was announced that Penn would join the Obama administration as an Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement. Too bad the current White House has no clue how to rn a White House...
But hey, all you Trump supporters, ya'll keep telling yourself everything is going just fine-it's not, but keep lying to yourself.
-
The trouble with pissing off smart people is, well, they are smart and since Trump is dumb, he prolly won't even notice.
Trump's science envoy just quit. His resignation letter has a secret message calling for impeachment. (https://theweek.com/speedreads/720150/trumps-science-envoy-just-quit-resignation-letter-secret-message-calling-impeachment)
This letter of resignation follows this:
Trump's Committee on the Arts and Humanities put a secret message in their resignation letter (http://theweek.com/speedreads/719461/trumps-committee-arts-humanities-secret-message-resignation-letter)
Ironically, Kal Penn (actual name Kalpen Suresh Modi) actually worked in the White House. On April 8, 2009, it was announced that Penn would join the Obama administration as an Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement. Too bad the current White House has no clue how to rn a White House...
But hey, all you Trump supporters, ya'll keep telling yourself everything is going just fine-it's not, but keep lying to yourself.
Kammen is a Democrat and was appointed by Obama. He's a stalwart Global Warming advocate who of course supports the Paris Accord that Trump pulled out of. Trump was probably getting ready to fire and replace him so he figured he's quit first and get the noteriety. Putting a secret message within the text of his resignation letter shows just how political he is. Good riddance. I hope the door doesn't hit him on the way out.
-
Clapper perjured himself before Congress. He lied. He told them the NSA was not collecting data on citizens. So now we're to trust him?
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/lawmakers-resume-calls-for-james-clapper-perjury-charges
He also may have salted the mine regarding WMD's by implying that Iraq may have hidden them in Syria even though it was obviously false.
Who trusts a CIA spook anyway?
Trump supporter saying liars are untrustworthy. That's cute. When Donald Trump opens his foul mouth, only one thing is near certain - he's lying. Get real, Alan.
-
Kammen is a Democrat and was appointed by Obama.
Hum, so how do you know he's a democrat?
I checked and there's nothing on his website or CV that says he's a democrat. He does have a Ph.D from Harvard, does that automatically make him a democrat? Seriously...I'm trying to figure out how you know who is and isn't a democrat. Does anybody with a Ph.D. automatically become a democrat?
Yeah, clearly he was a poor choice for holding a position in Trump's admin, I mean, he was clearly over qualified...from his website (http://kammen.berkeley.edu/):
Daniel Kammen has authored or co-authored 12 books, written more than 300 peer-reviewed journal publications, testified more than 40 times to U.S. state and federal congressional briefings, and has provided various governments with more than 50 technical reports. Dr. Kammen also served for many years on the Technical Review Board of the Global Environment Facility. He is a frequent contributor to or commentator in international news media, including Newsweek, Time, The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Financial Times. Kammen has appeared on 60 Minutes (twice), Nova, Frontline, and hosted the six-part Discovery Channel series Ecopolis. Dr. Kammen is a Permanent Fellow of the African Academy of Sciences, a fellow of the American Physical Society. In the US, he serves on two National Academy of Sciences boards and panels.
Dan is also a coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their report, Climate Change 2007, assessing man-made global warming.
Clearly, a Nobel Peace Prize winner has no business being involved with Trump's administration. I mean, why have somebody who has more than half a clue work for somebody who is totally clueless?
I agree, he was prolly too smart to work for The Big Orange Dummy™.
-
Trump supporter saying liars are untrustworthy. That's cute. When Donald Trump opens his foul mouth, only one thing is near certain - he's lying. Get real, Alan.
Get real about what? I was answering Bart's question about why Clapper shouldn't necessarily be trusted. That's got nothing to do with Trump. Did he make Clapper lie? It rained yesterday. Must be Trump's fault.
-
When Donald Trump opens his foul mouth, only one thing is near certain - he's lying. Get real, Alan.
Some here would say you're being to harsh. Expect if we look at some facts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.eaf19ab4aa7e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.eaf19ab4aa7e)
In 214 days, President Trump has made 1,057 false and misleading claims
Even if they are off 50% (and they are not), that's pretty shocking!
Get real (get reality) for sure!
-
Some here would say you're being to harsh. Expect if we look at some facts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.eaf19ab4aa7e (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.eaf19ab4aa7e)
In 214 days, President Trump has made 1,057 false and misleading claims
Even if they are off 50% (and they are not), that's pretty shocking!
Get real (get reality) for sure!
Andrew you're 277 pages too late. Trust me, you won't change anyone's mind. Save yourself the anguish and just print photos. It's more rewarding. :)
-
It rained yesterday. Must be Trump's fault.
Well, when it rains, it pours...
Trump's approval rating stands at 35 percent, poll says (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-approval-rating-stands-at-35-percent-poll-says/)
(https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/trump-pout.jpg)
President Trump's job approval rating has fallen over the last week, according to a Quinnipiac University (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2482) survey released Wednesday.
The poll found that 35 percent approve of the president's job while 59 percent disapprove. A Quinnipiac University survey released last week found that Mr. Trump's job approval was 4 percentage points higher at the time.
Sixty-two percent of voters say that the president is doing more to divide the nation and 31 percent said that he is doing more to unite the country, the latest poll found.
Here's some more of the low lights:
President Trump does not provide the U.S. with moral leadership, American voters say 62 - 35 percent. Voter opinions of most Trump qualities remain low:
61 - 36 percent that he is not honest;
61 - 37 percent that he does not have good leadership skills;
57 - 40 percent that he does not care about average Americans;
68 - 29 percent that he is not level headed;
59 - 38 percent that he is a strong person;
55 - 43 percent that he is intelligent;
63 - 34 percent that he does not share their values.
But don't worry Trump supporters...polls are #FAKENEWS so you don't need to worry about them. They mean nothing to you, the diminishing base of Trump supporters!
-
... Any proof that that was the reason?...
You mean was I inside his head when he made that decision to become religious? No, I wasn't.
But you know what psychologists say about recognizing a liar? They tend to add unnecessary detail. So, let's see:
"I am a Christian,..."
So far, so good. I could actually almost believe it. But he doesn't stop while he is ahead, he has to add details:
...and I am a devout Christian...
Seriously, "devout"!? Someone who was raised in several generations of non-religious people on both side of the family, is now a "devout" believer!?
Then, as most liars, he has to continue to add unnecessary details:
...I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life.
A young, highly educated person, professor, raised in a non-believer family, now believes in fairy tales!? Resurrection, redemptive death, eternal life!? Seriously?
-
Andrew you're 277 pages too late. Trust me, you won't change anyone's mind. Save yourself the anguish and just print photos. It's more rewarding. :)
You sound like Trump (anyone who has to keep saying "trust me" can't be trusted).
The article was: Updated Aug. 21, 2017 and you'd see that had you gone to that link!
Yet you expect me to believe it was posted 277 pages ago? What 277 pages would that be?
Yes, making fine prints is far more rewarding than discussing facts with those deep inside the unreality bubble of alternative facts!
-
Andrew you're 277 pages too late.
Well, Andrew's link was a bit out of date...it was only updated on Aug 21st and doesn't include last night's mental breakdown which I'm sure will add many more false and misleading claims...which seems to happen any time Trump is off the teleprompter!
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/lies.png)
How many false or misleading claims do you figure will be added? Think it's spike over 40? Wonder what Trump was talking about at the end of July that included so many?
The man is special (in a creepy sort of way according to Hillary).
-
"Christopher Columbus monument vandalized in Baltimore"
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-columbus-monument-20170821-story.html
-
Christopher Columbus fought for the rights of
illegal aliens European settlers.
The Alt-Left should celebrate him as the first social justice warior.
(https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13286705_f520.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/coastaljax.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/no-human-is-illegal-jax-1.jpg?resize=640%2C360&ssl=1)
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/banner-624648.jpg)
(Contains satire)
-
You sound like Trump (anyone who has to keep saying "trust me" can't be trusted).
The article was: Updated Aug. 21, 2017 and you'd see that had you gone to that link!
Yet you expect me to believe it was posted 277 pages ago? What 277 pages would that be?
Yes, making fine prints is far more rewarding than discussing facts with those deep inside the unreality bubble of alternative facts!
I suppose my jest wasn't clear. What I meant when I said you were 277 pages too late, was that people have been trying to change other people's minds about Trump for 277 pages and nobody has changed anyone else's mind. You arguments now won't make a difference. You'd be better off printing instead.
-
Hum, so how do you know he's a democrat?
...Clearly, a Nobel Peace Prize winner has no business being involved with Trump's administration. I mean, why have somebody who has more than half a clue work for somebody who is totally clueless?
Obama, like Kammen, was also a Nobel Peace prize winner. So it means nothing. Also, Sweden only awards them to Liberals, Socialists, and others on the Left. Of course Kammen's a Democrat. What else could he be? :)
-
So you say Trump can't get a Nobel prize?
-
So you say Trump can't get a Nobel prize?
Les, you have a better chance!
-
Alan, you made my day, thank you for the vote of confidence! Now I'll have something to look forward every morning.
It got me thinking, that maybe there is a way Trump could get a Nobel Peace Prize after all. All he has to do is to resign. All world would be so happy that they would make the Swedes give him the Nobel Prize. I'm sure Angela Merkel would put in also a good word for him.
-
So it means nothing. Also, Sweden only awards them to Liberals, Socialists, and others on the Left.
So, Sweden only give the Nobel Peace Prize to liberals, socialists and others on the left? So, only socialists and liberals work on behalf of other people towards the goal of peace? You know what you are saying, right?
Follow it through, run the tape. Only socialists and liberals work towards peace?
-
The Swedes attempted to influence American liberal policy when they awarded to Obama, Carter and Al Gore. Obama just became president, The prize helped make him feckless despite his subsequent use of drones.
Carter opposed Bush's tough policy to defend America and Gore's global warming had nothing to do with peace. It wad their attempt to push a leftist scientific agenda. They should mind their business.
-
They should mind their business.
I think this is their business, the fact you don't agree with their decisions doesn't change that.
-
The Swedes attempted to influence American liberal policy ...
Thanks for this belly laugh. I just finished 2 weeks of frustrating bathroom renovation and needed it.
-
Source? Was that what his service reported, or was that how it was sold by the Administration (like Colin Powell's presentation/show on February 5, 2003, at the UN Security Council)?
Cheers,
Bart
https://thinkprogress.org/in-oct-2003-dni-nominee-james-clapper-said-it-was-unquestionably-true-that-iraq-moved-wmd-to-syria-8fcc73cd1be7/
Speaking to reporters in October 2003, Clapper suggested that the illicit weapons had “unquestionably” been moved to Syria:
The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material “unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq. […]
He said he was providing a personal assessment. But he said “the obvious conclusion one draws” was that there “may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq, and unquestionably, I am sure, material.” A spokesman for General Clapper’s agency, David Burpee, said he could not provide further evidence to support the general’s statement.
as every single american official he is a patented liar
PS: and please do not try to inject "his service reported" ( as your intent with such attempt is clear here ;D ) - we are about him being a liar and you using liars to support your "point"
-
... Illegals will go back to Mexico since they'll be out of work. Mexicans will stay in Mexico.
If they're working now, what's the problem. And yes, I know, there's no to reiterate that they are in the country illegally. I'm not advocating flaunting the rule of law, but if the law cannot be enforced, who is kidding whom. The thing is, now, what would be the point of spending all the money to chase down 11 million (or 13 or whatever the number is) illegal immigrants who are WORKING in order to get rid of them. I presume it's because after they're gone, Americans will get those jobs? What was stopping those Americans from getting those jobs in the first place?
As for tracking them down and deporting them: 1. What are the real chances of this working, given that you have a criminal justice system that can't keep illegal drugs out of prisons, and 2. How could it possibly be worth the expense?
-
It's so obvious that this thread never had any hope of going anywhere, couldn't hope to change any minds and has just helped fracture the LuLa community a little bit more than camera fanboyism could. The latter only affected where some people spent their hobby money allocation; unfortunately, this political, endless and without resolution topic has really driven wedges that I have never encountered here before.
I suspect that our late founder would have got rid of it a long, long time ago. Shame it persists in its unfortunate course.
Censorship would seek to deny those who feel the need to plead their gospel; good management would simply point them to an appropriate site where they could indulge themselves without causing gratuitous offence to others.
Rob C
-
I suppose my jest wasn't clear.
Or accurate.
Trust me :o I know more about accuracy than all the generals. Everyone knows that.
When reading the above, consider the influence of a man child speaking as the leader of the free world.
-
... if the law cannot be enforced, who is kidding whom...
Obama: "Yes, we can!" Round them up, kick them out... rinse and repeat.
... What was stopping those Americans from getting those jobs in the first place?...
You are kidding, right? The very presence of those 11-13 million illegals.
-
https://thinkprogress.org/in-oct-2003-dni-nominee-james-clapper-said-it-was-unquestionably-true-that-iraq-moved-wmd-to-syria-8fcc73cd1be7/
Thanks for supplying a link, now we can start discussing it from the same viewpoint based on the same information.
I noted the part you quoted: "He said he was providing a personal assessment.". So based on his satellite imagery info (without further confirmation, e.g. ground-based observations), he apparently took an educated guess. His service did not produce an official report stating WMD transports (because the National Imagery and Mapping Agency that he was directing could not confirm what was in the transports, only that satellite imagery was showing "a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria", just before the American invasion in March).
In fact, the New York Times had a bit more detailed reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/world/the-struggle-for-iraq-weapons-search-iraqis-removed-arms-material-us-aide-says.html) at the time, and they said:
He said he was providing a personal assessment. But he said ''the obvious conclusion one draws'' was that there ''may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq, and unquestionably, I am sure, material.'' A spokesman for General Clapper's agency, David Burpee, said he could not provide further evidence to support the general's statement.
But other American intelligence officials said General Clapper's theory was among those being pursued in Iraq by David Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector who is leading the American effort to uncover the weapons cited by the Bush administration as the major reason for going to war against Iraq.
as every single american official he is a patented liar
Careless to vent a personal assessment to reporters, yes. A liar, I don't see how, since he assumed people, and with more certainly material was being transported (which kind of makes sense, one usually doesn't transport people in the back of closed trucks in a desert environment).
PS: and please do not try to inject "his service reported" ( as your intent with such attempt is clear here ;D ) - we are about him being a liar and you using liars to support your "point"
So we just established that his personal assessment (informal guesstimate) was perhaps not accurate as far as WMDs were concerned (or maybe it was, and Assad later used some of that material). How is that lying? Did he state it as a fact? His assessment was one of several from different intelligence services.
I don't know if he was lying until something more revealing is presented, but you do seem to be sure ...
Fine with me, but I'm not buying it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If they're working now, what's the problem. And yes, I know, there's no to reiterate that they are in the country illegally. I'm not advocating flaunting the rule of law, but if the law cannot be enforced, who is kidding whom. The thing is, now, what would be the point of spending all the money to chase down 11 million (or 13 or whatever the number is) illegal immigrants who are WORKING in order to get rid of them. I presume it's because after they're gone, Americans will get those jobs? What was stopping those Americans from getting those jobs in the first place?
As for tracking them down and deporting them: 1. What are the real chances of this working, given that you have a criminal justice system that can't keep illegal drugs out of prisons, and 2. How could it possibly be worth the expense?
You missed my point. I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't say chase down anyone except the American employers who hire illegals. If you arrest and jail a couple of those employers for hiring illegals, other employers would stop hiring. Illegal entry into the US would dry up. You don't need to build a wall.
If you want to deal with those who are already in the US in a different way, such as eventually giving them permanent status, then apply the work rule only to those hired going forward. That would stop new illegal immigration. I think that is a humane policy. It secures our borders and gives "illegals" already here an opportunity to become full America citizens at some point.
Illegals who have violated other criminal laws such as robbery, rape, etc., should be prosecuted and jailed and then returned to their country when their jail term is over.
We have over 12 million illegals about a third of the entire population of Canada. Maybe we can send a few up north. :)
Interesting your PM Trudeau is complaining about illegal immigration in Canada lately, as well. Of course the scale in miniscule compared to America. Only a few hundred a month up there. In the US we apprehend about 50,000 a month. Interesting that this news about Canada complaining about illegals didn't pop up on Google giving a NY Times or Washington Post article on this issue. Only more obscure publications. Another example of the biased press only focusing on stuff that attempts to denigrate Trump. Hiw supporters understand the drill.
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/2284855-Canada-s-Trudeau-Sounds-Alarm-About-Illegal-Immigrants
-
Thanks for supplying a link, now we can start discussing it from the same viewpoint based on the same information.
I noted the part you quoted: "He said he was providing a personal assessment.". So based on his satellite imagery info (without further confirmation, e.g. ground-based observations), he apparently took an educated guess. His service did not produce an official report stating WMD transports (because the National Imagery and Mapping Agency that he was directing could not confirm what was in the transports, only that satellite imagery was showing "a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria", just before the American invasion in March).
In fact, the New York Times had a bit more detailed reporting (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/world/the-struggle-for-iraq-weapons-search-iraqis-removed-arms-material-us-aide-says.html) at the time, and they said:
Careless to vent a personal assessment to reporters, yes. A liar, I don't see how, since he assumed people, and with more certainly material was being transported (which kind of makes sense, one usually doesn't transport people in the back of closed trucks in a desert environment).
So we just established that his personal assessment (informal guesstimate) was perhaps not accurate as far as WMDs were concerned (or maybe it was, and Assad later used some of that material). How is that lying? Did he state it as a fact? His assessment was one of several from different intelligence services.
I don't know if he was lying until something more revealing is presented, but you do seem to be sure ...
Fine with me, but I'm not buying it.
Cheers,
Bart
Your argument supports that Bush was right invading Iraq. After all, Clapper helped confirm they were moving WMD's around.
-
... So we just established that his personal assessment (informal guesstimate) was perhaps not accurate... How is that lying?...
Would you be willing to apply the same charitable, stretchable criterion to Trump as well? ;)
-
And now for something completely different...
What’s the difference between Donald Trump and Twitter?
A Twitter post has 140 characters. Trump has no character at all.
(rimshot)
-
Your argument supports that Bush was right invading Iraq. After all, Clapper helped confirm they were moving WMD's around.
Since when do people and 'material' equal WMDs ???
Perhaps when one is looking for an excuse to invade?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Would you be willing to apply the same charitable, stretchable criterion to Trump as well? ;)
Sure, when he stops lying.
I know, I know, when someone thinks he is not lying, one could argue that he is not lying but is misguided/delusional.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... If you arrest and jail a couple of those employers for hiring illegals, other employers would stop hiring.
If you want to deal with those who are already in the US in a different way, such as eventually giving them permanent status, then apply the work rule only to those hired going forward. That would stop new illegal immigration. I think that is a humane policy. It secures our borders and gives "illegals" already here an opportunity to become full America citizens at some point.
Agreed. A logical and humane strategy. Maybe even effective. Who knew? :)
-
As long as we prosecute the business owners/CEOs and not just some low manager. Nothing will change until some rich guys are thrown in the slam.
-
Do you realize that, according to the current legislation, I, as an employer, am not allowed to question the veracity of the immigration documents presented? That I would be subject to fines if I did? And then when they turn out to be fake, I should then go to jail!? While, in the meantime the guy who presented them would get a driver's license, free medical, education, etc. While I am in jail!? Get real and just kick them out. I do agree that employers should be seriously fined, after they are allowed to question the documents.
-
according to the current legislation, I, as an employer, am not allowed to question the veracity of the immigration documents presented?
Who can, then?
-
Who can, then?
That's apparently the point: nobody. I have a suspicion (not knowledge, granted) that it was done by design, as everything else, to encourage illegal immigration.
-
The underlying assumption seems to be that illegal immigration costs Americans jobs. I can see where it's tempting to assume that, but is it true? Has Freakonomics studied this, for example? How do we decide if it's true or not?
I don't think it's the case that an illegal immigrant can knock on a door and say to the employer, Hey, why don't you fire that guy over there and hire me instead? The employers who hire illegals are hiring workers first, I presume, and they're hiring based on who knocks on the door and asks for a job. I don't believe they hang up a sign saying we only hire illegals.
Now, are they hiring illegal immigrants because no Americans are knocking on their doors? Maybe the demand for jobs is outstripping supply, and the illegals are getting jobs that would otherwise have been unfilled. Or maybe the illegals are pricing themselves so low on the labour market that Americans are being crowded out. Either scenario is plausible and until there is data showing it is one way or the other, all we have are emotional arguments.
Are there studies showing that the majority of illegals are working at less than the avg wage in the relevant sector? Because if that's not the case, you cannot make the argument that they are stealing jobs. Until we have meaningful economic data showing what is actually occurring, we're just guessing.
-
See sample illegal question No. 1: http://hrpeople.monster.com/training/articles/3691-6-illegal-interview-questions-you-shouldnt-ask?page=2 (http://hrpeople.monster.com/training/articles/3691-6-illegal-interview-questions-you-shouldnt-ask?page=2).
-
Do you realize that, according to the current legislation, I, as an employer, am not allowed to question the veracity of the immigration documents presented? That I would be subject to fines if I did? And then when they turn out to be fake, I should then go to jail!? While, in the meantime the guy who presented them would get a driver's license, free medical, education, etc. While I am in jail!? Get real and just kick them out. I do agree that employers should be seriously fined, after they are allowed to question the documents.
Wait.. what??
https://www.uscis.gov/e-verify
U.S. law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States – either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization. This diverse workforce contributes greatly to the vibrancy and strength of our economy, but that same strength also attracts unauthorized employment.
E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. E-Verify is fast, free and easy to use – and it’s the best way employers can ensure a legal workforce.
-
:) :) :)
Nice work, James.
-
Meanwhile, this by Nicholas Kristof: We’re Journalists, Mr. Trump, Not the Enemy
"Sigh. If only President Trump denounced neo-Nazis as passionately and sincerely as he castigates journalists."
"Since Trump was elected, the stock price of the Times Company has risen by almost two-thirds. Thank you for your assistance, Mr. President!"
So much for the "Failing New York Times" :)
First thing invaders do is disrupt and discredit the media.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/trump-journalists-enemy.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
-
:) :) :)
Nice work, James.
I'm not trying to be a smartass - I'm just not clear on the issue. As an employer also, (and an employer in SoCal and Texas, where we need to worry about such things), I'm just not understanding what Slobodan is asserting, since it's absolutely NOT illegal to verify eligibility. If it's that he can't continue to question certified employees, well, I'm not particularly sympathetic to that, but I don't THINK that's what he was getting at either. Dunno...
-
I'm not trying to be a smartass -
Smartass no, smart, yes. Someone who is examining the facts, not those alternative ones. If only 1/3rd of the country would follow suite.
-
The underlying assumption seems to be that illegal immigration costs Americans jobs. I can see where it's tempting to assume that, but is it true? Has Freakonomics studied this, for example? How do we decide if it's true or not?
I don't think it's the case that an illegal immigrant can knock on a door and say to the employer, Hey, why don't you fire that guy over there and hire me instead? The employers who hire illegals are hiring workers first, I presume, and they're hiring based on who knocks on the door and asks for a job. I don't believe they hang up a sign saying we only hire illegals.
Now, are they hiring illegal immigrants because no Americans are knocking on their doors? Maybe the demand for jobs is outstripping supply, and the illegals are getting jobs that would otherwise have been unfilled. Or maybe the illegals are pricing themselves so low on the labour market that Americans are being crowded out. Either scenario is plausible and until there is data showing it is one way or the other, all we have are emotional arguments.
Are there studies showing that the majority of illegals are working at less than the avg wage in the relevant sector? Because if that's not the case, you cannot make the argument that they are stealing jobs. Until we have meaningful economic data showing what is actually occurring, we're just guessing.
Even if illegals were being paid what is being offered to Americans, and the wage would be equal to what an American would be paid if the illegal wasn't competing, the fact that there are more people applying, some of them illegals, means that Americans are losing jobs to illegals from other countries.
Now the fact is illegals are being paid less. So Americans are really being blocked from even competing for those jobs.
The fact is the wages paid to anyone is based on scarcity of prospective employees. The more applicants, the lower the wage. So since there are more applicants due to millions of illegals, that forces wages down and replaces Americans who would otherwise get the job.
Speaking of scarcity and the cost of things reminds me of the joke of the old lady who went shopping for chop meat.
So the old lady goes to the butcher, and asks, "I need one pound of chop meat. How much is it?"
The Butcher responds, "Well, we charge $5 a pound but unfortunately, we're all out of chop meat today."
So the old lady leaves and walks to another butcher and asks, " I need one pound of chop meat. How much is it and do you have any?"
"Oh," says butcher #2. " We have loads of chop meat. And it's $7 a pound."
"$7 a pound," says the old lady irately. "The other butcher only wanted $5 a pound."
"Well." says butcher #2. "When we're out of chop meat, we only charge $3 a pound."
-
:) :) :)
Nice work, James.
Well, So I finally got some agreement. It's a miracle.
Too reiterate"
"I didn't say chase down anyone except the American employers who hire illegals. If you arrest and jail a couple of those employers for hiring illegals, other employers would stop hiring. Illegal entry into the US would dry up. You don't need to build a wall."
-
I suspect that our late founder would have got rid of it a long, long time ago. Shame it persists in its unfortunate course.
Censorship would seek to deny those who feel the need to plead their gospel; good management would simply point them to an appropriate site where they could indulge themselves without causing gratuitous offence to others.
You are perfectly welcome to mind your own business Rob...
You even started your own thread which I've successfully avoided posting in because, we, it's meaningless to me.
But I knew Mike pretty well and I'm 100% sure Mike would not have shut down this thread, he wouldn't care what people may say about American politics as long as it was debated within the terms of service of LuLa. And so far, this thread is remarkable for the relatively high degree of civility–only once did Chris come in and warn posters that strike out of words isn't the same as not posting them in the first place.
I actually called Chris and apologized to him for having been involved in the strike out posts. He laughed...because, well, this whole thread should be taken with a degree of amusement and nobody should take themselves that seriously.
So, Rob, post or don't post, but kindly don't tell us what we should/shouldn't do in "our" thread...and I won't tell what to do in "your" thread, ok?
-
Since when do people and 'material' equal WMDs ???
Perhaps when one is looking for an excuse to invade?
Cheers,
Bart
I remember the situation very clearly. There were all sorts of trucks moving around from what looked like WMD sites. So Saddam appeared to be moving the WMD;s around. He also was playing coy. It didn't want his enemies, especially Iran, think he did not have WMD's and appear weak to them. Remember, back in the 1980's, the Israelis sent jets and attacked and destroyed Iraq's nuclear plant that was making fissionable material for A bombs. So he had a record of having WMD's. So he kept making it seem like he had them by moving trucks, maybe empty trucks, around even though he didn't them and got rid of them previously. He should have let inspectors into all the places they wanted to go instead of Saddam excluding certain areas and creating suspicion. But he wanted the suspicion that he still had them. He kind of screwed himself because he convinced the world that he had WMD's. So America invaded. And hanged him.
-
Even if illegals were being paid what is being offered to Americans, and the wage would be equal to what an American would be paid if the illegal wasn't competing, the fact that there are more people applying, some of them illegals, means that Americans are losing jobs to illegals from other countries.
Your perception of the issue doesn't actually line up with reality which doesn't surprise me because Trump doesn't really understand immigration either.
This is an Aug 2016 article from Forbes:
Illegal Immigrants Don't Lower Our Wages Or Take Our Jobs (https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2015/08/28/how-do-illegal-immigrants-affect-american-workers-the-answer-might-surprise-you/#37911a25771a)
(https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/484889474/640x0.jpg?fit=scale)
Anti-immigration voters and candidates are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of social science on this.
Immigration has taken center stage in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. The conventional wisdom says illegal immigrants take American jobs and lower American wages.
That conventional wisdom is wrong.
According to an April 2015 symposium on the effects of illegal immigrants in the Southern Economic Journal (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/soej.v81.4/issuetoc), illegal immigrants actually raise wages for documented/native workers. Meanwhile, rules preventing illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses raise our car insurance premiums and E-Verify requirements raise the cost of doing business and reduce employment.
Using data from Georgia, Julie Hotchkiss, Myriam Quispe-Agnoli, and Fernando Rios-Avila find that documented workers’ wages rise with increases in the share of undocumented workers in a worker’s county and employed by their employers. The biggest boosts are for workers in low- and medium-skill firms that hire a lot of undocumented immigrants with an even larger boost for workers in low-skill firms with a lot of undocumented workers in the county and industry.
Why? The law of comparative advantage says we get more productive when we have more trading partners, and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English.
I'm not saying that undocumented workers don't present problems and that it would be better to have a better legal immigration program, but I think it's a sad political device to blame undocumented workers because, well, what are they gonna do about being blamed for unemployment? It's not like they are gonna vote anybody in or out of office–and please don't bring up Trump's irrational claim that millions of illegal aliens were responsible for him losing the popular vote.
It would be better to take a more academic and less political approach to solving the issues of undocumented workers and illegal immigration.
-
I remember the situation very clearly. There were all sorts of trucks moving around from what looked like WMD sites. So Saddam appeared to be moving the WMD;s around. He also was playing coy. It didn't want his enemies, especially Iran, think he did not have WMD's and appear weak to them.
That's also exactly how I remember the situation. He faked having some bargaining chips with the West in order to have embargoes lifted, and he kept Iran at a distance.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I'm not saying that undocumented workers don't present problems and that it would be better to have a better legal immigration program, but I think it's a sad political device to blame undocumented workers because, well, what are they gonna do about being blamed for unemployment? It's not like they are gonna vote anybody in or out of office–and please don't bring up Trump's irrational claim that millions of illegal aliens were responsible for him losing the popular vote.
Indeed, and illegal workers have lower crime statistics because they prefer keeping a low profile.
It would be better to take a more academic and less political approach to solving the issues of undocumented workers and illegal immigration.
Yep.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump is dumb
... but this forum has 4 more pages overnight.
He also has billions and more people voted for him than voted for the other one (understandably)
-
...Or maybe the illegals are pricing themselves so low on the labour market that Americans are being crowded out....
Are there studies showing that the majority of illegals are working at less than the avg wage in the relevant sector?...
If you spent five minutes in the U.S. trying to hire someone to do a job, you wouldn't need studies to find out what is glaringly obvious (that they are willing to work for less).
-
Smartass no, smart, yes. Someone who is examining the facts, not those alternative ones. If only 1/3rd of the country would follow suite.
Precisely.
-
Smartass no, smart, yes. Someone who is examining the facts, not those alternative ones. If only 1/3rd of the country would follow suite.
Yes, but getting more people to turn up for actual voting might also be a good start ...
But then it would be useful if it was made easier instead of harder.
U.S. judge throws out Texas voter ID law supported by Trump
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-texas-idUSKCN1B32O3
QUOTE "(Reuters) - A federal court judge on Wednesday threw out a Texas voter identification law that was supported by the Trump administration, but the state's attorney general said his office would appeal the ruling.
The judge's ruling said changes to the law passed earlier this year by the state's Republican-controlled legislature that were meant to be less discriminatory than an earlier one did not accomplish that. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, but getting more people to turn up for actual voting might also be a good start ...
Amen to that. Like it's so difficult (well for some it's progressively getting more difficult, let's not go there, all that voter fraud nonsense).
-
Your perception of the issue doesn't actually line up with reality which doesn't surprise me because Trump doesn't really understand immigration either.
This is an Aug 2016 article from Forbes:
Illegal Immigrants Don't Lower Our Wages Or Take Our Jobs (https://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2015/08/28/how-do-illegal-immigrants-affect-american-workers-the-answer-might-surprise-you/#37911a25771a)
Anti-immigration voters and candidates are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of social science on this.
I'm not saying that undocumented workers don't present problems and that it would be better to have a better legal immigration program, but I think it's a sad political device to blame undocumented workers because, well, what are they gonna do about being blamed for unemployment? It's not like they are gonna vote anybody in or out of office–and please don't bring up Trump's irrational claim that millions of illegal aliens were responsible for him losing the popular vote.
It would be better to take a more academic and less political approach to solving the issues of undocumented workers and illegal immigration.
That's an opinion from a contributor to Forbes. It is not a Forbes article that you're trying to present it as. In any case, the opinion is silly. I could come up with 500 articles that refute that opinion.
Why do you think employers love illegals from Mexico? Do you think they have a fetish for Mexican men? Well, maybe. :) But I assure you it's mainly because they can pay less. Duh. Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down. You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that.
It's not only at the bottom end. When tech firms hire Indian engineers for $65K and lay off American engineers who would have made $100K+, they're saving loads of money. Meanwhile Americans are out of work or forced to take jobs at much lower wages then they would get without the Indian engineers. It's so bad, that companies force existing employees who are Americans to train their Indian replacements. The way they get them to do it to tell the Americans that if they do it successfully, they will get a 4 month severance pay check. If they refuse, they'll be fired outright. Imagine having to train your replacement? It's disgusting.
Why would you, an American, support hurting Americans? Why do you care more about foreigners than your own people? This is why Trump won. Because you, Hillary, Democrats, elite Republicans, Democrat supporting tech firms like Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. don't care about fellow Americans only their bottom line or the vote. You still don't get why you lost. You're still using smear tactics thinking you're going to win with them. Meanwhile Trump is going around helping American workers. I love it.
-
... I'm just not understanding what Slobodan is asserting, since it's absolutely NOT illegal to verify eligibility...
I apologize. Looks like what I quoted from memory is outdated by now.
I was actively engaged in hiring in the 2004-2007 period. In 2008 and 2009 we were mostly firing. And in 2010 I was out too. I remember clearly that language in the employer instructions that I quoted.
However...
E-Verify (as per Wikipedia):
- is voluntary
- expanded in 2007 (when I stopped hiring)
- only about 600,000 employers use it (out of about 5 million to 20 million, depending on definition)
- As of September 2007, most of the federal government did not use the system when hiring employees
- Social Security Administration failed to perform required verifications of the Social Security numbers of 19 percent of its own new hires during an 18-month period, according to a January 2010 report
- only 16 states require use of E-Verify in some form
- only six states have laws requiring all or nearly all businesses to use E-Verify
- Three states require only public contractors to use E-Verify
- Three states have moved in the opposite direction, limiting or discouraging use of E-Verify: California (of course), Rhode Island, and Illinois
Now, note Illinois, the state I was in at the time: the state law initially prohibited Illinois employers from using E-verify. E-Verify is not required in Illinois now. In fact, Illinois is the only state that has tried to block the use of E-Verify by private employers.
In other words, I am not surprised that, working in Illinois, I could have encountered the language I initially quoted (from memory).
-
That's also exactly how I remember the situation. He faked having some bargaining chips with the West in order to have embargoes lifted, and he kept Iran at a distance.
Cheers,
Bart
Yeah, But by fooling the world about his non-existent WMD's, he set himself up for an invasion. In the end, he was a dope who got himself hung and his two sons shot dead. Of course, he deserved it because he was a murderer. His sons were no better. Hopefully, some day, Iraq will be free and peaceful.
-
Using data from Georgia, Julie Hotchkiss, Myriam Quispe-Agnoli, and Fernando Rios-Avila find that documented workers’ wages rise with increases in the share of undocumented workers
For anyone with a basic statistical education, this statement itself is laughable - correlation does not imply causation. Would you be surprised to learn that at one time there was a strong correlation between the length of mini-skirts and inflation in England?
-
He also has billions and more people voted for him than voted for the other one (understandably)
Not true. Trump won the electoral college vote, but Clinton won the popular vote.
-
Not true. Trump won the electoral college vote, but Clinton won the popular vote.
Well, more people in the Electoral College voted for him than Hillary. I'm sure that's what Bob Shaw meant. :)
-
I apologize. Looks like what I quoted from memory is outdated by now.
I was actively engaged in hiring in the 2004-2007 period. In 2008 and 2009 we were mostly firing. And in 2010 I was out too. I remember clearly that language in the employer instructions that I quoted.
However...
E-Verify (as per Wikipedia):
- is voluntary
- expanded in 2007 (when I stopped hiring)
- only about 600,000 employers use it (out of about 5 million to 20 million, depending on definition)
- As of September 2007, most of the federal government did not use the system when hiring employees
- Social Security Administration failed to perform required verifications of the Social Security numbers of 19 percent of its own new hires during an 18-month period, according to a January 2010 report
- only 16 states require use of E-Verify in some form
- only six states have laws requiring all or nearly all businesses to use E-Verify
- Three states require only public contractors to use E-Verify
- Three states have moved in the opposite direction, limiting or discouraging use of E-Verify: California (of course), Rhode Island, and Illinois
Now, note Illinois, the state I was in at the time: the state law initially prohibited Illinois employers from using E-verify. E-Verify is not required in Illinois now. In fact, Illinois is the only state that has tried to block the use of E-Verify by private employers.
In other words, I am not surprised that, working in Illinois, I could have encountered the language I initially quoted (from memory).
Democrat Illinois being screwed up like this is part of the reason the government there is going broke.
-
Not true. Trump won the electoral college vote, but Clinton won the popular vote.
Without pretending to understand the complex US election process, in summary, Trump won.
Elections are like tennis matches. no one cares who gets the most points, it is only which points.
-
Without pretending to understand the complex US election process, in summary, Trump won.
Elections are like tennis matches. no one cares who gets the most points, it is only which points.
He won the complex and kind of silly electoral college vote and most American's, myself included don't fully understand this odd and complex process. Where as, a popular vote is pretty easy to understand.
The other item to examine in this mess of an electoral system is something called gerrymandering!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd
-
He won the complex and kind of silly electoral college vote and most American's, myself included don't fully understand this odd and complex process. Where as, a popular vote is pretty easy to understand.
The other item to examine in this mess of an electoral system is something called gerrymandering!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd
It's really a very simple process. Really, it is so simple. Each state has so many electoral votes, and all of those votes go to the candidate that won that state's popular election. Then, the total tally of electoral votes decides on who wins the election.
It is not anymore complicated then that.
This process is much better then a popular vote since it prevents a "tyranny of the majority" from forming in the country and also demands national politicians actually pay attention to all areas of the country. Just imagine if HRC actually campaigned in PA, WI and MI, she would be president. Instead she ignored those states since they were "shoe-ins," her mistake.
And by the way, gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections, since it only deals with districts and not the overall state. (I could not open the link you provide since you need a subscription to do so, but even suggesting gerrymandered districts could effect the popular election of a state must have been quite the stretch. I really would have liked to have had a chuckle reading it.)
Gerrymandering is the process of drawing local districts in such a way that it is more likely house representatives within that state are elected from the same party. This has no bearing on senate seats either, since they are elected in state wide popular elections too.
Now before you cry fowl on the GOP, both parties are just as guilty in doing this over the decades. The only reason the media is making such a big deal now is because during the census, which is when district maps are redrawn, the GOP was in control, and the controlling party dictates how the districts are redrawn.
But both parties do this, as John Oliver explains here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-4dIImaodQ) So it is pretty much an universal problem.
-
It's really a very simple process. Really, it is so simple.
It's far, far more complex than the popular vote which is the way elections should be conducted.
This is simple too and rather unfair:
ger·ry·man·der
ˈjerēˌmandər/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: gerrymandering
manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
Doesn't matter if one party does this more or less than another; it's wrong!
"tyranny of the majority" we disagree on any such tyranny. I disagree with Mr. Hamilton.
-
And by the way, gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections, since it only deals with districts and not the overall state.
I'll try again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd)
I will cry fowl on the GOP, both parties are not just as guilty in doing this over the decades.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/10/gerrymandering-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-genuine-democracy-in-the-united-states-so-why-is-no-one-protesting/?utm_term=.1d5c388a6b17 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/10/gerrymandering-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-genuine-democracy-in-the-united-states-so-why-is-no-one-protesting/?utm_term=.1d5c388a6b17)
While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?utm_term=.a95061332a09) in 2014 found that eight of the ten most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans.
-
It's far, far more complex than the popular vote which is the way elections should be conducted.
This is simple too and rather unfair:
ger·ry·man·der
ˈjerēˌmandər/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: gerrymandering
manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
Doesn't matter if one party does this more or less than another; it's wrong!
"tyranny of the majority" we disagree on any such tyranny. I disagree with Mr. Hamilton.
It really is not far, far more complex. Perhaps slightly more involved; literally only one extra step is added to the process. If you really feel it is far, far more complex, your bar for complex is way too high.
Furthermore, popular votes failed societies repeatably throughout history. Any serious study of civics would teach this, which is why virtually no country in the world elects national politicians through a popular vote anymore. Not one major countries does this!
Yes, gerrymandering is much more complicated, but can be both moral and immoral depending on the instance. John Oliver explains that pretty well too in the video I posted.
-
It really is not far, far more complex. Perhaps slightly more involved; literally only one extra step is added to the process.
Fine, we'll disagree over the semantics if that makes you happy.
Furthermore, popular votes failed societies repeatably throughout history.
And the alternative has failed the current society!
Yes, gerrymandering is much more complicated, but can be both moral and immoral depending on the instance.
Manipulation to favor one party or class is immoral IMHO. Especially when the two result in this (again for the 3rd time):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd)
Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections?
-
I'll try again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd)
I will cry fowl on the GOP, both parties are not just as guilty in doing this over the decades.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/10/gerrymandering-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-genuine-democracy-in-the-united-states-so-why-is-no-one-protesting/?utm_term=.1d5c388a6b17 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/02/10/gerrymandering-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-genuine-democracy-in-the-united-states-so-why-is-no-one-protesting/?utm_term=.1d5c388a6b17)
While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?utm_term=.a95061332a09) in 2014 found that eight of the ten most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans.
Once again, I can not open the post.
But I stand firm in my assessment that it is impossible for gerrymandering to have anything to do with presidential elections. Gerrymandering only effects House of Representative seats, nothing else.
Whom the electoral officials vote for within a particular state only depends on the state's popular vote. The district votes and maps have nothing to do with the electoral votes. They are not even close to being connected. It would be quite the stretch to suggest otherwise.
-
Fine, we'll disagree over the semantics if that makes you happy. And the alternative has failed the current society!Manipulation to favor one party or class is immoral IMHO. Especially when the two result in this (again for the 3rd time):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.3fc9f35107fd)
Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with presidential elections?
Semantics has nothing to do with it. Using correct and proper diction does.
Also, by failed, I meant the state failed. As far as I can tell, the USA is still a single country not in civil war.
-
Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down.
Now that's strange. I could have sworn that you were in favour of free markets.
(Illegals or not illegals, by the way. Those Indian engineers you mentioned aren't all swimming the Rio Grande.)
-
Semantics has nothing to do with it. Use correct and proper diction does.
Also, by failed, I meant the state failed. As far as I can tell, the USA is still a single country not in civil war.
A. I believe I did.
B. Do you live in the USA?
C. Still ignoring that indeed, Gerrymandering has absolutely something to do with presidential elections.
D. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/ (https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/)
-
Once again, I can not open the post.
Not impossible for some of us. But to aid you along (of course, some here will call it fake news):
-
Not impossible for some of us. But to aid you along (of course, some here will call it fake news):
OMG! This really is funny! I love it, and I was correct in saying it was quite the stretch!
Did you read the article and fully comprehend what it was actually saying? It's talking about state borders, not district borders, and whomever choose the title was being journalistically disingenuous, along with a lack of knowledge on proper english diction and vocabulary (which was more then likely purposely, which makes it worse). Gerrymandering is only defined as to being an issue with district borders; using it in this title is improper.
State borders are not gerrymandered or redrawn every 10 years like districts are. Politicians can't just haphazardly change the border of their state to influence the national election like they can, and are legally mandated to do, to effect house elections. Most state borders where drawn decades ago (in the 1800s), settling from natural borders and how populations where broken, long before the current democratic and republican parties were even in existence.
To even suggest the current two parties "gerrymandered" state lines to influence the presidential election is laughable, which is what is being implied.
Nice thought experiment, but nothing more then that.
-
OMG! This really is funny! I love it, and I was correct in saying it was quite the stretch!
So you read the entire 5 page article that moments ago you said you could not access?
Yes or no?
Know anything about the 'winner take all' differences within varying states?
-
So you read the entire 5 page article that moments ago you said you could not access?
Yes or no?
No I did not; like i mentioned I before, the link will not open. But I did read the screen capture.
Perhaps you can help me here, please explain how redrawing districts for House of Representative votes effects the popular election of a state as per the article you site.
Please paraphrase this for me, because what you posted makes no sense what so ever. It is suggesting state lines be redrawn, which is a far cry from district lines.
And the winner take all differences really only effects a hand full of states. And the hand full that are different do not split the votes up by house districts.
And by the way, I do live in this country, I was born here, and have studied civics.
-
No I did not
Kind of what I expected from you.
Can your web browser make it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-fitzgerald/electoral-college-gerrymandering_b_2552584.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-fitzgerald/electoral-college-gerrymandering_b_2552584.html)
In 2012, President Obama won Virginia with just over 51 percent of the vote. But under the Republican-proposed system of allocating votes, Obama would have received just four electoral votes while Mitt Romney would have received nine. Raise your hand if that sounds right.
-
Kind of what I expected from you.
Can your web browser make it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-fitzgerald/electoral-college-gerrymandering_b_2552584.html
Are you really understanding what is being written in these articles. This one starts off with an hypothetical of having electoral college votes being decided upon by house districts, which is not the current case. They then go on to explain if this were to happen, gerrymandering would effect the outcome, something I would agree with.
However, since this is not how it currently operates, their is no way gerrymandering could be currently effecting the outcome.
It's a nice thought experiment that would have issues with gerrymandering if, and only if, we changed to this system.
But, once again, since we are not doing so, gerrymandering has no effect on the current election process.
You're arguing on gerrymandering effecting an hypothetical, and then applying that reasoning to the actual reality.
I had to look up the actual logic text, but the argument being made falls into the popular fallacy of a "Faulty Analogy."
-
You're arguing on gerrymandering effecting an hypothetical, and then applying that reasoning to the actual reality.
No, I'm trying to get you to see the principle of “one person, one vote” doesn't really apply to the electoral college. Seems pointless. Bed time. :o
-
OMG! This really is funny! I love it, and I was correct in saying it was quite the stretch!
Did you read the article and fully comprehend what it was actually saying? It's talking about state borders, not district borders, and whomever choose the title was being journalistically disingenuous, along with a lack of knowledge on proper english diction and vocabulary (which was more then likely purposely, which makes it worse). Gerrymandering is only defined as to being an issue with district borders; using it in this title is improper.
State borders are not gerrymandered or redrawn every 10 years like districts are. Politicians can't just haphazardly change the border of their state to influence the national election like they can, and are legally mandated to do, to effect house elections. Most state borders where drawn decades ago, settling from natural borders and how populations where broken, long before the current democratic and republican parties were even in existence.
To even suggest the current two parties "gerrymandered" state lines to influence the presidential election is laughable.
Nice thought experiment, but nothing more then that.
Yeah - that's imprecise language (at best) on the part of the writer, though the fundamental point is sound (though ultimately irrelevant) in that extremely minor alterations of borders would create vastly different outcomes, which in turn argues against the theory that the EC as construed is somehow a bulwark against "tyranny of the majority."
There are a host of other problems that come up when one looks at the origin of the EC - problems that it was meant to address that are no longer relevant today. The fact that blacks counted as 3/5 of a white man, the fact that women could not vote, the fact that fundamentally correct information about the state of the nation was not available to the average citizen (maybe that one is true again)... etc. and perhaps (in my opinion) the most pernicious problem - that the founders of the United States never envisioned or intended (but did fear) that leadership of the country be dominated by partisan factions, nor did they ever intend that electors be beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar.
In short, the "killer app" of the EC was intended to be an independent body with knowledge and a sense of responsibility above that often average man, and certainly not bound to a party. Read Hamilton's rationale in Federalist 68 - it's obvious that the system is broken.
Edit - TL;DR - DDog is right - "one man one vote" is clearly NOT reflected in the EC, but you're right too - it wasn't really meant to be. However, the reasons why that compromise was made are not particularly relevant today.
-
Are you really understanding what is being written in these articles.
Are you really understanding what is being written in these articles you didn't fully read?
-
No, I'm trying to get you to see the principle of “one person, one vote” doesn't really apply to the electoral college. Seems pointless. Bed time. :o
So what?
As stated before, no country elects national politicians with popular votes. I know you never said it, but I feel the need to mention the USA is not unique in this situation.
Yes, there are problems with the electoral college; all political systems are inherently bias by some degree. However, there are more problems with popular votes. I'll take the lesser of two evils here.
-
Are you really understanding what is being written in these articles you didn't fully read?
It is blatantly obvious to anyone who studied logic (my degrees are in mathematics) that these arguments are Faulty Analogies, which is a popular fallacy used to deceive people.
If you boil the argument down to it's simplest form, they are creating a hypothetical that has a problem arising from how it was created. Then they falsely analogizing that to the current situation. It is a false analogy because the problem within the hypothetical only effects the hypothetical due to how the hypothetical was constructed. In the reality of the situation, the reasons why the problem exist in the hypothetical are not present.
-
Yeah - that's imprecise language (at best) on the part of the writer, though the fundamental point is sound (though ultimately irrelevant) in that extremely minor alterations of borders would create vastly different outcomes, which in turn argues against the theory that the EC as construed is somehow a bulwark against "tyranny of the majority."
There are a host of other problems that come up when one looks at the origin of the EC - problems that it was meant to address that are no longer relevant today. The fact that blacks counted as 3/5 of a white man, the fact that women could not vote, the fact that fundamentally correct information about the state of the nation was not available to the average citizen (maybe that one is true again)... etc. and perhaps (in my opinion) the most pernicious problem - that the founders of the United States never envisioned or intended (but did fear) that leadership of the country be dominated by partisan factions, nor did they ever intend that electors be beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar.
In short, the "killer app" of the EC was intended to be an independent body with knowledge and a sense of responsibility above that often average man, and certainly not bound to a party. Read Hamilton's rationale in Federalist 68 - it's obvious that the system is broken.
Edit - TL;DR - DDog is right - "one man one vote" is clearly NOT reflected in the EC, but you're right too - it wasn't really meant to be. However, the reasons why that compromise was made are not particularly relevant today.
I would say that it was deliberately imprecise in order to catch eyes, which is journalistically disingenuous. The problem with doing this so many people have very little knowledge on logic and debate. So instead of parsing the argument down in the text, they see the headline and assume it is true.
Insofar as your second paragraph, I disagree with most of it, or at least most of those points being issues with the electoral college. The exception being what is in bold. This may have been easily solved if all national politicians had term limits, but that will never happen. No one would ever vote themselves out of a job. The only time that could have actually happened was went the constitution was being written, and we can't go back in time.
However, I think the current situation is probably made worse by so many cable TV and online new sources we have, which are not really news sources anyway. Most are just commentary on new, which is much different.
Insofar as the electoral college voting for whom they thought would be the best choice, regardless of votes, would be a very dangerous situation indeed. We would end up in a country where government could run amuck.
I like Mark Cuban's friend's analogy (which Cuban relayed). Trump is chemo-theorpy, which is poison, and sometimes poison is necessary. If both parties did not ignore the overall electorate, Trump would have never been elected, but they did. Trump may be quite the shock to the system, but at least politicians will learn their mistake.
-
I would say that it was deliberately imprecise in order to catch eyes, which is journalistically disingenuous. The problem with doing this so many people have very little knowledge on logic and debate. So instead of parsing the argument down in the text, they see the headline and assume it is true.
Insofar as your second paragraph, I disagree with most of it, or at least most of those points being issues with the electoral college. The exception being what is in bold. This may have been easily solved if all national politicians had term limits, but that will never happen. No one would ever vote themselves out of a job. The only time that could have actually happened was went the constitution was being written, and we can't go back in time.
However, I think the current situation is probably made worse by so many cable TV and online new sources we have, which are not really news sources anyway. Most are just commentary on new, which is much different.
Insofar as the electoral college voting for whom they thought would be the best choice, regardless of votes, would be a very dangerous situation indeed. We would end up in a country where government could run amuck.
I like Mark Cuban's friend's analogy (which Cuban relayed). Trump is chemo-theorpy, which is poison, and sometimes poison is necessary. If both parties did not ignore the overall electorate, Trump would have never been elected, but they did. Trump may be quite the shock to the system, but at least politicians will learn their mistake.
But you understand that was the exact purpose for having electors, right? Again, from Federalist 68:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
To be clear, there are problems either way, but let's not pretend that the EC is some sort of "power to the common man" thing, when in fact our entire system of government was purposefully designed to thwart populist idiocy (and foreign interference).
-
Now that's strange. I could have sworn that you were in favour of free markets.
(Illegals or not illegals, by the way. Those Indian engineers you mentioned aren't all swimming the Rio Grande.)
That's actually a very interesting question that I don't have a full answer for. So let me play devil's advocate for both sides.
In a perfect free market world, yes, it seems that companies should be able to hire whoever they want, including immigrants who they can pay less. It would have the advantage of lowering prices of their products making them more competitive to be sold as exports. It would also make these products cheaper for American buyers increasing their wealth because it lowers their cost of living.
Of course free markets also mean that the government would have to do away with labor laws, immigration rules, minimum wage rules, hourly, Social Security, taxes, etc, as these too are contrary to free markets in an absolute sense as they are all government interference with the marketplace.
I think that societies trade off complete free markets for a lot of reasons having to do with social policy and societal advantages as well as just common decency. Otherwise, getting rid of government interference also means that you would have to again allow slavery.
If you open the borders to unrestricted legal immigration, then the social and cultural makeup of Americans will disappear as they are washed away with the blood of immigrants. Who will salute the flag? What will be left as a nation? Who will fight and die for its protection? You have a little of this in the EU; look at Brexit. Also, who pays for these immigrants? While owners of companies can produce cheaper goods, the cost to care for these people is passed on to the rest of society. Illegals or legal immigrants cost a lot of money. Their children have to go to school at great expense. Health care and other subsidies are paid for by society not the business owners.
You also have social comity. Trump was elected because many people feel that immigrants have cheated them out of a job. Can you imagine the strife if we had unrestricted immigration?
It's not politically feasible to do complete free markets. There has to be some restraints. We have to accept that there are always some limits on complete free markets and it seems reasonable to expect that competition and free markets be allowed in the context of providing Americans with jobs first. There seems to be some opening for special workers from overseas. But that will be kept at a minimum. There is always legal immigration. But that too must be reasonable.
Free markets in an absolute sense won't work unless you're ready for groups of people taking up arms and shooting at other groups.
-
But you understand that was the exact purpose for having electors, right? Again, from Federalist 68:
To be clear, there are problems either way, but let's not pretend that the EC is some sort of "power to the common man" thing, when in fact our entire system of government was purposefully designed to thwart populist idiocy (and foreign interference).
Yes, I agree. I just don't think if they ever exercised that power, it would end well.
It could be the total destruction of the country. Could you imagine what the diehards would have done. We would be in a second civil war by now.
Let's not forget, conservatives own many more guns then liberals. I'm a conservative and own no guns, but I have a few friends and relatives that, given the chance, or need, could arm a militia of 20 to 30 people each them-self. To tempt that would be dangerous, especially with such a decisive election like the one past.
-
Yeah - that's imprecise language (at best) on the part of the writer, though the fundamental point is sound (though ultimately irrelevant) in that extremely minor alterations of borders would create vastly different outcomes, which in turn argues against the theory that the EC as construed is somehow a bulwark against "tyranny of the majority."
There are a host of other problems that come up when one looks at the origin of the EC - problems that it was meant to address that are no longer relevant today. The fact that blacks counted as 3/5 of a white man, the fact that women could not vote, the fact that fundamentally correct information about the state of the nation was not available to the average citizen (maybe that one is true again)... etc. and perhaps (in my opinion) the most pernicious problem - that the founders of the United States never envisioned or intended (but did fear) that leadership of the country be dominated by partisan factions, nor did they ever intend that electors be beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar.
In short, the "killer app" of the EC was intended to be an independent body with knowledge and a sense of responsibility above that often average man, and certainly not bound to a party. Read Hamilton's rationale in Federalist 68 - it's obvious that the system is broken.
Edit - TL;DR - DDog is right - "one man one vote" is clearly NOT reflected in the EC, but you're right too - it wasn't really meant to be. However, the reasons why that compromise was made are not particularly relevant today.
James, you left out the main reason for electoral college and the distortion of votes value. And that is that we are a Federal system where each state is sovereign. That regardless of geographic size or population, each State is equal to every other State. Just like the General Assembly in the UN, tiny Jamaica has one vote just as China with over a billion people or Russia that spreads about 10 times zones.
Also, if you do away with the unequal vote applied to each State, then you would also have to eliminate the Senate which was created as an acknowledgement that each State is equal sovereignly. After all, regardless of geographic size or population, each State has two Senators. Tiny Rhode Island has two Senators as does California, the most populous state as does Alaska the largest State. By the way, the Senate was created not to represent people but their State. The House of Representatives represent people. In fact, this was so acknowledged that the original election of Senators was not by the people but by the Representatives of each State's legislature. Of course, the Constitution was amended a while back to change that to popular vote of the Senate.
Finally, although the number of electors are weighted due to the Federal system, they pretty much follow the popular vote in each state. That whoever gets the most popular votes in the state, then all the electors for that state select the candidate of the popular vote. So the electors are not, as you said, "beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar." Just the opposite. Actually there were some electors who didn't vote as their state popular vote demanded. If you recall, Hillary tried to get a lot of the Trump won electors to change their votes to her. Well they didn't. In fact, of the few that did, more changed their votes from Hillary to Trump than from Trump to Hillary which was noticed by those who didn't read the bias news which mainly ignored that tidbit. The rest of us had a good chuckle with that one.
-
James, you left out the main reason for electoral college and the distortion of votes value. And that is that we are a Federal system where each state is sovereign. That regardless of geographic size or population, each State is equal to every other State. Just like the General Assembly in the UN, tiny Jamaica has one vote just as China with over a billion people or Russia that spreads about 10 times zones.
Also, if you do away with the unequal vote applied to each State, then you would also have to eliminate the Senate which was created as an acknowledgement that each State is equal sovereignly. After all, regardless of geographic size or population, each State has two Senators. Tiny Rhode Island has two Senators as does California, the most populous state as does Alaska the largest State. By the way, the Senate was created not to represent people but their State. The House of Representatives represent people. In fact, this was so acknowledged that the original election of Senators was not by the people but by the Representatives of each State's legislature. Of course, the Constitution was amended a while back to change that to popular vote of the Senate.
Finally, although the number of electors are weighted due to the Federal system, they pretty much follow the popular vote in each state. That whoever gets the most popular votes in the state, then all the electors for that state select the candidate of the popular vote. So the electors are not, as you said, "beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar." Just the opposite. Actually there were some electors who didn't vote as their state popular vote demanded. If you recall, Hillary tried to get a lot of the Trump won electors to change their votes to her. Well they didn't. In fact, of the few that did, more changed their votes from Hillary to Trump than from Trump to Hillary which was noticed by those who didn't read the bias news which mainly ignored that tidbit. The rest of us had a good chuckle with that one.
I didn't leave anything out - you'll have to take that up with Mr. Hamilton, or point out to me where, in Federalist 68 the election of the chief magistrate is tied to equitable representation from the states ;)
-
I didn't leave anything out - you'll have to take that up with Mr. Hamilton, or point out to me where, in Federalist 68 the election of the chief magistrate is tied to equitable representation from the states ;)
What's your point?
-
James. One comment about your: "...and perhaps (in my opinion) the most pernicious problem - that the founders of the United States never envisioned or intended (but did fear) that leadership of the country be dominated by partisan factions, nor did they ever intend that electors be beholden to a populist mob conned by a skilled, though vulgar and incompetent liar."
In retrospect, the electoral system demanded partisan politics, in fact two parties. A president to be elected requires a majority of electors. More than 50%. So that encouraged grouping together people to insure you get the 50%. It also caused there to mainly be two parties. If you split away to a third, the third and the slit away party usually loses. Congressional and Senate majorities required to pass legislation also need majority vote supporting the need for two parties.
So how did the founders miss the math demanding a two-party system?
-
Why do you think employers love illegals from Mexico? Do you think they have a fetish for Mexican men? Well, maybe. :) But I assure you it's mainly because they can pay less. Duh. Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down. You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that.
Well, you didn't address the actual argument, you just did the typical "well of course illegals cost Americans job" even though the article point to a paper that basically blows that out of the water...and those people who did the paper DO have Ph.Ds
You see, the vast majority of immigrant workers both legal and illegal) are doing work that Americans either can't or won't do. The tech industry is trying to get a bunch more H-1B visa to bring more high tech workers that Americans aren't well, how to say this nicely, educated well enough to do...seems there's a sever shortage go all sorts of technical workers. Heck, even The Donald wanted to expand seasonal, foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago resort. The visas are meant for non-agricultural jobs in construction and the catch-all term: tourism. In the past, the US leader claimed he had to hire foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago because American workers were not available during busy tourist seasons in Florida. Hum...sounds, well a bit fishy..
Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort applies for 70 foreign worker visas during 'Made in America' week (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-foreign-worker-visas-mar-a-lago-made-in-america-week-a7853436.html)
The 'Winter White House' claims it could find no Americans to fill non-agricultural seasonal jobs
So, not enough American citizens to fill the jobs...are those foreign workers taking American jobs? Donny says no...
Now, what about both legal and undocumented workers in agricultural...hum, seems there's a sever shortage of agricultural workers to the point where the agriculture industry is trying to use the lure of higher wages as an incentive to recruit more workers.
Can a pay raise fix agriculture industry’s labor crisis in California? Yes and no (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/30/can-a-pay-raise-fix-ags-labor-crisis-yes-and-no/)
(http://content.newsinc.com/jpg/838/32748992/60535287.jpg?t=1501111140)
GILROY – All over California, there’s a desperate labor shortage on farms, ranches, processing and packing houses.
But at Christopher Ranch — the nation’s largest producer of fresh garlic and co-founder of this weekend’s Garlic Festival — every job is filled. Even now, at the peak of harvest season, all 600 of its packing and processing positions are claimed.
Its simple yet oh-so-complex and controversial remedy: a pay increase. Faced with 50 empty positions last summer, in January it hoisted entry-level wages 18 percent, from $11 to $13 an hour — and applications flooded in, creating a wait list of 150 people. Another increase is promised next year, to $15 an hour.
Remarkably, costs stabilized. And business grew.
As California moves towards a higher minimum wage, Christopher Ranch offers a glimpse of the future that could be brighter for both workers and farmers, with a more reliable workforce, bigger paychecks and rising standards of living.
So, there are a variety of reason why the ag industry is having a hard time finding workers...first and foremost is that field work is hard, back breaking work that even with wages over minimum wage, Americans are a lot less likely to do. And illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen considerably...and it's harder for illegals to find work.
Add to the fact that Mexico's economy is doing better and there's more work south of the border these days-partly because of NAFTA–for good or evil depending on your position.
The Pew Research Center has some interning data on illegal immigration from Mexico (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/02/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)
There were 11.7 million immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S. in 2014, and about half of them were in the country illegally, according to Pew Research Center estimates. Mexico is the country’s largest source of immigrants, making up 28% of all U.S. immigrants.
With President Donald Trump’s administration taking steps to reduce the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. — including through the construction of a wall at the southern border — here’s what we know about illegal immigration from Mexico:
1- The number of Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. illegally has declined by more than 1 million since 2007.
2- More non-Mexicans than Mexicans were apprehended at U.S. borders in fiscal year 2016
3- Mexicans were deported from the U.S. 242,456 times in 2015 – up from 169,031 in 2005, but down from a recent high of 309,807 in 2013.
4- Mexican unauthorized immigrants are more likely to be long-term residents of the U.S.
5- Unauthorized immigrants from Mexico make up at least 75% of the total unauthorized immigrant population in three states. This is the case in New Mexico (91%), Idaho (87%) and Arizona (81%). In California, Mexicans make up 71% of the state’s unauthorized immigrant population, and they numbered more than 1.6 million in 2014 – the highest total of any state.
And while Trump and it seems the GOP (based on polls) seem to think Trump's "WALL" is the answer, in point of fact it's not illegals crossing the border that's the problem it's people who enter the US legally and over stay their visas.
Staggering number of visa overstays now biggest problem in illegal immigration (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/22/visa-overstays-biggest-problem-illegal-immigration/)
The nexus of illegal immigration into the U.S. has shifted away from the southwest border and into the country’s air and sea ports, where more than 54 million visitors checked in last year — and nearly 630,000 of them didn’t go home, according to new numbers released Monday.
Known as visa overstays, the visitors present a different challenge than the border crossers, and one that Homeland Security officials are still trying to figure out how to handle.
“This report shows that we have a problem with visa overstays in the United States,” a senior administration official said in briefing reporters on the new numbers, vowing to step up enforcement to try to cut down on the violations.
So, how ya gonna build a WALL to keep out people who entered legally and stayed?
Trump is vastly understating the complexity of this issue...most of the actual scholarly research shows that increasing legal immigration is a net benefit to the economy. Yes we have illegals that either snuck in or overstayed...but what are ya gonna to. A large number of undocumented immigrants have families with children born in the US and thus are citizens. Wanna yank the parents away? Many are tax paying good citizens in every way other than the entered illegally and are undocumented. So, technically, they are criminals...
Sure, round up all the Bad Hombres and deport them...see if Trump can match the deportations Obama did...
But it's simply wrong to say "Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down." is simply not born out in the research...illegals may impact some American workers and not others and the shortage of workers is driving wages up both legal and illegal.
EDITED to add this comment:
If you've ever been to Gilroy during garlic harvest (and the festival) I hope you really REALLY like garlic. I was riding my motorcycle through Gilroy on the road to somewhere else )I don't remember where) and I see all the fields of garlic and the workers harvesting. I didn't think much about it till my eyes started stinging...a lot! I couldn't figure it out...since I sorta snuck up on the garlic in the air, my sense of smell was sort of numbed so I didn't even smell garlic, but my eyes were watering big time. When I stopped for gas, I asked if there was something like maybe ag chemicals that was in the air. They said garlic...so, I can image that it is a challenge for farms to get seasonal workers that are willing to put up with that. Seems like a good job for Americas? Yeah, prolly not...
-
Our President is a 6 year old child...
Trump retweets meme of his Obama 'eclipse' (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/24/politics/trump-eclipse-meme-obama/index.html)
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 18h18 hours ago
I requested that Mitch M & Paul R tie the Debt Ceiling legislation into the popular V.A. Bill (which just passed) for easy approval. They...
7,405 replies 15,503 retweets 55,860 likes
Reply 7.4K Retweet 16K Like 56K
CNN IS FAKE NEWS ! 😂
@JerryTravone
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH_ouugUwAESX_R.jpg)
5:20 AM - 24 Aug 2017
The meme was shared by YouTube personality Jerry Travone, who had previously shared an extremely anti-Semitic tweet on Sunday. This is not the first time that Trump has retweeted content from users known for making anti-Semitic statements (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/03/politics/white-house-video-anti-semitic-connection/index.html).
-
Is Donald Trump smart? (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/24/politics/trump-smart/index.html)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/donaldtrump_060716getty.jpg?itok=EsA1_v_O)
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump likes to tell everyone how smart he is.
Take Tuesday night in Arizona when he told a crowd in Phoenix this: "I was a good student. I always hear about the elite. You know, the elite. They're elite? I went to better schools than they did. I was a better student than they were."
For the public, Trump's intelligence is a bit more of an open question -- and becoming more open with each passing day in the White House.
A new Quinnipiac University national poll (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2483) showed that 55% of Americans think Trump is intelligent while 43% say he is not.
Which is interesting. But not nearly as interesting as how rapidly the number of people who think Trump is smart has dropped since November 2016. In a November 22 Quinnipiac poll -- two weeks to the day after the election -- 74% said Trump was "intelligent" while just 21% said he was not.
That number has steadily declined over Trump's first 7 months in office. By March it had dipped into the high 50s and its continued to fall steadily.
Why does it matter?
It might not!
After all, being "intelligent" is not a prerequisite of being President. And intelligence -- who has it and who doesn't -- is a very, very subjective measure. (Do street smarts count as being "intelligent"? Or is it a pure IQ measure? Something in between? Neither?)
And, some of the question about how smart Trump winds up being a proxy for whether or not you like him. Nine in 10 Republicans say Trump is intelligent while just 25% of Democrats say the same. Fifty-five percent of independents say Trump is intelligent.
Still, the numbers -- and the rapid drop in them -- are interesting and telling. Take, for example, the fact that 42% of Democrats said Trump was intelligent in January and only 25% say that now. Or that 70% of independents called Trump "intelligent" in January, but only 55% say so now.
It's impossible to offer a foolproof conclusion that explains those dips.
Well, I suspect the reason the number of people who think Trump is smart is dropping is, well, DOOOH, he keeps saying and doing stupid things and since he's president, everybody finds out about it–even if you only watch Fox or read Breitbart, ya gotta see Trump's handling of things is something a bit south of optimal, right? I mean, he keeps stoping on his own, uh, message and fights the wrong fights over the wrong things instead of doing what he said he was gonna do.
Yeah, I know, CNN, #FAKENEWS #PollsSuck, but if they are right?
-
I missed him....
Alec Baldwin reprises Trump 'SNL' role, spoofs Phoenix rally (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alec-baldwin-reprises-trump-snl-role-spoofs-phoenix/story?id=49409220)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_snl_dc_082417_12x5_992.jpg)
Alec Baldwin impersonates President Donald Trump on "Saturday Night Live Weekend Update Summer Edition" on August 24, 2017.
Alec Baldwin reprised his impersonation of President Donald Trump Thursday for the final episode of "Saturday Night Live Weekend Update Summer Edition."
The cold open, set at Trump's rally in Phoenix earlier this week, poked fun at White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon's controversial departure, as well as the curious moment this week when Trump appeared to look directly at the total solar eclipse.
#WeekendUpdate (https://twitter.com/hashtag/WeekendUpdate?src=hash)
NBC.com will have the full episode available in a few days...
-
more people voted for him than voted for the other one (understandably)
Nope. More people actually voted for Hillary. But the distribution of those votes was unfortunate.
-
I’m chiming in on this part of the discussion a little late, but I’d like to point out that the electoral college is a brilliant political invention—assuming you’re a well-educated 18th-Century gentleman or wealthy merchant of English or Scottish descent, philosophically committed to self-government but somewhat uneasy that someday a demagogue might successfully appeal to your less-enlightened fellow citizens by boasting ridiculously that he knew more about fighting the British than General Washington or promising implausibly that he was going to push all French speakers back to Quebec and then build a big, beautiful earthworks to keep them from ever returning to New Hampshire.
So, you concoct a regime by which the people of each state vote for members of a “college”—people like you (in fact, you are quite confident you will be among the first chosen)—and then those electors representing the several states assemble and choose someone of impeccable judgment and probity to serve as the country’s “chief magistrate.” Everyone still gets to participate in the selection of the president (well, at least everybody who is male and not enslaved or a member of an Indian nation), but men of discretion act as a buffer against the unbridled passions of the people. Pretty ingenious, wot?
Over time, the country grows and the population changes as immigrants arrive from other parts of Europe, and eventually the citizens of each state become enamored of the democratic notion that they, themselves, should get to vote for the national president. However, since basing the selection of the president on a series of separate state votes rather than a unified nationwide popular vote confers certain leverage on the individual states, the states keep the electoral college system but require candidates for elector to pledge in advance who they will vote for—and (with a couple of exceptions) decide to award all the electors pledged to a particular candidate to whoever wins the popular vote in the state.
Yes, theoretically this might make it possible for someone to be elected president with less than a majority of the popular vote, but that would require public opinion throughout the country to be rather deeply and evenly divided or for a large number of eligible voters who aren’t particularly motivated to fail to cast their ballots. Very unlikely that will ever happen. And, besides, now that there are independent news media staffed by professional journalists who can be relied on to report when candidates make outrageous claims or empty promises, there isn’t much risk that a demagogue could gain sufficient traction to win an electoral majority.
Nothing to worry about.
-
I’m chiming in on this part of the discussion a little late, but I’d like to point out that the electoral college is a brilliant political invention—assuming you’re a well-educated 18th-Century gentleman or wealthy merchant of English or Scottish descent, philosophically committed to self-government but somewhat uneasy that someday a demagogue might successfully appeal to your less-enlightened fellow citizens by boasting ridiculously that he knew more about fighting the British than General Washington or promising implausibly that he was going to push all French speakers back to Quebec and then build a big, beautiful earthworks to keep them from ever returning to New Hampshire.
So, you concoct a regime by which the people of each state vote for members of a “college”—people like you (in fact, you are quite confident you will be among the first chosen)—and then those electors representing the several states assemble and choose someone of impeccable judgment and probity to serve as the country’s “chief magistrate.” Everyone still gets to participate in the selection of the president (well, at least everybody who is male and not enslaved or a member of an Indian nation), but men of discretion act as a buffer against the unbridled passions of the people. Pretty ingenious, wot?
Over time, the country grows and the population changes as immigrants arrive from other parts of Europe, and eventually the citizens of each state become enamored of the democratic notion that they, themselves, should get to vote for the national president. However, since basing the selection of the president on a series of separate state votes rather than a unified nationwide popular vote confers certain leverage on the individual states, the states keep the electoral college system but require candidates for elector to pledge in advance who they will vote for—and (with a couple of exceptions) decide to award all the electors pledged to a particular candidate to whoever wins the popular vote in the state.
Yes, theoretically this might make it possible for someone to be elected president with less than a majority of the popular vote, but that would require public opinion throughout the country to be rather deeply and evenly divided or for a large number of eligible voters who aren’t particularly motivated to fail to cast their ballots. Very unlikely that will ever happen. And, besides, now that there are independent news media staffed by professional journalists who can be relied on to report when candidates make outrageous claims or empty promises, there isn’t much risk that a demagogue could gain sufficient traction to win an electoral majority.
Nothing to worry about.
Lovely story.
However, the fact is the electoral college dictates that our national politicians pay attention to all states, not just CA and the NE Quarter with possibly a stop or two in Chicago and Texas while flying back and forth.
This is part of the beauty of it. This is not to say it is without problems, but a popular election would ensure our executive office, over time, would only pay attention to the major population centers, because that is where the votes are, thus creating a tyranny of the majority.
I can guarantee you next election, the democrats won't treat WI, MI and PA with the same hubris Hillary did this past cycle.
-
Well, you didn't address the actual argument, you just did the typical "well of course illegals cost Americans job" even though the article point to a paper that basically blows that out of the water...and those people who did the paper DO have Ph.Ds
You see, the vast majority of immigrant workers both legal and illegal) are doing work that Americans either can't or won't do. The tech industry is trying to get a bunch more H-1B visa to bring more high tech workers that Americans aren't well, how to say this nicely, educated well enough to do...seems there's a sever shortage go all sorts of technical workers. Heck, even The Donald wanted to expand seasonal, foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago resort. The visas are meant for non-agricultural jobs in construction and the catch-all term: tourism. In the past, the US leader claimed he had to hire foreign workers for Mar-a-Lago because American workers were not available during busy tourist seasons in Florida. Hum...sounds, well a bit fishy..
Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort applies for 70 foreign worker visas during 'Made in America' week (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-foreign-worker-visas-mar-a-lago-made-in-america-week-a7853436.html)
So, not enough American citizens to fill the jobs...are those foreign workers taking American jobs? Donny says no...
Now, what about both legal and undocumented workers in agricultural...hum, seems there's a sever shortage of agricultural workers to the point where the agriculture industry is trying to use the lure of higher wages as an incentive to recruit more workers.
Can a pay raise fix agriculture industry’s labor crisis in California? Yes and no (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/30/can-a-pay-raise-fix-ags-labor-crisis-yes-and-no/)
...
So, there are a variety of reason why the ag industry is having a hard time finding workers...first and foremost is that field work is hard, back breaking work that even with wages over minimum wage, Americans are a lot less likely to do. And illegal immigration from Mexico has fallen considerably...and it's harder for illegals to find work.
Add to the fact that Mexico's economy is doing better and there's more work south of the border these days-partly because of NAFTA–for good or evil depending on your position.
The Pew Research Center has some interning data on illegal immigration from Mexico (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/02/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/)
And while Trump and it seems the GOP (based on polls) seem to think Trump's "WALL" is the answer, in point of fact it's not illegals crossing the border that's the problem it's people who enter the US legally and over stay their visas.
...
So, how ya gonna build a WALL to keep out people who entered legally and stayed?
Trump is vastly understating the complexity of this issue...most of the actual scholarly research shows that increasing legal immigration is a net benefit to the economy. Yes we have illegals that either snuck in or overstayed...but what are ya gonna to. A large number of undocumented immigrants have families with children born in the US and thus are citizens. Wanna yank the parents away? Many are tax paying good citizens in every way other than the entered illegally and are undocumented. So, technically, they are criminals...
Sure, round up all the Bad Hombres and deport them...see if Trump can match the deportations Obama did...
But it's simply wrong to say "Illegals put Americans out of work and drive wages down." is simply not born out in the research...illegals may impact some American workers and not others and the shortage of workers is driving wages up both legal and illegal.
EDITED to add this comment:
If you've ever been to Gilroy during garlic harvest (and the festival) I hope you really REALLY like garlic. I was riding my motorcycle through Gilroy on the road to somewhere else )I don't remember where) and I see all the fields of garlic and the workers harvesting. I didn't think much about it till my eyes started stinging...a lot! I couldn't figure it out...since I sorta snuck up on the garlic in the air, my sense of smell was sort of numbed so I didn't even smell garlic, but my eyes were watering big time. When I stopped for gas, I asked if there was something like maybe ag chemicals that was in the air. They said garlic...so, I can image that it is a challenge for farms to get seasonal workers that are willing to put up with that. Seems like a good job for Americas? Yeah, prolly not...
What are you a farm hand? You cherry picked my post. You didn't address the huge cost to provide school, provide medical care, and supply other social services to the illegals and their families. Those costs are much much greater than any taxes spun off their earnings even if they are reported in the first place. Those social costs are borne by other wage earners while the profits of the owners of the business goes up. The owners get richer at our expense. Additionally, you realize of course that Americans at the lower end of the economic scale are the people who get hurt the most by illegals. Don't you care about those Americans? It's poor whites and black Americans who lose jobs to illegals. If illegals weren't there, the owner's of the business would have to raise wages and that would attract Americans.
This problem also occurs at the higher end. If you pay Indians on work visas $65K instead of $100K+ that would go to Americans if the Indians weren't here, than more Americans would train for those jobs. It's become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The complaint of not enough engineers is partially caused by these industries artificially lowering wages so that students go into other fields for more pay. You also didn't address how disgusting it is to force an American to train a foreigner as his replacement. Apparently you approve of that too. What kind of an American are you? Why do you want to punish American workers?
-
If you pay Indians on work visas $65K instead of $100K+ that would go to Americans if the Indians weren't here, than more Americans would train for those jobs.
so fat yankee rather sit unemployed (or make less) than make $65K ;D ???
-
so fat yankee rather sit unemployed (or make less) than make $65K ;D ???
It's much the same deal as Brexit, especially at the low end of the earnings scale.
There are jobs that simply cannot afford to pay higher wages for hours worked. In Scotland, there's a region in Perthshire - the Blairgowrie area and the Carse of Gowrie, a tad further south-east - that's famous for its strawberry and raspberry growing. It was a very labour-intensive job, picking those things, and hard work. At least until the end of the 50s there used to be a rush to the area during the picking period where students and others would work their butts off to make money for whatever. It became the preserve (no pun intended) of so-called travellers, a gypsy sort of caravan-dwelling group, who'd also do that work for little money. Bit by bit, the cost of labour intensified and the product, the fruit, had to fetch a higher price. As a result, the once-great local jam-making industry folded... There is a natural ceiling for everything. It's simply unrealistic to think labour costs can always be passed on; no, folks just buy something else instead. I'm sure the same situation applies in other mediums across Britain.
It exists, for sure, in the hospitality trade, where maids etc. are mostly Asian and for the simple reason that they have a more realistic grasp of the level of reward the job can be expected to be worth. So, rather than do these sorts of jobs, many of our lot prefer unemployment because it doesn't offend their "dignity" whereas low wages do. For as long as governments refuse to grasp that nettle, unemployment payments will be an astronomical drain on the economy, and the same lazy sods will blame the "foreigners" for stealing their work! Exactly the Alan K belief. I would have expected more vision than that from a guy who claims to have been in business. I had imagined it was obvious that some jobs can't attract higher levels of reward because they are then too expensive for the market, and the company will not be able to sell the product. It's always a mistake to assume your company or product is indispensable, it's not.
As for Indian engineers: they are employed because they know their onions as well as anybody else, and often a damned sight better. If they did not, no company would employ them because it would be suicide. I watched the capping ceremony video where my granddaughter got her medical degree. The number of Chinese students getting honours degrees was very high. Don't imagine for a moment that brains are the province of the WASP. Neither should one forget how advanced early Islam was in all the sciences. We owe them a helluva lot of gratitude for that; what a shame they got shunted off into a diversion they really didn't need. A waste for both groups - them and us.
-
...
-
I find it amazing that Democrats, liberals, Socialists and the left who would always support American workers before, now support employers. Is this how they plan to win over workers in the rust belt of Ohio, PA, Wisconsin and Michigan in next election? The hatred of Trump is so great, that they're throwing away their most basic philosophical and political beliefs.
I can just see the next Democrat campaign slogan: "More Work for Illegal Farm Hands and Engineers from India". That'll be a real vote getter.
-
It's much the same deal as Brexit, especially at the low end of the earnings scale.
There are jobs that simply cannot afford to pay higher wages for hours worked. In Scotland, there's a region in Perthshire - the Blairgowrie area and the Carse of Gowrie, a tad further south-east - that's famous for its strawberry and raspberry growing. It was a very labour-intensive job, picking those things, and hard work. At least until the end of the 50s there used to be a rush to the area during the picking period where students and others would work their butts off to make money for whatever. It became the preserve (no pun intended) of so-called travellers, a gypsy sort of caravan-dwelling group, who'd also do that work for little money. Bit by bit, the cost of labour intensified and the product, the fruit, had to fetch a higher price. As a result, the once-great local jam-making industry folded... There is a natural ceiling for everything. It's simply unrealistic to think labour costs can always be passed on; no, folks just buy something else instead. I'm sure the same situation applies in other mediums across Britain.
It exists, for sure, in the hospitality trade, where maids etc. are mostly Asian and for the simple reason that they have a more realistic grasp of the level of reward the job can be expected to be worth. So, rather than do these sorts of jobs, many of our lot prefer unemployment because it doesn't offend their "dignity" whereas low wages do. For as long as governments refuse to grasp that nettle, unemployment payments will be an astronomical drain on the economy, and the same lazy sods will blame the "foreigners" for stealing their work! Exactly the Alan K belief. I would have expected more vision than that from a guy who claims to have been in business. I had imagined it was obvious that some jobs can't attract higher levels of reward because they are then too expensive for the market, and the company will not be able to sell the product. It's always a mistake to assume your company or product is indispensable, it's not.
As for Indian engineers: they are employed because they know their onions as well as anybody else, and often a damned sight better. If they did not, no company would employ them because it would be suicide. I watched the capping ceremony video where my granddaughter got her medical degree. The number of Chinese students getting honours degrees was very high. Don't imagine for a moment that brains are the province of the WASP. Neither should one forget how advanced early Islam was in all the sciences. We owe them a helluva lot of gratitude for that; what a shame they got shunted off into a diversion they really didn't need. A waste for both groups - them and us.
So first you export industries to China. Then you import engineers from India to help British engineers lose their jobs. This is why Brexit happened. For the same reason Trump happened. Too many elite and comfortable people didn't care about the rest of their country's citizens who were getting a bad deal. While the rich and connected classes seemed to be doing OK, no one cared about the rest. Enter Trump. Bye EU.
-
So first you export industries to China. Then you import engineers from India to help British engineers lose their jobs. This is why Brexit happened. For the same reason Trump happened. Too many elite and comfortable people didn't care about the rest of their country's citizens who were getting a bad deal. While the rich and connected classes seemed to be doing OK, no one cared about the rest. Enter Trump. Bye EU.
Export of the manufacturing facilities to China is the most noticable but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Many related job losses go unnoticed.
At one time, most of the mail orders in USA and Canada were fulfilled by the US or Canadian sellers or manufacturers. As the production of thousands (or millions?) of products moved to China, many of those items are now distributed worldwide directly by Chinese companies. The Northamerican distributors simply can't match their prices and have folded their operations. In addition, China Post has much lower shipping fees (i.e. you can order on eBay or Amazon a small battery, lens filter or another small item from China for a few dollars, whereas to order it from a US or Canadian based company the shipping alone might cost $10), so in effect also the order fulfillment and shipping services have moved overseas.
I just looked up the cost of buying a 52mm lens cap from a US or Canadian company vs a Chinese seller on eBay.
B&H Price comes to $16.95US ($6.95 for the cap,$8.10 for shipping, and $1.90 for Customs clearance (for Ontario residents).
Buying it from Henrys in Canada it would cost $20.32CAD ($12.99 cap, $5.00 shipping, $2.33 tax).
The Chinese seller's price is 99 cents (79 cents without the Nikon logo).
One would have to feel very patriotic to order such an item from a Northamerican supplier. Or he would need it next week.
This is just one small item, but add all online orders now fulfilled each year by Chinese sellers and we are talking about billions of dollars being made outside of this continent. Meanwhile, US Mail annual losses are increasing - $5.6B loss in 2016 (Canada Post actually made some money for the last 3 years) and their solution to address the decreasing shipping volumes is to raise their prices every year.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/306224-us-postal-services-posts-56b-loss-for-2016
-
So Trump just pardoned Arpaio. Let's be sure we're clear on what for so this doesn't turn into another "Trump is racist" discussion, because the problem is even more fundamental. Arpaio's criminal conviction was not specifically for Arpaio's disgustingly racist profiling, but for a contempt of court charge stemming from his refusal to cease blatantly unconstitutional activities despite a court order.
To summarize - an officer of the law violates the constitution to the extent that a court holds him criminally liable, and Trump says, no, it's ok either because of an utter ignorance of Equal protection, or because it plays well to his base and he just doesn't care.
Contemptible, as is so much of what Trump does, but this is sort of a new low for incompetence and disrespect for the office. So... if you're going to defend Trump, let's be clear that what you're defending is the right of a police officer to defy a court order to cease violating the rights of American citizens with no cause other than they appear to be Latino. Who's ok with that?
-
So Trump just pardoned Arpaio.
This is what John McCain had to say...
STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PARDON OF JOE ARPAIO (https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/8/statement-by-senator-john-mccain-on-president-trump-s-pardon-of-joe-arpaio)
“No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold. Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge’s orders. The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions.”
And make no mistake, a pardon of Arpaio doesn't poll very high with Arizona residents...
SHOCK POLL: Just 21 Percent Of Arizona Residents Want Trump To Pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio (http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/22/shock-poll-just-21-percent-of-arizona-residents-want-trump-to-pardon-sheriff-joe-arpaio/)
A poll released Monday suggests that just 21 percent of Arizona residents want President Donald Trump to pardon Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff.
In July, a federal judge found Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt of court because Arpaio refused a federal judicial order to stop arresting people solely because they might be illegal immigrants and then delivering the arrested individuals to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.
According to the poll, just 21 percent of Arizona’s residents want Trump to pardon Arpaio.
But as it relates to Arpaio, don't forget that Trump and Arpaio had a bromance long ago regarding the whole birtherism issue...and Trump really seems to like the fact that Arpaio seemed to piss off so many people including judges and journalists.
Why Donald Trump Pardoned Joe Arpaio (https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-does-donald-trump-like-sheriff-joe)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59a07ef221aafe4de666d8a3/master/w_649,c_limit/Tablot_Sheriff-Joe.jpg)
Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff, represents in miniature what President Trump would
like to be more maximally—a successful American authoritarian.
President Trump had little to offer that was specific or coherent in the rambling, hate-filled speech that he delivered in Phoenix this week—the one that he later assessed in a self-congratulatory tweet as “enthusiastic, dynamic, and fun.” The speech lurched between schoolyard bragging (“I live in a bigger, more beautiful apartment” than the “élite” and “I live in the White House, too, which is really great”), the usual whining about reporters (“sick,” “bad,” “dishonest” people), and insults to Arizona’s two Republican senators, one of whom is currently battling brain cancer. The rhetorical flourishes borrowed from Fascist tropes, with their distinctive mix of vague language and unmistakable menace: the virtuous “we” and the unspecified “they,” who are trying to take away “our” customs and culture; the “thugs,” who protest the leader’s vision of America.
But there were a few moments when Trump got very particular, and one of them was when he chose to express his keen admiration for Joe Arpaio, the former sheriff of Maricopa County. In July, Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt of court, for defying an earlier court order to stop detaining people solely on suspicion of their immigration status. In Phoenix, Trump hinted that he would pardon Arpaio. He said that he wasn’t going to cause controversy by issuing a pardon then and there, but Sheriff Joe “can feel good,” he pledged, and was “going to be just fine.” Trump is likely a fan of Arpaio’s because Arapio is a fan of his—an early supporter who also went all in for birtherism, at one point sending members of a so-called Cold Case Posse to Hawaii to dig up something incriminating about Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
But Trump probably also likes Arpaio because the former sheriff represents in miniature what the President would like to be more maximally—a successful American authoritarian. Earlier this month, in a conversation with Fox News, Trump called Arpaio “an outstanding sheriff” and “a great American patriot.” It’s worth considering what it takes, in Trump’s view, to deserve such tributes. Arpaio, who served as the sheriff of Maricopa County, which encompasses Phoenix, from 1993 until he was voted out of office, in 2016, has a long-standing reputation for flouting civil rights, particularly those of Latinos.
So, make no mistake, this isn't just about racism but a flagrant abuse of power and in general, Trump's admiration for an asshole.
-
So Trump just pardoned Arpaio.
Yes!!! Finally a recognition for a true American hero.
... you're defending is the right of a police officer to defy a court order to cease violating the rights of American citizens with no cause other than they appear to be Latino. Who's ok with that?
Well, when you twist it like that... In reality, he was simply hunting down illegals, what every sheriff and every law enforcing officer in every street, city, county, and state should have been doing long time ago. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is an illegal duck ;)
-
And other one bites the dust (he really wasn't much)...
Sebastian Gorka Is Forced Out as White House Adviser, Officials Say (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/politics/sebastian-gorka-leaves-white-house.html?mcubz=3)
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/22/22-sebastian-gorka.w710.h473.jpg)
Sebastian Gorka was forced out of his role as a White House adviser, according to two administration officials.
Sebastian Gorka, an outspoken adviser to President Trump and lightning rod for controversy, has been forced out of his position at the White House, two administration officials said on Friday.
One of the officials said that the president’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, had telegraphed his lack of interest in keeping Mr. Gorka during internal discussions over the last week.
Mr. Gorka, a deputy assistant to the president, had been on vacation for at least the last two weeks, that official said.
Reports are that Kelly informed Gorka his security clearance had been revoked...
But it seems Gorka isn't going quietly...
The Federalist, a conservative website, published portions of what it called a resignation letter (http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/25/breaking-sebastian-gorka-resigns-from-trump-administration/) written by Mr. Gorka.
“[G]iven recent events, it is clear to me that forces that do not support the MAGA promise are – for now – ascendant within the White House,” Gorka wrote. “As a result, the best and most effective way I can support you, Mr. President, is from outside the People’s House.”
“Regrettably, outside of yourself, the individuals who most embodied and represented the policies that will ‘Make America Great Again,’ have been internally countered, systematically removed, or undermined in recent months. This was made patently obvious as I read the text of your speech on Afghanistan this week…
“The fact that those who drafted and approved the speech removed any mention of Radical Islam or radical Islamic terrorism proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost…
Ouch...
Next? Maybe Steve Miller?
-
Trump narrowly avoided disaster by almost losing Gary Cohn. While Trump likes to take credit for the stock market, truth be told Gary Cohn and the prospect of Gary's implanting tax reform/reductions is what is making the market go up. notice the market dropped on rumors Cohn might resign...
Gary Cohn urges Trump team to do more to condemn neo-Nazis (https://www.ft.com/content/b85beea2-8924-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787)
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F50ccc8fa-87ea-11e7-afd2-74b8ecd34d3b?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=700)
Demonstrators in Charlottesville earlier this month
Gary Cohn, the top White House economic official, said the Trump administration “must do better” in condemning neo-Nazis and white supremacists following the violent protests in Charlottesville this month that sparked one of the biggest controversies of Donald Trump’s presidency.
Mr Cohn, a Jewish-American who was president of Goldman Sachs before becoming head of the White House national economic council, told the Financial Times he faced “enormous pressure” to quit after the uproar over Mr Trump’s reaction to the clashes in the Virginia university city that left one woman dead.
--snip--
“This administration can and must do better in consistently and unequivocally condemning these groups and do everything we can to heal the deep divisions that exist in our communities,” Mr Cohn said in his first public comments on the issue.
“I have come under enormous pressure both to resign and to remain in my current position,” the former banker said during an interview about economic policy.
“As a patriotic American, I am reluctant to leave my post . . . because I feel a duty to fulfil my commitment to work on behalf of the American people. But I also feel compelled to voice my distress over the events of the last two weeks,” he said.
“Citizens standing up for equality and freedom can never be equated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK,” Mr Cohn added.
“As a Jewish American, I will not allow neo-Nazis ranting ‘Jews will not replace us’ to cause this Jew to leave his job. I feel deep empathy for all who have been targeted by these hate groups. We must all unite together against them.”
“I have to do what is best for me and my family. I have had numerous private conversations with the president on this topic [and] I have not been bashful saying what I think.”
Mr Cohn said officials who had been upset by Mr Trump’s remarks — who reportedly included Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser and a former Goldman executive — had each taken their own decisions about how to respond. “This is a personal issue for each of us. We are all grappling with it. This takes time to grapple with.”
So...the Dow was +30.27 today not because of Trump but because Cohn committed to stay. For that I'm grateful (I have a lot of stocks).
-
Well, this can't be good (for Trump)...just in case anybody forgot about Russia interfering in the election.
Washington lobbying firms receive subpoenas as part of Russia probe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-lobbying-firms-receive-subpoenas-as-part-of-russia-probe/2017/08/25/55e547de-89c2-11e7-a50f-e0d4e6ec070a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_muellerprobe-1159pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2225c64c02fa)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/mueller-ap-er-170803_12x5_992.jpg)
Lawyers for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election, have issued subpoenas to several prominent Washington lobbying firms as the probe examines the finances of two former Trump campaign advisers, according to people with knowledge of the requests.
The subpoenas asked the firms to answer questions and provide records regarding their interactions with the consulting firms led by Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser to President Trump, and Paul Manafort, former chairman of the Trump presidential campaign, these people said.
The requests suggest that Mueller’s investigators are looking closely at Manafort and Flynn, both of whom face possible legal jeopardy for allegedly failing to disclose that foreign governments or parties may have been the beneficiaries of their consulting and lobbying work, as they seek potential links between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin.
A spokesman for Manafort declined to comment, while a lawyer for Flynn did not respond.
-
Trump's Order Bans Military From Accepting Transgender Recruits (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-order-bans-transgender/2017/08/25/id/809886/)
President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. military on Friday to reject openly transgender people as new recruits but authorized Defense Secretary James Mattis to decide how to handle transgender personnel already serving in the armed forces.
Trump also ordered the military to stop paying for gender reassignment surgical procedures by March 23 except to protect the health of someone who has already begun the process of reassigning sex, according to a senior White House official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.
The Defense Department will have six month to consider how to handle openly transgender people currently serving in the military under a memorandum that Trump signed on Friday, official said. The memorandum directs the department to consider unit cohesion, applicable law and resources in making the determination, the official said.
Well, at least he didn't do this in a tweet...
-
So first you export industries to China. Then you import engineers from India to help British engineers lose their jobs. This is why Brexit happened. For the same reason Trump happened. Too many elite and comfortable people didn't care about the rest of their country's citizens who were getting a bad deal. While the rich and connected classes seemed to be doing OK, no one cared about the rest. Enter Trump. Bye EU.
The difficulty with tying to explain anything to you, Alan, is that you don't appear willing (able?) to take any new information into your mind, digest it and understand what has been explained.
Your single response turns not into consideration of the new thought, but into defence, rejection and instant reversion to cant; in other words, your mind is a closed loop, with you imprisoned within. Set yourself free; have a look beyond the borders of your self-created cage.
I explained, clearly and with examples, the vicious circle of increasing decline that overpayment for low services produces; the same holds true in the other direction, where overpayment of high skills, where they are not severely limited in supply (there are thousands of engineers) leads to exactly the same thing: somebody else can always do it just as well, possibly better, and if you hold out for top dollar, you'll often get nothing. Trump should know that better than most, don't you think?
The only way you can 'protect' your single country is by building walls and laying minefields, not just with Mexico, but around the entire US perimeter and, as with some other totalitarian (where you're headed) states, not so much to keep invaders out, as your own people captive within.
Do that, and your much-vaunted national sense of flag-waving, comparatively recent heritage (and European identity derived from your ancestors) will vanish as you turn into a sort of post-apocalyptic land of hillbillies, gunmen and junkies. And you won't even have Hollywood left to keep the money rolling in from the rest of the world. Alternatively, you could forge a new relationship with the Castro familia and feel quite at home.
Either way, you'd bring down not just your own spot under the Sun, but the rest of us with you. Which is why we care.
-
The difficulty with tying to explain anything to you, Alan, is that you don't appear willing (able?) to take any new information into your mind, digest it and understand what has been explained.
Your single response turns not into consideration of the new thought, but into defence, rejection and instant reversion to cant; in other words, your mind is a closed loop, with you imprisoned within. Set yourself free; have a look beyond the borders of your self-created cage.
I explained, clearly and with examples, the vicious circle of increasing decline that overpayment for low services produces; the same holds true in the other direction, where overpayment of high skills, where they are not severely limited in supply (there are thousands of engineers) leads to exactly the same thing: somebody else can always do it just as well, possibly better, and if you hold out for top dollar, you'll often get nothing. Trump should know that better than most, don't you think?
The only way you can 'protect' your single country is by building walls and laying minefields, not just with Mexico, but around the entire US perimeter and, as with some other totalitarian (where you're headed) states, not so much to keep invaders out, as your own people captive within.
Do that, and your much-vaunted national sense of flag-waving, comparatively recent heritage (and European identity derived from your ancestors) will vanish as you turn into a sort of post-apocalyptic land of hillbillies, gunmen and junkies. And you won't even have Hollywood left to keep the money rolling in from the rest of the world. Alternatively, you could forge a new relationship with the Castro familia and feel quite at home.
Either way, you'd bring down not just your own spot under the Sun, but the rest of us with you. Which is why we care.
This has nothing to do with Trump or America. It has nothing to do with economic theory. Trump was elected after Brexit. Nationalism is not new. It will cause the collapse of the EU or at least major reorganization. Your arguments are for globalism which many people the world over reject especially when they see their jobs lost to foreigners. They reject politicians favoring policies that put outsiders and the inside elite first.
The battle is between the rich elite who care little about nationalism, only their bottom line, and patriots the world over who put country and their own economic well being first. Most people reject fealty to the gnomes in Brussels who told Brits how to live. They care little about the titans in Silicon Valley who want to replace their American workers with cheap foreign labor. Hillary argued that position and lost and they lost in Britain as well for the same reason.
It's not just Trumpers. Even the left and Democrats who supported Sanders got it. Countries have to figure out how to help thir people left behind by the recession of 2008 as well as trade policies that seem to make them poorer. Nationalism and patriotism are more powerful forces than internationalism.
-
You see? Repeating the same old catechism, and attributing to me a love for globalism.
I am far more pragmatic than that; what I see is inevitable has already been explained by one Mr K. Canute. You have to deal with the reality of life, not your idealised version of it.
And on the contrary, it has absolutely everything to do with the USA: it does not exist in a vacuum, though many of its people do, apparently.
As for the battle between the mega-rich and the rest of us, they need us just as much as do we them; few get rich by being dumb - comedy stars apart, as faux dumb. Without us grunts, who do you imagine your "filthy rich" demons would have to supply the immense support systems they need?
First course has arrived; lunch more important than indigestion.
Rob
-
Yes!!! Finally a recognition for a true American hero.
Well, when you twist it like that... In reality, he was simply hunting down illegals, what every sheriff and every law enforcing officer in every street, city, county, and state should have been doing long time ago. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is an illegal duck ;)
You're ether trolling or grossly misunderstanding the Constitutional principles involved. Not sure which but I suspect the former...
-
The difficulty with tying to explain anything to you, Alan, is that you don't appear willing (able?) to take any new information into your mind, digest it and understand what has been explained.
Your single response turns not into consideration of the new thought, but into defence, rejection and instant reversion to cant; in other words, your mind is a closed loop, with you imprisoned within. Set yourself free; have a look beyond the borders of your self-created cage.
I explained, clearly and with examples, the vicious circle of increasing decline that overpayment for low services produces; the same holds true in the other direction, where overpayment of high skills, where they are not severely limited in supply (there are thousands of engineers) leads to exactly the same thing: somebody else can always do it just as well, possibly better, and if you hold out for top dollar, you'll often get nothing. Trump should know that better than most, don't you think?
The only way you can 'protect' your single country is by building walls and laying minefields, not just with Mexico, but around the entire US perimeter and, as with some other totalitarian (where you're headed) states, not so much to keep invaders out, as your own people captive within.
Do that, and your much-vaunted national sense of flag-waving, comparatively recent heritage (and European identity derived from your ancestors) will vanish as you turn into a sort of post-apocalyptic land of hillbillies, gunmen and junkies. And you won't even have Hollywood left to keep the money rolling in from the rest of the world. Alternatively, you could forge a new relationship with the Castro familia and feel quite at home.
Either way, you'd bring down not just your own spot under the Sun, but the rest of us with you. Which is why we care.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/fd1d4f4fb777186de3c69b88e3166357/tenor.gif)
-
You're ether trolling or grossly misunderstanding the Constitutional principles involved. Not sure which but I suspect the former...
Hehe...you got me.
Or not. Perhaps I am just exploiting the gray area and pushing the envelope, like sheriff Arpaio?
You see, what he does (I suspect, I am not that familiar with the details) is what is otherwise allowed for federal agents. Federal agents are allowed to basically profile racially and suspend other constitutional protections for about two thirds of the US population, under the "100-mile" rule.
Worth noting is that he was not sentenced for the above (lack of grounds?), but for defying a court order. People are jailed for that for laughing, yawning, or chewing a bubble gum in court.
-
Hehe...
-
Yes!!! Finally a recognition for a true American hero.
You probably don't like true hero's who served their country (unlike Trump) and got captured, and find racists who break the law true American hero's. Pathetic. Sad.
-
The difficulty with tying to explain anything to you, Alan, is that you don't appear willing (able?) to take any new information into your mind, digest it and understand what has been explained.
Remind you of anyone? Hint: small hands small mind. ;D
-
Remind you of anyone? Hint: small hands small mind. ;D
Reminds me of this:
"Small minds discuss people.
Average minds discuss events.
Great minds discuss concepts."
What does it tell you about this obsession with Trump?
-
What does it tell you about this obsession with Trump?
That his concepts suck ;)
-
Rather interesting discussion.
Trump, purely for political reasons, pardons Arpaio for contempt of court, and the media and pundits loose their minds.
Obama, purely for political reasons, (essentially) pardons Manning for "Aiding the Enemy," violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property ... and 19 other offenses, so 22 in total that he was convicted of, and the media and pundits cared considerably less.
Personally, I think they're both wrong, but if we go by past precedence.
-
... Trump, purely for political reasons, pardons Arpaio for contempt of court, and the media and pundits loose their minds.
Obama, purely for political reasons, (essentially) pardons Manning for "Aiding the Enemy," violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property ... and 19 other offenses, so 22 in total that he was convicted of, and the media and pundits cared considerably less...
Good point, Joe!
-
Rather interesting discussion.
Trump, purely for political reasons, pardons Arpaio for contempt of court, and the media and pundits loose their minds.
Obama, purely for political reasons, (essentially) pardons Manning for "Aiding the Enemy," violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property ... and 19 other offenses, so 22 in total that he was convicted of, and the media and pundits cared considerably less.
Personally, I think there both wrong, but if we go by past precedence.
Joe, I agree with you, both pardons were wrong in my opinion.
However the difference in media outrage might be explained by the fact that Manning pardon was part of the (stupid) pardonning US presidents feel they should do as their last act as president, while the Arpaio pardon comes at less then one year into Trump's presidency. So Obama's presidency would no longer benefit from the action. That's totally different in the Arpaio case, allthough I wonder if it will really help the current presidency.
-
Sooner or later people are going to look past the diversionary tactics and start to ask where the big stuff has disappeared to. You know, jobs, the economy, education, fairer taxes for regular folks not billionaires, good healthcare, etc., etc. The stuff they thought they were voting for. God forbid but at that point a lot of people might start to realize that diversionary tactics is all there is and that they've been deceived by a lying son of a gun, just like all the other lying hounds before him except this one has a penchant for orange make-up. The big stuff is not going to happen. It was never going to happen because the premises on which it was based were all a fantasy. I guess at that point falling down on the Oval Office carpet and gesturing weakly for the fake doctor may be the only way out.
-
Export of the manufacturing facilities to China is the most noticable but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Many related job losses go unnoticed.
At one time, most of the mail orders in USA and Canada were fulfilled by the US or Canadian sellers or manufacturers. As the production of thousands (or millions?) of products moved to China, many of those items are now distributed worldwide directly by Chinese companies. The Northamerican distributors simply can't match their prices and have folded their operations. In addition, China Post has much lower shipping fees (i.e. you can order on eBay or Amazon a small battery, lens filter or another small item from China for a few dollars, whereas to order it from a US or Canadian based company the shipping alone might cost $10), so in effect also the order fulfillment and shipping services have moved overseas.
I just looked up the cost of buying a 52mm lens cap from a US or Canadian company vs a Chinese seller on eBay.
B&H Price comes to $16.95US ($6.95 for the cap,$8.10 for shipping, and $1.90 for Customs clearance (for Ontario residents).
Buying it from Henrys in Canada it would cost $20.32CAD ($12.99 cap, $5.00 shipping, $2.33 tax).
The Chinese seller's price is 99 cents (79 cents without the Nikon logo).
One would have to feel very patriotic to order such an item from a Northamerican supplier. Or he would need it next week.
This is just one small item, but add all online orders now fulfilled each year by Chinese sellers and we are talking about billions of dollars being made outside of this continent. Meanwhile, US Mail annual losses are increasing - $5.6B loss in 2016 (Canada Post actually made some money for the last 3 years) and their solution to address the decreasing shipping volumes is to raise their prices every year.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/306224-us-postal-services-posts-56b-loss-for-2016
Les, How doe the Chinese ship a 99 cent product and what does it cost?
-
Joe, I agree with you, both pardons were wrong in my opinion.
However the difference in media outrage might be explained by the fact that Manning pardon was part of the (stupid) pardonning US presidents feel they should do as their last act as president, while the Arpaio pardon comes at less then one year into Trump's presidency. So Obama's presidency would no longer benefit from the action. That's totally different in the Arpaio case, allthough I wonder if it will really help the current presidency.
If both of their crimes were at the same level of severity, I would agree with this. However, Manning's offenses are considerably more severe then one count of contempt of court.
I think it is a pretty good example of the overall media bias.
-
Rather interesting discussion.
Trump, purely for political reasons, pardons Arpaio for contempt of court, and the media and pundits loose their minds.
Obama, purely for political reasons, (essentially) pardons Manning for "Aiding the Enemy," violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property ... and 19 other offenses, so 22 in total that he was convicted of, and the media and pundits cared considerably less.
Personally, I think they're both wrong, but if we go by past precedence.
I was thinking of the same thing. +1 It's all political.
One point, Obama commuted Manning's sentence. That doesn't take away the conviction. It stops the sentence. Arpaio was pardoned which eliminates the conviction totally.
-
If both of their crimes were at the same level of severity, I would agree with this. However, Manning's offenses are considerably more severe then one count of contempt of court.
I think it is a pretty good example of the overall media bias.
During my divorce, I was either held in contempt of court or threatened with being held in contempt of court. I forget all the circumstances (or put it out of my mind. :) It was so long ago. Anyway, my ex will talk to me today despite all the hullabaloo back then. No I wasn't pardoned. No, I didn't go to jail.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/fd1d4f4fb777186de3c69b88e3166357/tenor.gif)
Is she a parrot too? Can you change her mind?
She'd never get time to listen. Just imagine: she gets stuck like that, and you have to accompany her to bed - for a good night's sleep. You'd never make it. Your work would suffer, the neighbours would complain and insist you turn the record off! But never in the world of Internet idiocy where, as in the song, this could go on for ever!
;-)
Rob
-
Reminds me of this:
"Small minds discuss people.
Average minds discuss events.
Great minds discuss concepts."
What does it tell you about this obsession with Trump?
So that must be why Trump is obsessed with Hillary and the fact he won? Clearly he doesn't discuss "conceps" unless "build the wall" or "lock her up" are "concepts (and not actions)
-
If both of their crimes were at the same level of severity, I would agree with this. However, Manning's offenses are considerably more severe then one count of contempt of court.
I think it is a pretty good example of the overall media bias.
Manning spend 8 years in jail...
-
I was thinking of the same thing. +1 It's all political.
One point, Obama commuted Manning's sentence. That doesn't take away the conviction. It stops the sentence. Arpaio was pardoned which eliminates the conviction totally.
That's why I said essentially; reducing a 35 year prison term to 7 years is quite the reduction. Not that it matters, it appears the left is allowing Manning to wear those convictions like a badge of honor.
-
Sooner or later people are going to look past the diversionary tactics and start to ask where the big stuff has disappeared to. You know, jobs, the economy, education, fairer taxes for regular folks not billionaires, good healthcare, etc., etc. The stuff they thought they were voting for. God forbid but at that point a lot of people might start to realize that diversionary tactics is all there is and that they've been deceived by a lying son of a gun, just like all the other lying hounds before him except this one has a penchant for orange make-up. The big stuff is not going to happen. It was never going to happen because the premises on which it was based were all a fantasy. I guess at that point falling down on the Oval Office carpet and gesturing weakly for the fake doctor may be the only way out.
I agree with your first part that there are diversionary tactics and the like. But then you went on to blame Trump. That doesn't make sense.
First off, Trump's been president for 7 months. All the big stuff you mentioned like jobs, the economy, education, fairer taxes for regular folks not billionaires, good healthcare, etc., etc. were problems long before Trump became president. Certainly you're not blaming him for causing those things.
Of course, now that he is president you, and I, expect him to make good on his promises to correct those things. But it's only been 7 months. Obama blamed Bush for his problems for 7 years!!. At least Trump acknowledges he's the president and takes responsibility for having to change things. And he's started.
For example, he's reversed many of Obama's economic edicts that hurt the economy and jobs like the approving oil pipelines, lessening regulations, freeing up industry from many impediments that costs jobs. He's pulled out of the Paris Accord that would have reduced economic activity and raise costs on our purchases, he stopped TPP and is renegotiating NAFTA. He's imposed sanctions on certain Chinese corporate chiefs and plans to follow through with more as he negotiates with China for better trade deals. He's reduced illegal immigration on our southern border by about half which improves the job situation for Americans out of work and reduces social benefits paid to illegals lowering our tax burden. You may not agree with the things he's doing. But he ran on these changes, won the election, and he's following through.
The areas he's having trouble is with healthcare, taxes, and infrastructure. Of course in these areas, he has to depend on Congress. Only legislation can change these things. The president isn't a king and cannot enact laws by decree. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your view, Congress is divided by two parties and the Republicans are divided as well. Hopefully, they'll get their act together. But you're right to feel impatient. I feel the same way. We need to do more to help the economy.
-
Les, How doe the Chinese ship a 99 cent product and what does it cost?
99 cents total cost, incl. shipping (for a lens cap or other small item). I don't know how they do it, I wouldn't be surprised if China subsidizes the shipping costs.
Or maybe the seller absorbs fully the shipping costs in order to build up his positive feedback score (to achieve a more advantegous eBay seller status).
http://www.ebay.com/itm/52-mm-Front-Lens-Cap-Center-Snap-on-Lens-cap-for-Nikon-D3200-D7000-D5200-/131679342002?hash=item1ea8b34db2:g:vgwAAOSwhkRWc76z
-
Rather interesting discussion.
Trump, purely for political reasons, pardons Arpaio for contempt of court, and the media and pundits loose their minds.
Obama, purely for political reasons, (essentially) pardons Manning for "Aiding the Enemy," violating the Espionage Act, stealing government property ... and 19 other offenses, so 22 in total that he was convicted of, and the media and pundits cared considerably less.
Personally, I think they're both wrong, but if we go by past precedence.
and Bill Clinton pardoned Roger Clinton ... Dermocrats rock !
-
It's much the same deal as Brexit, especially at the low end of the earnings scale.
this is not about low wages - this is about allegedly unemployed yankee whining that nobody wants to train and pay him/her $100K while refusing to show his/her allegedly present IQ to wrestle $65K job from some indian H-1B dude ... the reality is those who have IQ don't whine and make more (in this economy)... those who don't are simply non worth even twice less money.
-
1. At least Trump acknowledges he's the president and takes responsibility for having to change things. And he's started.
2. For example, he's reversed many of Obama's economic edicts that hurt the economy and jobs like the approving oil pipelines, lessening regulations, freeing up industry from many impediments that costs jobs. He's pulled out of the Paris Accord that would have reduced economic activity and raise costs on our purchases, he stopped TPP and is renegotiating NAFTA. He's imposed sanctions on certain Chinese corporate chiefs and plans to follow through with more as he negotiates with China for better trade deals. He's reduced illegal immigration on our southern border by about half which improves the job situation for Americans out of work and reduces social benefits paid to illegals lowering our tax burden. You may not agree with the things he's doing. But he ran on these changes, won the election, and he's following through.
3. We need to do more to help the economy.
1. Sadly, so the world notes.
2. Your denials of reality and the damage we are doing are simply reflected in him - or is it your fanboyism that's the light in which he shines, where you see your own Narcissus? You believe that we can simply pump endless, nay, increasing amounts of crap out into the air and nothing changes. That's a statement, not a question. Why would any sane person accept such a world view? Folks talk about the glass being half-full or half-empty; just stand there, pouring water into it without stopping, and soon you're gonna have wet slippers. You can't grasp this yet; you worry instead about what the loaf's going to cost next year if you use naturally produced flour.
3. The richest man in the cemetery.
-
I think it is a pretty good example of the overall media bias.
I'm sure Alan agrees with you, as for me, I'm not sure ;)
-
99 cents total cost, incl. shipping (for a lens cap or other small item). I don't know how they do it, I wouldn't be surprised if China subsidizes the shipping costs.
Or maybe the seller absorbs fully the shipping costs in order to build up his positive feedback score (to achieve a more advantegous eBay seller status).
http://www.ebay.com/itm/52-mm-Front-Lens-Cap-Center-Snap-on-Lens-cap-for-Nikon-D3200-D7000-D5200-/131679342002?hash=item1ea8b34db2:g:vgwAAOSwhkRWc76z
This could be some of the things Trump wants to correct. If China is subsidizing products, that could have a huge impact on industries. I don't think Nikon lens caps would be an issue. We don't make those. But more important things like steel, or aluminum, where subsidizing could force American companies out of business is an areas of concern. Of course we do it too with food stuffs, so it gets complicated.
-
Joe, I agree with you, both pardons were wrong in my opinion.
However the difference in media outrage might be explained by the fact that Manning pardon was part of the (stupid) pardonning US presidents feel they should do as their last act as president, while the Arpaio pardon comes at less then one year into Trump's presidency. So Obama's presidency would no longer benefit from the action. That's totally different in the Arpaio case, allthough I wonder if it will really help the current presidency.
Agreed also. I don't know who this "left" is that some folks here seem to think is blind to previous failings on the part of democrats/liberals, but they don't seem to be much in evidence here. Obama blew some stuff, Clinton did too. So did Adams, FDR and Reagan. That's not the point. The point is that those men - all of them - worked to better the country and did it with reasonable amounts of competence even if some portion of us don't agree with their philosophies. That's not the situation today.
-
I'm sure Alan agrees with you, as for me, I'm not sure ;)
Well in fairness, some of the media objected that Obama released Manning about 27 years before he was suppose to get out of jail. Since then, he/she's become the darling of the liberal press who's quick to quote all his/her inane opinions. I doubt if they'll give Arpaio the same credibility despite the fact he served as a sheriff in Arizona for 50 years while Manning is only known for spending 7 years in federal prison for shamefully giving away American secrets and getting dishonorably discharged from our military. No operation can reverse that treason.
-
1. Sadly, so the world notes.
2. Your denials of reality and the damage we are doing are simply reflected in him - or is it your fanboyism that's the light in which he shines, where you see your own Narcissus? You believe that we can simply pump endless, nay, increasing amounts of crap out into the air and nothing changes. That's a statement, not a question. Why would any sane person accept such a world view? Folks talk about the glass being half-full or half-empty; just stand there, pouring water into it without stopping, and soon you're gonna have wet slippers. You can't grasp this yet; you worry instead about what the loaf's going to cost next year if you use naturally produced flour.
3. The richest man in the cemetery.
1. Trump serves American interests, not the world's. I'm sure your PM does the same and I respect her for doing it.
2. Check my responses in the other thread about Climate Change.
3. ????
-
Agreed also. I don't know who this "left" is that some folks here seem to think is blind to previous failings on the part of democrats/liberals, but they don't seem to be much in evidence here. Obama blew some stuff, Clinton did too. So did Adams, FDR and Reagan. That's not the point. The point is that those men - all of them - worked to better the country and did it with reasonable amounts of competence even if some portion of us don't agree with their philosophies. That's not the situation today.
Political competence is in the eye of the beholder. I think Obama failed in race relations, the economy, jobs, trade, international relations and projecting strength to protect America interests. Obamists feel the opposite. Well, that's what makes horse races.
Where Trump is different is that he is politically incorrect and says things like he sees them. Being a non-politician is what makes him attractive. Many people are tired of politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouths, the usually pablum they feed the electorate to keep the people quiet. Meanwhile, the Hillaries, McCaines, Romney's, Gores, Bushes, go about their same elite, crony capitalist ways feathering their nests along the way. That why Bush, the brother and son of two presidents, only got 5% of the vote during the nomination process. The people wanted something different not the same old BS.
Trump could turn out to be just like them, but the evidence for that is not in. In fact, just the opposite. He is pushing forward with most of the promises he made in his campaign. You may not like them, but he was elected on them and has begun to fulfill them. That's competency.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/25/us-central-bank-boss-janet-yellen-rebukes-trump-over-plan-to-lift-regulations
Janet Yellen says the dodd-frank regulations made the economy more stable and that it would be wise to keep them in place and only make small changes ...
That sounds sensible after such a deep economic crisis but maybe not to Trump...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/25/us-central-bank-boss-janet-yellen-rebukes-trump-over-plan-to-lift-regulations
Janet Yellen says the dodd-frank regulations made the economy more stable and that it would be wise to keep them in place and only make small changes ...
That sounds sensible after such a deep economic crisis but maybe not to Trump...
It was Democrat President Bill Clinton who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1998 that had been protecting our financial system since the Great depression. Many blame this for part of the 2008 recession and subsequent bailout. But Dodd-Frank has harmed regional and local banks and put many of them out of business, Meanwhile, it has made the big "not-to-fail" banks who got bailed out even bigger than before their failures in 2008. When we get hit with a major recession, the damage will be greater and the bailouts even more expensive. Frankly, I don't know what Trump can do to prevent that.
-
1. Trump serves American interests, not the world's. I'm sure your PM does the same and I respect her for doing it.
2. Check my responses in the other thread about Climate Change.
3. ????
1. Trump, as with our PM, serves many masters, mostly to his own benefit. The US is but his vehicle. The world's interests, on the other hand, affect us all and we hold a mutual responsibility to ensure we avoid suicide. Were it simply US air and oceans being poisoned, then some might just sigh and say well, c'est la vie. However, it's not exclusive to America. What you do or do not do affects us all. Is that too opaque for you?
2. You're kidding, aren't you?
3. You overlook the price to life of your nearsighted view of employment that consists of creating the ending of a life-sustaining world through massive pollution. I'm still able to remember the state of the air during the 50s before Britain awoke from its slumbers and did something about air pollution. I remember driving home along tram tracks, the only way to navigate through the Glasgow smog. I used to wear shirts in those days; the collars were black each day. No, I didn't work down the mines. The worst they get there today is fog.
-
1. Trump, as with our PM, serves many masters, mostly to his own benefit. The US is but his vehicle. The world's interests, on the other hand, affect us all and we hold a mutual responsibility to ensure we avoid suicide. Were it simply US air and oceans being poisoned, then some might just sigh and say well, c'est la vie. However, it's not exclusive to America. What you do or do not do affects us all. Is that too opaque for you?
2. You're kidding, aren't you?
3. You overlook the price to life of your nearsighted view of employment that consists of creating the ending of a life-sustaining world through massive pollution. I'm still able to remember the state of the air during the 50s before Britain awoke from its slumbers and did something about air pollution. I remember driving home along tram tracks, the only way to navigate through the Glasgow smog. I used to wear shirts in those days; the collars were black each day. No, I didn't work down the mines. The worst they get there today is fog.
You're confusing pollution with climate change. America has cleaned up their water and air to a very large extent. California leads the way. If the Paris Accord didn't let China off the hook from doing mothing until 2030, maybe it would have been a reasonable deal. Meanwhile China contributes 30% of the world's CO2 up from 27% in 2011 while America produces 14% down from 17%.
regarding pollution, Germany cheated with diesel automobiles for the last ten years causing pollution 40 times greater than the regulation limit. We just sent one of the VW engineers to prison for 40 months. Another one might get 7 years in jail. We'd like to get our hands on the executives and powers that be that let this happen. But they're hiding in Europe protected by Chancellor Merkel.
-
and Bill Clinton pardoned Roger Clinton ... Dermocrats rock !
How about Mark Rich (bold mine)?
In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted on 65 criminal counts, including income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and trading with Iran during the oil embargo (at a time when Iranian revolutionaries were still holding American citizens hostage).[7][17] The charges would have led to a sentence of more than 300 years in prison had Rich been convicted on all counts.[17] The indictment was filed by then-U.S. Federal Prosecutor (and future mayor of New York City) Rudolph Giuliani. At the time it was the biggest tax evasion case in U.S. history.[18]...
... Rich himself remained on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most-Wanted Fugitives List for many years...
... On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, U.S. President Bill Clinton granted Rich a highly controversial presidential pardon. Several of Clinton's strongest supporters distanced themselves from the decision.[23] Former President Jimmy Carter, a fellow Democrat, said, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts. In my opinion, that was disgraceful."[24] Clinton himself later expressed regret for issuing the pardon, saying that "it wasn't worth the damage to my reputation."[9]
Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought, as Denise Rich had given more than $1 million[25] to Clinton's political party (the Democratic Party), including more than $100,000 to the Senate campaign of the president's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation during Clinton's time in office.[21]
-
Meanwhile China contributes 30% of the world's CO2 up from 27% in 2011 while America produces 14% down from 17%.
This is irrelevant (figures don't lie, but lyers figure), per capita the US is the biggest CO2 producer (still today and for a long time). There's many countries with even smaller emissions (both per capita and in total) then the US who are still pulling their weight.
regarding pollution, Germany cheated with diesel automobiles for the last ten years causing pollution 40 times greater than the regulation limit. We just sent one of the VW engineers to prison for 40 months. Another one might get 7 years in jail. We'd like to get our hands on the executives and powers that be that let this happen. But they're hiding in Europe protected by Chancellor Merkel.
Does the US extradite US citizens to other countries for crimes they (may have) comitted in other countries? I guess the answer is no, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They're not protected by Merkel, they're protected by the same laws that protect US citizens in similar cases.
And the way Trump is dismantling the EPA very soon the old/cheaty VW's will easily meet your new standards ;)
-
How about Mark Rich (bold mine)?
Agreed, it's disgraceful. The executive branch should not second guess the judicial branch. I think it's high time presidential pardons should de abolished.
-
This is irrelevant (figures don't lie, but lyers figure), per capita the US is the biggest CO2 producer (still today and for a long time). There's many countries with even smaller emissions (both per capita and in total) then the US who are still pulling their weight.
Does the US extradite US citizens to other countries for crimes they (may have) comitted in other countries? I guess the answer is no, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They're not protected by Merkel, they're protected by the same laws that protect US citizens in similar cases.
And the way Trump is dismantling the EPA very soon the old/cheaty VW's will easily meet your new standards ;)
The Earth doesn't care about per capita CO2 production. It's the total produced that will effect the climate if it in fact effects the climate, another discussion for the other thread. In any case, China's more than twice that of America and going even higher because they don't have to do anything until 2030. The Paris Accord is stupid letting China off the hook.
I understand that Germany might not want to extradite. But what prosecutions have they done? Who's gone to jail? In America we're serious about these things and send people to jail. Meanwhile, Germany protects it's companies and executives from prosecution regarding the diesel corruption. It tells America hypocritically they should agree to the Paris Accord where they'll cut corners there too as they have with the 2% for NATO. Trump wasn't born yesterday. He knows when the fix is in as in the Paris Accord. Especially when there are no legal penalties to meet any requirements. America would meet the requirements at our loss while everyone else will cheat.
-
Agreed, it's disgraceful. The executive branch should not second guess the judicial branch. I think it's high time presidential pardons should de abolished.
It would require an Amendment to the Constitution, highly unlikely. Actually I think it's a good thing to have despite the sometime abuse. It's good to have a final arbiter who can provide forgiveness at some point for people who have made their amends or for people where new evidence should allow for it. Governors of all States have executive clemency ability too. It goes along with Judeo-Christian tradition. In any case, if God can forgive, so should we.
-
The Earth doesn't care about per capita CO2 production. It's the total produced that will effect the climate if it in fact effects the climate, another discussion for the other thread.
indeed for another thread, but absolute bollocks what you say here. The world wants every citizen to emit as low CO2 as possible, currently (and for a long time) the US citizens are the worst performers.
In America we're serious about these things and send people to jail.
You mean serious about blaming and pointing fingers to others while you are not one iota better then the others. I'm not following the court cases, but serious criminal investigations are underway in these Dieselgate cases and if proven people will be punished. No government or chancellor can influence or overrule the judges. There is no system of presidential pardon here.
-
In any case, if God can forgive, so should we.
In my mind to the contrary, only God can forgive, for the rest our earthly rules (incl. separation of power) should be followed. There's too much politics and short term thinking in executive pardons.
-
The difficulty with tying to explain anything to you, Alan, is that you don't appear willing (able?) to take any new information into your mind, digest it and understand what has been explained.
Precisely. With emphasis on the "don't appear willing" part. On the Climate Deniers thread, Alan said that he "didn't have time to read a pdf", one that might contradict his opinions. Just like he "didn't have time" to read something I linked to recently.
Yet apparently he has ooooooodles of time to write extensive drivellish posts that we're expected to read and believe. Go figure.
-
How about Mark Rich (bold mine)?
What about him? All I see in your quote is how many Democrats agree it was a horrid idea. Again, most people, left and right, seem to agree - What Clinton did was wrong, and it was probably one of the more egregious abuses of pardoning power. (I say that not being particularly aware of historically controversial pardons beyond Nixon). Rich was a thief and, one could argue, a traitor. Arpaio is an unrepentant racist with utter disregard for the Constitution who wrongfully and deliberately imprisoned American citizens on the basis of their appearance. But the thing is, only one side here, at least, is defending one of them. One thing Trump does seem to have been right about - he COULD shoot a guy in broad daylight on 5th Ave. and some % of idiot "Americans" would still make excuses for him.
-
... and some % of idiot "Americans" would still make excuses for him.
Are you suggesting I am not an American (quotation marks) or that I am an idiot, or both? ;)
-
Are you suggesting I am not an American (quotation marks) or that I am an idiot, or both? ;)
Truly, neither. I would expect that if Donald Trump was caught executing a random American you wouldn't be ok with that. "Some %" was not meant as a (not very) subtle dig at you, Alan or anyone else here. I guess I can see why that might have been implied, and it wasn't my intent. I might question your (or Alan's or anyone else's) understanding/interpretation of core Constitutional principles, but I've been pretty careful (I think) not to throw direct insults at people here, nor would I, knowing that you recently became a citizen, demean, question or belittle that choice.
-
Are you suggesting I am not an American (quotation marks) or that I am an idiot, or both? ;)
Would you make excuses for Trump if he'd shoot a guy in broad daylight on 5th Ave? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
indeed for another thread, but absolute bollocks what you say here. The world wants every citizen to emit as low CO2 as possible, currently (and for a long time) the US citizens are the worst performers...
I have no idea how a serious guy like you can say that!? Of course it is the total amount, not per capita, that the Earth cares about. Say citizens of Vatican (population 451) miraculously (which wouldn't be hard for that place) reduce their CO2 emission to zero - would the Earth even notice? In terms of the US and China, the US "per capita" emission would need to be four times as much just to equal the total one of China (and maybe it is, I do not know, but per capita is totally irrelevant concept here).
-
Fair enough, James, but I still find the use of the quotation marks troubling. Not for me personally, but suggesting that Americans who support Trump are somehow not real Americans is troubling.
-
I have no idea how a serious guy like you can say that!? Of course it is the total amount, not per capita, that the Earth cares about. Say citizens of Vatican (population 451) miraculously (which wouldn't be hard for that place) reduce their CO2 emission to zero - would the Earth even notice? In terms of the US and China, the US "per capita" emission would need to be four times as much just to equal the total one of China (and maybe it is, I do not know, but per capita is totally irrelevant concept here).
To get this straight, are you suggesting that when a population of 324,459,463 almost pollutes as much as a population of 1,409,517,397 then the latter should reduce its pollution more than the former?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump likely to rescind Obama 'Dreamer' program: media reports
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-daca-idUSKCN1B52KZ
QUOTE "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is likely to rescind an Obama-era policy that protects nearly 600,000 immigrants who entered the country illegally as children and are known as “Dreamers,” according to media reports on Friday.
Trump’s decision on whether to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, policy could be announced as early as next week, reported ABC News, citing multiple sources.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed the program with senior White House officials on Thursday, according to an administration official.
[...]
Trump had pledged on the election campaign trail to scrap all of former President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration, including DACA.
[...]
Civil rights groups said ending the program could increase racial divisions in the country in the wake of the recent violence in Charlottesville.
Ten Republican state attorneys general in June urged the Trump administration to rescind the DACA program, while noting that the government did not have to revoke permits that had already been issued."
We'll have to see how Trump decides, but since his achievements have almost only been to revoke Obama's EO's, this doesn't bode well for these children.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So... blacks are both more likely AND less likely to be possessing drugs at any given traffic stop? ;) ...
Yes.
Paradoxical, right?
But easily explained by the "observer effect" (https://www.google.com/search?q=observer+effect&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS720US720&oq=observer+eff&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.7008j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) or as Wikipedia succinctly defines it as: "In science, the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed."
Knowing that they will be observed (stopped), they'll stop having drugs on them. However, if cops stop stopping them, they'll again start having them. The same is with the "failed" system of "stop and frisk."
-
To get this straight, are you suggesting that when a population of 324,459,463 almost pollutes as much as a population of 1,409,517,397 then the latter should reduce its pollution more than the former?
Cheers,
Bart
Both countries (and not to forget also India) should try much harder to reduce their pollution.
The solution to a cleaner air is not in increasing the human population to lower per capita pollution index - of the earth as whole or any country. !.4 billions of people also pollute the oceans more with plastic waste, fish farms fertilizers and other junk that float to all other countries. Could be that the population growth is the main problem.
Realistically, looking at the entire population of China, with its industries leapfrogging some of the old technologies, it should be in their best interest to improve the quality of air and water for the large number of their citizens. Compared with the population and size of USA which is stuck with some old factories, the degree and density of the air pollution per cubic meter in China is much worse than in USA. What really counts for most people, is the air quality index where they live. In practical terms, China has a pollution index of 86.41 vs USA with 31.53. In all my travels in USA, I haven't seen anybody walking with a face air mask, like you see often in China. And the LA smog is nothing compared to the smog in Shanghai.
https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=China&country2=United+States
When it comes to air pollution, China and India accounted for 2.2 million deaths in 2015. New evidence and methodologies mean that the estimate is significantly higher than the figure published by the World Health Organization last year, which put the number of global air pollution-related deaths in 2012 at 3 million.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/china-india-air-pollution-deaths-1.3981769
-
LA smog is nothing compared to the smog in Shanghai.
LA has a population density of 7000 people per square mile and Shanghai has a population density of 119,000 people per square mile (down from 155,000 in 2000)
So yes, you would expect it to be a lot less. My experience recently is that LA is pretty bad. The Hollywood sign just blended in. Public transport almost did not exist.
-
To get this straight, are you suggesting that when a population of 324,459,463 almost pollutes as much as a population of 1,409,517,397 then the latter should reduce its pollution more than the former?
Cheers,
Bart
First off, CO2 is not a pollutant. Higher amounts increase plant production and have no measurable effect on people. You're confusing CO2 with the stuff that clogs the air, smog, sulfur dioxide and crap like that. California, where LA is located, has the highest standards against pollutants in the country, possible the world. Car manufacturers the world over have to meet California standards which have helped make the rest of the world more pollution free. Well, except for German cars that burn diesel.
Regarding per capita vs. country total, the bottom line is China produces 30% of the world's total CO2. How can Paris write a standard that has no effect on China for 13 years until 2030? Reason would suggest that without China doing something, anything, everything everyone else might do is a waste of time. Additionally, China is being allowed to build over 800 new electric generator plants around the world serving 300+ million people. All fired by coal. This will probably offset any gains the rest of the world will do regarding reducing CO2 production even assuming they were to fulfill their Paris promises. Additionally, coal will add to polluting the world with those other chemicals.
In addition, by letting China do nothing until 2030, the rest of the world has to implement expensive economic reforms to reduce CO2. That will raise the cost of their products and make Chinese products more competitive. They'll get wealthier and you'll get poorer. Apparently the Paris negotiators were either bamboozled or paid off by the Chinese contingent to write and agree to a dumb deal like this. Trump isn't a dope and won't strap America with that kind of stupidity. If Europe wants to give China that advantage, go to it. But America will stay away, thank you.
-
Reminds me of this:
"Small minds discuss people.
Average minds discuss events.
Great minds discuss concepts."
What does it tell you about this obsession with Trump?
He's the personification of a terrible concept?
-
99 cents total cost, incl. shipping (for a lens cap or other small item). I don't know how they do it, I wouldn't be surprised if China subsidizes the shipping costs.
Or maybe the seller absorbs fully the shipping costs in order to build up his positive feedback score (to achieve a more advantegous eBay seller status).
http://www.ebay.com/itm/52-mm-Front-Lens-Cap-Center-Snap-on-Lens-cap-for-Nikon-D3200-D7000-D5200-/131679342002?hash=item1ea8b34db2:g:vgwAAOSwhkRWc76z
They bulk ship - their turnover is generally substantial and/or they consolidate with other sellers and bulk ship to country (and even state) of destination either to their own local warehouses or via a consolidator. That reduces the shipping costs immensely. They are then prepared to make (literally) pennies on the sale because even though the shipping costs are small, they are actually helping to reduce their overall shipping costs and effectively subsidising more profitable products. Shipping is also slow - it's not air freight. If you're receiving goods quickly then they're already pre-positioned in the destination country, having again been shipped in bulk.
-
Yet apparently he has ooooooodles of time to write extensive drivellish posts that we're expected to read and believe. Go figure.
Use the ignore feature. I only see them when quoted, now. If enough people ignored, it would go away.
-
Fair enough, James, but I still find the use of the quotation marks troubling. Not for me personally, but suggesting that Americans who support Trump are somehow not real Americans is troubling.
Does it not also trouble you that a constant refrain from the right has been that only middle America is "real America" and those of us on the coasts are "liberal elites" who aren't somehow "real Americans?"
-
Use the ignore feature. I only see them when quoted, now. If enough people ignored, it would go away.
Wow. Talk about putting your head in the sand and preaching to the choir. Why would you even bother to participate in a discussion when you don't read others who disagree with you? Do you burn books too?
-
They bulk ship - their turnover is generally substantial and/or they consolidate with other sellers and bulk ship to country (and even state) of destination either to their own local warehouses or via a consolidator. That reduces the shipping costs immensely. They are then prepared to make (literally) pennies on the sale because even though the shipping costs are small, they are actually helping to reduce their overall shipping costs and effectively subsidising more profitable products. Shipping is also slow - it's not air freight. If you're receiving goods quickly then they're already pre-positioned in the destination country, having again been shipped in bulk.
I understand how they get them to America or Canada. But you still have country shipping or mailing. Even 2nd rate postage costs something. They would have to subsidize the whole thing.
Reminds me of the joke about the company who was losing a dollar on every piece they sold. When the investors asked the president what he was going to do to turn it around, he told them they'd make it up in volume.
-
Use the ignore feature. I only see them when quoted, now. If enough people ignored, it would go away.
So that you can happily enjoy your echo chamber? ;)
-
Does it not also trouble you that a constant refrain from the right has been that only middle America is "real America" and those of us on the coasts are "liberal elites" who aren't somehow "real Americans?"
For someone who spent more years outside the U.S. than inside, a Commie American has always been an oxymoron ;)
-
My dirty little secret? I've been binge watching The West Wing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5aad33445c817b90c9f38458fbd9f491f0d3815d/c=0-206-1971-1319&r=x329&c=580x326/local/-/media/2016/09/21/USATODAY/USATODAY/636100909167456195-D-west-wing-return-27.jpg)
I miss Jed, Leo, Josh, Toby, Sam and CJ...I miss seeing people working in government who care and try to do the best they can even while occasionally failing–hey nobody's perfect.
I get West Wing on Netflix so it's easy to stream the episodes...I'm about 1/2 through the 2nd season so I have 4.5 seasons left...
The really interesting thing is the way the show is produced by Aaron Sorkin has such a high degree of authenticity...I don't know for the fact that West Wing is an accurate representation of any real White House, but it's was modeled loosely after Bill Clinton's–the series started in the fall of 1999 and ran through May 2006.
The Guardian did an article last year noting the 10 year period since the West Wing finale...
Ten years on from the West Wing finale, the show's shadow still looms large (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jun/22/west-wing-netflix-friends-binge-watching-nostalgia)
t’s strange to think that 10 years ago today The West Wing, one of the most legendary and highly praised shows in recent memory, aired its final episode. That oddness isn’t because it makes us all feel old or because we’ve slipped into some crazy wormhole where time speeds up, but because The West Wing is possibly the first show to never entirely go away.
The show debuted in September 1999, when there was still a Democratic president in office and the dotcom bubble had yet to burst. It’s crazy to think that the show that defined politics for many people in the 2000s actually straddled the world-changing events of September 11. But even more important to The West Wing’s legacy is how technology changed over that time. Plenty of people jumped on the West Wing bandwagon after it won its first Emmy, surging the audience from about 9 million viewers to its peak of 17 million. That jump was aided in part by DVD sets for TV shows, which were just coming into vogue and definitely aren’t now.
--snip--
Thanks to Netflix, shows such as The West Wing and Friends are stuck in this strange nostalgia feedback loop, with old fans wanting to revisit a certain time and novices wishing they were in that time even though they missed it the first time around.
This is especially odd for The West Wing, which was embroiled in current events when it aired but also presenting the sort of government that many viewers wish we had when it was airing in the depths of the Bush administration. Jed Bartlet and his acolytes were always more progressive, more intelligent and much more fair than what Democrats at the time were experiencing in real life. Thanks to creator Aaron Sorkin, it was government as liberal fantasy, one where our politicians could hold positions that were untenable in real life.
The world eventually caught up to The West Wing, and the show presaged many of the changes that we would see in just a few years time. Bartlet appointed the supreme court’s first Latino justice in 1999, something that Barack Obama did nine years later when he appointed Sonia Sotomayor. The show’s first season included a storyline about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 1999, which took 11 years for Obama to repeal. Osama bin Laden was even a suspect in President Bartlet’s shooting two years before he would claim responsibility for 9/11.
There have been a host of other ongoing political issues that we first heard about on The West Wing: government shutdowns, the rise of filibusters, journalists being kidnapped, and the constant debate over the debt ceiling. However, there is nothing more prescient than the show’s final season where Matthew Santos, the country’s first president of color, assumes office. The character should remind viewers of Obama because he was actually based on the then little-known senator from Illinois.
That’s why The West Wing has really never gone away, because it is as much about the world we live in now as it is about the world as it was then. In fact, it might be even more relevant today than it was 10 years ago.
Interestingly (something I either never heard about or forgot) some members of the West Wing cast actually hit the road last year for Hillary...
'West Wing' cast hits real campaign trail for Clinton (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/21/west-wing-cast-campaigns-clinton/90813960/)
Six cast members from the hit TV show, The West Wing, will campaign for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in Ohio this weekend.
"Toby, C.J., Josh, Charlie, Will and Kate (a.k.a., actors Richard Schiff, Allison Janney, Bradley Whitford, Dulé Hill, Joshua Malina and Mary McCormack) will participate in grassroots organizing events across Ohio," the Clinton campaign said in statement "The actors will discuss why they are supporting Clinton and urge Ohioans to register to vote."
I guess it was just an Ohio thing...sadly, it didn't work :~(
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/c73b6f624b23b7d5a01e435868834e092aab83f6/c=0-296-1952-1765&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/USATODAY/None/2014/09/24/1411578301000-b16-sheen-prime-30.jpg)
But I'll tell you one thing, I would trade President Josiah Bartlet for The Big Orange Dummy™ in a heartbeat! Maybe somebody should send some DVDs to Trump and his staff for clues on how to run a White House? Yeah, I know, if t ain't Fox and Friends he likely wouldn't understand the show.
-
First off, CO2 is not a pollutant. Higher amounts increase plant production and have no measurable effect on people.
Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts whose main problem on the way home was avoiding carbon dioxide poisoning.
-
So that you can happily enjoy your echo chamber? ;)
Nah, Slobo - I listen to (read) everyone else. No matter how much I disagree, it's worth at least scanning through the comments. There are things I learn, or reinforce, or change a view a little here and there, or check some info and so on.
The difference is that Alan claims to read/participate - but he doesn't. I mean, I vehemently disagree with some of your opinions and consider some of your expressions of those views to be absurd - that's at the extreme end and I'm sure others feel the way about me at times (all the time?), too - but mostly you at least make or attempt to make cogent arguments and actually engage with your "opponents" (really, for want of a better term).
Alan doesn't do that. It's like talking to a 2017 version of Eliza that's been fed a shallow, myopic, summary of a vaguely right-wing manifesto (but written by a 2nd year arts student) mixed in with a handful of "get off my lawn!" style attitude. Thinking about it, in 1982, Eliza was more interesting.
-
My dirty little secret? I've been binge watching The West Wing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing)
It's always been a fantastic show. Mostly the lean of the politics was obvious, but not always. It had a lot of good messages and as a TV series, they pioneered the walking/talking style that made it feel so real in many ways. The dialogue was awesome and the cast was ideal.
The worst thing about it? It set an expectation - a standard - that (as with most TV/movies) is simply a fiction in real life. That's fine, because that's what dramas on TV do, but unfortunately it set a standard that simply doesn't exist in reality (regardless of your side of politics) in the US or anywhere in the world.
But it's a great series. I have it on DVD. Interesting that it's on Netflix - it's not in Oz so someone else locally must hold the rights still. VPN solves that, of course, and it is more convenient than changing DVDs.
-
For someone who spent more years outside the U.S. than inside, a Commie American has always been an oxymoron ;)
Cute, but really... where's your concern for the "unamerican" label the right has been tossing at anyone left of Joe McCarthy since Lee Atwater decided to start making identity politics the cornerstone of the Republican Party? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) (Or since, well, Joe McCarthy.)
-
I understand how they get them to America or Canada. But you still have country shipping or mailing. Even 2nd rate postage costs something. They would have to subsidize the whole thing.
Reminds me of the joke about the company who was losing a dollar on every piece they sold. When the investors asked the president what he was going to do to turn it around, he told them they'd make it up in volume.
As Phil said, they might be trying to increase volume (or number of orders) to fill the whole container.
I ordered such a lens cap at one time, and as I recollect it was delivered in a small envelope with a Chinese stamp which would indicate that it was mailed from China to Canada by the postal system (China Post and Canada). Maybe China Post ships it in bulk to Canada, and Canada Post opens the container and sorts the parcels and envelopes by the postal code. BTW, the cheapest letter rate by Canada Post is 85 cents, so it wouldn't make sense to send a bulk to a Canadian consolidator who would then have to pay the Canadian rates.
-
As Phil said, they might be trying to increase volume (or number of orders) to fill the whole container.
I ordered such a lens cap at one time, and as I recollect it was delivered in a small envelope with a Chinese stamp which would indicate that it was mailed from China to Canada by the postal system (China Post and Canada). Maybe China Post ships it in bulk to Canada, and Canada Post opens the container and sorts the parcels and envelopes by the postal code. BTW, the cheapest letter rate by Canada Post is 85 cents, so it wouldn't make sense to send a bulk to a Canadian consolidator who would then have to pay the Canadian rates.
They, or local consolidators, often have agreements with postal or courier services for rates that are better than you and I can get. There's also some disparity in the sense that international postal organisations have agreements on pricing that don't necessarily reflect local pricing (someone sending a letter from a very low GDP country to the US or Australia, literally may not be able to afford our domestic postal rates, but the rate they pay from their country is reasonable to them, even for international post). It's just how it works.
And, again, these sellers are often prepared to make margins as low as 1 cent or even less - just breaking even is sufficient in some cases.
-
You're confusing pollution with climate change. America has cleaned up their water and air to a very large extent. California leads the way. If the Paris Accord didn't let China off the hook from doing mothing until 2030, maybe it would have been a reasonable deal. Meanwhile China contributes 30% of the world's CO2 up from 27% in 2011 while America produces 14% down from 17%.
regarding pollution, Germany cheated with diesel automobiles for the last ten years causing pollution 40 times greater than the regulation limit. We just sent one of the VW engineers to prison for 40 months. Another one might get 7 years in jail. We'd like to get our hands on the executives and powers that be that let this happen. But they're hiding in Europe protected by Chancellor Merkel.
No, I am not confusing them. They are part and parcel of the same problem, inextricably mingles threads, the one exacerbating the other.
We cannot control every result of our actions but that doesn't mean that we can't control our actions. If we can't, then we are simply out of control and something needs serious correction.
I don't think anyone, anywhere, especially somebody like me who was conned into buying the first diesel car in his life at a time he was probably buying the last car in his life, has any love for the car manufacturers. Especially when the diesel choice was at least a grand more expensive than the petrol version. But hey, whatever they do, at whatever cost to the rest of us, they are providing employment, helping the economy grow, right? What's your beef: making Germany great again, no less - just as you imagine your renewed old rust-belt, your new tundra-melting oil/gas pipes etc. are going to do for the US of A, and at the same bloody cost. If that ain't hypocricy mated to blindness, I don't know what the hell is. But I can't claim you surprise me any more. Which ain't to say you won't surprise yourself. The day you accidentally step on your tints is the day you will really, really be surprised at what you see.
And here's the chunk of irony for you: you guys will suffer as much as the rest of us. And you'll still be thinking: how did that happen? It must have been somebody else - yeah, that's what it was - India and China! Let's nuke 'em and clean it up once and for all! Break out the flags, print the slogan boards, polish the coffins!
Numbers, numbers; percentages split into lesser percentages; that's not what it is about: what it is about is takling action, unilaterally if it has to be, and do one's national bit to conserve this poor old planet in a condition which supports human life. Forget the Moon, Mars etc. Never gonna live there. Spend the money here, at home, just as your domestic voices constantly preach. So do it, save this world from which you'll never escape. Most of us are already trying our best, spending the bread to find safer ways.
-
They, or local consolidators, often have agreements with postal or courier services for rates that are better than you and I can get. There's also some disparity in the sense that international postal organisations have agreements on pricing that don't necessarily reflect local pricing (someone sending a letter from a very low GDP country to the US or Australia, literally may not be able to afford our domestic postal rates, but the rate they pay from their country is reasonable to them, even for international post). It's just how it works.
And, again, these sellers are often prepared to make margins as low as 1 cent or even less - just breaking even is sufficient in some cases.
Yes, that's not beyond belief.
I never went to any business school nor to any accountancy classes, but I did learn this: the quest for crazy, constant growth is bullshit. In my own career, the ablity to maintain a reasonable standard of living was the goal. As long as the family was fed, as long as nobody could force me to sell our home, as long as I could replace the cars now and then before they became too expensive to keep, that was perfectly fine by me, and I didn't kill myself with regrets that the numbers didn't soar every year. Being self-employed, removed from manipulative corporate mantras, I realised that comfortable survival is where it's at. Some years I felt rich (! - another illusion) and during others I thought the world was ending. But overall, we got through it with a lot for which to be thankful, and more time as a family unit than most around us ever managed.
I really do believe that many people destroy their own lives and personal relationships in this mad rush to make more and more and more, when reasonable comfort and stability is the better option. Business zillionaires may have superyachts, they may even see them now and again; do they ever get the time to spend months enjoying them each year? I live close as dammit to a marina full of yachts - okay, not supers, most only 60ft - 82ft, but I observe this: only the crew and the gardiennage folks spend any time near them. And they almost never leave their berth. So there you are, about 1.5 million quid per pop tied up there, losing value all the time, and costing a small fortune just to retain that loss-making status.
Message? We don't need to make that sort of money in order to be happy. We don't need cellphones to monitor our daily habits; what we do need is to come to our senses and realise that life's a gift, and to screw it up is a sin against whatever the source of life may be. Greed is not good, it just sets survival higher and higher up the earnings scale and our lives the poorer for that as the work becomes the goal, not the imagined benefits from said work. In essence, the means become the end. Sad, unless you are a successful artist!
-
My dirty little secret? I've been binge watching The West Wing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_Wing)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5aad33445c817b90c9f38458fbd9f491f0d3815d/c=0-206-1971-1319&r=x329&c=580x326/local/-/media/2016/09/21/USATODAY/USATODAY/636100909167456195-D-west-wing-return-27.jpg)
I miss Jed, Leo, Josh, Toby, Sam and CJ...I miss seeing people working in government who care and try to do the best they can even while occasionally failing–hey nobody's perfect.
I get West Wing on Netflix so it's easy to stream the episodes...I'm about 1/2 through the 2nd season so I have 4.5 seasons left...
The really interesting thing is the way the show is produced by Aaron Sorkin has such a high degree of authenticity...I don't know for the fact that West Wing is an accurate representation of any real White House, but it's was modeled loosely after Bill Clinton's–the series started in the fall of 1999 and ran through May 2006.
The Guardian did an article last year noting the 10 year period since the West Wing finale...
Ten years on from the West Wing finale, the show's shadow still looms large (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jun/22/west-wing-netflix-friends-binge-watching-nostalgia)
Interestingly (something I either never heard about or forgot) some members of the West Wing cast actually hit the road last year for Hillary...
'West Wing' cast hits real campaign trail for Clinton (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/21/west-wing-cast-campaigns-clinton/90813960/)
I guess it was just an Ohio thing...sadly, it didn't work :~(
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/c73b6f624b23b7d5a01e435868834e092aab83f6/c=0-296-1952-1765&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/USATODAY/None/2014/09/24/1411578301000-b16-sheen-prime-30.jpg)
But I'll tell you one thing, I would trade President Josiah Bartlet for The Big Orange Dummy™ in a heartbeat! Maybe somebody should send some DVDs to Trump and his staff for clues on how to run a White House? Yeah, I know, if t ain't Fox and Friends he likely wouldn't understand the show.
I always wanted to get into that show, but never could or could really find the time, plus I don't own a TV. Maybe, one day, Netflix will have it.
-
I always wanted to get into that show, but never could or could really find the time, plus I don't own a TV. Maybe, one day, Netflix will have it.
I watched it twice over one summer when I was laid up with an illness. An incredible ensemble of actors, directors, the writer, etc - real talent in depth. Getting a group as good as that together again would likely be very difficult.
Then about six months later I nearly bumped into Martin Sheen walking through the crowds on the middle of town here. It turned out he was on his way to a debate at the Oxford Union (part of the university). He was shorter and slighter than he looks on TV, which I've nearly always found to be the case when I've seen actors in the flesh, but what I warmed to was his relaxed, casual approach with no limos, security, minders and all the other BS we've been conditioned to expect as the price of fame. Most folks probably walked right past him without realising who he was.
A year later John Kelly was in town for the same reason. A street closed off, the secret service showing off their black ranincoats, a convoy of armoured vehicles, police and guns everywhere. It's not surprising some of these fellows end up mad or twisted when 99.9 per cent of humanity is presented to them as a deadly threat.
-
I wasn't sure where to post this since it's not really on topic, but since we have touched on "freedom of speech" a few times herein, without much regard to what it actually refers to, I thought I would add this link (which contains references to further works). It has mainly Canadian and American relevance: http://induecourse.ca/freedom-of-speech-on-campus-ii/ (http://induecourse.ca/freedom-of-speech-on-campus-ii/).
Also, this: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/03/safe-spaces-academic-freedom-and-the-university-as-a-complex-association/ (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2016/03/safe-spaces-academic-freedom-and-the-university-as-a-complex-association/).
I read elsewhere (maybe thehill.com?) about how that pardoned sheriff housed the people he arrested in desert tent cities and forced them to all wear pink underwear, as a method of embarrassment I presume (I assume this is true). Oh yeah, now there's a hero. Arresting people for doing something against the law is one thing, but I would have thought that enacting punishment before conviction would be "un-American"; or does that apply only to white people?
I don't know why people think that setting the bar lower and lower will improve anything.
-
Cute, but really... where's your concern for the "unamerican" label the right has been tossing at anyone left of Joe McCarthy...
Has anyone on this thread tossed that label? If so, please point me in the right direction and I'll make sure the mofo gets to wear pink underwear ;)
-
A king housekeeping request: please don't quote Jeff's looooong posts, with a lot of pictures and quoted text, just so that you can add a sentence of your own. Seeing Jeff's post once is more than enough ;)
-
Has anyone on this thread tossed that label? If so, please point me in the right direction and I'll make sure the mofo gets to wear pink underwear ;)
Not that I recall offhand, but it's first cousin, "Real American" get's thrown into the mix quite frequently ;)
-
First off, CO2 is not a pollutant. Higher amounts increase plant production and have no measurable effect on people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia
(https://s26.postimg.org/nvmaz9h49/co2.jpg)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia
(https://s26.postimg.org/nvmaz9h49/co2.jpg)
current CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million or .04% or your top line. The point is that CO2 is a normal gas that's in the atmosphere. It is a result of animals breathing and burning. CO2 is a gas that plants need to survive. More actually makes them grew better It's not a pollutant.
Sometime you'll see photos of plastic and other garbage and pollution in water. Then the comment will take off on climate change. The pollution they show has nothing to do with either greenhouse gases or global warming. But the biased media has confused people into believe that pollution causes climate change. It doesn't.
-
I have no idea how a serious guy like you can say that!? Of course it is the total amount, not per capita, that the Earth cares about. Say citizens of Vatican (population 451) miraculously (which wouldn't be hard for that place) reduce their CO2 emission to zero - would the Earth even notice? In terms of the US and China, the US "per capita" emission would need to be four times as much just to equal the total one of China (and maybe it is, I do not know, but per capita is totally irrelevant concept here).
Of course, per capita arguments are to punish America and other modern societies. Maybe we should go back to huts, shut off the electricity and have no heating or air conditioning. Just because backwards countries are still living in the dark ages, doesn't mean modern countries who produce the worlds' products (which requires a lot of energy that burns and produces CO2) should be punished. It is we who have advanced the world so they can live longer and better. They want to catch up to us. We don't want to go back to them.
The fact is you have to look what America produces for that 14% of the world's CO2 ($17 trillion GDP) vs. China with 30% of the world's CO2 and only $10 trillion of GDP. So China produces 4 times the CO2 then America does for each dollar of GDP. Who's effecting greenhouse gases more? Yet, Paris Accord does not require China to implement any changes until 2030. What a stupid plan. It's only there to punish America. Of course, Obama agreed because he was a jerk trying to get the world to love him and leave a "legacy". Obama is the egotist, not Trump. Trump smartly dumped it. He only cares about America.
-
Not that I recall offhand, but it's first cousin, "Real American" get's thrown into the mix quite frequently ;)
For a recent outsider like me, "Real Americans" are: John Wayne, sheriff Arpaio, Alan Klein :)
-
In thinking about it, a ratio of CO2 production to GDP is certainly better than per capita. After all, a lot of the production is shipped overseas to other countries who then consume the products. They should absorb the calculation of CO2 use, not the producing country.
-
For a recent outsider like me, "Real Americans" are: John Wayne, sheriff Arpaio, Alan Klein :)
Well, thanks Pilgram.
-
For a recent outsider like me, "Real Americans" are: John Wayne, sheriff Arpaio, Alan Klein :)
Fake news, fake Americans; you get the idea.
-
I'll post this before Jeff does. At least it is a cuter presentation of the liberal criticism of Trump :)
https://www.facebook.com/theparodyproject/videos/139213316683714/
-
... I vehemently disagree with some of your opinions and consider some of your expressions of those views to be absurd - that's at the extreme end and I'm sure others feel the way about me at times (all the time?), too - but mostly you at least make or attempt to make cogent arguments and actually engage with your "opponents" (really, for want of a better term)...
You mean like proclaiming Arpaio a "real American hero"? Yeah, I went overboard with that one. I should have stopped at "real." :)
I assume the other "absurd" statement of mine is there are no racial problems in the U.S. (except for the made up ones, for political purposes). I stand by that. I accept your criticism that I should not ask for a broader view on the freedom of speech, and yet insist on purely legislative views on racism. Fair enough. But even in that case, I stand by my assertion. In the given examples (names, traffic stops), I wonder why is that labeled as an American problem? It is universal, world over, from Europe to Asia, from Netherlands to Indonesia. And if it is universal, it is actually, as I already asserted, a normal part of human nature (that we like those who are like us - I can quote you studies to support that, if you insist). Besides, I further assert, it is not racial, based on the color of the skin, but (sub)cultural and statistical.
-
current CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million or .04% or your top line. The point is that CO2 is a normal gas that's in the atmosphere. It is a result of animals breathing and burning. CO2 is a gas that plants need to survive. More actually makes them grew better It's not a pollutant.
Sometime you'll see photos of plastic and other garbage and pollution in water. Then the comment will take off on climate change. The pollution they show has nothing to do with either greenhouse gases or global warming. But the biased media has confused people into believe that pollution causes climate change. It doesn't.
Alan, you made a broad statement w/o any fine print, claiming that CO2 is not a toxic at all ... but it is... it is like claiming that polonium that we used to get rid of the rat is not toxic when there is just one atom of it ;D... so digest the info and move on....
-
Alan, you made a broad statement w/o any fine print, claiming that CO2 is not a toxic at all ... but it is... it is like claiming that polonium that we used to get rid of the rat is not toxic when there is just one atom of it ;D... so digest the info and move on....
Everything can be toxic, depending on the amount and circumastances:
Water: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3260684/The-hiker-died-drinking-water-Excess-fluid-lack-food-caused-brain-fatally-swell.html
BenGay (muscle cream): http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/09/teen-dies-from-muscle-cream-overdose.html
-
Of course, per capita arguments are to punish America and other modern societies. Maybe we should go back to huts, shut off the electricity and have no heating or air conditioning. Just because backwards countries are still living in the dark ages, doesn't mean modern countries who produce the worlds' products (which requires a lot of energy that burns and produces CO2) should be punished. It is we who have advanced the world so they can live longer and better. They want to catch up to us. We don't want to go back to them.
The fact is you have to look what America produces for that 14% of the world's CO2 ($17 trillion GDP) vs. China with 30% of the world's CO2 and only $10 trillion of GDP. So China produces 4 times the CO2 then America does for each dollar of GDP. Who's effecting greenhouse gases more? Yet, Paris Accord does not require China to implement any changes until 2030. What a stupid plan. It's only there to punish America. Of course, Obama agreed because he was a jerk trying to get the world to love him and leave a "legacy". Obama is the egotist, not Trump. Trump smartly dumped it. He only cares about America.
The "per capita" argument is not to punish the US, it's just to point a US citizen has the highest CO2 emission vs. citizens of other countries. You're still double that of Europe, so don't claim you need to go back to the dark ages, meeting them halfway is fine. Keep working your energy efficiency because there's still lots of room for improvement.
Your argument to link it to GDP is also not right, that means an old economy with much higher wages would be allowed more CO2 then a developing economy with lower wages, that ain't right.
Your other argument, deduct the CO2 emissions for exports and allocate those to the countries that import the goods I like, but realize it will make the US look worse and China better :P
-
Everything can be toxic, depending on the amount and circumastances:
Water: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3260684/The-hiker-died-drinking-water-Excess-fluid-lack-food-caused-brain-fatally-swell.html
BenGay (muscle cream): http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/09/teen-dies-from-muscle-cream-overdose.html
Even over-exposure to some online discussions could turn out deadly.
A prolific poster might forget to eat and drink or even worse, overindulge in eating. And reading some posts can easily trigger a heart attack.
-
I assume the other "absurd" statement of mine is there are no racial problems in the U.S. (except for the made up ones, for political purposes). I stand by that.
Preposterous. I'd expect more, especially for someone who lives in Chicago. It doesn't appear to be ignorance, so it must be willful blindness.
Also, to call racism "normal" is only valid if you equate "normal" with "common". It IS common. Worldwide, as you pointed out.
That doesn't make it right or acceptable.
-
And reading some posts can easily trigger a heart attack.
Or high blood pressure. :'(
-
I ordered such a lens cap at one time, and as I recollect it was delivered in a small envelope with a Chinese stamp which would indicate that it was mailed from China to Canada by the postal system (China Post and Canada). Maybe China Post ships it in bulk to Canada, and Canada Post opens the container and sorts the parcels and envelopes by the postal code. BTW, the cheapest letter rate by Canada Post is 85 cents, so it wouldn't make sense to send a bulk to a Canadian consolidator who would then have to pay the Canadian rates.
I just ordered a lens cap from a Canadian source for $4.99 (free shipping). It's coming from a Montreal eBay "company". Could have ordered the exact same thing direct from China for $0.99, but I wanted it sooner than 15 to 40 working days. BTW, the lens cap replaces one that literally "saved my butt". I slipped and fell down an embankment onto some rocks, recently. The lens cap was in my back pocket. My jeans had a huge tear in the pocket, and the lens cap had completely shattered, but there was no damage to my posterior. My knee, my forehead and one hand sustained minor abrasions and cuts, however.
Postage is a mystery, anyway. Cost me $15 to send a 150g lens in a small box to the US. Bought two large cast iron fry pans (Lodge) from Amazon at half price, and they still shipped them to me FREE. I can't imaging what it would cost ME to ship those pans somewhere!
-
Even over-exposure to some online discussions could turn out deadly.
A prolific poster might forget to eat and drink or even worse, overindulge in eating. And reading some posts can easily trigger a heart attack.
Funny you mention that. I recently had a low sugar attack and had to eat a donut and I just finished a slice of pizza. Not good for my diabetes.
We Americans are addicted to fast food and lousy food. We wink at CO2. Doesn't even show up on our radar. :)
-
Preposterous. I'd expect more, especially for someone who lives in Chicago. It doesn't appear to be ignorance, so it must be willful blindness.
Also, to call racism "normal" is only valid if you equate "normal" with "common". It IS common. Worldwide, as you pointed out.
That doesn't make it right or acceptable.
It is not "willful blindness," it is just a different way of looking at things.
Also, I am not calling racism "normal." I am calling normal the human traits that you consider racism and I don't. The real issue is that the Left constantly needs to reinvent the definitions of racism (among other things) in order to have enough victims to represent. "Avoiding eye contact" is these days considered racism. Perpetrating and peddling that victimhood is the major disservice to the groups they claim they want to protect.
Btw, what exactly do you consider "racism" in Chicago?
-
We went off on a tangent about militia about a week ago, then I came across this podcast about them (about 45 min long): http://www.npr.org/2017/08/23/545509627/armed-militias-face-off-with-the-antifa-in-the-new-landscape-of-political-protes (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/23/545509627/armed-militias-face-off-with-the-antifa-in-the-new-landscape-of-political-protes).
-
Typical, in his zeal to undo anything Obama, Trump just signed an order rescinding Obama-era flood standards. While it wouldn't have any impact on today's hurricane Harvey flooding, it will make it more likely that the future will hold more flooding problems, not less.
TRUMP RESCINDED OBAMA’S FLOOD RISK RULES WEEKS BEFORE HURRICANE HARVEY HIT (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-signed-away-obamas-flood-risk-rules-weeks-hurricane-harvey-hit-655712)
Donald Trump signed away Obama-era flood standards just weeks before Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in a bid to get infrastructure projects approved more quickly.
The rule signed by former president Barack Obama in 2015 had not yet come into effect but aimed to make infrastructure more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and flooding.
Those who backed Obama’s rules believed they would make people safer by putting roads, bridges and other infrastructure on safer ground, NPR reported, but Trump rescinded the rule several weeks ago in an attempt to speed up the time it takes for infrastructure projects to be approved.
Obama's regulations meant roads, buildings and other infrastructure needed to be constructed to take climate change into account and be built to withstand the effects of such climate change, including rising sea levels in coastal areas.
But Trump believed the rule would slow down the permitting process. The president favored a faster route for infrastructure building, which he announced with an executive order signed several weeks ago—the latest in a series of Obama-era climate change policies to get the boot.
--snip--
Former director of public affairs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Rafael Lemaitre told the news service at the time that Trump was undoing "the most significant action taken in a generation" to protect infrastructure from climate change.
"Eliminating this requirement is self-defeating; we can either build smarter now, or put taxpayers on the hook to pay exponentially more when it floods. And it will," he added.
-
The psychosis continues.
Catholic school tears down Baby Jesus statues for being too racist.
What's next? The Little Mermaid?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/08/26/too-alienating-catholic-school-removes-statues-of-the-virgin-mary-and-jesus-n2373209 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/08/26/too-alienating-catholic-school-removes-statues-of-the-virgin-mary-and-jesus-n2373209)
(https://lareviewofbooks-org-cgwbfgl6lklqqj3f4t3.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/mermaid1.png)
-
To preempt Jeff ;)
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20953800_10213674200951674_4848184032520933584_n.jpg?oh=3c66d2be9cf508dd4c1a988dcfddcbc2&oe=5A1AAE60)
-
The psychosis continues.
Catholic school tears down Baby Jesus statues for being too racist.
What's next?...
(https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/11050676_10153415659076505_9059805870800478668_n.jpg?oh=97a805f7aea72f19ad163071ebf3d492&oe=5A20137A)
-
Similar things are occurring in Canada, Germany, and some other West European countries.
There is a recent book on the subject of political correctness - Political correctness and the destruction of social order : chronicling the rise of the pristine self
This book develops a psychoanalytic theory of political correctness and the pristine self, which is defined as a self touched by nothing but love. It explores the damage that political correctness can do to social order. Applications include the breakdown of social capital, the financial crisis, and Occupy Wall Street. Long an issue for conservatives, alarm over political correctness has now spread to the liberal side of the political spectrum. As Schwartz argues, all have reason to be concerned. Schwartz discusses the primitive roots of political correctness and, through the use of case studies, shows its capacity for ruination.
The psychology that underlies political correctness has the potential to be extremely destructive to social organization on every level.
The book is quite expensive at $95US (I wonder why so pricey), but you can look at the Summary and Table Of Contents through the Amazon Look Inside feature:
https://www.amazon.com/Political-Correctness-Destruction-Social-Order/dp/3319398040/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503883608&sr=1-1&keywords=political+correctness+and+the+destruction+of+social+order
-
I thought "cultural diversity" meant just that.
Not anymore.
“We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us.” -Borg
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/73/09/4e/73094e062316fa1224d2661b4c761a22--movie-posters-quote-posters.jpg)
-
The "per capita" argument is not to punish the US, it's just to point a US citizen has the highest CO2 emission vs. citizens of other countries. You're still double that of Europe, so don't claim you need to go back to the dark ages, meeting them halfway is fine. Keep working your energy efficiency because there's still lots of room for improvement.
Your argument to link it to GDP is also not right, that means an old economy with much higher wages would be allowed more CO2 then a developing economy with lower wages, that ain't right.
Your other argument, deduct the CO2 emissions for exports and allocate those to the countries that import the goods I like, but realize it will make the US look worse and China better :P
Here's a good article why Europe is greener than America. To quote from it: "But we live in a country with big houses. Big cars. Big commutes. Central Air. Big fridges and separate freezers. Clothes dryers. Disposable razors."
http://e360.yale.edu/features/what_makes_europe_greener_than_the_us
-
Similar things are occurring in Canada, Germany, and some other West European countries.
There is a recent book on the subject of political correctness - Political correctness and the destruction of social order : chronicling the rise of the pristine self
The book is quite expensive at $95US (I wonder why so pricey), but you can look at the Summary and Table Of Contents through the Amazon Look Inside feature:
https://www.amazon.com/Political-Correctness-Destruction-Social-Order/dp/3319398040/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503883608&sr=1-1&keywords=political+correctness+and+the+destruction+of+social+order
I disagree with the premise of the book. Save your $95. Political Correctness eliminates freedom not social order. It solidifies social order. If you take PC to it's maximum, you get totalitarianism, the maximum in social order. It works if you want to live in towns controlled by ISIS or in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Political Correctness creates maximum social order and minimum freedom of expression. That's why being politically correct is so bad in our countries. It shuts down individual thought and concepts different than what the powers to be feel should be the social norm.
The Left in America only believes in free speech if it supports their position. They don't want to hear opposing views. It's like when posters here have blocked my posts holding their hands over their ears and closing their eyes. Book burning is next.
-
I disagree with the premise of the book. Save your $95. Political Correctness eliminates freedom not social order. It solidifies social order. If you take PC to it's maximum, you get totalitarianism, the maximum in social order. It works if you want to live in towns control by ISIS or in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Political Correctness creates maximum social order and minimum freedom of expression. That's why being political correct is so bad in our countries. It shuts down individual thought and concepts different than what the powers to be feel should be the social norm.
The Left in America only believes in free speech if it supports their position. They don't want to hear opposing views. It's like when posters here have blocked my posts holding their hands over their ears and closing their eyes. Book burning is next.
The book is against Political Correctness, not for it.
-
The book is against Political Correctness, not for it.
Oh. OK. You can spend your $95. :)
-
Oh. OK. You can spend your $95. :)
No need to spend $95 and even more so when that price tag is in US currency. In Canada, we already have plenty of PC news and rules.
-
Typical, in his zeal to undo anything Obama, Trump just signed an order rescinding Obama-era flood standards. While it wouldn't have any impact on today's hurricane Harvey flooding, it will make it more likely that the future will hold more flooding problems, not less.
TRUMP RESCINDED OBAMA’S FLOOD RISK RULES WEEKS BEFORE HURRICANE HARVEY HIT (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-signed-away-obamas-flood-risk-rules-weeks-hurricane-harvey-hit-655712)
Trump is a builder who has a lot of experience knowing how permitting slows down the construction process. It adds huge costs and delays starts. We can tweak it as we go along. He also said something that you didn't mention, that environmental requirements would continue. This all seems to be a reasonable approach. Adding all kinds of new not-yet-implemented bureaucratic requirements that Obama issued without Congressional oversight in 2015 is just going to slow everything down. Let's get infrastructure construction going. It will help the economy, jobs, and make America more efficient businesswise.
-
No need to spend $95 and even more so if it is $95 in US currency. In Canada, we have plenty of PC news and rules.
All lot of the PC is right here in this thread. :)
-
Typical, in his zeal to undo anything Obama, Trump just signed an order rescinding Obama-era flood standards. While it wouldn't have any impact on today's hurricane Harvey flooding, it will make it more likely that the future will hold more flooding problems, not less.
TRUMP RESCINDED OBAMA’S FLOOD RISK RULES WEEKS BEFORE HURRICANE HARVEY HIT (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-signed-away-obamas-flood-risk-rules-weeks-hurricane-harvey-hit-655712)
Oh, I wanted to add that Trump could personally save 100 people from drowning in the Texas floods caused by this hurricane, and the fake news media will find something about him to gripe about to try to make him look bad. Reading the title of that article just confirms my point. You at least have the honesty to state that Obama's rules would have had no effect on the effect of the hurricane. But the article title doesn't say what you said. The title is just there to influence people against Trump. We get it. Fake news.
At some point, the people who have been turned off against Trump by these fake news articles are going to realize that they've been had. That there has been a dishonest campaign mounted against him. When that happens, no one will believe the left. Everyone is going to say, "Well, it's just them again. Just another Big Orange Dummy comment from the haters." You'll never be able to restore your credibility. Trump will get their votes.
-
Revolutionary war hero Colonel William Crawford was burned at the stake by natives.
Let the poor guy rest in peace.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/apparently-social-justice-vandals-are-decapitating-revolutionary-war-statues-now/article/2632612 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/apparently-social-justice-vandals-are-decapitating-revolutionary-war-statues-now/article/2632612)
(http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/730x420-ae3db14ceef82714ffd08d991d428e8a.jpg)
-
Revolutionary war hero Colonel William Crawford was burned at the stake by natives.
Let the poor guy rest in peace.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/apparently-social-justice-vandals-are-decapitating-revolutionary-war-statues-now/article/2632612 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/apparently-social-justice-vandals-are-decapitating-revolutionary-war-statues-now/article/2632612)
(http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/730x420-ae3db14ceef82714ffd08d991d428e8a.jpg)
What's interesting is how so many Americans were aghast at ISIS's destruction of Palmyra and other curtural heritage sites they captured. One could argue, at least, that ISIS had good cause to destroy representations of idols, statues, craven images, and other polytheistic religious artifacts. Yet, many of these same free-thinkers who condemn ISIS do not find the destruction of cultural symbols of our predecessors as being worthy of the same respect and protection. Pretty soon they'll be singling out books whose thinking does not reflect their political and social beliefs. It seems they have a lot in common with Salafist Saudis. Anyone have a match?
"ISIL justifies the destruction of cultural heritage sites with its extreme following the Salafism which, according to its followers, places "great importance on establishing tawhid (monotheism)", and "eliminating shirk (polytheism)." While it is often assumed that the group's actions are mindless acts of vandalism, there is an ideological underpinning to the destruction. ISIL views its actions in sites like Palmyra and Nimrud as being in accordance with Sunni Islamic tradition.[3] However, it is valuable to point out that no Muslims worship cultural heritage sites, and such were historically almost untouched by the Muslim rulers in countries such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Iran. The only country that actively destroys its cultural heritage is Saudi Arabia, whose government just as ISIL also follows Salafi version of Sunni Islam."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_ISIL
-
Another new example of PC and shutting up people you don't believe hold The Truth and have no right to free speech. This is very dangerous as I see both sides getting violent. I'm not sure who was trying to shut the other side down. Maybe someone else could help figure it out. But it's not good regardless who's doing it. Someone is going to pull a gun soon. Then our politics are going to get really bad.
Black-clad anarchists storm Berkeley rally, assaulting 5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/black-clad-anarchists-storm-berkeley-rally-assaulting-5/2017/08/27/b407272a-8b88-11e7-9c53-6a169beb0953_story.html
-
Btw, what exactly do you consider "racism" in Chicago?
I humbly and sheepishly admit that Chicago is one of the very few American cities I've not visited, so my evaluation of "racism in Chicago" is limited to what I've read and seen on the media over the past 50 years or so. Despite Alan's view that I can't express an opinion unless I've been there, I have to report that it's not a positive view. Especially disturbing are the reports of police treatment of non-whites.
Those reports can't all be "fake news".
-
They don't want to hear opposing views.
Wow. Really, Alan? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. "I don't have time to read the pdf"
-
I humbly and sheepishly admit that Chicago is one of the very few American cities I've not visited, so my evaluation of "racism in Chicago" is limited to what I've read and seen on the media over the past 50 years or so. Despite Alan's view that I can't express an opinion unless I've been there, I have to report that it's not a positive view. Especially disturbing are the reports of police treatment of non-whites.
Those reports can't all be "fake news".
I haven't been there but once many years ago for a day. But keep in mind that Chicago has been Democrat for decades. The mayor is Democrat. Their policies are Democrat and liberal. And Democrats run the police force. They run all the organs of the city and police force. They are the power in the city. If there's prejudice, it's Democrat. They can't blame Republican Trump for their mess. Why blacks put up with how Democrats have treated them boggles my mind. When Trump said to black Americans, "Vote for me. What do you have to lose.", the biased media made fun of him. Well, it's true. Democrats haven't been good for Blacks in many areas. They make promises that they don't keep. Except for some who've gotten ahead, most are kept down by Democrat and liberal social policies that keep them stuck in the past. It's really a shame. Obama and guys like Al Sharpton didn't help. They continued the Democrat strategy of playing the race card of them against us instead of uniting our peoples. What a legacy Obama left us.
-
.... Especially disturbing are the reports of police treatment of non-whites...
The police in Chicago is white, black, brown, Asian, etc. The chief is black. So, how is that very mixed-race police mistreating non-whites? 90% of black killings were done by other blacks, and yet everyone is obsessing over one or two percent killed as a result of police action.
-
Wow. Really, Alan? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. "I don't have time to read the pdf"
"I don't have time to read the pdf." You sound like the biased media commenting on Trump's, "Obama Tapped My Phone." and ignore the point the Trump made regarding surveillance. Regarding pdf attachments, I don't have time to read every attachment although often I'll glance at its point. And I listen to the person posting and understand their opposing viewpoint. Stop cherry picking and understand what I have to say instead of playing word games with me.
-
The police in Chicago is white, black, brown, Asian, etc. The chief is black. So, how is that very mixed-race police mistreating non-whites? 90% of black killings were done by other blacks, and yet everyone is obsessing over one or two percent killed as a result of police action.
Well, you know the answer for the "obsession". They're playing the race card. Identity politics to get the vote. Also, they're diverting attention away from the fact that liberal and Democrat policies have failed the Black community.
-
Apparently, racist white cops are to blame for black-on-black violence in Chicago.
Perhaps we should put Antifa in charge.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/01/14/the-damning-justice-department-report-about-chicago-police-also-helps-explain-the-citys-murder-rate/?utm_term=.111736256368 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/01/14/the-damning-justice-department-report-about-chicago-police-also-helps-explain-the-citys-murder-rate/?utm_term=.111736256368)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/474x/30/18/68/301868848ed775d0180e949cd48085c9.jpg)
-
That Chicago report is quite depressing.
-
The Left in America only believes in free speech if it supports their position. They don't want to hear opposing views.
I don't think so, they just oppose it when freedom of speech turns into violence. Same with the right. And both sides are right on that.
It's only the violent extremes that are opposing the freedom of the other side, not the large groups in the middle. Opposing the views of the other side is not equivalent to opposing their right to free speech.
-
The psychosis continues.
Catholic school tears down Baby Jesus statues for being too racist.
What's next? The Little Mermaid?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/08/26/too-alienating-catholic-school-removes-statues-of-the-virgin-mary-and-jesus-n2373209 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/08/26/too-alienating-catholic-school-removes-statues-of-the-virgin-mary-and-jesus-n2373209)
(https://lareviewofbooks-org-cgwbfgl6lklqqj3f4t3.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/mermaid1.png)
There's quite a good article in New Republic or somewhere similar which points out that this is really just the latest manifestation of a very old disease: iconoclasm. It's being going on in the West, at least, for well over a thousand years. There's something fatal in the culture which leads people to think everything including the past is their fault and so must be atoned for. The result is intense self-loathing, imho.
Look at the two episodes of iconoclasm in the eight and ninth centuries in the Byzantine Empire. People simply went mad. There was a great deal of violence and destruction. Afterwards, no one really seemed to know what had been going on. I suppose the same could be said of the strains within Islam which lead to the destruction of ancient monuments. Perhaps it's an aberration in the human psyche which breaks out when conditions are right - conditions of crisis and extremism of the kind we see now. An End of Days psychosis - I mean, there's no need for old statues if the world will end in fire, sword and rapture in a few weeks anyway. Who knows.
-
Or high blood pressure. :'(
Or uncontrollable laughter. I "ignore" Alan and Slobodan for that reason.
-
I wonder why is that labeled as an American problem?
Who labelled it as uniquely American? I saw no one do such a thing.
Race is a far bigger issue in the US than many other places, including other multicultural, western democracies. That's not to say those others have no issues - not at all. But to suggest (indeed, you insisted) that the US has no racial problems because you suggest no one can point to a law that is racially problematic, is absurd. Demonstrably so!
-
... Demonstrably so!
Care to demonstrate?
-
Who labelled it as uniquely American?...
Race is a far bigger issue in the US than many other places...
You don't see the inherent contradiction in the above?
-
Or uncontrollable laughter. I "ignore" Alan and Slobodan for that reason.
And that's, ladies and gentlemen, how echo chambers work.
-
I don't think so, they just oppose it when freedom of speech turns into violence. Same with the right. And both sides are right on that.
It's only the violent extremes that are opposing the freedom of the other side, not the large groups in the middle. Opposing the views of the other side is not equivalent to opposing their right to free speech.
No, it's not just when it turns violent. Universities impose "safe zones" and restrict "free speech". Look how Berkley shut down speech. A few years ago, the liberal powers that be tried to shut down Fox under the guise that they should have alternative opinions. If they succeeded, we'd only have liberal speech in media. PC occurs on TV, radio, in politics, and in the public square. We look aghast at ISIS and the Saudis with their imposed way of thinking. Yet aren't we doing similar things in our societies as well?
-
Or uncontrollable laughter. I "ignore" Alan and Slobodan for that reason.
And that's, ladies and gentlemen, how echo chambers work.
Precisely. And while this particular thread is actually a counterexample to that, since posters with distinctly different opinions have been engaging directly in (a mostly civil) debate, I think at least some of the political polarization we're seeing in the States—and a major contributing factor to neopopulist movements like Trump's—is attributable to the growing number of people who get the news from their self-selected "echo chambers" rather than from professional journalists.
A gallery owner I met the other day during a brief visit to St. John's, Newfoundland, had an amusing observation about the Trump phenomenon: "I blame it all on the spread of Internet service to rural areas."
(He also told me Trump has "a number" of admirers in Newfoundland, which I suspect has something to do with the loss of jobs in the petroleum industry due to the falling price of oil. Not that different from what we in the States have seen in places like West Virginia.)
-
Universities impose "safe zones" and restrict "free speech"... If they succeeded, we'd only have liberal speech in media. PC occurs on TV, radio, in politics, and in the public square. We look aghast at ISIS and the Saudis with their imposed way of thinking. Yet aren't we doing similar things in our societies as well?
No, Alan, were're not. Saudi and other countries prohibit any speech that doesn't come from government-approved sources. The MSM doesn't.
The MSM, despite your protestations, are NOT controlled by anybody, other than their own widely publicized and universally accepted ethical standards. Please stop with these vacuous accusations.
For better or worse, the media are one of your much-vaunted "free markets"
-
Some chastise others for "conflating" things that some think should not, cannot be so treated.
I think there's a rather large difference in what is being defined, here, as political correctness, and that patently has nothing to do with PC but everything to do with little more than the entrenched differences in party political beliefs. Or religious ones, for that matter.
PC is a disease brought about by the incestuous pretentions of a highly-educated group of youngsters with nothing more pressing to do, back in the second-half of last century. It represents one of the more grotesquely monstrous faces of the love-surge Hydra. It has been a modern source of hatred, ignorance and denial of reality; the making okay of the not okay, where a dissenting voice is first crowd-mocked, put to trial by organized mob and then sent to that lonely stake in the fires of self-righteousness.
Love these mothers. Let's make bigotry great again!
Rob
-
The delirium continues.
Theater bans Gone with the Wind. Why am I not surprised?
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/28/gone-with-wind-screenings-pulled-from-memphis-theater-for-racially-insensitive-content.html (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/28/gone-with-wind-screenings-pulled-from-memphis-theater-for-racially-insensitive-content.html)
(https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/08/GONE-WITH-THE-WIND-POSTER.jpg?resize=580%2C327)
-
The delirium continues.
Theater bans Gone with the Wind. Why am I not surprised?
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/28/gone-with-wind-screenings-pulled-from-memphis-theater-for-racially-insensitive-content.html (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/28/gone-with-wind-screenings-pulled-from-memphis-theater-for-racially-insensitive-content.html)
(https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/08/GONE-WITH-THE-WIND-POSTER.jpg?resize=580%2C327)
And so they should ban it: no signs of equal opportunity for minorities in that poster! Anyway, Halle Berry would have looked so much more, well, rock'n'Roll for today's audience. Beyoncé? - maybe too powerful, but Salma Hayek would have looked cute. By the way, when is a minority no longer a minority in a situation with more than two teams of players?
;-)
Rob
-
The liberal left supporting free speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.182b89a830ff
-
The delirium continues.
Theater bans Gone with the Wind. Why am I not surprised?
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/28/gone-with-wind-screenings-pulled-from-memphis-theater-for-racially-insensitive-content.html (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/28/gone-with-wind-screenings-pulled-from-memphis-theater-for-racially-insensitive-content.html)
(https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/08/GONE-WITH-THE-WIND-POSTER.jpg?resize=580%2C327)
I, for one, am outraged.
How dare Fox News be needlessly divisive in pushing this narrative.
-
The liberal left supporting free speech.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.182b89a830ff
I don't know if you've heard this Alan - you probably haven't because the right wing media won't report it, but a lot of people are saying that these "antifa" losers are being paid by the Koch brothers and the ghost of Andrew Breitbart to show up and cause violence. Believe me.
(Satire aside, I am 100% opposed to political violence and don't agree with these tactics )
-
Two lawsuits challenge Trump transgender military service ban
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-transgender-idUSKCN1B81GN
QUOTE August 28, 2017 / 4:15 PM "(Reuters) - Civil rights groups filed two lawsuits on Monday challenging President Donald Trump’s controversial ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. military.
Both lawsuits say the ban violated U.S. constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process under the Fifth Amendment, and one said it also violates service members’ free speech rights.
“We do not comment on active or pending litigation,” a White House official said.
Trump announced the ban in a series of Twitter posts on July 26, reversing a policy of his predecessor, Barack Obama.
It halted years of efforts to eliminate barriers to military service based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including an “Open Service Directive” designed to let transgender people serve without fear of discharge."
Cheers,
Bart
-
Precisely.
If by "echo chamber" you mean someone declining to read the witless and racist blether produced by somebody, then yes, I guess so. Freedom of speech does not imply obligation to publish and still less requirement to read.
-
Two lawsuits challenge Trump transgender military service ban
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-transgender-idUSKCN1B81GN
QUOTE August 28, 2017 / 4:15 PM "(Reuters) - Civil rights groups filed two lawsuits on Monday challenging President Donald Trump’s controversial ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. military.
Both lawsuits say the ban violated U.S. constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process under the Fifth Amendment, and one said it also violates service members’ free speech rights.
“We do not comment on active or pending litigation,” a White House official said.
Trump announced the ban in a series of Twitter posts on July 26, reversing a policy of his predecessor, Barack Obama.
It halted years of efforts to eliminate barriers to military service based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including an “Open Service Directive” designed to let transgender people serve without fear of discharge."
Cheers,
Bart
The military wants psychologically and physically healthy youngsters. They exclude fat people, people with flat feet, do not allow people overt certain ages even though there are laws against age descriminations. The armed forces must not be sidetracked. Their mission is to kill the enemy and protect the country. SCOTUS usually grants them wide latitude understanding that an army is different than civilian life.
-
If by "echo chamber" you mean someone declining to read the witless and racist blether produced by somebody, then yes, I guess so....
I rest my case.
-
Meanwhile, back to Trump...
Trump’s prized perk: Oval Office photo ops (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/28/trump-white-house-photos-242081)
Several advisers and aides say Trump appears happiest when showing off the Oval Office.
(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/cdf109a/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fc7%2Fbb%2Fee04fcdc4a268fa65921e9f28cd6%2Fhighres-nofan.gif)
White House aides said it was impossible to know how many pictures President Donald Trump has taken behind the desk and declined to make official White
House photographer Shealah Craighead available for an interview.
Donald Trump has grown frustrated with many parts of being president. But the former showbiz star is still in love with one perk: the Oval Office photo op.
Despite the weight of multiple Russia investigations, open war with GOP leaders and a stalled congressional agenda, Trump has spent considerable time grinning behind the Resolute Desk, where he summons visitors from PGA star John Daly to former campaign aides to pastors, truck drivers, tech CEOs, teachers and even journalists to pose in front of the gold curtains.
He tells aides, from senior White House advisers to his private bodyguard, Keith Schiller, to snap the photos on cellphones, or he shouts for Shealah Craighead, the official White House photographer, to come in. The often impatient president will sometimes pose for several minutes per sitting, taking variations of a photo with a single group. He even stands with people to inspect the photos.
"Check the lighting," one senior White House official said, describing his comments. "Are your eyes closed? Do you want another? He knows these are special moments for people."
The photos illustrate how master marketer Trump sees the job, White House officials say — and are one part of the presidency that doesn't seem to grate on him, even though other presidents have barely tolerated the click-and-grin sessions.
While Trump scowls in his official presidential portrait and lashes out at his critics on Twitter and at rallies, the private Oval Office photo sessions are largely all teeth and charm, revealing a softer side that Republican leaders wish he’d show more often in public.
Several advisers and aides say Trump appears happiest when showing off the Oval Office, almost seeing it as the ultimate prize, just as he once showed off his celebrity photos, trophies and other memorabilia, such as Shaquille O'Neal's shoes, at Trump Tower.
It's pretty remarkable how consistent Trump's expression is...it seems his face goes directly into smile-mode when the camera fires. Well, he's had a lot of practice!
-
Russia? Trump has no business ties to Russia, right? Well, apparently it's not from a lack of trying...
Trump Associate Boasted That Moscow Business Deal ‘Will Get Donald Elected’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-tower-putin-felix-sater.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/04/06/us/29dc-tower1/06TRUMPSOHOweb2-master768.jpg)
Donald J. Trump with Felix H. Sater, right, and Tevfik Arif at the official unveiling of Trump SoHo in September 2007.
WASHINGTON — A business associate of President Trump promised in 2015 to engineer a real estate deal with the aid of the president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, that he said would help Mr. Trump win the presidency.
The business associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of emails to Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which he boasted about his ties to Mr. Putin and predicted that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would be a political boon to Mr. Trump’s candidacy.
“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/08/28/us/tower-t3/tower-t3-master675.png)
A portion of an email Felix Sater sent to Michael Cohen on Nov. 3, 2015.
The emails show that, from the earliest months of Mr. Trump’s campaign, some of his associates viewed close ties with Moscow as a political advantage. Those ties are now under investigation by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.
-
But wait...do you love cartoons? I love cartoons...
(http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/trumptoon011.jpg?w=720)
1 of 15
Daryl Cagle / darylcagle.com
Here is a collection of syndicated cartoons that address many topics having to do with President Donald Trump.
Cartoons: Donald Trump has many issues (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/28/cartoons-donald-trump-has-many-issues/)
8)
-
The military wants psychologically and physically healthy youngsters.
And you are suggesting that Transgenders are not?
It is not a psychological disease, and apparently many have already served and are serving in combat situations and in other branches/activities.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So Fox is keeping track...
Former Trump administration officials, from Bannon to Comey (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/28/former-trump-administration-officials-from-bannon-to-comey.html)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbJdMnIF1xqFs1UC2zbSuo8gmwUWTlxoskpSSwIqwvUSs7WqUp)
Gorka joins a growing group of people who have left the young Trump administration in just its first eight months – a group that includes former press secretary Sean Spicer, F.B.I. director James Comey and chief strategist Steve Bannon.
Read on for a running list of who has left the White House since Trump took office. [13 and counting...]
Ohhhh...another cartoon!
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/20993995_10213896427673222_5357737052492639167_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=655f42806b070f876020073ef6dcb757&oe=5A315CAC)
-
So Fox is keeping track...
Former Trump administration officials, from Bannon to Comey (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/28/former-trump-administration-officials-from-bannon-to-comey.html)
And that's in addition to all the top level vacancies for which there aren't even nominees ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Once again freedom of speech and academic freedom on campuses are conflated because no one wants to read enough about the topic to understand the differences. And once again we hear complaints about "political correctness", as if it's an important and pressing issue and not some fringe discussion topic that a few academic engage in and that will run its course and that, really, no one really cares about. Mountains out of molehills. As if marches by white supremacists and the clan have anything to do with free speech. As if carrying a gun has something to do with freedom.
There are libraries and web pages full of erudite discussions of these issues.
As for Gone with the Wind, the sooner people stop watching lame old-timee Hollywood claptrap movies, the better. The only performance worth watching in that movie was that of the poor horse walking through the battlefield. They should have given that horse an Oscar. The tag line from that film, "Frankly, I don't give a damn", sums things up very well. :)
-
And you are suggesting that Transgenders are not?
It is not a psychological disease, and apparently many have already served and are serving in combat situations and in other branches/activities.
Cheers,
Bart
There are those (and count me among them) who would rate transgenders as especially brave individuals.
To refute one's apparent biological gender in favour of another? That, friends, takes guts.
-
And you are suggesting that Transgenders are not?
It is not a psychological disease, and apparently many have already served and are serving in combat situations and in other branches/activities.
Cheers,
Bart
Like Kristin Beck, I suppose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristin_Beck
-
Finnish pension funds dumping US stocks
“It seems as if there is no president in the U.S.,” Risto Murto, chief executive officer of Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Co., said in an interview in Helsinki on Wednesday. “If I look at what is the moral and practical power, there is no longer a traditional president.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-27/-no-president-in-the-u-s-leads-53-billion-fund-to-sell-stocks
-
Finnish pension funds dumping US stocks
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-27/-no-president-in-the-u-s-leads-53-billion-fund-to-sell-stocks
Insanity. I've been assured that the world has newfound respect and admiration for us, and that any claims to the contrary are simply fake news pushed by leftist media that hates Donald Trump for some unknown nebulous reason!
-
Or maybe because the stocks have reached all-time highs under the same president, and it's time to cash out?
-
..: That, friends, takes guts.
Literally ;)
-
Robert, you got me confused... was there supposed to be a "satire alert" at the end of your post #5801?
-
Or maybe because the stocks have reached all-time highs under the same president, and it's time to cash out?
A good point. The market's been coasting on the Obama recovery for awhile now, so it's about time for the typical Republican crash to set in. We should be reaching the nadir just about in time for our next Dem president to fix things. Again. (Or - crazy thought - we could just take one of the guys dumping the stocks at his word. He's not Donald Trump, after all, so maybe he's telling the truth.)
-
As for Gone with the Wind, the sooner people stop watching lame old-timee Hollywood claptrap movies, the better. The only performance worth watching in that movie was that of the poor horse walking through the battlefield. They should have given that horse an Oscar. The tag line from that film, "Frankly, I don't give a damn", sums things up very well. :)
Wow, you sound like my wife, who insists that any movies that are black and white are not worth watching because they are black and white.
I had to really push to get her to watch Schindler's List.
-
Care to demonstrate?
Sure!
You say, basically, that there's no racial problem because there are no laws (apparently) that cause racial issues.
Now go through the media for the last week and pick out all the instances of race related conflict (not necessarily physical). The existence of a constant stream of such instances demonstrably indicates that there are racial problems, contrary to your assertion. Since you must know that these instances exist, it is absurd to suggest as you do. That is, your premise is unreasonable and illogical.
-
You don't see the inherent contradiction in the above?
No, if you understand the meaning of the word unique.
-
Wow, you sound like my wife, who insists that any movies that are black and white are not worth watching because they are black and white.
I had to really push to get her to watch Schindler's List.
I thought Schindler's List was a very good movie and I enjoyed The Last Picture Show too, so it's not the B&W. :)
-
Congress awaits Trump estimate on storm costs from Harvey
QUOTE August 28, 2017 / 11:47 PM "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers are expected to pass a large aid package for victims of Hurricane Harvey, but specifics of the plan and its price tag are unclear as Congress awaits a funding request from the Trump administration.
Rain continued to pound Houston and the Gulf Coast on Monday as President Donald Trump said he expected rapid funding from Congress for a costly recovery. He plans to visit Texas on Tuesday to see storm-hit areas.
“We’re dealing with Congress. As you know it’s going to be a very expensive situation,” he told reporters in the White House.
Historic flooding from Harvey, which came ashore in Texas last week as a powerful Category 4 hurricane, has killed at least seven people in Texas and was expected to drive 30,000 from their homes.
Wall Street analysts estimated insured losses of up to $20 billion, making Harvey one of the costliest storms in history for U.S. insurers."
It will be interesting to see if Trump rolls back the Flood Insurance Program as rapidly as he pulls out of funding the EPA and from the Paris Agreement on Climate.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump slams Obama and Clinton for their clemency decisions, stands by Arpaio pardon
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/28/trump-slams-obama-and-clinton-for-their-clemency-decisions-stands-by-arpaio-pardon.html
QUOTE "President Trump fired back Monday at critics of his decision to pardon former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, claiming the clemency decisions made by his two most recent Democratic predecessors were far more problematic.
“I stand by my pardon of Sheriff Joe,” Trump said at a White House press conference.
Clearly anticipating a question about the pardon, Trump read from prepared notes as he countered the bipartisan criticism by rattling off the controversial commutations and pardons issued by former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama."
and
QUOTE "He sought to draw a distinction between their histories and Arpaio’s.
“Sheriff Joe is a patriot. Sheriff Joe loves our country. Sheriff Joe protected our borders,” Trump said, alleging the Obama administration treated him “unbelievably unfairly” and the case cost him an election in Maricopa County, Ariz.
Arpaio had been found guilty of criminal contempt for defying a judge’s order to stop his controversial immigration patrols. Arpaio has long been accused of profiling and using inhumane tactics, and the decision to pardon him drew bipartisan criticism, including from Arizona’s two Republican senators.
“Mr. Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for continuing to illegally profile Latinos living in Arizona based on their perceived immigration status in violation of a judge’s orders,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a statement. “The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions.” "
Because his predecessors made questionable pardon choices, he blames his decision on them? I don't get it why he needs to involve other presidents to justify(?) his obstruction of justice ... I guess as a populist he needs to blame an outside 'enemy' to get support from his minions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's his standard justification for everything bad he does: "Obama made me do it!"
-
Charlottesville comments put Tillerson-Trump further at odds
https://www.reuters.com/video/2017/08/28/charlottesville-comments-put-tillerson-t?videoId=372414351&videoChannel=1003
Tillerson has already told friends he'll be lucky to last a year in his job ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't know if you've heard this Alan - you probably haven't because the right wing media won't report it, but a lot of people are saying that these "antifa" losers are being paid by the Koch brothers and the ghost of Andrew Breitbart to show up and cause violence. Believe me.
(Satire aside, I am 100% opposed to political violence and don't agree with these tactics )
Well, we agree on this. Violence has no place in political debate but it's nothing new. The 1960's and 1970's were a lot worse and we made it to the other side. We'll get through this one too. So far it's pretty minor despite the headlines.
-
And you are suggesting that Transgenders are not?
It is not a psychological disease, and apparently many have already served and are serving in combat situations and in other branches/activities.
Cheers,
Bart
I thought there were both psychological and physiological components. So I looked "transgender" up in Wikipedia because I wasn't quite sure what it meant. It seems to have a lot of different meanings. Frankly, if I was still in the military, I don't know if I want to share my foxhole with someone who's: "... genderqueer, bigender, pangender, or genderfluid..." Genderfluid? What the heck is that? Do they issue us towels and rain coats, or what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender
-
Well, we agree on this. Violence has no place in political debate but it's nothing new. The 1960's and 1970's were a lot worse and we made it to the other side. We'll get through this one too. So far it's pretty minor despite the headlines.
I wasn't alive for the riots in the 60 or 70s, but from what I've seen on film and read about, I believe you. Maybe it's because of the trauma of those years that older folks like you (no offense intended - I mean this sincerely) see the issues of minorities today as (relatively) unimportant. I suppose if I'd lived through the changes and upheaval that you did I might see today's racial problems as minor in comparison.
-
... I enjoyed The Last Picture Show too,...
And its sister movie "Paper Moon" A classic work of American Cinema by the same director.
-
I thought there were both psychological and physiological components. So I looked "transgender" up in Wikipedia because I wasn't quite sure what it meant. It seems to have a lot of different meanings. Frankly, if I was still in the military, I don't know if I want to share my foxhole with someone who's: "... genderqueer, bigender, pangender, or genderfluid..." Genderfluid? What the heck is that? Do they issue us towels and rain coats, or what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender
You left out gender neutrois and epicine. What's the matter with you; didn't your parents teach you these things?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IVQFIJvk4mg/VWhvMY7bYKI/AAAAAAAAjDY/_gGDNOljoKw/w800-h800/15%2B-%2B1)
-
I wasn't alive for the riots in the 60 or 70s, but from what I've seen on film and read about, I believe you. Maybe it's because of the trauma of those years that older folks like you (no offense intended - I mean this sincerely) see the issues of minorities today as (relatively) unimportant. I suppose if I'd lived through the changes and upheaval that you did I might see today's racial problems as minor in comparison.
Well, Jim, they were pretty bad back then. Of course if you didn't live through it, you have no basis of comparison to today.
Let me also respond by saying I don't see the issues of minorities as unimportant. As a Jew, I'm very sensitive to what it meant to be treated as an outsider and persecuted or suffer from prejudidce. But there are other people who have issues too where society has a part to play. If you're out of a job, and white or black, your concerns are feeding your family. It seems to many, that Democrats spend too much time with identity politics and play the race card, mainly to get votes. They focus on wedge issues like LGBT, climate, environment, bathrooms, gays, and race issues forgetting that there is a huge number of people outside those areas that need politicians to speak to their issues as well and help them. That's why Trump was elected and why so many Democrats voted for Sanders.
Many groups have been persecuted in America. Italians, Irish, Blacks, Jews, Muslims, women, and others. But, things worked out and the groups moved on and became successful as we've seen Blacks become successful as well. After all, Obama was black. Kennedy almost didn't get elected President because he was Catholic. Women couldn't vote. Well, we've gotten past those things too. I was watching the news about the flooding in Texas. The mayor of Houston is black. Blacks were helping whites who were helping Latinos. Everyone was pitching in to help one another.
My sense is that there's always going to be prejudice or rejection of people who are not like yourself. We're always more comfortable with people who are just like us religious wise, culturally, racially, heritage wise, class, etc. But the good news in America, is that most people are willing to accept others and work with them to build a better society for all. Somehow, we've been able to get past the rough edges and move on. There are always people of good will who will help you and let you excel. Ignore the rest.
-
Well, Jim, they were pretty bad back then. Of course if you didn't live through it, you have no basis of comparison to today.
Let me also respond by saying I don't see the issues of minorities as unimportant. As a Jew, I'm very sensitive to what it meant to be treated as an outsider and persecuted or suffer from prejudidce. But there are other people who have issues too where society has a part to play. If you're out of a job, and white or black, your concerns are feeding your family. It seems to many, that Democrats spend too much time with identity politics and play the race card, mainly to get votes. They focus on wedge issues like LGBT, climate, environment, bathrooms, gays, and race issues forgetting that there is a huge number of people outside those areas that need politicians to speak to their issues as well and help them. That's why Trump was elected and why so many Democrats voted for Sanders.
Many groups have been persecuted in America. Italians, Irish, Blacks, Jews, Muslims, women, and others. But, things worked out and the groups moved on and became successful as we've seen Blacks become successful as well. After all, Obama was black. Kennedy almost didn't get elected President because he was Catholic. Women couldn't vote. Well, we've gotten past those things too. I was watching the news about the flooding in Texas. The mayor of Houston is black. Blacks were helping whites who were helping Latinos. Everyone was pitching in to help one another.
My sense is that there's always going to be prejudice or rejection of people who are not like yourself. We're always more comfortable with people who are just like us religious wise, culturally, racially, heritage wise, class, etc. But the good news in America, is that most people are willing to accept others and work with them to build a better society for all. Somehow, we've been able to get past the rough edges and move on. There are always people of good will who will help you and let you excel. Ignore the rest.
Well, we're not going to agree on the propensity for Democrats to be especially fond of wedge issues, but nevertheless a good, honest post. Thank you!
-
And now for more Fake News! (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/trump-tweets-hoax-louise-mensch-claude-taylor?CMP=share_btn_tw)
Seriously, maybe we have different opinions about the slant of major news networks and such, but the sort of nonsense that permeates Twitter and gets repeated as fact is nuts. We should probably all be a little more suspicious of unsourced, unverified claims from random people whose only credentials are a Twitter following and the willingness to make headline-worthy claims.
-
Well, with friends like this, who needs enemies?
Republican Trump ally reportedly says: 'He's an asshole, but he's our asshole' (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/donald-trump-asshole-duncan-hunter)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/1acf3ccec848204715093f157e317e2c88b9f674/0_11_3000_1800/master/3000.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=dccc7a25efe78a2feaeb6f3d0852c577)
Duncan Hunter was one of Trump’s first backers in Washington.
With friends like this ...
Duncan Hunter of California was one of Donald Trump’s first backers on Capitol Hill, long before it became fashionable. But like other Republicans, there are signs of buyer’s remorse.
“He’s just like he is on TV,” the congressman reportedly told colleagues on Friday. “He’s an asshole, but he’s our asshole.”
The comment was reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune, which said it was recounted by four people present when Hunter spoke at a Riverside County Young Republicans meeting at a sports bar in Murrieta, California.
The San Diego-area congressman and Marine combat veteran was one of the first members to endorse Trump during his divisive, anti-establishment campaign for president. A member of the House armed services committee, Hunter has written newspaper columns defending Trump’s approach to Russia.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that Hunter made the “asshole” comment while speaking alongside congressman Ken Calvert. It continued: “According to the sources, a woman asked the two congressmen if they had met Trump and what the president is like.
Great, even his supporters think he's an asshole...does anybody else see this as a problem? About the only people an asshole can lead are other assholes who admire bigger assholes than they are (present company excluded).
-
When I fist saw this I thought he was joking but no, he honestly thought a Finnish female reporter was double dipping with questions.
Two blondes walk into a White House press briefing … (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/08/28/two-blondes-walk-into-a-press-briefing/?utm_term=.3f0e4cbac705)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://s3.amazonaws.com/posttv-thumbnails-prod/08-28-2017/t_1503957824864_name_20170828_trump_blonds.jpg&w=800&h=450)
At a news conference, Aug. 28, President Trump mistook one Finnish reporter for her colleague. He then responded to her question about how the U.S. would respond to Russia.
Two blondes walked into a White House news conference.
You'll never guess what happened next. (Hint: President Trump mixed them up.)
The confusion started near the end of a news conference with Trump and Finnish President Sauli Niinisto in the East Room of the White House on Monday, when Trump encouraged Niinisto to take an additional question from a member of Finland's press corps.
Niinisto pointed to a straw-haired female reporter, prompting Trump to smile and joke, “Again? You’re going to give her the same one?” in an apparent reference to another reporter from Finland, who had asked a question earlier in the news conference.
“No, she is not the same lady,” the Finnish president replied, looking half-stricken, half-sheepish.
“They are sitting side by side,” Niinisto added, helpfully, sneaking a quick glance at Trump.
Indeed, they were two totally, completely different women — Maria Annala, who describes herself on Twitter as a “news journalist from Finland living in Boston,” and Paula Vilén, who describes herself on Twitter as a “Foreign News Correspondent, Finnish Broadcasting Co.”
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/28/23/43A886DE00000578-4831110-image-a-76_1503957818247.jpg)
As the room tittered, the second reporter offered Trump a quick cultural lesson and quipped, “We have a lot of blonde women in Finland,” before moving briskly along to her question, about the role Finland is playing in the much-watched and hyper-scrutinized relationship between the United States and Russia.
-
And that's in addition to all the top level vacancies for which there aren't even nominees ...
Well, another one seems to have bitten the dust...it seems Trump wasn't happy about crowd size for his campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center.
Trump Punishes Longtime Aide After Angry Phoenix Speech, Sources Say (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-28/trump-is-said-to-punish-longtime-aide-after-angry-phoenix-speech?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social)
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i7bltvz4R4zU/v0/1000x-1.jpg)
Donald Trump was in a bad mood before he emerged for a confrontational speech in Arizona last week.
TV and social media coverage showed that the site of his campaign rally, the Phoenix Convention Center, was less than full. Backstage, waiting in a room with a television monitor, Trump was displeased, one person familiar with the incident said: TV optics and crowd sizes are extremely important to the president.
As his surrogates warmed up the audience, the expanse of shiny concrete eventually filled in with cheering Trump fans. But it was too late for a longtime Trump aide, George Gigicos, the former White House director of advance who had organized the event as a contractor to the Republican National Committee. Trump later had his top security aide, Keith Schiller, inform Gigicos that he’d never manage a Trump rally again, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Gigicos, one of the four longest-serving political aides to the president, declined to comment.
(https://i2.wp.com/www.pappaspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Gigicos.jpg?resize=702%2C336)
Bye bye George (ya gotta figure Trump is worried about crowd size because, well he has small hands don't ya know?)
Size matters!
-
Free speech scores another victory.
Bill SB-219 passed California senate that will jail (1 yr) and fine ($1,000) you for addressing transgenders with wrong gender pronoun.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/25/california-could-start-jailing-people-who-dont-use-transgender-pronouns/ (http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/25/california-could-start-jailing-people-who-dont-use-transgender-pronouns/)
(http://i0.wp.com/www.diversitystyleguide.com/wp-content/uploads/Slide1-2.jpg?resize=720%2C540)
-
Free speech scores another victory.
Bill SB-219 passed California senate that will jail (1 yr) and fine ($1,000) you for addressing transgenders with wrong gender pronoun.
Not quite.
First it only applies to State run/governed long term care facilities.
Second "...the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status...". There are 8 specific activities that are identified and only one of them has to do with terms of address.
Third it only applies to those instances of "willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns..." Which hardly would qualify as infringing on a person's freedom of expression.
-
Not quite.
First it only applies to State run/governed long term care facilities.
Second "...the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status...". There are 8 specific activities that are identified and only one of them has to do with terms of address.
Third it only applies to those instances of "willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns..." Which hardly would qualify as infringing on a person's freedom of expression.
Whats the big idea - posting facts and not mindless soundbites?
-
In a free society, one is fired for offensive speech -- not jailed.
But I empathize. Boy, do I.
(https://d2v48i7nl75u94.cloudfront.net/uploads/f4970e4408799256edf20034c93feb25.jpeg)
-
..." Which hardly would qualify as infringing on a person's freedom of expression.
Which exactly qualifies as infringing on one's freedom of speech. The only action appropriate would be firing the employee, not fining or, gasp, imprisoning.
Besides, what are "state-run" facilities? I thought only prisons and public schools are. Long-term care facilities might be financed by Medicaid, but are all employees state employees there? I don't know, just asking.
This really, really is starting to look like Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or current Saudi Arabia.
I am truly horrified.
-
If you research Bill SB-219, it defines what is considered a state run facility
-
Whats the big idea - posting facts and not mindless soundbites?
Yeah, I know, what was I thinkin' :o
Forgot I was on LuLa for a moment.
-
Is there a law against calling presidents Big Orange Dummies? After all. :)
-
Is there a law against calling presidents Big Orange Dummies? After all. :)
Only if it is "willfully and repeatedly," Alan. Oh, wait...
-
Trump administration’s censorship of climate change should ‘send chill down your spine’, top scientist warns
Energy Department official asks scientists to remove references to global warming from research proposals to confirm with the President's views on the subject
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-climate-change-censorship-global-warming-administration-latest-scientist-warns-a7918011.html
QUOTE "The US Energy Department has been asking scientists to remove the words “climate change” and “global warming” from research proposals in a censorship row that one leading climatologist said should “send a chill down your spine”.
Professor Jennifer Bowen, of Northeastern University in Boston, was told in July that she and a colleague had been awarded funding to study whether the degradation of salt marshes would cause the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide.
However she revealed on social media that she was then sent a message by an Energy Department official asking for a reference to climate change in their proposal to be removed.
“I am writing regarding your recently approved FICUS proposal … I have been asked to contact you to update the wording in your proposal abstract to remove words such as ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’,” the official wrote.
“This is being asked as we have to meet the President’s budget language restrictions and don’t want to make any changes without your knowledge or consent.
“Below is the current wording for your abstract – at your next convenience, will you kindly revise the wording and send back to me as soon as you can? That way we can update our website.”"
Censorship in order to eradicate the scientifically used terms, because Trump doesn't like to read about Climate change, especially with Hurricane Harvey dumping huge amounts of precipitation that was taken up by the warmer air, costing more than it would to take preventative measures based on scientific consensus.
Harvey's timing is also too close to not be connected to Trumps rescinding of the Flood Insurance Program.
Cheers,
Bart
-
US government burying head deeper in sand on climate change
An apparently widespread effort to ignore reality by the federal government.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/us-government-burying-head-deeper-in-sand-on-climate-change/
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/head-in-sand-800x533.jpg)
QUOTE "It's no secret that President Trump came into office rejecting the conclusions of the vast majority of the world's scientists when it comes to our changing climate. But it wasn't clear how that would translate to policy. At least some of his advisors, as well as his daughter, accept the conclusions of the scientific community. And there was the possibility that policy decisions would be constrained by reality, as Trump was sworn in as the most recent global temperature records were set.
Over the past few weeks, however, it has become increasingly clear that there has been extensive push back against climate change throughout the government, with several push backs occurring in the last week alone. We'll review those briefly below.
[...]
This week saw the long-delayed release of the Department of Energy's evaluation of grid stability. The report was commissioned by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who suggested that the expansion of renewable energy was undermining the reliability of electricity delivery. Back in June, however, a draft of the expert evaluation leaked, and it stated that the US grid was now more reliable than it had been in recent decades. Those conclusions, however, were watered down in the final report.
But the report is also notable for avoiding the use of the term "climate change" anywhere in its 125 pages. This is despite the fact that increased heat will boost demand and stress grid hardware and that climate change is currently driving state-level energy policies. In fact, the report recommends the anti-solution of increasing the use of coal-fired power plants."
[...]
It's not just the DOE that seems to have issue with this area of science. Perhaps the most significant move happened at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is one of the organizers of a congressionally mandated national climate assessment, and it maintained a 15-person advisory committee intended to help the business community as well as state and local governments use the assessment for planning. In other words, the committee was intended to help the nation decide how best to act on the information contained in a scientific report.
The committee was formed in 2016 in expectation of the completion of the next climate assessment, due this year. Last week, however, its charter expired and the Trump administration decided not to renew it.
Meanwhile, the assessment itself has become a battleground. Drafts of the assessment have been through scientific peer review and have been circulated widely. They largely echo the conclusion of other scientific evaluations of the climate, such as the IPCC's.
But Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA (one of the organizations tasked with writing the assessment), is now threatening to derail its formal release.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump administration’s censorship of climate change should ‘send chill down your spine’, top scientist warns
Energy Department official asks scientists to remove references to global warming from research proposals to confirm with the President's views on the subject
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-climate-change-censorship-global-warming-administration-latest-scientist-warns-a7918011.html
QUOTE "The US Energy Department has been asking scientists to remove the words “climate change” and “global warming” from research proposals in a censorship row that one leading climatologist said should “send a chill down your spine”.
Professor Jennifer Bowen, of Northeastern University in Boston, was told in July that she and a colleague had been awarded funding to study whether the degradation of salt marshes would cause the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide.
However she revealed on social media that she was then sent a message by an Energy Department official asking for a reference to climate change in their proposal to be removed.
“I am writing regarding your recently approved FICUS proposal … I have been asked to contact you to update the wording in your proposal abstract to remove words such as ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’,” the official wrote.
“This is being asked as we have to meet the President’s budget language restrictions and don’t want to make any changes without your knowledge or consent.
“Below is the current wording for your abstract – at your next convenience, will you kindly revise the wording and send back to me as soon as you can? That way we can update our website.”"
Censorship in order to eradicate the scientifically used terms, because Trump doesn't like to read about Climate change, especially with Hurricane Harvey dumping huge amounts of precipitation that was taken up by the warmer air, costing more than it would to take preventative measures based on scientific consensus.
Harvey's timing is also too close to not be connected to Trumps rescinding of the Flood Insurance Program.
Cheers,
Bart
I hope she got the award before she posted her complaint on social media. :)
If she called her research "to study the degradation of salt marshes and how they will lower global temperatures", she would have been given double the funding.
Actually, if you think about it, references to "climate change" were put in her original request for funding because that's how you would have gotten approved for funding before Trump. You see, researchers are playing a game too. By stressing their research is about climate change, they have a better chance of getting funding then if they just said they want to research whether more CO2 is released.
But the truth is doing research on salt marshes has nothing to do directly with climate change. She may know a lot about marshes but nothing about climate. If CO2 is being released in greater amounts, that's all her sturdy should be about. It would be up to climatologists to decide if that effects the climate, not her. Basically she's salting the mine for a better chance to get the funding. So now, since the politics has changed, she'll take out references to climate change so she still has a greater advantage of getting the funding. Of course, she totally misses the point that she's guilty of playing political games either way.
This points to a problem we have. That is that scientists were pushing climate change before Trump to get the funding even when their research had nothing to do with it directly. You had to wave the banner of climate change if you wanted government money for any research you did. So the fact more scientists "believe" in climate change is just expediency in many cases. It's become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
-
But the truth is....
that scientists were pushing climate change before Trump...
It's become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
and Alan - you should become a standup comedian... ;)
-
US government burying head deeper in sand on climate change
An apparently widespread effort to ignore reality by the federal government.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/us-government-burying-head-deeper-in-sand-on-climate-change/
(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/head-in-sand-800x533.jpg)
QUOTE "It's no secret that President Trump came into office rejecting the conclusions of the vast majority of the world's scientists when it comes to our changing climate. But it wasn't clear how that would translate to policy. At least some of his advisors, as well as his daughter, accept the conclusions of the scientific community. And there was the possibility that policy decisions would be constrained by reality, as Trump was sworn in as the most recent global temperature records were set.
Over the past few weeks, however, it has become increasingly clear that there has been extensive push back against climate change throughout the government, with several push backs occurring in the last week alone. We'll review those briefly below.
[...]
This week saw the long-delayed release of the Department of Energy's evaluation of grid stability. The report was commissioned by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who suggested that the expansion of renewable energy was undermining the reliability of electricity delivery. Back in June, however, a draft of the expert evaluation leaked, and it stated that the US grid was now more reliable than it had been in recent decades. Those conclusions, however, were watered down in the final report.
But the report is also notable for avoiding the use of the term "climate change" anywhere in its 125 pages. This is despite the fact that increased heat will boost demand and stress grid hardware and that climate change is currently driving state-level energy policies. In fact, the report recommends the anti-solution of increasing the use of coal-fired power plants."
[...]
It's not just the DOE that seems to have issue with this area of science. Perhaps the most significant move happened at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is one of the organizers of a congressionally mandated national climate assessment, and it maintained a 15-person advisory committee intended to help the business community as well as state and local governments use the assessment for planning. In other words, the committee was intended to help the nation decide how best to act on the information contained in a scientific report.
The committee was formed in 2016 in expectation of the completion of the next climate assessment, due this year. Last week, however, its charter expired and the Trump administration decided not to renew it.
Meanwhile, the assessment itself has become a battleground. Drafts of the assessment have been through scientific peer review and have been circulated widely. They largely echo the conclusion of other scientific evaluations of the climate, such as the IPCC's.
But Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA (one of the organizations tasked with writing the assessment), is now threatening to derail its formal release.
Cheers,
Bart
The American people elected a president who ran on putting jobs and the economy ahead of the effects of it getting warmer. They feel that putting food on the table is more important. They rejected Obama's former policies of shutting down coal mines, ending leasing of off-shore drilling, stopping the XL pipeline, etc. Trump's voters may be wrong. But that's what they supported. Elections have consequences.
-
The American people elected a president who ran on putting jobs and the economy ahead of the effects of it getting warmer. They feel that putting food on the table is more important. They rejected Obama's former policies of shutting down coal mines, ending leasing of off-shore drilling, stopping the XL pipeline, etc. Trump's voters may be wrong. But that's what they supported. Elections have consequences.
Fly that in Texas now.
-
Elections have consequences.
And, as a number of Trump voters apparently are discovering, sometimes unintended consequences.
-
Is there a law against calling presidents Big Orange Dummies? After all. :)
No, there are, however laws against threats against the president. There are military laws under the UCMJ that prohibit disrespectful actions against the president. But no, there are no laws preventing ordinary citizens from addressing the president in disrespectful terms. A good thing as over the past administrations, probably 75% of the population would be in prison.
-
Fly that in Texas now.
Trump should build the wall on the Gulf Coast instead of the Mexican border. :)
-
No, there are, however laws against threats against the president. There are military laws under the UCMJ that prohibit disrespectful actions against the president. But no, there are no laws preventing ordinary citizens from addressing the president in disrespectful terms. A good thing as over the past administrations, probably 75% of the population would be in prison.
I doubt if the Secret Service is keeping up with investigating threats against Trump. It's never been this bad.
-
More biased liberal news in Great Britain.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-29/fox-stops-airing-fox-news-in-u-k-as-sky-takeover-decision-looms
-
These two photographs say more about the "Presidentialness" of the first family than a zillion pages of this thread ever could.
Black stiletto heels on Air Force One, and USA and FLOTUS ball caps? Really?
clicking on the first image several times allows you to view both of them sequentially
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/us/trump-texas-harvey.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=thumb&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
-
More biased liberal news in Great Britain.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-29/fox-stops-airing-fox-news-in-u-k-as-sky-takeover-decision-looms
“We have concluded that it is not in our commercial interest to continue providing Fox News in the U.K.,” 21st Century Fox said by email Tuesday. “Fox News is focused on the U.S. market and designed for a U.S. audience and, accordingly, it averages only a few thousand viewers across the day in the U.K.”
How surprising.
-
These two photographs say more about the "Presidentialness" of the first family than a zillion pages of this thread ever could.
Black stiletto heels on Air Force One, and USA and FLOTUS ball caps? Really?
clicking on the first image several times allows you to view both of them sequentially
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/us/trump-texas-harvey.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=thumb&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
Real Texas men might prefer cowgirl boots. But definitely heels over flip flops.
-
... Black stiletto heels on Air Force One...
What was she supposed to wear, rubber fins?
-
I doubt if the Secret Service is keeping up with investigating threats against Trump. It's never been this bad.
I think that's an assumption that likely would not be true if the SS would actually give out numbers...I'm pretty sure Obama had a lot more threats than Trump may have had because, well, you know, liberals don't tend to have guns. I don't see a lot of ant-gun liberals out there making death death threats but I suspect a lot of radical right racial wingnutz who support the 2nd amendment were a bit more likely to make death threats against Obama. Maybe they were empty threats, but the SS can't assume that.
-
I think that's an assumption that likely would not be true if the SS would actually give out numbers...I'm pretty sure Obama had a lot more threats than Trump may have had because, well, you know, liberals don't tend to have guns. I don't see a lot of ant-gun liberals out there making death death threats but I suspect a lot of radical right racial wingnutz who support the 2nd amendment were a bit more likely to make death threats against Obama. Maybe they were empty threats, but the SS can't assume that.
Wasn't there an official who suggested that Trump should be assassinated? That stuff didn't happen much with Obama. It just seems that there are a lot of nasty things said about Trump on social media. Can you imagine someone calling him the Skinny Tan Buffoon?
-
More biased liberal news in Great Britain.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-29/fox-stops-airing-fox-news-in-u-k-as-sky-takeover-decision-looms
How can you POSSIBLY claim biased liberal news on this story?
First off, it's a Bloomberg Business news story about a of an Australian media magnates attempt at taking over a UK media network. How is that either liberal or biased? The fact that Fox personal have been involved with sexual misconduct kinda doesn't go over well with the UK regulators so 21st Century Fox is bowing out of the UK TV news market–in which it was not really a major player anyway–which is why they are trying to take over Sky News which is.
So, what's your beef? Why would this possibly matter to you?
I know it must absolutely gall you that Rachel Maddow is beating Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity. Ouch, huh?
(https://am13.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2015/12/maddow_twitter-650x423.jpg)
It must irritate the heck out of Sean Hannity that he has to go up against two gay TV show hosts; Rachel Maddow & Anderson Cooper. Poor little snowflake :~)
Rachel Maddow Ends August As No. 1 In Cable News (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/08/29/rachel-maddow-ends-august-as-number-one-in-cable-news/#17b802c36b63)
-
How can you POSSIBLY claim biased liberal news on this story?
First off, it's a Bloomberg Business news story about a of an Australian media magnates attempt at taking over a UK media network. How is that either liberal or biased? The fact that Fox personal have been involved with sexual misconduct kinda doesn't go over well with the UK regulators so 21st Century Fox is bowing out of the UK TV news market–in which it was not really a major player anyway–which is why they are trying to take over Sky News which is.
So, what's your beef? Why would this possibly matter to you?
I know it must absolutely gall you that Rachel Maddow is beating Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity. Ouch, huh?
(https://am13.akamaized.net/med/cnt/uploads/2015/12/maddow_twitter-650x423.jpg)
It must irritate the heck out of Sean Hannity that he has to go up against two gay TV show hosts; Rachel Maddow & Anderson Cooper. Poor little snowflake :~)
Rachel Maddow Ends August As No. 1 In Cable News (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2017/08/29/rachel-maddow-ends-august-as-number-one-in-cable-news/#17b802c36b63)
You have tho give Rachel credit. She's beating him man to man.
-
You have tho give Rachel credit. She's beating him man to man.
More vacuous asshole comments from the peanut gallery.
-
You have tho give Rachel credit. She's beating him man to man.
;D ;D ;D
-
I'm pretty sure Obama had a lot more threats than Trump may have had
Actually, no. According to the Secret Service* director, the average number of six to eight threats/day has not changed with the transition of Obama to Trump.
Having observed their agents on protective duty from time to time, I'm also quite certain every threat or even potential threat is investigated.
—
*For those of you outside the United States, the Secret Service is a law-enforcement agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (historically, it was part of the Treasury Department) that is responsible for prosecuting financial crimes such as counterfeiting of currency, as well as providing protection services for certain American and visiting foreign officials.
-
What was she supposed to wear, rubber fins?
Something like that.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01396/flippers_1396443c.jpg)
-
More vacuous asshole comments from the peanut gallery.
It's interesting that you didn't find Jeff's original comment vacuous. ("It must irritate the heck out of Sean Hannity that he has to go up against two gay TV show hosts; Rachel Maddow & Anderson Cooper. Poor little snowflake") The fact that he's competing groups apparently doesn't bother you. This is the essence of identity politics. Separate people into competing groups. Gay vs. straight. Black vs. white. Etc.
Me? I'm equally insulting. Egalitarian vacuous.
-
Something like that.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01396/flippers_1396443c.jpg)
That's funny.
-
*For those of you outside the United States, the Secret Service is a law-enforcement agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (historically, it was part of the Treasury Department) that is responsible for prosecuting financial crimes such as counterfeiting of currency, as well as providing protection services for certain American and visiting foreign officials.
So between the Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Treasury Department, CIA, FBI, probably 50 State police forces, local city police forces, sheriffs, marshals, Custom and Border protection, Coast Guard and whatever, how many "police" forces do you have?
We have 8 dysfunctional police forces that don't talk to each other much in Australia so I can imagine a big problem in US in just getting police forces on the same page regarding processes, drivers licences, etc. Training can not be consistent much at all.
-
I posted awhile back that Trump could stand on his head and spit wooden nickels and the biased press would object to their size. Well, here you go. The "Old Lady" biased NY Times objects to the way Trump does his visit to Texas to inspire and give hope to the flood victims.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/opinion/trump-ego-harvey-floods.html?_r=0
Meanwhile, there's always room to give Obama credit even though he's no longer president. Here's a tweet that shows him at a soup kitchen in Houston helping the flood victims. Problem is, it happened in 2015 in a Washington DC homeless shelter. Oh well. Close enough.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/28/blog-posting/outdated-photo-wrongly-suggests-barack-obama-food-/
You can't make this stuff up.
-
More vacuous asshole comments from the peanut gallery.
In response...
-
Something like that.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01396/flippers_1396443c.jpg)
(http://img71.laughinggif.com/pic/HTTP3JzODEzLnBic3JjLmNvbS9hbGJ1bXMveno1NS9TbWlsZXlTbWlsZXM4Mi9TbWlsZXkvY2xhcC1hbmltYXRlZC1hbmltYXRpb24tY2xhcC1zbWlsZXlfenBzNTIzZDllYTUuZ2lmfmMyMDAlog.gif)
-
So between the Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Treasury Department, CIA, FBI, probably 50 State police forces, local city police forces, sheriffs, marshals, Custom and Border protection, Coast Guard and whatever, how many "police" forces do you have?
We have 8 dysfunctional police forces that don't talk to each other much in Australia so I can imagine a big problem in US in just getting police forces on the same page regarding processes, drivers licences, etc. Training can not be consistent much at all.
It's a big issue. It's bad enough that government agencies are pretty dysfunctional on their own. When you try to coordinate among them, it's like a bunch of drunks trying to paint a house. One of things that still upsets me about 9-11, is that by political decision, the CIA and the FBI were not allowed to share information about terrorists. Politicians were more concerned about the niceties of the fears that the CIA would get into domestic overseeing. (Well, there may be some real concern about the NSA listening to our telephone calls,) In any case, both groups spent very little time sharing information about terrorists. Had they been talking and coordinating more, 9-11 may have been interrupted. So afterward, it was decided in 2004 that we made a big error. So the government created a cabinet level position called the Director of National Intelligence who coordinates the activities of 17 different intelligence agencies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence
I hope it's working. Frankly, it sounds like they're covering too much territory. But then again, we haven't had another 9-11, so we got to be hopeful it's working better than what we had before.
Of course, the DNI covers the 17 federal agencies. Every other state has state police forces, local forces like NYPD, sheriffs, county police, state forest rangers, etc. We're like an armed camp. My biggest concern is when I go through a little town nearby, that I stick to their 25mph speed limit. Their few cops issue a lot of speeding tickets to fund their town and you can't be too careful driving through.
-
Madness continues:
Oh, and let's not forget a flier circulating a university in Utah, requesting a nation-wide ban on veterans attending college, on the grounds that they bring with them racist, white-supremacy world-view.
-
Swans next?
In Michigan, the state’s Department of Natural Resources proposed to reduce drastically mute swan numbers.
However, it turns out that it was not because of the white color, but because they are now considered an invasive pest.
Meanwhile, the multicultural multicolored Canada geese that have attained the title of the foulest of the fowl are spreading in Ontario like crazy. Their populations have grown exponentially in recent decades, fed on the green lawns, golf courses, parks and farm fields left bereft of natural predators by sprawling human development. Both, swans and wild geese are edible, but their meat is quite dry and therefore best combined with a farmed-raised goose, duck, or bacon.
-
Les, as it warms up in Canada, geese don't have to fly south for the winter. We had your problem a couple of decades ago in NYC. Their poop is disgusting when you walk in a city park. On the plus side, if it continues to warm up, Canadians won't have to fly south to Florida for the winter either. You'll be able to sun yourself on the St. Lawrence.
-
This might be a good moment to remember Katrina: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/06/naomi-klein-how-power-profits-from-disaster (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/06/naomi-klein-how-power-profits-from-disaster).
-
Fascinating podcast about fake news in Ukraine: http://www.npr.org/2017/08/21/544952989/rough-translation-what-americans-can-learn-from-fake-news-in-ukraine (http://www.npr.org/2017/08/21/544952989/rough-translation-what-americans-can-learn-from-fake-news-in-ukraine).
I preferred the old names to "fake news". When private sources issue fake news, it's lying, when governments do it, it's propaganda. Calling it "fake news" makes it a little cute and trendy, somehow. Reminds me of the deflective use of the word "bug" instead of "defect" in software.
-
The "fake news", or as called before "propaganda" originated actually in the old Soviet Union under Stalin and Lenin, and was later exported to the other communist countries.
I lived through it myself until my early twenties. Listened in secret to Radio Free Europe from an early age, and that helped to make sense of the convoluted news in official radio and newspapers, but many people ate up those news wholesale, and then in 1989 when the velvet revolution came, they felt cheated, confused and scared. They didn't know whether to believe the old communist propaganda or the new pro-western publications.
Sadly, now almost 30 years after the liberation from the old Soviet system, many of the previous satelite states are still not used to democracy, how to interpret the news and the art of making compromises, and that this leads to ongoing corruption and fake news fabrication. This is the case not only in Ukraine, but also in Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary. You can corrupt decent people in one generation, but it may take 3-5 generations to undo the damage.
-
The "fake news", or as called before "propaganda" originated actually in the old Soviet Union under Stalin and Lenin, and was later exported to the other communist countries.
I lived through it myself until my early twenties. Listened in secret to Radio Free Europe from an early age, and that helped to make sense of the convoluted news in official radio and newspapers, but many people ate up those news wholesale, and then in 1989 when the velvet revolution came, they felt cheated, confused and scared. They didn't know whether to believe the old communist propaganda or the new pro-western publications.
Sadly, now almost 30 years after the liberation from the old Soviet system, many of the previous satelite states are still not used to democracy, how to interpret the news and the art of making compromises, and that this leads to ongoing corruption and fake news fabrication. This is the case not only in Ukraine, but also in Czechia, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary. You can corrupt decent people in one generation, but it may take 3-5 generations to undo the damage.
Were they even democratic societies before the Soviet Union? I'm not familiar with their histories. But could it go back even further? When one thinks of Russia, the Tzars were followed by dictators of the Communist variety. But still monarchial in outlook. So now they have Putin, a free market dictator of sorts. The Russians seem to like it. So how was it in those other states?
-
Les, as it warms up in Canada, geese don't have to fly south for the winter. We had your problem a couple of decades ago in NYC. Their poop is disgusting when you walk in a city park. On the plus side, if it continues to warm up, Canadians won't have to fly south to Florida for the winter either. You'll be able to sun yourself on the St. Lawrence.
Not quite warm for sunning, but the average temperature in February 2017 in Toronto was exactly zero degree in Celsius (daily temperatures ranging from +2C to -4C).
That compared with -12C average in February 2015 in Toronto or 6C average in February 2017 in Dublin.
Interestingly, this summer in Toronto was not as hot as usual, but just last week I swam in a very agreeable St. Lawrence river in the Thousand Islands area.
-
Were they even democratic societies before the Soviet Union? I'm not familiar with their histories. But could it go back even further? When one thinks of Russia, the Tzars were followed by dictators of the Communist variety. But still monarchial in outlook. So now they have Putin, a free market dictator of sorts. The Russians seem to like it. So how was it in those other states?
I don't have extensive knowledge of the world history, but the old Czechoslovakia was between 1918 and 1948 a modern and well functioning democratic country. And quite industrial as well - making cars, motorcycles, cameras, even revolvers and rifles.
CORRECTION: Czechoslovakia was formed in 1918 and became a communist state in 1948, but in 1939 Hitler annexed the Czech lands and incorporated the primarily German speaking Sudetenland into Germany and formed Czech protectorate in the rest of the occupied land. That situation lasted between 1939 and 1945, until the end of the WW2.
-
The white population needs to be culled according to Michael Moore:
"by 2050, white people are going to be the minority, and I’m not sad to say I can’t wait for that day to happen. I hope I live long enough to see it because it will be a better country.”
Can one be a racist against his own race? Or are we witnessing the emergence of a new mental disorder?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/28/michael-moore-donald-trump-on-track-to-win-re-elec/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/28/michael-moore-donald-trump-on-track-to-win-re-elec/)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9TAtcVVwAADKYo.jpg)
-
Not quite warm for sunning, but the average temperature in February 2017 in Toronto was exactly zero degree in Celsius (daily temperatures ranging from +2C to -4C).
That compared with -12C average in February 2015 in Toronto or 6C average in February 2017 in Dublin.
Interestingly, this summer in Toronto was not as hot as usual, but just last week I swam in a very agreeable St. Lawrence river in the Thousand Islands area.
I've been telling my wife recently we have to go to the Thousand Islands. I've always wanted to go muskellunge fishing.
-
So between the Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, Treasury Department, CIA, FBI, probably 50 State police forces, local city police forces, sheriffs, marshals, Custom and Border protection, Coast Guard and whatever, how many "police" forces do you have?
The principal federal law enforcement agency is the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). Other federal agencies have more limited jurisdiction established by specific statutes: for example, the Secret Service with respect to counterfeiting, Immigration and Customs Enforcement with respect to immigration violations, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with respect to ... well, I guess that's fairly obvious. Each state government establishes and organizes its own police agencies independently to enforce state laws (with some concurrent jurisdiction over federal law enforcement); typically these agencies exist at both statewide and local—city, town—levels.
The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have no law enforcement responsibilities. (The United States, unlike most countries, does not have a domestic intelligence agency. The FBI, however, does have authority to investigate espionage by agents of foreign governments operating within the United States.)
-
The white population needs to be culled according to Michael Moore:
"by 2050, white people are going to be the minority, and I’m not sad to say I can’t wait for that day to happen. I hope I live long enough to see it because it will be a better country.”
Can one be a racist against his own race? Or are we witnessing the emergence of a new mental disorder?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/28/michael-moore-donald-trump-on-track-to-win-re-elec/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/28/michael-moore-donald-trump-on-track-to-win-re-elec/)
It's a form of nihilism. These people need to get a life.
-
(https://media.defense.gov/2015/Mar/24/2001030499/-1/-1/0/150319-F-GS664-019.JPG)
"Hi! I'm from the government and we're here to help!"
-
I've been telling my wife recently we have to go to the Thousand Islands. I've always wanted to go muskellunge fishing.
I seldom find time for fishing on my trips, but taking a sightseeing cruise through Thousand Islands is always a very nice experience. Much nicer than the Rhein or Danube cruise.
Crossing the international boundaries and leisurely cruising between the islands on a warm sunny day you can even forget about Trump and any related forum discussions.
-
The white population needs to be culled according to Michael Moore:
"by 2050, white people are going to be the minority, and I’m not sad to say I can’t wait for that day to happen. I hope I live long enough to see it because it will be a better country.”
Can one be a racist against his own race? ...
If one ever had doubts that liberals are waging a war on whites. Or about the real reason for favoring illegal immigration.
-
These two photographs say more about the "Presidentialness" of the first family than a zillion pages of this thread ever could.
Black stiletto heels on Air Force One, and USA and FLOTUS ball caps? Really?
clicking on the first image several times allows you to view both of them sequentially
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/us/trump-texas-harvey.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=thumb&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
Somebody else noticed this questionable dress.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/29/news/trump-harvey-campaign-hat/index.html
-
Somebody else noticed this questionable dress....
Trump was wearing a dress!? Impeach!
-
"Hi! I'm from the government and we're here to help!"
Things seem to go better with the military doing stuff as in your helicopter rescue picture. It's when FEMA and other civilian agencies get involved, government falls down.
-
It's a form of nihilism.
Bingo! In other words: If I can't have the life I want, then nobody else can. BURN IT DOWN!
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a5/a56eca5885be36d67e90689387de7dd37375693737e4afa2fb1c7cadb2ecb5af.jpg)
-
Trump was wearing a dress!? Impeach!
No, no, no. He was dressed in peach. It goes with his hair.
-
I posted awhile back that Trump could stand on his head and spit wooden nickels and the biased press would object to their size. Well, here you go. The "Old Lady" biased NY Times objects to the way Trump does his visit to Texas to inspire and give hope to the flood victims.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/opinion/trump-ego-harvey-floods.html?_r=0
Did you actually listen to Trump speak? He didn't thank the first responders...he didn't lament the deaths...he didn't thank the various groups that have come from all over the country to help the flood rescues. He didn't really do anything other than thank the governor and the FEMA director and comment on how famous he became on TV...
Wait, what? Trump is fixated on the fact that the FEMA director is getting a lot of air time on TV?
And then he goes on to comment on the size of the crowd? Again with the crowd?
President Bush today said what Trump should have said and then just shut up...and this was from an informal stop to visit with members of the Southern Methodist University football team from Houston.
In Dallas, George W. Bush offers words of support for Houston, via college football players (http://theweek.com/speedreads/721655/dallas-george-w-bush-offers-words-support-houston-college-football-players)
During his stop on Tuesday, the former Texas governor told the players from Houston and the surrounding area that he knew they were "going through a really tough time," but they're not alone. "Just know that there will be a lot of people that are going to help the people down there," said Bush, who served as president during Hurricane Katrina. "A lot. Right now they're recovering, and so the key thing on the recovery is to keep people safe. And then it's going to be rebuilding. And if you're from that area, you'll be amazed at the people that come down there to help. All kinds of people. So, the days are dark now, but they're going to get better."
What did Trump say?
I can tell you that my people are telling me how great your representatives have been in working together. It's a real team. And we want to do it better than ever before. We want to be looked at in five years, in ten years from now as this is the way to do it. This was of epic proportion. Nobody's ever seen anything like this.
And I just want to say that working with the governor and his entire team has been an honor for us. So, governor, again, thank you very much, and we won't say congratulations. We don't want to hear that. We don't want to congratulate. We'll congratulate each other when it's all finished.
Yeah so The Big Orange Dummy went down to Texas and did nothing to help anybody...is that about right?
Oh and the article in the NYT was not a report doodle, it was an opinion so not news...
-
Not so fast there Donny...
Mattis freezes Trump ban on transgender troops pending review (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/29/mattis-freezes-trump-ban-on-transgender-troops-pending-review.html)
(https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2017/08/20/us_japan_60471_c0-152-3637-2272_s885x516.jpg?fa1b8d50102026e334c9feb4c586954e96fa0b4b)
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday night that the Pentagon's current policy on transgender troops "will remain in place" while President Trump's directive banning transgender people from joining the military undergoes an expert study.
The move by Mattis allows transgender people to continue serving openly in the military while the Pentagon considers whether to discharge them in light of Trump's order.
In a statement, Mattis said that Trump's directive would be reviewed by a panel of experts from the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
"Once the panel reports its recommendations and following my consultation with the secretary of Homeland Security, I will provide my advice to the president concerning implementation of his policy direction," Mattis said.
Trump just doesn't get it...he can't just make edicts and expect the country to turn on a dime.
-
Unfortunately, when it comes to large natural disasters, there is really nothing that a president can do that won't end up pissing off a lot of people. It is truly a political lose-lose situation.
If the president travels to the disaster area he will be accused of using it for a photo op and for disrupting the rescue/recovery efforts due to security
If the president does not travel to the disaster area he will be accused of not caring
If the president did what Bush did and fly over the disaster area he will be criticized for being "aloof" and detached while people are suffering.
If the president arrives quickly he is using the disaster as a political platform
If the president delays his arrival he is not giving the suffering citizens the priority they deserve.
There is really nothing that a president can do or not do during a major natural disaster that won't piss off many people. That's just par for the job.
Part of being president is accepting that no matter what you do or don't do, many people will be angry with you. How the president reacts to this gives us insight into his character.
-
It's a form of nihilism. These people need to get a life.
Michael Moore is a satirist. Taking his words literally might be a mistake. Just sayin'.
-
The United States, unlike most countries, does not have a domestic intelligence agency.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck (c) ...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/FBI_organizational_chart_-_2014.jpg)
-
The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have no law enforcement responsibilities.
and yet CIA has people on its payroll that do just that ;D
https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportunities/support-professional/security-protective-officer.html
-
Trump just doesn't get it...he can't just make edicts and expect the country to turn on a dime.
The same is true for NAFTA. I have friends who worked in the Canadian government department that did a lot of that work and it involved years of work writing detailed regulations in different industry sectors. It will take years to unravel them. And my understanding is that unraveling regulations is not a trivial procedure in the USA . A public body enacted those rules and had to justify why they were doing so. Any public body that undoes them has to do the same. There aren't Trump's rules or the lonnie left's rules, they are the countries' rules that were put in place for many reasons over many years. The Twitter media spin that Trump will wash all this away overnight and everything will then be just fine is a crock of BS.
-
The same is true for NAFTA. I have friends who worked in the Canadian government department that did a lot of that work and it involved years of work writing detailed regulations in different industry sectors. It will take years to unravel them. And my understanding is that unraveling regulations is not a trivial procedure in the USA . A public body enacted those rules and had to justify why they were doing so. Any public body that undoes them has to do the same. There aren't Trump's rules or the lonnie left's rules, they are the countries' rules that were put in place for many reasons over many years. The Twitter media spin that Trump will wash all this away overnight and everything will then be just fine is a crock of BS.
I don't believe anything has happened on the ground. NAFTA continues regardless what he says. Frankly, I think this is just a political statement to satisfy his base. He promised he would do this in his campaign, so now he can say he did it. If Congress doesn't follow up, well, it's their fault. Also, he might be able to get additional concessions by playing tough. He's always done that with his business agreements. But otherwise, how has trade changed between the three countries since Trump said what he said?
-
and yet CIA has people on its payroll that do just that ;D
https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportunities/support-professional/security-protective-officer.html
They guard CIA headquarters and personnel in Washington DC. That's not law enforcement. They don't have policing authority in or to the public.
-
Bingo! In other words: If I can't have the life I want, then nobody else can. BURN IT DOWN!
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/a5/a56eca5885be36d67e90689387de7dd37375693737e4afa2fb1c7cadb2ecb5af.jpg)
It brings to mind Antifa and the other nihilists running around shutting everyone up and attacking them and smashing colleges and free speech. Just angry people wanting to take out their frustrations in life by attacking and destroying everything else so they can feel better about themselves. Meanwhile society gets bruised. You think they could do something positive if they wanted to change things. But they really don't believe in anything except hate.
-
Michael Moore is a satirist. Taking his words literally might be a mistake. Just sayin'.
I've seen him talking with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. Actually, I enjoy listening and watching him. He's pretty funny. But I do believe his fans take him literally. The loony left believes all this stuff. The Democrats have used this stuff to get votes. But it didn't work for them against Trump. It'll be interesting to see how they're going to move from the left to the middle in the 2018 Congressional elections without losing the left's votes. Most normal people aren't concerned with the percent of whites in America. They're concerned with the percent of taxes they have to pay to the IRS.
-
The same is true for NAFTA. I have friends who worked in the Canadian government department that did a lot of that work and it involved years of work writing detailed regulations in different industry sectors. It will take years to unravel them. And my understanding is that unraveling regulations is not a trivial procedure in the USA . A public body enacted those rules and had to justify why they were doing so. Any public body that undoes them has to do the same.
That's correct: U.S. federal regulations generally need to be established or modified in accordance with a statute, the Administrative Procedure Act (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure). Regulations typically fill in gaps in the more general language of laws enacted by Congress, and the APA is intended to provide assurance that agency regulations are consistent with their underlying statutes, that there is a rational basis for the regulations, and that the public has an opportunity to comment before the regulations go into effect. The APA also provides for judicial review of regulations promulgated by federal agencies in many instances.
Withdrawal or modification of NAFTA may be even more complicated because Congress enacted a specific statute to implement the agreement. It's not clear whether Trump can simply give notice of U.S. withdrawal, pursuant to Article 2205 of NAFTA, or whether he would need to seek Congressional authority to do so. (Obviously, any modification of the agreement would require the consent of Canada and Mexico.)
It didn't appear that Trump was familiar with either the rulemaking process or the legal status of NAFTA during his campaign for president. He didn't even seem conversant with the president's basic constitutional authorities, for that matter. He gave the impression he believed he could change things on his ipse dixit. That's not how the U.S. government works.
-
Did you actually listen to Trump speak? He didn't thank the first responders...he didn't lament the deaths...he didn't thank the various groups that have come from all over the country to help the flood rescues. He didn't really do anything other than thank the governor and the FEMA director and comment on how famous he became on TV...
Wait, what? Trump is fixated on the fact that the FEMA director is getting a lot of air time on TV?
And then he goes on to comment on the size of the crowd? Again with the crowd?
President Bush today said what Trump should have said and then just shut up...and this was from an informal stop to visit with members of the Southern Methodist University football team from Houston.
In Dallas, George W. Bush offers words of support for Houston, via college football players (http://theweek.com/speedreads/721655/dallas-george-w-bush-offers-words-support-houston-college-football-players)
What did Trump say?
Yeah so The Big Orange Dummy went down to Texas and did nothing to help anybody...is that about right?
Oh and the article in the NYT was not a report doodle, it was an opinion so not news...
Here's a different take on what Trump did. This one is positive not the usual NY Times opinion doodle complaining about the size of the wooden nickels. Maybe you need to subscribe to different newspapers.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-harvey-texas-20170829-story.html
-
That's correct: U.S. federal regulations generally need to be established or modified in accordance with a statute, the Administrative Procedure Act (https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure). Regulations typically fill in gaps in the more general language of laws enacted by Congress, and the APA is intended to provide assurance that agency regulations are consistent with their underlying statutes, that there is a rational basis for the regulations, and that the public has an opportunity to comment before the regulations go into effect. The APA also provides for judicial review of regulations promulgated by federal agencies in many instances.
Withdrawal or modification of NAFTA may be even more complicated because Congress enacted a specific statute to implement the agreement. It's not clear whether Trump can simply give notice of U.S. withdrawal, pursuant to Article 2205 of NAFTA, or whether he would need to seek Congressional authority to do so. (Obviously, any modification of the agreement would require the consent of Canada and Mexico.)
It didn't appear that Trump was familiar with either the rulemaking process or the legal status of NAFTA during his campaign for president. He didn't even seem conversant with the president's basic constitutional authorities, for that matter. He gave the impression he believed he could change things on his ipse dixit. That's not how the U.S. government works.
That's not how New York City government is suppose to work either. But, his supporters voted for him because he's an action man who gets things done. When the NYC government failed to get Central Park's Wollman Ice Skating Rink completed after 6 years and $12 million dollars, Trump, a private citizen, refurbished it two and a half months ahead of his own speedy six-month schedule and $750,000 below his own projected $3 million budget. http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/15/nyregion/about-new-york-pssst-here-s-a-secret-trump-rebuilds-ice-rink.html
People are tired of government that doesn't work. They're tired of excuses. They wanted a non-politician who thinks and acts out of the box. He's not eloquent, more like a bull in a China shop. But maybe, just maybe, things will change for the better.
-
How's our boy doing?
-
They guard CIA headquarters and personnel in Washington DC. That's not law enforcement. They don't have policing authority in or to the public.
let us read what the employer states (of course this is gov't and US gov't on top of that - so it is a patented lie, but)
"As a Police Officer in the Security Protective Service (SPS) with the CIA, you will protect CIA personnel, facilities and information through the enforcement of Federal laws and Agency Regulations... Police Officers exercise full law enforcement authority, including making arrests and enforcing traffic laws in Agency jurisdiction."
state police from another state can't arrest me in my state by itself... that does not make them not a police, does it ?
-
smashing colleges and free speech.
they had good teachers !
(http://www.travelthruhistory.tv/ThruHistory/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/KENT-STATE-SHOOTING.jpg)
-
let us read what the employer states (of course this is gov't and US gov't on top of that - so it is a patented lie, but).....
You're point was wrong but you obviously hate the American government and America so I'm not going to bother telling you why. Why waste my time?
-
That's not how New York City government is suppose to work either. But, his supporters voted for him because he's an action man who gets things done. When the NYC government failed to get Central Park's Wollman Ice Skating Rink completed after 6 years and $12 million dollars, Trump, a private citizen, refurbished it two and a half months ahead of his own speedy six-month schedule and $750,000 below his own projected $3 million budget. http://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/15/nyregion/about-new-york-pssst-here-s-a-secret-trump-rebuilds-ice-rink.html
People are tired of government that doesn't work. They're tired of excuses. They wanted a non-politician who thinks and acts out of the box. He's not eloquent, more like a bull in a China shop. But maybe, just maybe, things will change for the better.
Did you not read Chris' post (No. 5900)?
What do you mean by "government that doesn't work"? That makes no sense. Carefully deliberating policy that will affect the country as a whole for decades to come IS EXACTLY he work of government. And if some of the wheels grind slowly, it's sometimes because they should. Maybe motivational speakers can encourage thinking out of the box, and maybe that works for the 1 in 10,000 corporate execs who give Ted talks, but there is a reason we never hear speakers from the other 99% of corporations that went belly-up because they didn't plan well enough.
The point was that Trump can't change certain rules and regs on his own say so. He does not have dictatorial powers. Senators are not his VPs, they don't report to him. Same with Congress. My impression was that the US constitution was deliberately set up that way for a reason. Do you think electing Trump changed that?
Basically what I'm seeing is what I have thought from the start. He's a salesman and he has no idea how anything actually works. Our culture needs philosophers and engineers, not more salesmen. We have enough salesmen.
-
You're point was wrong
I repeat = "As a Police Officer in the Security Protective Service (SPS) with the CIA, you will protect CIA personnel, facilities and information through the enforcement of Federal laws and Agency Regulations... Police Officers exercise full law enforcement authority, including making arrests and enforcing traffic laws in Agency jurisdiction."
what is not clear to you in the enforcement of Federal laws and exercise full law enforcement authority ?
you city police authority is limited to your city limits for example ... but it is still police... and so CIA police can arrest you in this country if you happen to find yourself violating federal laws (and ... agency regulations too) on american soil within their jurisdiction - just like your city police can arrest you in your city (which is their jurisdiction)... feel free to find a proper definition of police ;D
granted Wikipedia is tainted, but still = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#List_of_agencies_and_units_of_agencies
Central Intelligence Agency, Security Protective Service (CIA SPS)
is treated like a Federal Law Enforcement outlet...
-
Did you not read Chris' post (No. 5900)?
What do you mean by "government that doesn't work"? That makes no sense. Carefully deliberating policy that will affect the country as a whole for decades to come IS EXACTLY he work of government. And if some of the wheels grind slowly, it's sometimes because they should. Maybe motivational speakers can encourage thinking out of the box, and maybe that works for the 1 in 10,000 corporate execs who give Ted talks, but there is a reason we never hear speakers from the other 99% of corporations that went belly-up because they didn't plan well enough.
The point was that Trump can't change certain rules and regs on his own say so. He does not have dictatorial powers. Senators are not his VPs, they don't report to him. Same with Congress. My impression was that the US constitution was deliberately set up that way for a reason. Do you think electing Trump changed that?
Basically what I'm seeing is what I have thought from the start. He's a salesman and he has no idea how anything actually works. Our culture needs philosophers and engineers, not more salesmen. We have enough salesmen.
Bob (Can I call you Bob?), I gave an example of government not working. NYC government spent six years to complete a skating rink, and it still wasn't done. Trump went in and completed it in 4/12 months and under budget. There's too much thinking, deliberating, posturing, and wasting money in the government and not enough real execution. Politicians are afraid to take a position and talk out of both sides of their mouth. You may not like Trump's big mouth, but he doesn't take crap from no one. He expects results or "you're fired". With government, people rise to their level of incompetence and then stay there for decades sponging off the taxpayers.
My last job after a career in private business was working for NYC government. I had a boss who would tell us after lunch that he had to go visit some sites in the field to check on things. Actually, he went straight home. He worked maybe 3-3/12 days out of a 5 day week and got paid $110K+. I had another boss who I went to with a great idea for saving the agency some money. He looked me right in the eye and asked me "Why do you care?" He was right of course, why should I care? No one owned the agency. No one cared about the money. Who gave a crap about the taxpayer?
Remember FEMA and Hurricane Katrina. What a disaster that was. No one in government cares. Well, we'll see if Trump gets FEMA to do better with Hurricane Harvey in Texas. Maybe he can get FEMA to build them an ice rink or maybe a swimming pool since they have all that water.
-
Maybe you need to subscribe to different newspapers.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-harvey-texas-20170829-story.html
Maybe you should read the article you mentioned...
President Trump on Tuesday assured Texans slammed by Tropical Storm Harvey that “we are here to take care of you” and promised a “better than ever before” relief effort, as he visited the state while rescuers continued to pull people from submerged homes.
During visits first to Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast, southwest of the worst-hit areas of Houston and its environs, and then to the state capital of Austin, Trump repeatedly praised federal, state and local officials. But he said little about victims who had lost their homes and loved ones to the historic storm.
--snip--
Still, Trump, clad in a “USA” ball cap and a windbreaker with a presidential seal, did not shy from raising expectations for the response effort.
“We want to do it better than ever before,” he said. “We want to be looked at in five years, in 10 years from now, as this is the way to do it.”
--snip--
Trump spoke about the work of officials and the recovery efforts, leaving it to others to discuss the storm’s continuing risks and the loss of life — including the drowning death of veteran Houston Police Sgt. Steve Perez, who was to turn 61 this week.
When he left the firehouse, Trump mounted a ladder between two fire trucks to address the crowd outside.
“We love you, you are special; we are here to take care of you,” he said. “It's going well.”
“What a crowd, what a turnout,” he said, as if speaking at a political rally. “It's historic, its epic, but I tell you, it happened in Texas, and Texas can handle anything.”
Compare that to what Bush said yesterday as an ex-president and citizen of Texas.
And about that hat Trump was wearing and hawking for sale...
DID TRUMP SEEK TO CASH IN FROM TEXAS HURRICANE VISIT BY SPORTING $40 CAMPAIGN MERCHANDISE CAP? (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-hurricane-visit-merchandise-cap-ethics-chief-657103)
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/full/public/2017/08/30/gettyimages-840588996.jpg)
U.S. President Donald Trump holds the state flag of Texas outside of the Annaville firehouse after attending a briefing on Hurricane Harvey in Corpus Christi, Texas, August 29.
President Trump’s former ethics chief said the president’s decision to show off a $40 Trump campaign merchandise baseball cap on a visit to storm-struck Texas raises ethics concerns.
The president was pictured wearing the Official USA 45th Presidential Hats in two pictures released by the White House over the weekend, and in TV footage of an official visit to the state Tuesday. Both hats, described as “Proudly Made in the USA,” are sold as merchandise via the Trump campaign website.
“Any ethics issues raised by using official White House press releases on Hurricane Harvey to show off Trump’s re-election campaign merch?” tweeted Bloomberg analyst Anna Massoglia early Wednesday.
To which Walter Schaub, former Director of the Office of Government Ethics, simply replied, “Yes.”
Walter ShaubVerified account
@waltshaub
The presser would be more convincing if POTUS weren't wearing merch touted as the hat “worn by 45thPresident-Elect Donald J. Trump, himself”
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIadyDKVAAA8Rys.jpg)
10:22 AM - 29 Aug 2017
Schaub, who was appointed government ethics chief in 2013, accused Trump of reducing America to a “laughing stock” when he left the office in July.
He slammed the president for unprecedented conflicts of interest, and for not disentangling himself from them.
“It’s hard for the United States to pursue international anti-corruption and ethics initiatives when we’re not even keeping our own side of the street clean. It affects our credibility,” Shaub told The New York Times. “I think we are pretty close to a laughing stock at this point.”
Apart from questions of conflict of interest, others expressed astonishment at the price of the hats Trump wore, which retail at almost twice that of a New York Knicks cap.
Yeah, Trump went to Texas and didn't do anything to actually help. Good job Donny...
-
I repeat = "As a Police Officer in the Security Protective Service (SPS) with the CIA, you will protect CIA personnel, facilities and information through the enforcement of Federal laws and Agency Regulations... Police Officers exercise full law enforcement authority, including making arrests and enforcing traffic laws in Agency jurisdiction."
what is not clear to you in the enforcement of Federal laws and exercise full law enforcement authority ?
you city police authority is limited to your city limits for example ... but it is still police... and so CIA police can arrest you in this country if you happen to find yourself violating federal laws (and ... agency regulations too) on american soil within their jurisdiction - just like your city police can arrest you in your city (which is their jurisdiction)... feel free to find a proper definition of police ;D
granted Wikipedia is tainted, but still = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#List_of_agencies_and_units_of_agencies
Central Intelligence Agency, Security Protective Service (CIA SPS)
is treated like a Federal Law Enforcement outlet...
I don't like discussing things with people who don't identify themselves, at least what country they're from. If you tell me that, then I'll answer.
-
Meanwhile, he tries to buy himself out of trouble, in true mobster fashion:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/30/trump-tower-russia-meeting-chuck-grassley
Donald Trump called a senior Republican senator from Iowa on Wednesday whose congressional committee is investigating his son, Donald Trump Jr, and promised him critical federal support for the biofuel ethanol, a key issue for the lawmaker.
Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee and a major advocate of the ethanol industry, announced on Twitter that he had received a phone call from Trump and had been assured by the US president that Trump was “pro ethanol” and was “standing by his campaign promise” to support the biofuel.
The phone call came less than a day after CNN reported that Trump’s eldest son had reached an agreement with the committee to appear in a private session and answer investigators’ questions. The committee, which has oversight of the Department of Justice, is investigating a 2016 meeting that occurred in Trump Tower before November’s election. During the meeting, Trump Jr and other campaign staff met with Russian operatives after being promised compromising information about the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
The interview with investigators could take place in the next few weeks, according to CNN.
-
Maybe you should read the article you mentioned...
Compare that to what Bush said yesterday as an ex-president and citizen of Texas.
And about that hat Trump was wearing and hawking for sale...
DID TRUMP SEEK TO CASH IN FROM TEXAS HURRICANE VISIT BY SPORTING $40 CAMPAIGN MERCHANDISE CAP? (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-hurricane-visit-merchandise-cap-ethics-chief-657103)
U.S. President Donald Trump holds the state flag of Texas outside of the Annaville firehouse after attending a briefing on Hurricane Harvey in Corpus Christi, Texas, August 29.
Yeah, Trump went to Texas and didn't do anything to actually help. Good job Donny...
Texans appreciated he came down to let them know he cared and was going to help them. Plus they had a chance to check out his wife. If Hillary had won, they'd have to check out her fat ass. Texas went for Trump. They're not stupid.
-
Curious. Did any country offer to send help to Texas other than Mexico?
-
Plus they had a chance to check out his wife. If Hillary had won, they'd have to check out her fat ass. Texas went for Trump. They're not stupid.
Melania is from Stepford. She doesn't need to eat.
(https://thenewstalkers.com/upimg/image/upimg_file/12331/320)
-
Curious. Did any country offer to send help to Texas other than Mexico?
The proximity of Mexico makes it a logical option for logistical support, where needed (that's what good neighbors do, they help out). That they chose to defy the abuse by the Trump administration by offering help shows a lot of class (and they are still not going to pay for a wall).
My country (the Netherlands) typically helps developing countries that lack the funds or expertise to solve their own issues. Otherwise, we tend to not interfere with internal affairs unless asked to, and there are obvious limits to what a country of some 17 million people can do for others.
Besides, having to pony up the money to compensate for the USA's withdrawal from the Paris Climat agreements, and increasing our Defense expenditure towards the 2% of GDP goals, is already taxing our financial abilities to support the USA enough.
On the other hand, 'we' are willing to sell our expertise in Water Management to countries that can afford to pay for it (and offer it at a reduced/subsidized (as development aid) cost to developing nations). We've been involved in the post-Katrina efforts in Louisiana, and the post-Sandy efforts in New York, and are working on a slew of other projects across the USA.
Here's a list of commercial project locations, e.g. by just one Dutch company, called Arcadis:
https://www.arcadis.com/en/united-states/where-we-work
That company has apparently already been (and still is) doing some work on (amongst others) protecting the US coasts against rising sea levels but is often not being paid for protection against increasing precipitation and melting snow/ice water coming from inland. The specific Houston problem is one of neglect and perverse building ethics, and the effects will only get worse and more costly due to Global Warming (with warmer air and water providing more water for precipitation).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Curious. Did any country offer to send help to Texas other than Mexico?
Quebec is offering to help Houston in the wake of Hurricane Harvey and is at the ready for when officials there say they need it, says Minister of International Relations Christine St-Pierre.
St-Pierre also offered the help of Hydro-Québec crews, which are part of a mutual assistance group connecting electricity utilities in North America's Northeast region.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-offers-aid-texas-hurricane-harvey-1.4267387
Also, Montreal-based Resolute Forest Products has committed to sending a rail car full of lumber to Houston once the storm-battered city begins to recover from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey.
And one Quebec priest kayaks Houston streets helping flood victims.
-
I don't like discussing things with people who don't identify themselves, at least what country they're from.
Good point! Especially in a forum thread like this—but in many of the mainstream photography ones, as well—it would be helpful at times to know where posters are located, even those who (for whatever reason) prefer not to reveal their real names.
Does everyone know that there is a user profile attribute they can set for location?
-
The proximity of Mexico makes it a logical option for logistical support, where needed (that's what good neighbors do, they help out). That they chose to defy the abuse by the Trump administration by offering help shows a lot of class (and they are still not going to pay for a wall).
My country (the Netherlands) typically helps developing countries that lack the funds or expertise to solve their own issues. Otherwise, we tend to not interfere with internal affairs unless asked to, and there are obvious limits to what a country of some 17 million people can do for others.
Besides, having to pony up the money to compensate for the USA's withdrawal from the Paris Climat agreements, and increasing our Defense expenditure towards the 2% of GDP goals, is already taxing our financial abilities to support the USA enough.
On the other hand, 'we' are willing to sell our expertise in Water Management to countries that can afford to pay for it (and offer it at a reduced/subsidized (as development aid) cost to developing nations). We've been involved in the post-Katrina efforts in Louisiana, and the post-Sandy efforts in New York, and are working on a slew of other projects across the USA.
Here's a list of commercial project locations, e.g. by just one Dutch company, called Arcadis:
https://www.arcadis.com/en/united-states/where-we-work
That company has apparently already been (and still is) doing some work on (amongst others) protecting the US coasts against rising sea levels but is often not being paid for protection against increasing precipitation and melting snow/ice water coming from inland. The specific Houston problem is one of neglect and perverse building ethics, and the effects will only get worse and more costly due to Global Warming (with warmer air and water providing more water for precipitation).
Cheers,
Bart
America always seems to be helping out others. It would have been nice for more countries beside Mexico and Canada to show some class and friendship to us. Not much. Maybe a kayak or two.
-
America always seems to be helping out others.
Maybe you can help us out by using selective quoting rather than just hitting the button and typing. It's pretty easy, just select the unwanted text and hit the delete key! Easie piepie...
-
Maybe you can help us out by using selective quoting rather than just hitting the button and typing. It's pretty easy, just select the unwanted text and hit the delete key! Easie piepie...
Sometimes i do that but I've been having trouble with the quick keys like italics, bold, underline, quote, etc. When I click on them, they don't work. I have to type in the HTML codes. If I'm using my cellphone, the task is really laborious so I don't even bother with HTML codes. If someone could tell me how to correct my computer so the quick keys work, I'd be really grateful.
-
Opinion piece: Liberals can’t hope to beat Trump until they truly understand him by John Harris in the Guardian.
New game, new rules: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/liberals-donald-trump-rightwing-populists (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/liberals-donald-trump-rightwing-populists).
-
Opinion piece: Liberals can’t hope to beat Trump until they truly understand him by John Harris in the Guardian.
New game, new rules: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/liberals-donald-trump-rightwing-populists (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/liberals-donald-trump-rightwing-populists).
Trump is the champion of the common man. The left is out to lunch.
-
Opinion piece: Liberals can’t hope to beat Trump until they truly understand him by John Harris in the Guardian.
New game, new rules: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/liberals-donald-trump-rightwing-populists (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/30/liberals-donald-trump-rightwing-populists).
The point wasn’t necessarily to get things done; it was to retaliate against the media and other enemies.
If accurate, that's about the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. Sadly I think it might be. Liberals are happy when their pet projects are addressed. Conservatives seem happiest when the can infuriate liberals. It's sort of sad.
-
Trump is the champion of the common man. The left is out to lunch.
Not a common man with common sense.
-
Trump is the champion of the common man.
Indeed. Quoth HL Mencken:
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
-
Indeed. Quoth HL Mencken:
Quote
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
This is why Trump won and will win again. The absolute constant insults about people you don't agree with. They're morons, Nazis, ignorant, racists, well, downright deplorable. Isn't that what Hillary called us on the way to losing? You'll still doing it. It's as if you learned nothing. The left, the liberals and Democrats have total contempt for people who don't support their party line, don't agree with globalization, elite politics and crony capitalism, open borders and world government. They don't feel the pain of not being respected, that government does not care about them, laugh at their patriotism and faith. They laugh at the people who live in flyover country.
The Dems continue to besmirch Trump because they have no real agenda to regain these people who were traditional Democrats and were abandoned by their party, the party of the worker. It's amazing. Democrats and Republicans have reversed their traditional platforms. The Republicans have become the party of the workers, the common man and the Democrats have become the party of the elites. The Democrat party has forgotten who they were. They'll remain in the wilderness until they can find a path again that supports the majority of Americans.
-
America always seems to be helping out others. It would have been nice for more countries beside Mexico and Canada to show some class and friendship to us. Not much. Maybe a kayak or two.
We frequently send specialist fire fighters and equipment to the US (CA in particular) when you have particularly bad wild fires. We've sent other specialist for a variety of reasons, as do other nations when it's appropriate.
Generally, friends make offers through diplomatic channels and if they're needed, they do it - if not, nothing happens. You see the US helping because you're in the US. Lots of countries help a lot of others all the time.
-
Well, this isn't going to make donny happy! So, Trump give a prez pardon–maybe to tell Flynn and Manafort that good ol' prez Trump will pardon you–except, donny's pardon is Fed only. Won't do any good against state charges!
Mueller teams up with New York attorney general in Manafort probe (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/manafort-mueller-probe-attorney-general-242191)
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ap_16112506859867-1.jpg?w=575&quality=90&strip=info)
The cooperation is the latest sign that the investigation into Trump's former campaign chairman is intensifying.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.
The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump’s campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes.
The two teams have shared evidence and talked frequently in recent weeks about a potential case, these people said. One of the people familiar with progress on the case said both Mueller’s and Schneiderman’s teams have collected evidence on financial crimes, including potential money laundering.
No decision has been made on where or whether to file charges. “Nothing is imminent,” said one of the people familiar with the case.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been a constant thorn in Trump's side. Schneiderman was involved in the Trump University investigation (that cost Trump a cool $25mil) and he was been biting of the heels of Trump's foundation. Trump even filed a $100 million malicious prosecution case, which was dismissed.
Naw, Donny won't be happy about this turn of events.
-
He stepped into it again...the big orange dummy doesn't know about these things :~(
Trump's electoral threat against Sen. Claire McCaskill raises legal questions (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/trump-claire-mccaskill-ethics-missouri-242187)
(http://www.schewephoto.com/misc/90.jpeg)
President Donald Trump is not covered by the Hatch Act, the federal law prohibiting politicking while on official duty,
but White House officials are subject to the measure.
President Donald Trump’s public electoral threat Wednesday against Sen. Claire McCaskill during a speech in Missouri on tax reform triggered another round of questions about the administration’s blurring the line between partisan politics and official business.
Speaking at an industrial-fan factory in Springfield, Trump singled out McCaskill, a Democrat who is up for reelection next year in a state the president won decisively in 2016.
“We must — we have no choice — we must lower our taxes. And your senator, Claire McCaskill, she must do this for you, and if she doesn’t do it for you, you have to vote her out of office,” Trump said to loud applause and whistling from the audience. “She’s got to make that commitment. She’s got to make that commitment. If she doesn’t do it — we just can’t do this anymore with the obstruction and the obstructionists.”
Ethics experts said the main issue raised by the president’s comments is whether he was ad-libbing or whether White House aides planned for him to urge McCaskill’s defeat.
Trump is not covered by the Hatch Act, the federal law prohibiting politicking while on official duty, but White House officials are subject to the measure.
“The Office of Special Counsel should examine very closely if staffers were involved in the preparation of these remarks,” said Nick Schwellenbach, a former OSC official now with the Project on Government Oversight.
Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush and now a University of Minnesota law professor, underscored that point.
-
America always seems to be helping out others. It would have been nice for more countries beside Mexico and Canada to show some class and friendship to us. Not much. Maybe a kayak or two.
Well it's a flood, albeit a very serious one, in the richest most powerful country in the world. Just what could the rest of the world offer apart from money? It is logical for Mexico to offer help - they are neighbours. I don't think European countries would expect the USA to come to help us with natural disasters either.
We do actually have an unused sea-kayak in the garden but I fear the shipping costs would be very high.
I do have immense sympathy though for all the families and businesses affected - it must be a terrible time.
Jim
-
[...]
There is really nothing that a president can do or not do during a major natural disaster that won't piss off many people. That's just par for the job.
[...]
Well, showing some sincere compassion and offering relief rarely hurts anybody's emotions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Unfortunately, when it comes to large natural disasters, there is really nothing that a president can do ...
I agree with Otto. Doesn't matter what country, visiting disaster areas by presidents or prime ministers has evolved these days primarily to obligatory duties and PR opportunities.
Nothing wrong if they want to see first hand the disaster areas, but how it is handled now, in most cases it's a waste of the leader's time and taxpayers money. They should delegate such inspections to experts who are in charge of dealing with such disasters, know what they are doing and can act immediately to provide relief to the affected areas.
-
Well it's a flood, albeit a very serious one, in the richest most powerful country in the world. Just what could the rest of the world offer apart from money? It is logical for Mexico to offer help - they are neighbours. I don't think European countries would expect the USA to come to help us with natural disasters either.
Indeed. However, in the case of Mexico, things may still backfire for the reconstruction of Houston after the flooding.
For Houston’s many undocumented immigrants, storm is just the latest challenge
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/for-houstons-many-undocumented-immigrants-storm-is-just-the-latest-challenge/2017/08/28/210f5466-8c1d-11e7-84c0-02cc069f2c37_story.html?utm_term=.423f3d33f490
Houston is the fourth-largest city in the United States and one of the most diverse. Its metropolitan area, which includes the city and surrounding suburbs, has the third-largest unauthorized immigrant population in the country, about 575,000 people, according to a report this year by the Pew Research Center. Unauthorized immigrants made up 8.7 percent of the metro area’s population as of 2014, more than double the national average.
Advocates say Texas’s looming crackdown on illegal immigration has already driven many of those immigrants further into the shadows, and possibly, out of the state.
On Friday, Texas will officially outlaw sanctuary cities, threatening local police chiefs with jail time and city officials with losing their jobs if they do not help deport immigrants. The new law is being challenged in court by Houston and a number of other cities and localities.
Texas is also leading a coalition of GOP officials in 10 states threatening to sue President Trump if he doesn’t act by Sept. 5 to start phasing out the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has granted reprieves from deportation to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants.
Hernandez, who has DACA protection, said many immigrant families in Texas fear increased racial profiling, detentions and deportations in the state once the sanctuary law takes effect.
“As concerned as everyone is about the hurricane, we have another disaster that’s heading our way, led by the government, led by Trump,” said Hernandez, 29, who came to the United States from Puebla, Mexico, when he was 2 years old.
Eduardo Canales, director of the South Texas Human Rights Center, said the state is at risk of losing much-needed low-wage workers — cleaners, cooks, carpenters and landscapers — who because of the crackdown may not stick around to help Texas communities recover from the storm.
I've read elsewhere that "More than a quarter of all Texas construction workers are illegal aliens, according to a Pew Research study from November 2016" .There's a shortage of construction workers, plumbers, painters, carpenters, landscapers, etc., not only because of low wages, but also because there are simply not enough legal Americans to do the work. Since the illegal workers are being targeted by the Trump Administration, many are keeping a low profile (even those who also lost their home and belongings), or are going back to Mexico. Rebuilding Houston will require even more workers than were used for the normal expansion.
The U.S. Might Not Have Enough Construction Workers to Rebuild Houston After Harvey
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/08/28/houston_might_not_have_enough_construction_workers_to_rebuild_after_harvey.html
The first concern will be the financial resources necessary: Will insurance companies cover all the losses, and how much of them? How will the federal government’s heavily indebted flood insurance program come up with the cash to pay claims? And how much additional assistance will the federal government provide?
There’s another problem: a lack of human resources. It takes a lot of labor to remove debris after a storm and then reinstall Sheetrock and drywall, rebuild floors, and fix electrical and plumbing systems. The work is resistant to automation. And it is but one way in which Houston, which was poorly situated to deal with a hurricane, may also be poorly situated to recover from it.
The issue is that the United States is suffering from a shortage of workers generally, and specifically from a shortage of workers with some of the necessary skills to assist in disaster recovery.
I do have immense sympathy though for all the families and businesses affected - it must be a terrible time.
Yes, although it goes without saying, it may be worthwhile to mention it anyway. The loss of lives and the material losses are a tragedy, so we can only hope that these people receive all the support they deserve.
Cheers,
Bart
-
On Friday, Texas will officially outlaw sanctuary cities, threatening local police chiefs with jail time and city officials with losing their jobs if they do not help deport immigrants. The new law is being challenged in court by Houston and a number of other cities and localities.
A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the Texas government from enforcing the ban on "sanctuary cities" pending a lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality. A preliminary injunction is a fairly rare judicial intervention which is granted only after a judge concludes that a litigant is likely to prevail in a lawsuit, and would suffer irreparable injury if the enjoined action was permitted to be carried out.
I've read elsewhere that "More than a quarter of all Texas construction workers are illegal aliens, according to a Pew Research study from November 2016" .There's a shortage of construction workers, plumbers, painters, carpenters, landscapers, etc., not only because of low wages, but also because there are simply not enough legal Americans to do the work. Since the illegal workers are being targeted by the Trump Administration, many are keeping a low profile (even those who also lost their home and belongings), or are going back to Mexico. Rebuilding Houston will require even more workers than were used for the normal expansion.
It seemed that every young man I spoke to during a January visit to San Miguel de Allende—my wife and I decided Mexico was the only appropriate venue from which to experience the Trump inauguration—had done construction work in Texas at one time or another. Always without a visa that provided work authorization, no doubt, although I was reluctant to ask. One restaurant waiter told me he was looking forward to Trump's border wall. "I hope your Congress gives him the money," he said. "He is going to need a lot of Mexican workers to build it."
-
A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the Texas government from enforcing the ban on "sanctuary cities" pending a lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality.
If this goes to the Supreme Court, it will be an interesting case to follow. The federal government can authorize state and local LE organizations to enforce federal law, but it remains to be demonstrated that the federal government can require state and local LE organizations to enforce federal law.
It will be a most interesting case to follow.
-
.... One restaurant waiter told me he was looking forward to Trump's border wall. "I hope your Congress gives him the money," he said. "He is going to need a lot of Mexican workers to build it."
With floods like these in Houston Mexicans will simply sail into Texas making this wall the new Maginot Line.
-
Trump is the champion of the common man. The left is out to lunch.
Alan, you have been well and truly hoodwinked by a cheap carnival barker. A phony television huckster. An Anscochrome shyster of not inconsiderable theatrical skills. You, and the America you claim he stands for, are being well and truly fleeced.
The left indeed is out to lunch. They're sitting at the restaurant sipping their bordeaux and waiting until this all implodes so they can begin the massive cleanup.
-
IMHO a good summary of the rebuilding challenges after Harvey.
How Trump's immigration crackdown could slow flood-hit Houston's efforts to rebuild
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-harvey-immigration-idUSKCN1BA2M0
QUOTE August 30, 2017 / 10:22 PM "HOUSTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In the coming weeks, as Houston turns its attention to rebuilding areas devastated by Tropical Storm Harvey, people like Jay De Leon are likely to play an outsized role – if they stay around.
De Leon, 47, owns a small construction business in Houston, and he and his 10 employees do exactly the kind of demolition and refurbishing the city will need. But like a large number of construction workers in Texas, De Leon and most of his workers live in the United States illegally, and that could make things complicated.
The Pew Research Center estimated last year that 28 percent of Texas’s construction workforce is undocumented, while other studies have put the number as high as 50 percent. Construction employed 23 percent of working undocumented adults in Texas at the end of 2014, higher than any other sector, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
However, undocumented immigrants are growing increasingly nervous in Texas because of an immigration crackdown by the Trump administration that has cast a wide net.
In addition, undocumented immigrants were worried about a new Texas law that had been scheduled to take effect on Friday, which would have barred cities in the state from embracing so-called sanctuary policies that offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants, and would have allowed local police to inquire about a person’s immigration status.
That law was temporarily enjoined by a federal judge late Wednesday, but the state’s governor has vowed to appeal. "
Cheers,
Bart
-
IMHO a good summary of the rebuilding challenges after Harvey.
it is not for the simpe reason that illegal aliens are called "undocumented immigrants" ... it is high time to call things what they are and create a temp work visas for low skilled foreighners a-la bracero program, with the restrictions related to social security/medicare taxes collected from them and granting (NOT) citizenship to children of braceros born here... or better yet - detain illegal aliens, put in chain gangs and force to work in Houston to compensate for their own deportation...
-
IMHO a good summary of the rebuilding challenges after Harvey.
How Trump's immigration crackdown could slow flood-hit Houston's efforts to rebuild
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storm-harvey-immigration-idUSKCN1BA2M0
QUOTE August 30, 2017 / 10:22 PM "HOUSTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In the coming weeks, as Houston turns its attention to rebuilding areas devastated by Tropical Storm Harvey, people like Jay De Leon are likely to play an outsized role – if they stay around.
De Leon, 47, owns a small construction business in Houston, and he and his 10 employees do exactly the kind of demolition and refurbishing the city will need. But like a large number of construction workers in Texas, De Leon and most of his workers live in the United States illegally, and that could make things complicated.
The Pew Research Center estimated last year that 28 percent of Texas’s construction workforce is undocumented, while other studies have put the number as high as 50 percent. Construction employed 23 percent of working undocumented adults in Texas at the end of 2014, higher than any other sector, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
However, undocumented immigrants are growing increasingly nervous in Texas because of an immigration crackdown by the Trump administration that has cast a wide net.
In addition, undocumented immigrants were worried about a new Texas law that had been scheduled to take effect on Friday, which would have barred cities in the state from embracing so-called sanctuary policies that offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants, and would have allowed local police to inquire about a person’s immigration status.
That law was temporarily enjoined by a federal judge late Wednesday, but the state’s governor has vowed to appeal. "
Cheers,
Bart
The devastation in Texas will take many years to make good. One hopes it might also provoke a rethink of the wisdom of allowing huge urban sprawls on floodplains and in areas prone to devastating blows from storms, etc. Maybe it will even provoke a rebuild plan on higher ground many tens of miles inland. Huge amounts of relatively inexpensive labour will be required any which way, so the reality of that will bite regardless of what anyone thinks at the top. It just depends on how much hypocrisy and turning a blind eye folks are prepared to tolerate. Some kind of sensible, humane temporary migrant come work permit plan is the obvious answer but just for that reason it's probably not the one which will be adopted, at least by the current crowd. If you spend your time claiming folks from south of the border are dirty rapists et al then it's mighty hard to sit down and working something out with them when it turns out you actually need to.
-
If you spend your time claiming folks from south of the border are dirty rapists
they are illegal aliens and they break the law... so for as long as alt-left will be playing idiots by calling them "undocumented immigrants" alt-right will be in their right to call them "dirty rapists" ... lie vs lie ;D
-
they are illegal aliens
Reminds me of a story at Immigration. Officer tells people approaching: "If you're a US citizen take the right lane, if you're an alien take the left lane". This guy walks up to him and asks "I'm not a US citizen, but I am from earth, which line should I take?" ;)
-
they are illegal aliens and they break the law... so for as long as alt-left will be playing idiots by calling them "undocumented immigrants" alt-right will be in their right to call them "dirty rapists" ... lie vs lie ;D
I'm afraid that makes no sense on any level. The whole point is that reality shows it all up for what it is, i.e. playing politics. If there is a need for lots of inexpensive labour, as there probably will be in the aftermath of Harvey, it's a straightforward practical matter: what you gonna do?
Over here there's been much crowing about fewer folks coming over to harvest crops and pick fruits, fewer of the "Poles" which some here now use as a general term of abuse for anyone from Eastern European they don't like. It will soon turn to howling when the food rots in the fields and shop prices double. That's the problem with bigotry: turns out it doesn't feed you, clothe you, build your house or repair your roads. Sad!
-
I'm afraid that makes no sense on any level. The whole point is that reality shows it all up for what it is, i.e. playing politics. If there is a need for lots of inexpensive labour, as there probably will be in the aftermath of Harvey, it's a straightforward practical matter: what you gonna do?
see few posts above... forced labor of detained illegal aliens and bracero program shall do... but alt-left more interested to sabotage the country
-
...If there is a need for lots of inexpensive labour...
Who said it has to be inexpensive?
I have a friend who had its own small-scale construction company... couldn't find work after the Great Recession, had to resort to driving a school bus. Plenty of his friends too. If America has something in large quantities, it is construction workers. Just pay them decently.
-
These two photographs say more about the "Presidentialness" of the first family than a zillion pages of this thread ever could.
Black stiletto heels on Air Force One, and USA and FLOTUS ball caps? Really?
clicking on the first image several times allows you to view both of them sequentially
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/us/trump-texas-harvey.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=thumb&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
Meet the author of the stiletto diatribe:
-
Who said it has to be inexpensive?
I have a friend who had its own small-scale construction company... couldn't find work after the Great Recession, had to resort to driving a school bus. Plenty of his friends too. If America has something in large quantities, it is construction workers. Just pay them decently.
I completely agree with you. However, that may require a fairly big political reset in which corporations are discouraged from pocketing the money from cheap labour but dumping the social costs on the taxpayer. That in turn means dismantling their networks of influence and lobbying some of which are very powerful (agriculture here, for example). Similar situation here albeit on a smaller scale and it hasn't been cracked yet.
-
... a fairly big political reset in which corporations are discouraged from pocketing the money from cheap labour but dumping the social costs on the taxpayer...
Hence the proposal to fine big corporations $1 million for every instance of illegal labor.
-
If you fine them for hiring illegals, more U.S. corporations will flee to overseas slave markets. Even Trump cannot stop the globalist bankers. We are either headed for Gattaca or Mad Max. Either way we're screwed.
Self-sufficiency and a smaller population are the only long-term answer. We don't need cheaper labor. We need better robots.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tptS1k6BH1c/TlE71hqGAhI/AAAAAAAAA80/HqYGfxdKtzc/s1600/chinese-chicken-factory.jpg)
-
Meet the author of the stiletto diatribe:
The Devil wears Nada. PRAY NOT.
That bag lady lectures Melania about taste?
(https://www.balharbourshops.com/images/Profiles/LynnYaegerReserved/new-york-yaeger.jpg)
She has much to learn from first ladies, et al.
(http://www.relook.ru/data/cache/2014mar/24/39/119955_96099nothumb500.jpg)
-
Meet the author of the stiletto diatribe:
Yah, except that I posted that topic here long before it appeared anywhere in social media.
-
The Devil wears Nada. PRAY NOT.
That biddy lectures Melania about taste?
Maybe she wears stilettos only with her evening dress.
-
Speaking of fashion faux pas, the Democratic Party should spruce up their summer wardrobe.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-514ae70aeaae2bc59c7c2ac58286a0c4-c)
-
Hence the proposal to fine big corporations $1 million for every instance of illegal labor.
A finger in the dam. The reason is that on its own such a proposal will be easily undermined - lobbying, loopholes, corruption in the form of massive political donations to the lawmakers who then respond with tax breaks, etc. What's needed is a new social settlement between government and people which involves putting overmighty corporations back in their box. Take skills and apprenticeship schemes, for example - I think these are vital for the future of any good country. But no corporation is going to bother participating when they can import the same skills for less via migrant labour and dump the social costs on the taxpayer. At the same time, a vicious circle is created in which a country with not enough skills in the workforce continues to be de-skilled by corporations importing cheaper labour from elsewhere. Corporations need to be tied into and obliged to take some responsibility for the countries in which they operate. The past half century has allowed them to float free and become supra-national with malign results.
-
There seem to be a lot of assumptions being made. 1, people are assuming that there is a problem and 2, the cause is illegal immigration.
Maybe what's going on is that the problem is a labour shortage and that the various governance authorities (government at various levels, corporate, etc.) have failed to address it. If the economy can absorb 11 to 13 million illegal workers, maybe it's because the USA needs them and that the "market" is attempting to solve the shortage problem through illegal immigration. Now this is obviously not a good way to address the issue, but while companies wait for the various "leaders" to take action, there is work that needs doing, so they get on with it.
Aside from emotional resentment of "foreigners" coupled with perceived native unemployment, is there really a problem that needs to be fixed here and will stopping illegal immigrant flow fix it? Especially considering that immigration from Mexico has been decreasing for years and in fact many are returning to Mexico because of improved economic conditions there. Are people lathering themselves into a frenzy worrying about something that is going away anyway?
Imo, it's probably healthy to be a little skeptical of measures that attack low-hanging fruit? For years, they arrested local drug dealers as if the illegal drug situation was a supply problem and not a demand problem. Did that work?
-
Who said it has to be inexpensive?
it has to be (fat yankees need a stick too) - but it has to be within some legal framework and w/o any obligations to them in terms of any soc.sec or other benefits and anchors/pathways in terms residency, citizenship for workers & their children... use it and discard it ...
-
There seem to be a lot of assumptions being made. 1, people are assuming that there is a problem and 2, the cause is illegal immigration.
Maybe what's going on is that the problem is a labour shortage and that the various governance authorities (government at various levels, corporate, etc.) have failed to address it. If the economy can absorb 11 to 13 million illegal workers, maybe it's because the USA needs them and that the "market" is attempting to solve the shortage problem through illegal immigration. Now this is obviously not a good way to address the issue, but while companies wait for the various "leaders" to take action, there is work that needs doing, so they get on with it.
Aside from emotional resentment of "foreigners" coupled with perceived native unemployment, is there really a problem that needs to be fixed here and will stopping illegal immigrant flow fix it? Especially considering that immigration from Mexico has been decreasing for years and in fact many are returning to Mexico because of improved economic conditions there. Are people lathering themselves into a frenzy worrying about something that is going away anyway?
Imo, it's probably healthy to be a little skeptical of measures that attack low-hanging fruit? For years, they arrested local drug dealers as if the illegal drug situation was a supply problem and not a demand problem. Did that work?
Huh? We're currently seeing one of the biggest migrations in human history all across the world, going by numbers anyway. Millions of people are fleeing poverty, failed states, religious disasters and climate change and they are heading north towards Europe and North America, mainly. We only see our little bit of it where we live, but the larger picture is more sobering and more startling. If or when climate change starts to bite, with heat and water shortages rendering whole areas effectively uninhabitable and unable to sustain agriculture, the migrations will only increase. In Western democracies, crooked demagogues offer easy answers based on xenophobia such as things will be fine if we ban Mexicans, chuck out Polish people and leave the EC, blame the gang next door, whatever. The same fellows then deny climate change and cut off foreign aid. It's rotgut and only makes things worse. There are no easy answers. In my view this is a huge problem for the world. Unchecked migration will result in carnage unless managed. Part of that will be tackling the causes back in the developing world where it starts. This will be one of the biggest issues to tackle in the next half century. A start would be getting people who recognize what's going on. That means planning for something better than the likes of Trump.
-
Huh? We're currently seeing one of the biggest migrations in human history all across the world, going by numbers anyway. Millions of people are fleeing poverty, failed states, religious disasters and climate change and they are heading north towards Europe and North America, mainly. We only see our little bit of it where we live, but the larger picture is more sobering and more startling. If or when climate change starts to bite, with heat and water shortages rendering whole areas effectively uninhabitable and unable to sustain agriculture, the migrations will only increase. In Western democracies, crooked demagogues offer easy answers based on xenophobia such as things will be fine if we ban Mexicans, chuck out Polish people and leave the EC, blame the gang next door, whatever. The same fellows then deny climate change and cut off foreign aid. It's rotgut and only makes things worse. There are no easy answers. In my view this is a huge problem for the world. Unchecked migration will result in carnage unless managed. Part of that will be tackling the causes back in the developing world where it starts. This will be one of the biggest issues to tackle in the next half century. A start would be getting people who recognize what's going on. That means planning for something better than the likes of Trump.
The sky isn't falling. While migration is in the few millions, that's an tiny number compared to the 7+ billion people on earth.
Also, you're confusing patriotism and nationalism with xenophobia. Whether in America or Britain, people are loyal to their nation. Despite the EU, Germans care little about France and the French care little about anyone other then themselves. Let's get real.
Regarding Trump, America rejected the corruption, elitism and globalism of the Clintons. Trump is an nationalist and patriot which used to be considered quality traits for Presidents. While he cares about others, he puts Americans first. He replaced Obama who put the world first. It's what happened with Brexit in your Britain.
-
Aside from emotional resentment of "foreigners" coupled with perceived native unemployment, is there really a problem that needs to be fixed here and will stopping illegal immigrant flow fix it?
It depends on which problem, and on the perspective of the person talking about it. There are a number of types of "illegal immigrants" (many of whom, by the way, technically are not "immigrants" within the meaning of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act).
We have people who enter the country unlawfully. These include people who enter without inspection—that is, they sneak across a border—and people who enter fraudulently: for example, they enter as tourists or other short-term visitors but actually are intending immigrants, they enter under a false pretext as a spouse or prospective spouse of a citizen, etc.
We have people who enter lawfully, but whose presence subsequently becomes unlawful after they arrive. For example, people who enter under a visa or visa waiver agreement that does not permit them to work, but then accept a job offer. (Prospective employers are supposed to verify that foreign applicants are authorized to work in the United States, but those pre-hiring checks are often cursory and only the most blatant employer-violators are likely to be caught and sanctioned by the government.)
We have people who enter lawfully and simply overstay their visas or the terms of the visa waiver agreements with their countries of origin.
There are also some special categories, the best-known of which is people who entered the country with their parents as young children and who assumed they were U.S. citizens or permanent residents—only to discover that they are neither. (These are the so-called DREAMers, a double entendre on the term "American Dream" and the acronym of a proposed law, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, that Congress considered but never enacted).
All these people are technically subject to deportation or voluntary departure (an administrative agreement by the foreigner to leave the United States by a specified date), even if they haven’t committed any crime. During the latter years of the Obama Administration, the government emphasized the removal of criminal aliens and tended to leave the rest alone. It's not clear to what extent the Trump Administration will continue this policy. Interestingly, two U.S. immigration agencies—the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement—issued a joint statement earlier this week saying they would not routinely target law-abiding aliens at evacuation sites, shelters, or food banks in the flooded areas of Texas.
-
If you fine them for hiring illegals, more U.S. corporations will flee to overseas slave markets. Even Trump cannot stop the globalist bankers. We are either headed for Gattaca or Mad Max. Either way we're screwed.
Self-sufficiency and a smaller population are the only long-term answer. We don't need cheaper labor. We need better robots.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tptS1k6BH1c/TlE71hqGAhI/AAAAAAAAA80/HqYGfxdKtzc/s1600/chinese-chicken-factory.jpg)
I don't have the figures. But I would think that most of the illegals are farm hands, construction workers, or work in restaurants and other smaller type businesses. Those jobs and businesses can't be exported. Of course, these people take jobs away from Americans.
Larger corporations do "flee" overseas for cheaper labor against keeping production here and using higher cost legal American workers. Or they import foreigners under work plans such as what Silicon Valley does with Indian engineers to pay less for American jobs.
-
... For years, they arrested local drug dealers as if the illegal drug situation was a supply problem and not a demand problem. Did that work?
Well, I suppose if it weren't for all those pesky banks that sprung up all over the place, we wouldn't have a problem with bank robbers. Maybe we shouldn't jail them either.
-
Well, I suppose if it weren't for all those pesky banks that sprung up all over the place, we wouldn't have a problem with bank robbers. Maybe we shouldn't jail them either.
Cute. But I ask again, did arresting all those drug dealers work?
-
Cute. But I ask again, did arresting all those drug dealers work?
No better than arresting all those bank robbers. :)
-
Well, this was a Fox poll...so, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Fox News Poll: Candid? Yes. Presidential? Not so much. Voters describe Trump (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/fox-news-poll-candid-yes-presidential-not-so-much-voters-describe-trump.html)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/08/31/fox-news-poll-candid-yes-presidential-not-so-much-voters-describe-trump/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-8/embed_image/image.img.png/612/344/1504217861523.png?ve=1&tl=1)
President Donald Trump says what he thinks -- a majority agrees on that. Maybe that’s part of the reason most don’t call him presidential.
The latest Fox News Poll asks voters how well several words and phrases apply to the president.
Trump is most defined by the “says what he thinks” trait. More than 8-in-10 voters think that describes him “extremely” or “very” well (81 percent).
The only other term a majority agrees fits is “bully” (53 percent).
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2017/08/31/fox-news-poll-candid-yes-presidential-not-so-much-voters-describe-trump/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-12/embed_image/image.img.png/612/344/1504217873167.png?ve=1&tl=1)
“For past presidents, the traits that correlate most powerfully with increased support are ‘strong leader’ and ‘compassionate,’” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democratic counterpart Chris Anderson.
“Trump gets points for candor, but he needs to convince more people he is strong and empathetic.”
“The country’s faced two crises recently, with the racial violence in Charlottesville and Hurricane Harvey in Houston,” says Anderson.
“So far, voters see Trump as sorely lacking the strong, compassionate, moral leadership necessary in these difficult times.”
Too bad they didn't have the term "Big Orange Dummy"...I wonder what percent that would have garnered?
-
The sky isn't falling. While migration is in the few millions, that's an tiny number compared to the 7+ billion people on earth.
Also, you're confusing patriotism and nationalism with xenophobia. Whether in America or Britain, people are loyal to their nation. Despite the EU, Germans care little about France and the French care little about anyone other then themselves. Let's get real.
Regarding Trump, America rejected the corruption, elitism and globalism of the Clintons. Trump is an nationalist and patriot which used to be considered quality traits for Presidents. While he cares about others, he puts Americans first. He replaced Obama who put the world first. It's what happened with Brexit in your Britain.
Getting real doesn't involve discounting what's before our eyes, Alan. That's what politicians do. If a sprawling coastal city hadn't been built on a floodplain at a time of climate change - not a great idea in retrospect - we wouldn't be so taken up with Harvey. Or with even more devastating floods in Asia. Climate change and failed states are going to drive massive instability and consequent population movements. Things won't just carry on as they have.
Also, Brexit and Trump are not the same. Different folks, different strokes. Brexit will be very damaging, I think, but demographics likely mean that most of the damage will be voted out within a decade as the oldies die off. Young people here generally don't want to damage their life chances with nationalism. It's fuelled war after war in Europe. Why do you think the EC was founded?
-
I'm no economist, but if it's cheaper to make stuff in China, how do we boost our exports without creating an underclass of wage slaves in our own country?
We could lower corporate taxes, but our debt will get worse.
We could tax imports, but that will burden American consumers.
We could tax the rich and spread the love, but there's not enough rich people to go around.
We could relax environmental protections, but we'll all get cancer.
Maybe these guys should have never shaken hands.
Maybe its time for China to free its people and for the West to stop dealing in proxy slavery.
Perhaps we got what we deserve.
(http://p1.img.cctvpic.com/photoworkspace/contentimg/2017/02/21/2017022109021759404.jpg)
-
I'm no economist, but if it's cheaper to make stuff in China, how do we boost our exports without creating an underclass of wage slaves in our own country?
Either make 'better' products with better prices, and/or use import duties (but expect that others will do the same for your products). Another thing could be to sell more 'services' instead of products. Trade agreements can be used to set some game rules.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Brexit and Trump are not the same. Different folks, different strokes. Brexit will be very damaging, I think, but demographics likely mean that most of the damage will be voted out within a decade as the oldies die off. Young people here generally don't want to damage their life chances with nationalism. It's fuelled war after war in Europe. Why do you think the EC was founded?
"Every generation, blames the one before, " - The Living Years - Mike and the Mechanics.
The reality is that opportunities to make real change don't come along that often and you need to use them. They are not on Facebook and Twitter. Brexit and Trump were both elections. All "young" people had to do was not drink so much the night before, put down the selfie stick, get out of bed, and vote. They weren't even compulsory elections and probably only a few votes were needed. Pretty easy to move a result one way or the other really.
The "problem" with "oldies" is that they actually believe that they should vote, so they do.
-
Getting real doesn't involve discounting what's before our eyes, Alan. That's what politicians do. If a sprawling coastal city hadn't been built on a floodplain at a time of climate change - not a great idea in retrospect - we wouldn't be so taken up with Harvey. Or with even more devastating floods in Asia. Climate change and failed states are going to drive massive instability and consequent population movements. Things won't just carry on as they have.
Also, Brexit and Trump are not the same. Different folks, different strokes. Brexit will be very damaging, I think, but demographics likely mean that most of the damage will be voted out within a decade as the oldies die off. Young people here generally don't want to damage their life chances with nationalism. It's fuelled war after war in Europe. Why do you think the EC was founded?
Where I live in New Jersey, it's been about ten degrees cooler for a few weeks than normal for this time in summer.
Regarding young people and nationalism, when the sh!t hits the fan, economics goes out the window and people reach for guns to defend their land. The EC is OK as a trade agreement. But it seems the objection to it is when it steps on individual national rights and power and democracy.
-
I'm no economist, but if it's cheaper to make stuff in China, how do we boost our exports without creating an underclass of wage slaves in our own country?
We could lower corporate taxes, but our debt will get worse.
We could tax imports, but that will burden American consumers.
We could tax the rich and spread the love, but there's not enough rich people to go around.
We could relax environmental protections, but we'll all get cancer.
Maybe these guys should have never shaken hands.
Maybe its time for China to free its people and for the West to stop dealing in proxy slavery.
Perhaps we got what we deserve.
It is an issue not easily resolved. The trick is that each country has to be good at certain things. Since we can't compete on labor cost, we have to focus on things that have high cost but minimal labor to build it. Cheap goods like clothing is hard to compete with since they're also labor intensive. Building jet planes and high cost instrumentation are examples where we can compete.
But it's getting harder and harder. Frankly, I think what's happened is that overall, a lot of countries can now compete with us in more areas than ever before. After WWII, there were few. But things have changed over the years. We may have to accept a lower standard of living for the middle class especially. The other issue is that China has stolen most of our military and commercial secrets and design and just copied them. It's estimate that it's between US$300-$500 billion a year that America loses. How much if you include Europe and other countries, who knows?
-
How are we going to outmuscle the world technologically and raise our standard of living if Americans are getting dumber?
Perhaps it's time to scrap the "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses" beatitude and opt, instead, for a more Darwinian immigration policy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/researchers-western-iqs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QA96K-Zxnyw/hqdefault.jpg)
-
It is an issue not easily resolved. The trick is that each country has to be good at certain things. Since we can't compete on labor cost, we have to focus on things that have high cost but minimal labor to build it. Cheap goods like clothing is hard to compete with since they're also labor intensive. Building jet planes and high cost instrumentation are examples where we can compete.
But it's getting harder and harder. Frankly, I think what's happened is that overall, a lot of countries can now compete with us in more areas than ever before. After WWII, there were few. But things have changed over the years. We may have to accept a lower standard of living for the middle class especially. The other issue is that China has stolen most of our military and commercial secrets and design and just copied them. It's estimate that it's between US$300-$500 billion a year that America loses. How much if you include Europe and other countries, who knows?
Hi Alan,
Indeed, a race for cheap labor cannot be won by 'developed' countries in the West if compared to 'developing' countries, it would amount to a race to the bottom, and to collapse. So that's why I mentioned Better products for Better prices. Just use the cheaper products from elsewhere to improve/leverage local productivity, rather than simply consuming those foreign products.
'Better' could mean 'more environmentally friendly', but alas, your current government declared war on that prospect. Maybe your industry visionaries are more clever than the leadership of your nation before international Carbon taxes become a fact of life.
'Better' could also mean 'more innovative' since such products in the early stages of their product life cycle have better prices (to recoup R&D cost, but also generate profit to fund new R&D). Unfortunately, US education quality is apparently poor enough that foreign workers need to be employed, which is even made more difficult by the current government.
Reducing the level of manufactured, in favor of augmented/assembled 'Raw' products from other sources, can also prove to be profitable.
Increasing the purchasing power of the dwindling middle-class incomes helps to boost the economy. Also, anticipating on the development of the demographic profile of the nation and technology advances can help to focus on opportunities ahead of time instead of in the past (like focusing on e.g. coal mining jobs that have already been replaced by automation and different (surface excavation) technologies). Making better use of the skills of the baby-boom generation, and anticipating on the reduced workforce numbers in a decade (or two/three), reducing cost involve in Medical needs, etc., all normal things a government should be working on (instead spending most of its efforts on getting re-elected), etc., etc.
The list goes on but falls on deaf man's ears, since the current government seems more interested in destructing the prior government's 'achievements' rather than building on them and/or improving them. It also seems to prefer to disrupt international connections, instead of using them wisely.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Alan,
Indeed, a race for cheap labor cannot be won by 'developed' countries in the West if compared to 'developing' countries, it would amount to a race to the bottom, and to collapse. So that's why I mentioned Better products for Better prices. Just use the cheaper products from elsewhere to improve/leverage local productivity, rather than simply consuming those foreign products.
'Better' could mean 'more environmentally friendly', but alas, your current government declared war on that prospect. Maybe your industry visionaries are more clever than the leadership of your nation before international Carbon taxes become a fact of life.
'Better' could also mean 'more innovative' since such products in the early stages of their product life cycle have better prices (to recoup R&D cost, but also generate profit to fund new R&D). Unfortunately, US education quality is apparently poor enough that foreign workers need to be employed, which is even made more difficult by the current government.
Reducing the level of manufactured, in favor of augmented/assembled 'Raw' products from other sources, can also prove to be profitable.
Increasing the purchasing power of the dwindling middle-class incomes helps to boost the economy. Also, anticipating on the development of the demographic profile of the nation and technology advances can help to focus on opportunities ahead of time instead of in the past (like focusing on e.g. coal mining jobs that have already been replaced by automation and different (surface excavation) technologies). Making better use of the skills of the baby-boom generation, and anticipating on the reduced workforce numbers in a decade (or two/three), reducing cost involve in Medical needs, etc., all normal things a government should be working on (instead spending most of its efforts on getting re-elected), etc., etc.
The list goes on but falls on deaf man's ears, since the current government seems more interested in destructing the prior government's 'achievements' rather than building on them and/or improving them. It also seems to prefer to disrupt international connections, instead of using them wisely.
Cheers,
Bart
Government does not create wealth. People do through companies and personal business activities. Capital investment from private sources and free markets are the engines of wealth and jobs. If anything, government hurts these things because of taxes, subsidies, regulations and re-distribution of wealth.
Government's proper use is to create a level playing field and a court system where disagreements between private parties can be resolved. Government shouldn't play favorites except in security matters like defense. Even there, competition should be encouraged. Taxes and regulation should be kept at a minimum. Deficit spending, borrowing and printing money must be kept low.
If you do these things, America or any country would maximize their country's wealth, create jobs for everyone and drive their economies to highest levels.
-
So, explain to me how it's NOT a major problem that the president of the United States of America owes a foreign bank hundreds of millions of dollars? How can this NOT be rife with the very strong possibility of conflicts of interests?
Donald Trump owes Deutsche Bank big bucks (http://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-owes-deutsche-bank-big-bucks/a-40311391)
For many years, Deutsche Bank has been among the largest lenders to the real estate empire of Donald Trump (http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-deutsche-bank-is-attempting-a-major-restructuring-once-again/a-37818688). Now that Trump is US president, this relationship has been generating scrutiny - in part because Deutsche has a number of outstanding regulatory issues to resolve with the US federal government.
One of those issues is a Department of Justice investigation into the bank's role in a Russian "mirror-trading" scheme that allowed some Russian oligarchs to trade rubles for dollars and thereby funnel money out of Russia (http://www.dw.com/en/deutsche-bank-fined-425-million-over-suspicious-russia-trades/a-37343153) This was a money-laundering scheme designed, in part, to allow oligarchs with close ties to the Kremlin to dodge sanctions imposed on them by the US in the wake of the 2014 Ukraine crisis.
This investigation has nothing to do with Trump - he is not alleged to have had any role in the activities being investigated - but the fact that he is president means that any decisions taken by US federal regulators about Deutsche will provoke questions about conflicts of interest, according to Norman Eisen, who was ethics counsellor in the Obama White House, in a recent interview with the Financial Times (FT).
(http://www.dw.com/image/40312758_401.jpg)
The Old Post Office Building in Washington DC was redeveloped by the Trump organization into a Trump International
Hotel for about $200 million
"Whether it's the investigation, the regulatory climate [or] a hundred other ways that Deutsche Bank is affected by the federal government, if they have this leverage over Donald Trump now, having seen how he operates, I think it's entirely legitimate to question whether he'll be even-handed," Eisen told FT.
Potential conflict of interests
One might note that it's also legitimate to question whether a former official in the Obama White House like Eisen will be even-handed in commenting on Donald Trump's business affairs. Moreover, the Justice Department is headed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, not by Donald Trump, so any top-level guidance on how the department should approach its Deutsche Bank file would therefore come from Sessions.
However, Sessions has already come under fire from Trump for what the president sees as Sessions' insufficient loyalty. This has generated Beltway speculation that if Trump were to quietly ask Sessions to go easy on Deutsche, Sessions would have an incentive to go along, in order to avoid further stoking the ire of his mercurial boss.
Trump's financial disclosure data
According to documents called Financial Disclosure Reports submitted by Trump to the US Office of Government Ethics, published the documents in June (http://www.dw.com/en/trump-releases-financial-disclosure-for-2016/a-39287705), Trump owns assets worth billions of dollars within a portfolio of 565 companies. He also had substantial debts - totaling at least $315 million (266 million euros) - in connection with several real estate projects. Most of that money was owed to Deutsche Bank.
According to FT's article, "Deutsche declined to comment on legal matters, the structuring of its loans, the nature of the guarantees or its relationship with Mr Trump. Spokespeople for the Trump Organization did not respond to emails."
-
Doooh... heal vs heel? Will he ever learn? Prolly not...learning ain't something that Trump is good at.
Brain genius Donald Trump again misspells “heal,” a monosyllabic word (http://www.avclub.com/brain-genius-donald-trump-again-misspells-heal-a-mon-1798704450)
The president has suffered withering defeats in his short tenure at the hands of Republican leadership, the U.S. courts, and in some—but not all—of his handshakes with foreign leaders. We can add to that list of foes who have matched wits with the president and found him wanting the category of “monosyllabic words,” in particular the word “heal,” which he has misspelled as “heel” at least three times in the past month. Earlier today, he fired off this missive, a call for unity, extremely presidential, etc.:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIov9B3VYAE1_vY.jpg:small)
A few minutes later, the tweet was corrected...
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Texas is healing fast thanks to all of the great men & women who have been working so hard. But still so much to do. Will be back tomorrow!
7:58 AM - Sep 1, 2017
13,416 13,416 Replies 12,625 12,625 Retweets 62,869 62,869 likes
And, of course, it's now a meme...
Evan DeSimone @Smorgasboredom
I'm sure "heel" get the hang of this eventually.
6:56 AM - Sep 1, 2017
Aaron Blake ✔ @AaronBlake
You might say Trump wants to heel the entire U.S. gov't
7:09 AM - Sep 1, 2017
Anthony De Rosa 🗽 ✔ @Anthony
Heel get it right one of these days.
6:55 AM - Sep 1, 2017
The last time he spewed up the heel spelling was after Charlottesville, when he had to take three cracks at this tweet (https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/trump-heel-tweet/) in order to not spell “heal” as “heel”...
(https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/685/a4/0646b52d99ca0a19.png)
And Trump voters thought Trump was smart?
-
I predict a real train wreck pretty soon at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Forceful Chief of Staff Grates on Trump, and the Feeling Is Mutual (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/forceful-chief-of-staff-grates-on-trump-and-the-feeling-is-mutual/ar-AAr6yp4)
(http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAr6qPe.img?h=486&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)
John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has regimented the flow of paper, people and information inundating
an omnivorous and undisciplined President Trump.
WASHINGTON — President Trump was in an especially ornery mood after staff members gently suggested he refrain from injecting politics into day-to-day issues of governing after last month’s raucous rally in Arizona, and he responded by lashing out at the most senior aide in his presence.
It happened to be his new chief of staff, John F. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly, the former Marine general brought in five weeks ago as the successor to Reince Priebus, reacted calmly, but he later told other White House staff members that he had never been spoken to like that during 35 years of serving his country. In the future, he said, he would not abide such treatment, according to three people familiar with the exchange.
While Mr. Kelly has quickly brought some order to a disorganized and demoralized staff, he is fully aware of the president’s volcanic resentment about being managed, according to a dozen people close to Mr. Trump, and has tread gingerly through the minefield of Mr. Trump’s psyche. But the president has still bridled at what he perceives as being told what to do.
Like every other new sheriff in town Mr. Trump has hired to turn things around at the White House or in his presidential campaign, Mr. Kelly has gradually diminished in his appeal to his restless boss. What is different this time is that Mr. Trump, mired in self-destructive controversies and record-low approval ratings, needs Mr. Kelly more than Mr. Kelly needs him. Unlike many of the men and women eager to work for Mr. Trump over the years, the new chief of staff signed on reluctantly, more out of a sense of duty than a need for affirmation, personal enrichment or fame.
--snip--
And he has moved swiftly to dispatch aides he deems unqualified by temperament, experience or credential with a minimum of drama and fuss. Mr. Kelly, people close to the president said, backed the removals of Mr. Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, a flame-throwing White House staff member known more for his cable TV tirades than strategic acumen, and Anthony Scaramucci, the short-lived communications director who self-immolated in an expletive-filled interview with The New Yorker in July.
The chief of staff keeps his own counsel and travels light. He brought over only a small handful of staff members from the Department of Homeland Security, and confides to an even smaller circle, which includes Leon E. Panetta, for whom he served as a top aide when Mr. Panetta was defense secretary in the Obama administration.
But how long Mr. Kelly and the president, two men with such divergent approaches to the common goal of Mr. Trump’s success, will be able to coexist is unclear.
Mr. Kelly has not been talking about it, apart from saying he is committed to stabilizing the staff in the White House.
But one associate who spoke to Mr. Kelly last month said the former commander had remarked that his current assignment was by far the hardest job he had ever had. His favorite gig, he jokes, was his first: Marine grunt.
-
Uh ho...president snowflake is suffering from depression? Don't do it Donny!!!
Eric Trump Warns That Your Criticism Is Depressing Trump And Making Him Suicidal (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/08/30/eric-trump-warns-criticism-depressing-trump-making-suicidal.html)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-07-27T141402Z_1_LYNXMPED6Q1DE_RTROPTP_3_USA-HEALTHCARE-TRUMP-701x430.jpg)
During a radio interview, Eric Trump discussed the mental instability of his father by saying that the President Of The United States has to tune out criticism or else he would commit suicide.
During a radio interview, Eric Trump discussed the mental instability of his father by saying that the President Of The United States has to tune out criticism or else he would commit suicide.
Audio of interview (https://youtu.be/RQqV7aFJYzs)
(http://www.informationliberation.com/files/694940094001_4780320685001_698a0cc6-667b-43ca-af9f-4a5e844a782b.jpg)
Eric Trump said, “It’s the media, the mainstream media, who does not want him to succeed. It’s government who does not want him to succeed. People who are very comfortable in their white marble offices in Washington, DC who he compromises and he threatens in some way, shape or form/ They’ve never had to deal with somebody who’s an outsider who won’t put up with nonsense, and this is the result no matter what he does, he’s going to get hit, and listen, I think you have to tune it out. You obviously have to be tuned into it because you have to know what’s being said, but at the same time you have to take it all with a grain of salt, and you know, if they weren’t talking about you, you wouldn’t be doing something right and it’s important to keep it in context, otherwise quite frankly you’d probably end up killing yourself out of depression.”
-
This is what the Defense Secretary James Mattis thinks...
Mattis to US troops: 'Hold the line until our country gets back to respecting each other' (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/348099-mattis-to-us-troops-hold-the-line-until-our-country-gets-back-to-respecting)
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/mattisjames_032217kc2_lead.jpg?itok=z65eNddY)
Defense Secretary James Mattis gave a pep talk to U.S. troops stationed abroad during his trip to three countries last week.
In a video (https://www.facebook.com/usawtfm/videos/10155815797353606/) that has recently surfaced on social media, Mattis is seen speaking to U.S. troops in an unknown location. In his remarks to the troops, Mattis said the U.S. is facing “problems.”
“Our country right now, it’s got problems we don’t have in the military,” Mattis said. “You just hold the line until our country gets back to understanding and respecting each other and showing it.”
Mattis said the U.S. has “two powers” — “inspiration” and “intimidation.”
“We’ve got the power of intimidation, and that’s you, if someone wants to screw with our families, our country and our allies,” Mattis said. “The power of inspiration — [and] we’ll get the power of inspiration back.”
He also thanked the troops for their service and said he came out of retirement to “serve alongside young people like you who are so selfless and, frankly, so rambunctious.”
Yep, the general is right...we got problems right now...just hold on till we can fix this crap!
-
Kushners’ China Deal Flop Was Part of Much Bigger Hunt for Cash (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-kushners-china-deal-flop-was-part-of-much-bigger-hunt-for-cash/)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/jared2.jpg)
Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser, wakes up each morning to a growing problem that will not go away. His family’s real estate business, Kushner Cos., owes hundreds of millions of dollars on a 41-story office building on Fifth Avenue. It has failed to secure foreign investors, despite an extensive search, and its resources are more limited than generally understood. As a result, the company faces significant challenges.
Over the past two years, executives and family members have sought substantial overseas investment from previously undisclosed places: South Korea’s sovereign-wealth fund, France’s richest man, Israeli banks and insurance companies, and exploratory talks with a Saudi developer, according to former and current executives. These were in addition to previously reported attempts to raise money in China and Qatar.
The family, once one of the largest landlords on the East Coast, sold thousands of apartments to finance its purchase of the tower in 2007 and has borrowed extensively for other purchases. They are walking away from a Brooklyn hotel once considered central to their plans for an office hub. From other properties, they are extracting cash, including tens of millions in borrowed funds from the recently acquired former New York Times building. What’s more, their partner in the Fifth Avenue building, Vornado Realty Trust, headed by Steve Roth, has stood aside, allowing the Kushners to pursue financing on their own.
Kushner Cos. says it will prevail. Laurent Morali, the president, said the company has a variety of contingency plans for the building and its broader portfolio will allow it to sustain any setback. He said he is encouraged by the interest of several potential investors, but declined to name them.
“Reports that portray it as a distressed situation are just not accurate for the building or for the company,” Morali said in an interview on the 15th floor of the building, 666 Fifth Avenue.
But there are challenges all around. The mortgage on their tower is due in 18 months. This has led to concerns that Kushner could use—or has perhaps already used—his official position to prop up the family business despite having divested to close relatives his ownership in many projects to conform with government ethics requirements. Federal investigators are examining Kushner’s finances and business dealings, along with those of other Trump associates, as they probe possible collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. Kushner has already testified twice before closed congressional committees and denies mixing family business with his official role.
--snip--
Federal investigators know that Kushner met with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in Trump Tower last December and later met with Sergey Gorkov, head of the Kremlin-controlled VEB bank in two meetings that he didn’t, at first, disclose publicly or on his application for his national-security clearance. After those meetings became public, Kushner and the White House said the contacts were made in his role as a Trump adviser and didn’t involve discussion of his family business. But VEB and a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin described the meetings quite differently, noted Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. They said that Kushner was there in his capacity as head of his family’s real estate business. Investigators say they are studying those accounts with keen interest.
“I think it is part of a pattern of outreach to Russian financial interests, which are essentially Vladimir Putin and his oligarch circle, by Trump family members,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The financial dealings are important because we know that the Russian playbook is to engage and compromise foreign leaders.” He added, “Whether this meeting and contact are significant remains to be understood.” —With assistance from Billy House and Steven T. Dennis.
Again with Russia? And nobody else sees this as a real problem?
-
Trump to donate $1 million to Texas recovery (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/trump-donation-harvey-texas/index.html)
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump will donate $1 million of his fortune to recovery efforts in Texas, though the White House says he hasn't determined which group or groups will receive the contribution.
"He would like to join in the efforts that a lot of people we have seen across the country do," press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters at the White House, saying the funds would come from the President's "personal money."
She said the President hadn't determined which organization to support, but solicited requests from the media for worthy groups.
Hum...nice gesture but does it seem a bit odd that this amount is $4 mill less than Trump offered for Obama's birth certificate?
Trump said he’d give away $5 million — or maybe $50 million — for proof Obama was born in the U.S. Will he pay it? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/trump-said-hed-give-away-5-million-or-maybe-50-million-for-proof-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s-will-he-pay-it/?utm_term=.1544cc8a46c6)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://s3.amazonaws.com/posttv-thumbnails-prod/09-16-2016/t_1474047787206_name_Trump_5Million.jpg&w=800&h=450)
Back when Donald Trump was a "birther" -- an era that lasted from early 2011 until Thursday — he offered to give huge donations to charity in exchange for hard evidence that proved President Obama had been born in the U.S.
First, in 2012, Trump said he'd donate $5 million for that proof.
“If Barack Obama opens up and gives his college records and applications, and if he gives his passport applications and records, I will give, to a charity of his choice — inner city children in Chicago, American Cancer Society, AIDS research, anything he wants — a check, immediately, for $5 million," Trump said in a video made in his Trump Tower office. "The check will be given within one hour after he released all of the records, so stated.”
Maybe Trump could team up with Houston Oiler football player JJ Watts who has raised $15 mill in donations...
(http://img.wennermedia.com/article-leads-horizontal/jj-watts-charity-hurricane-harvey-texas-houston-read-99d57d1a-d325-4c71-bb37-44d30b549330.jpg)
J.J. Watts Hits $15 Million in Hurricane Harvey Donations: ‘It’s Been Incredible’ (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/jj-watts-talks-about-hurricane-harvey-relief-donations-w500919)
A step beyond. NFL player J.J. Watts wanted to help Hurricane Harvey victims any way he could, so he set a goal of raising $200,000. As of Friday, September 1, the athlete has raised more than $15 million for those affected by the devastation in and around Houston, Texas.
“I started out with a goal with 200,000 and seeing where it is today is unbelievable,” J.J. exclusively tells Us of his crowdfunding page. “I think it’s a massive testament to the good in people and the good that’s out there in the world.”
Not bad for a jock, huh?
I mean, it's nice Trump pledged $1 mil of his own money...but when and where? Donny doesn't have a real good track record fulfilling promises, remember this?
Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/24/four-months-later-donald-trump-says-he-gave-1-million-to-veterans-group/?utm_term=.cca281f9e20c)
By David A. Fahrenthold May 24, 2016
Almost four months after promising $1 million of his own money to veterans’ causes, Donald Trump moved to fulfill that pledge Monday evening — promising the entire sum to a single charity as he came under intense media scrutiny.
Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, organized a nationally televised fundraiser for veterans’ causes in Des Moines on Jan. 28. That night, Trump said he had raised $6 million, including the gift from his own pocket.
“Donald Trump gave $1 million,” he said then.
As recently as last week, Trump’s campaign manager had insisted that the mogul had already given that money away. But that was false: Trump had not.
(http://s2.n4g.com/news/2011703_0.jpg)
He did finally prove he gave $1 mil of his own money but only after the media pressured Trump to explain where his money had gone. That darn pesky media!!!
-
Doooh... heal vs heel? Will he ever learn? Prolly not...learning ain't something that Trump is good at.
but heel sells better than heal
(http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-1183615-galleryV9-mdim-1183615.jpg)
-
but heel sells better than heal
(http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-1183615-galleryV9-mdim-1183615.jpg)
Yes! Very strange considering that high heels have a negative 'heal' effect. I'm sure glad I'm not a female. ;D
https://www.simplemost.com/unhealthy-side-effects-of-wearing-high-heels/
-
"Every generation, blames the one before, " - The Living Years - Mike and the Mechanics.
The reality is that opportunities to make real change don't come along that often and you need to use them. They are not on Facebook and Twitter. Brexit and Trump were both elections. All "young" people had to do was not drink so much the night before, put down the selfie stick, get out of bed, and vote. They weren't even compulsory elections and probably only a few votes were needed. Pretty easy to move a result one way or the other really.
The "problem" with "oldies" is that they actually believe that they should vote, so they do.
The vote on the EU was a referendum, not an election, based on an incredible amount of false evidence and lying. The outcome is very unlikely to bear much resemblance to the promises made at the time and it's hard to see how the result won't be a poorer, more insular country. But then demagogues love a captive audience, the more unhappy the better. It's always all about them, their power, their wealth, never about what's actually best for people. How many problems is building a wall between Mexico and the US actually going to solve? Easy to say Build the Wall and sounds good on the tongue, though.
Anyway, it's demographics. The profile of the party in power here is almost entirely confined to elderly voters. They have hardly any support among the under 45s. Time will do for it, and for the oldies who've sold out the young. At that stage, maybe in a decade when enough of them have died off, good sense and willingness to engage with the world as it actually is may return. The sooner these destructive ideologues of any political stripe currently at play here, in the US and elsewhere are sent off with a red-hot poker up the fundament the better.
-
Trump to donate $1 million to Texas recovery (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/trump-donation-harvey-texas/index.html)
Chances of him actually donating are slim, if we look at recent history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wQtE28YEM
And their analysis of why he keeps promising donations but never (unless publicly shamed) delivers. In his business life, nobody would fact check his promises after a while, so he could make those promises which stuck in the minds of people and they would forget that he didn't actually deliver.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... as the oldies die off...
Yes, the next generation will stay young forever 😉
The simple truth in life is that, as we age, we become more experienced, thus realistic, vs. the unicorn idealism of the youth.
This reminds me of the "solution" for the dreaded 5 o'clock traffic jam: let everyone out at 4pm!
-
To pre-empt Jeff, again 😉
-
To pre-empt Jeff, again 😉
Fake news. Here's the original taken on Monday, May 25, 2015:
(http://www.saturnboats.com/images/detailed/3/SD470.jpg)
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fake news...
Oh, no!? Really!?
-
Oh, no!? Really!?
But it was an excellent PS job, Slobodan! ;)
-
Yes! Very strange considering that high heels have a negative 'heal' effect. I'm sure glad I'm not a female. ;D
https://www.simplemost.com/unhealthy-side-effects-of-wearing-high-heels/
Haven't you heard, it's the new black.
https://hubpages.com/style/Men-Have-The-Right-To-Wear-High-Heeled-Shoes (https://hubpages.com/style/Men-Have-The-Right-To-Wear-High-Heeled-Shoes)
(https://skinmagonline.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/meninheels.jpg?w=750)
-
Could you imagine if Trump actually got his feet wet during his visit to Harvey flooded Houston?
The Left would have a field day.
(http://www.thepubliceditor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Dukakis_Tank_600x325.jpg)
-
Yes! Very strange considering that high heels have a negative 'heal' effect. I'm sure glad I'm not a female. ;D
https://www.simplemost.com/unhealthy-side-effects-of-wearing-high-heels/
Preoccupation with women shoes can be dangerous also for men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpeSH6ngsgI
-
Just in case anybody may have actually believed Trump when he accused Obama of wiretapping him, now the Department of Justice has said there's no evidence to support Trump's allegations.
Justice Department: No evidence Trump Tower was wiretapped (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/02/politics/justice-department-trump-tower-wiretap/index.html)
(https://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2017/09/02/16b6eb3a-2c89-40ee-8f22-18aee12ffac5/thumbnail/620x350/d7477d2d0fee589d73b1919061de6a78/gettyimages-649273168.jpg)
(CNN)The Justice Department said in a court filing Friday evening that it has no evidence to support President Donald Trump's assertion in March that his predecessor, Barack Obama, wiretapped the phones in Trump Tower before last year's election.
"Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the department's motion reads. NSD refers to the department's national security division.
The motion came in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by a group pushing for government transparency, American Oversight.
On March 4, Trump tweeted: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process," Trump also tweeted. "This is Nixon/Watergate."
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8015812-3x2-700x467.jpg)
Bet this never happens again...
Well, apparently Trump was wrong...wonder if Trump will apologize to Obama? Ya think that might happen? Yeah, I don't think there is a chance Trump would admit he was wrong and apologized to Obama.
-
Poor Donny doesn't know how to use the Internet...
Trump Doesn't Know How to Read Breitbart Without Someone Printing It Out for Him (https://www.gq.com/story/trump-cant-read-breitbart)
(https://media.gq.com/photos/59aad820c211c721cb6c1883/3:2/w_800/GettyImages-633195664.jpg)
John Kelly is already grating on the president and severely restricting his media diet.
A new story from the New York Times by Maggie Haberman and Glen Thrush details how Kelly has tried to still the chaos inside the White House, often frustrating Trump in the process. Kelly is forcing people to stick to appointments and schedules, pushing the president to weigh more carefully moves like ending DACA or banning transgender people from the military, and even persuaded Trump to put out a White House-issued, spell-checked response to North Korea's latest missile firing, instead of just tweeting about it.
These are admittedly low bars, and even Haberman and Thrush acknowledge that it's basically routine office management. But imposing any kind of order in the toxic daycare that is this White House is a feat. Still, Kelly's most impressive accomplishment may be his ability to curate the information that the president gets.
Mr. Kelly cannot stop Mr. Trump from binge-watching Fox News, which aides describe as the president’s primary source of information gathering. But Mr. Trump does not have a web browser on his phone, and does not use a laptop, so he was dependent on aides like Stephen K. Bannon, his former chief strategist, to hand-deliver printouts of articles from conservative media outlets.
Now Mr. Kelly has thinned out his package of printouts so much that Mr. Trump plaintively asked a friend recently where The Daily Caller and Breitbart were.
What we know about Trump's briefings before Kelly's tenure doesn't inspire confidence. Aides have told people meeting with the president to keep printouts short, one page if at all possible, to keep his attention from wandering. He requires twice-a-day packets of positive news stories about himself that still need to be "more fucking positive," according to the people assembling them. And as he's said himself, Trump prefers to make gut decisions without reading or learning much about whatever he's talking about. So it's incredibly ambitious to try to turn these briefings into something productive.
Ya know, I'm good with Trump not being able to read The Daily Caller and Breitbart...
-
"Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets," the department's motion reads. NSD refers to the department's national security division.
Why it took 6 months to check and confirm?
One would think that all required information was available on some level and it could have been checked and confirmed in one afternoon.
-
Why it took 6 months to check and confirm?
One would think that all required information was available on some level and it could have been checked and confirmed in one afternoon.
It is harder to (dis)prove that something doesn't/didn't exist than it is to (dis)prove something that does/did exist.
In normal discourse, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. But with Trump's track-record of lies/falsehoods, checking reality and fact-checks are necessary, otherwise, he will base policy making on TV shows and shady lobbyists. Talk about a swamp.
More troubling than waiting for an apology from Trump that won't happen, is the fact that he based that accusation on FoxNews propaganda, and that his fanbase believed him unconditionally.
But fact-checking alone will not change people's minds very fast:
Why fact-checking can’t stop Trump’s lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8DQ2kseTWw
Cheers,
Bart
-
It is harder to (dis)prove that something doesn't/didn't exist than it is to (dis)prove something that does/did exist...
But of course, not just harder, but next to impossible.
Just note the agencies careful phrasing (bold mine): "Both FBI and NSD confirm that they have no records..."
THEY do not have. Which is not to say that some other agency, or a part of, doesn't.
This doesn't mean that I personally believe (or not) what was alleged. I do not care. I am simply pointing out the logic implied in the above.
-
It is harder to (dis)prove that something doesn't/didn't exist than it is to (dis)prove something that does/did exist.
In normal discourse, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. But with Trump's track-record of lies/falsehoods, checking reality and fact-checks are necessary, otherwise, he will base policy making on TV shows and shady lobbyists. Talk about a swamp.
More troubling than waiting for an apology from Trump that won't happen, is the fact that he based that accusation on FoxNews propaganda, and that his fanbase believed him unconditionally.
But fact-checking alone will not change people's minds very fast:
Why fact-checking can’t stop Trump’s lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8DQ2kseTWw
Cheers,
Bart
The National Security Agency (NSA) surveilled Trump's people and gave the transcripts of the telephone conversations to Obama through his National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Usually, the FBI would handle any suspicions if something is afoul. The fact these transcripts were going to the Oval Office smacks of politics. So Trump was right about the White House listening in if not exactly right about the means and methods.
In any case, how did the NSA record phone calls if phones if the wires weren't physically "tapped"? They don't need to tap the lines within a building as they had to years ago. Today, NSA uses central switching locations provided by the phone companies. Plus, some of the calls were probably by cell phone so the calls are intercepted by radio waves sent to cell towers. That's why Trump put "phone tapped" in quotes. There are different ways to "tap" phones. "Tapping" is just a general term for listening in to conversations. The bottom line is Obama got the transcripts of Trump's phone calls.
-
The bottom line is Obama got the transcripts of Trump's phone calls.
Pure unmitigated bullshit...the NSA intercepted phonecalls of known foreign agents either talk to or about Trupm or his campaign. Those names of Americans scooped up had to be unmasked because of the nature of the intercepts indicated it was a matter of national security which is why Rice found out that Flynn was talking to the Russians and why Obama warned Trump about Flynn.
But nobody intercepted any Trump calls (unless he was talking to Russians-ya think he was?) so maybe you should learn about what actually happened and stop making stupid claims like Trump does...just sayin'
-
Pure unmitigated bullshit...the NSA intercepted phonecalls of known foreign agents either talk to or about Trupm or his campaign. Those names of Americans scooped up had to be unmasked because of the nature of the intercepts indicated it was a matter of national security which is why Rice found out that Flynn was talking to the Russians and why Obama warned Trump about Flynn.
But nobody intercepted any Trump calls (unless he was talking to Russians-ya think he was?) so maybe you should learn about what actually happened and stop making stupid claims like Trump does...just sayin'
So bottom line, Obama had transcripts of Trump's staff phone calls and possibly Trump's too. In normal circumstances, if there were suspicions of security issues, the FBI would have investigated and kept track, not the Oval Office or Susan Rice. She was an advisor to President Obama on international security matters. She was not a police or espionage investigator. The Oval office stayed in the loop looking at over a hundred transcripts because of political reasons, not just the Flynn stuff.
This is what makes the NSA dangerous because it can be used by politicians, regardless of the party, to gather information against their political enemies. It's one thing when NSA is listening in to German Chancellor Merkel's conversations. Another when it involves domestic political opponents. That's what Trump was complaining about.
The Democrats haven't stopped squealing about the Russians "listening in" to Hillary and her campaign. They refrain is they lost the election because of it. But, when it comes to domestic "wire tapping" against Republican politicians, it's all acceptable.
-
So bottom line, Obama had transcripts of Trump's staff phone calls and possibly Trump's too.
Again no...what part of foreign agent's phones being intercepted don't you understand? The NSA don't intercept American's phones-only forgeign agents phones are intercepted. So an American's conversation would inly be caught it they were talking to a foreign agent. You don't mind intercepting foriegn agents do you? So if you are worried about phone intercepts don't talk to foreign agents...
Get it yet? The NSaa intercepted foreing agent's phone calls...any Americans caught up were incidental.
-
The drums of war are beating over North Korea and its nukes, and we're debating stupid things like high heels and getting side-tracked away from the really critical issues of our times.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/03/politics/trump-north-korea-nuclear/index.html
-
Again no...what part of foreign agent's phones being intercepted don't you understand? The NSA don't intercept American's phones-only forgeign agents phones are intercepted. So an American's conversation would inly be caught it they were talking to a foreign agent. You don't mind intercepting foriegn agents do you? So if you are worried about phone intercepts don't talk to foreign agents...
Get it yet? The NSaa intercepted foreing agent's phone calls...any Americans caught up were incidental.
But the transcripts were being reviewed by the Oval Office. Why? The FBI should have handled it. The reason is that Obama was looking for stuff to damage the Republicans. Frankly, none of "wire tapping" would have come out if Hillary was elected President as Obama had expected. All the records would have been buried or classified Top Secret and stored next to the Lost Ark. :)
-
But the transcripts were being reviewed by the Oval Office. Why?
Because of national security implications...and in the case of Flynn specifically, his calls with the Russian ambassador occurred after the election and it WAS the Former DoJ chief Sally Yates who told the Trump admin that Flynn's phone calls were intercepted and that Flynn was lying. That's what lead to him getting fired...
Look back at the timing of Trump's idiotic claims of Obama's "wiretaps"...it occurred AFTER Yates informed the Trump admin and after Sessions recused himself from any Russian investigations.
There was no political implications, only national security implications...get it now?
-
This is what makes the NSA dangerous because it can be used by politicians, regardless of the party, to gather information against their political enemies.
You obviously have never worked with the U.S. intelligence community, and clearly know nothing about how it functions, if you really believe this bizarre, unsubstantiated claim.
Jeff's response that what you said is "[p]ure unmitigated bullshit" strikes me as, if anything, rather restrained. If I recall correctly, in a previous post in this thread he also quoted Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous epigram: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
-
Because of national security implications...and in the case of Flynn specifically, his calls with the Russian ambassador occurred after the election and it WAS the Former DoJ chief Sally Yates who told the Trump admin that Flynn's phone calls were intercepted and that Flynn was lying. That's what lead to him getting fired...
Look back at the timing of Trump's idiotic claims of Obama's "wiretaps"...it occurred AFTER Yates informed the Trump admin and after Sessions recused himself from any Russian investigations.
There was no political implications, only national security implications...get it now?
Trump found about the surveillance after the election. But the surveillance had been going on for at least 6 months before the election. Had Trump not been elected as Obama figured before the election, Hillary would have hidden it next to the Lost Ark and the public would never have known about it.
-
You obviously have never worked with the U.S. intelligence community, and clearly know nothing about how it functions, if you really believe this bizarre, unsubstantiated claim.
Jeff's response that what you said is "[p]ure unmitigated bullshit" strikes me as, if anything, rather restrained. If I recall correctly, in a previous post in this thread he also quoted Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous epigram: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
I worked 4 years in the USAF with a Top Secret Crypto clearance and handled TS material and communications. What's your background?
The idea that Presidents don't use their executive power to damage opponents is naïve. Nixon had his "enemies list". Six presidents for decades feared and re-appointed J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, because he kept secret diaries collected by the FBI on all politicians or prospective politicians to influence the powers that be. Some president used Hoover to their own advantage. Obama used the IRS to damage and deflect conservative non-profits to diminish their influence to help him be re-elected. How can anyone know what the CIA or NSA is up too?
-
The drums of war are beating over North Korea and its nukes, and we're debating stupid things like high heels and getting side-tracked away from the really critical issues of our times.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/03/politics/trump-north-korea-nuclear/index.html
In more serious news, social justice warriors demand removal of "sexist" leg lamp from community park.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445225/christmas-story-leg-lamp-statue-lakeland-florida-sexist (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445225/christmas-story-leg-lamp-statue-lakeland-florida-sexist)
(http://c0.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/styles/original_image_with_cropping/public/uploaded/people-furious-over-sexist-statue-christmas-story-leg_0.jpg?itok=0vOYwOeE)
-
Susan Rice advises Trump to let North Korea have thermonuclear ICBMs. Not a big deal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/10/susan-rices-ridiculous-north-korea-recommendation-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/10/susan-rices-ridiculous-north-korea-recommendation-/)
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/e5/cd/9b/e5cd9bccffb3a8d6d0d7fdf58780024e.jpg)
-
Susan Rice advises Trump to let North Korea have thermonuclear ICBMs. Not a big deal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/10/susan-rices-ridiculous-north-korea-recommendation-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/10/susan-rices-ridiculous-north-korea-recommendation-/)
(https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/e5/cd/9b/e5cd9bccffb3a8d6d0d7fdf58780024e.jpg)
It's still a better option than reigniting war on the Korean peninsula.
-
Sadly, the American people will have no say in the matter. And Congress will pass the buck as usual.
(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5900c770260000bd9ac47d4d.jpeg?cache=z8zc5rulqv&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
-
Sadly, the American people will have no say in the matter. And Congress will pass the buck as usual.
Yes, Congress is required to get involved. Making war is to serious to be left up to the president alone.
-
It's interesting you hear nothing from Conservative Senator Rand, a Constitutionalist, and others like him. It's like Obamacare. When pulling the trigger actually counts, they're all gun shy.
-
I worked 4 years in the USAF with a Top Secret Crypto clearance and handled TS material and communications.
Wow...was that before or after the invention of the cell phone and internet? Cause ya see, the NSA is capable of some pretty high tech surveillance but not at the behest of the President. The President doesn't really have that power...steps were taken after Nixon to make to very difficult for surveillance to be done for political purposes vs national security purposes–which you seem to conflate...
Trump found about the surveillance after the election. But the surveillance had been going on for at least 6 months before the election.
What surveillance? Flynn was picked up as incidental collection of a foreign agent intercept...the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Flynn, they were eavesdropping on Sergey Kislyak who happened to talk to Flynn and lied about what was talked about–the full story of which we still don't know.
So, what other surveillance? Are you talking about the FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page? That was the FBI not the NSA who surveilled Page after it was found he was dealing with actual known Russian FSB agents who were trying to recruit him. The FBI FISA warrant went back to July 2016 as it relates to the Russian collusion investigation but indications are Page had been under surveillance since 2014.
So, who else was under surveillance and by whom?
The whole reason that the FBI was alerted to the Russian interference in the election was because of foreign intelligence agencies waring their American counterparts that people who had connections to Trump were having meetings and conversations with Russian agents. We don't know exactly who but the assumption is the both British and German intelligence agencies while engaging in surveillance of Russians were finding the Russians either talking to or talking about people with Trump connections. I also wouldn't be surprised that Israeli's Mossad might have caught wind of things as well. But we don't know this because none to the foreign or domestic agencies are talking about it.
So, who else? Perhaps Paul Manafort because he was already under investigation for money laundering using Cyprus banks that are known entities used by both the Russian government and the Russian mob.
Who else? Donny Jr? Ivanka? Jared Kushner? Kushner might be a target because of his family's involvement in sketchy real estate deals. Trump himself?
All of that is crap...
Some Americans got caught up with foreign surveillance...Susan Rice as National Security Advisor to Obama did her job and asked for the unmasking of certain names because of national security implications. Pretty sure that's how Flynn got caught and that was AFTER the election dooode.
Carter Page? Well, he met with Russian agents who tried to recruit him and the FBI got a FISA warrant to put him under surveillance. Electronic surveillance? Prolly both his phones and internet/email. Could Trump have been incidentally caught up with Carter Page surveillance? I dunno...maybe...
But here's the thing you have to ask yourself...if Obama did what you claim he did and had Trump and his campaign under surveillance, do you believe the entire conspiracy to help Hillary and hurt Trump was so inept that Trump won inspire of the conspiracy?
Or is this all just a pipe dream to explain away Trump's paranoid delusions and to claim that all of this post election bullshyte is simply a feeble attempt by the democrats to deny legitimacy of Trump's presidency? I meant, that's what Trump says...but even Trump's own interagency agencies say Russia interfered and the DOJ and the FBI/ say there's no evidence of Trump being eavesdropped on.
You keep spewing forth unfounded allegations and irrational claims that are delusional. And whether or not you had Top Secret clearance decades ago bears little on this argument.
If you have sources to back up your claim that the surveillance had been going on for at least 6 months before the election. Prove it...otherwise I say (http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wusf/files/styles/x_large/public/201611/tom-pantsonfire.gif)
-
While Senator John McCain clearly has little respect for the Big Orange Dummy, you simply can't consider McCain as anything than a true American hero willing to put his life on the line for America. As such, it would behoove America and both Congress and the President to read and consider John's opinion in the WaPo...
John McCain: It’s time Congress returns to regular order (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-mccain-its-time-congress-returns-to-regular-order/2017/08/31/f62a3e0c-8cfb-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?utm_term=.0f2941cdd69d)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/17-mccain-feature-lede.w512.h600.2x.jpg)
.....Congress will return from recess next week facing continued gridlock as we lurch from one self-created crisis to another. We are proving inadequate not only to our most difficult problems but also to routine duties. Our national political campaigns never stop. We seem convinced that majorities exist to impose their will with few concessions and that minorities exist to prevent the party in power from doing anything important.
That’s not how we were meant to govern. Our entire system of government — with its checks and balances, its bicameral Congress, its protections of the rights of the minority — was designed for compromise. It seldom works smoothly or speedily. It was never expected to.
It requires pragmatic problem-solving from even the most passionate partisans. It relies on compromise between opposing sides to protect the interests we share. We can fight like hell for our ideas to prevail. But we have to respect each other or at least respect the fact that we need each other.
That has never been truer than today, when Congress must govern with a president who has no experience of public office, is often poorly informed and can be impulsive in his speech and conduct.
We must respect his authority and constitutional responsibilities. We must, where we can, cooperate with him. But we are not his subordinates. We don’t answer to him. We answer to the American people. We must be diligent in discharging our responsibility to serve as a check on his power. And we should value our identity as members of Congress more than our partisan affiliation.....
-
(http://m.wsj.net/video/20161110/111016trumpwh1/111016trumpwh1_640x360.jpg)
Barack Obama sent Donald Trump a letter before leaving office. Here's what he said (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/03/obama-sent-trump-a-letter-before-leaving-office-heres-what-he-said.html)
On Sunday, CNN exclusively reported on the contents of a handwritten letter former president Barack Obama addressed to Donald Trump prior to leaving the Oval Office.
In a tradition carried out by at least three prior presidents, CNN reports, Obama wrote a letter to Trump, reflecting on his eight years as president and detailing four points of advice.
Obama congratulated the newly elected President Trump on his new job and reminded him that "millions have placed their hopes" in him.
Trump himself called the note a "beautiful letter" during a press conference two days after receiving it. Yet the note was just over twice as long as those written by three previous presidents' letters, according to an analysis by CNBC. (We counted! See this doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAIMP0oPsg1_i38IayAboHSpy0VwZG9KPcIgYLa_4go))
"This is a unique office, without a clear blueprint for success, so I don't know that any advice from me will be particularly helpful," Obama wrote. "Still, let me offer a few reflections from the past 8 years."
Here are Obama's four points of advice to Trump ahead of his new job.
Build more ladders of success
Sustain the international order
Leave the 'instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them'
Take time for friends and family
Here is the full text of his letter to Trump:
"Dear Mr. President -
Congratulations on a remarkable run. Millions have placed their hopes in you, and all of us, regardless of party, should hope for expanded prosperity and security during your tenure.
This is a unique office, without a clear blueprint for success, so I don't know that any advice from me will be particularly helpful. Still, let me offer a few reflections from the past 8 years.
First, we've both been blessed, in different ways, with great good fortune. Not everyone is so lucky. It's up to us to do everything we can (to) build more ladders of success for every child and family that's willing to work hard.
Second, American leadership in this world really is indispensable. It's up to us, through action and example, to sustain the international order that's expanded steadily since the end of the Cold War, and upon which our own wealth and safety depend.
Third, we are just temporary occupants of this office. That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions -- like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties -- that our forebears fought and bled for. Regardless of the push and pull of daily politics, it's up to us to leave those instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them.
And finally, take time, in the rush of events and responsibilities, for friends and family. They'll get you through the inevitable rough patches.
Michelle and I wish you and Melania the very best as you embark on this great adventure, and know that we stand ready to help in any ways which we can.
Good luck and Godspeed,
BO"
It sure would be useful if Trump solicited the help and advice of former presidents on how to become a better president because at this juncture, I think Trump is destined to go down as the worst US president in the history of our country...so far the only think Trump has been good at is redefining what a Malignant Narcissist actually is...heck at this point I miss George Bush (either of them). At least they were honorable men.
-
It's still a better option than reigniting war on the Korean peninsula.
If Kim builds hundreds of thermonuclear MIRVs (which he will) and decides to annex South Korea (which he might), will you then say: 'Letting South Korea fall is a better option than letting America take a nuclear hit.' Or are you willing to sacrifice Los Angeles to save Seoul?
Perhaps it's time for South Korea and Japan to join the nuclear arms race. And let's not leave out Iran and Saudi Arabia.
More the merrier says political scientist Kenneth Waltz. Let's hope he's right.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-18838577/debate-should-iran-get-the-bomb (http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-18838577/debate-should-iran-get-the-bomb)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3zCucj1w718/WYbPhlDy3VI/AAAAAAAAkQE/UDnRHRUcztUqP245_f0l0ZVRA1nMBm30QCLcBGAs/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/nuclear%2Btest.jpg)
Trump's only options are the following. I predict he'll do #1.
1) Slap draconian sanctions on North Korea and its trade partners, which will slow Kim's nuclear ambitions just long enough for Trump to pass the unresolved problem to his successor.
2) Provoke North Korea into launching a limited attack on our naval vessels or army installations. Shooting down Kim's missiles might be the trigger.
3) Stage a false flag. That worked in the Vietnam and Gulf Wars.
4) Help South Korea and Japan build tactical nukes and/or create a regional nuclear NATO alliance and missile defense shield in the Pacific. China would not like that.
5) Bribe Kim (been there, done that).
6) Wage preemptive war. (Congress won't approve of such a move for South Korea's sake, who ironically feels more threatened by the United States than by Kim Un.)
7) Bitch and bluster and then learn to live with a nuclear North Korea just like we did with Pakistan. (This option is inevitable.)
8. Pressure China to pressure North Korea. (Yeah right sure uh-huh. Good luck with that one.)
9) Send Dennis Rodman.
10) Send Dennis Rodman in Vera Wang.
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/36/bc/34/36bc34641b5fe902837ecc714675c578--dennis-rodman-wedding-gowns.jpg)
-
or accept the Swiss offer to mediate. Doris Leuthard looks much better than Dennis Rodman.
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.4274413.1504522840!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/switzerland-north-korea-latest.jpg)
Neutral Switzerland is prepared to act as mediator to help resolve the North Korea crisis, including by hosting ministerial talks, Swiss President Doris Leuthard said Monday.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/switzerland-mediate-north-korea-crisis-1.4274409
-
...So, what other surveillance? ...Some Americans got caught up with foreign surveillance...Susan Rice as National Security Advisor to Obama did her job and asked for the unmasking of certain names because of national security implications. ...But here's the thing you have to ask yourself...if Obama did what you claim he did and had Trump and his campaign under surveillance, do you believe the entire conspiracy to help Hillary and hurt Trump was so inept that Trump won inspire of the conspiracy?...
The fact is over 100 intercepts of people connected to Trump were transcribed and given to Obama through his Adviser Susan Rice. You complain, and rightfully so, that Trump is getting too involved in the investigation of Russian "collusion" and interference by Mueller. Yet, you don't see Obama doing something similar by reading those intercepts during an election season. The fact that the NSA originated the intercepts is beside the point. The point is the FBI is the government's investigatory organization. Not the President and Susan Rice. Their looking at them smacks of politics. Obama should have let the FBI handle it then just as Trump should let Mueller investigate the Russians now.
Regarding nothing coming of the intercepts just proves the there was nothing there to begin with. All the arguments about collusion are just BS. Although the Trump organization phone calls with the Russians were monitored, there was no collusion otherwise it would have come out before the election to damage Trump.
-
Negotiations/mediation/diplomacy worked well so far:
-
or accept the Swiss offer to mediate. Doris Leuthard looks much better than Dennis Rodman.
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.4274413.1504522840!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/switzerland-north-korea-latest.jpg)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/switzerland-mediate-north-korea-crisis-1.4274409
Les, I wish it would be that easy. Frankly, negotiations are over. Either we'll live with a nuclear NK. Or there will be war.
Right now, Trump is blustering a lot. But American servicemen's dependents have not been pulled out of South Korea, something I suspect would happen before an American attack. There would be a troop buildup and re-positioning of our navies. (Maybe it's happening secretly.) I don't think war will happen with Congress declaring it unless NK attacks. I don't think they're stupid.
What I'm afraid of that the bluster and warlike speech against America from the NK side reminds me of Saddam's trying to convince his enemies that he still has WMD's, which he didn't. But he convinced the world, or at least Bush, and we attacked. Something like that might happen in Korea if we think he will be a danger to us. On the other hand, I really don't think he's crazy. He wants the nukes as he see them as insurance to preserve against an attack. But he's not going to attack So Korea or America as that would be suicide. He's seen the picture of Saddam's hanging and Kaddafi's shooting.
-
Les, I wish it would be that easy. Frankly, negotiations are over. Either we'll live with a nuclear NK. Or there will be war.
Right now, Trump is blustering a lot. But American servicemen's dependents have not been pulled out of South Korea, something I suspect would happen before an American attack. There would be a troop buildup and re-positioning of our navies. (Maybe it's happening secretly.) I don't think war will happen with Congress declaring it unless NK attacks. I don't think they're stupid.
What I'm afraid of that the bluster and warlike speech against America from the NK side reminds me of Saddam's trying to convince his enemies that he still has WMD's, which he didn't. But he convinced the world, or at least Bush, and we attacked. Something like that might happen in Korea if we think he will be a danger to us. On the other hand, I really don't think he's crazy. He wants the nukes as he see them as insurance to preserve against an attack. But he's not going to attack So Korea or America as that would be suicide. He's seen the picture of Saddam's hanging and Kaddafi's shooting.
I agree that negotiations won't work, especially not by the pretty Swiss president. I quoted it only because it was the breaking news.
Similarly, I don't think that he is deterred by the examples of Saddam or Gaddafi. And definitely not by those Tomahawk missiles sent to Syria if they were meant to scare him.
-
Back to illegal immigration... this is actually brilliant:
They don’t pay taxes. They circumvent our laws. They get free stuff from the government... They come here, take thousands of our jobs... They are part of a shadow economy that sucks billions of dollars out of the United States every year... Many of these people should be in prison, and the government is looking the other way...
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sentiment-building-to-deport-nations-billionaires
-
Negotiations/mediation/diplomacy worked well so far:
Not sure why you used an image with Bill Clinton in his second year of office, but he did announce an agreement that prevented North Korea from withdrawing from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid. The NTP lasted from 1985 till 2002 when, under President George W. Bush, North Korea effectively withdrew from it.
Here is a more complete overview of all the talks that took place over time:
Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron
Cheers,
Bart
-
I agree that negotiations won't work, especially not by the pretty Swiss president. I quoted it only because it was the breaking news.
Similarly, I don't think that he is deterred by the examples of Saddam or Gaddafi. And definitely not by those Tomahawk missiles sent to Syria if they were meant to scare him.
The Tomahawks were just Trump making his bones to the world, not NK in particular. Frankly, NK feels their nukes will prevent an attack and protect their regime. They may be right. But it could backfire if we feel threatened enough that we attack because of their nukes. Even f we do nothing, Japan might develop nukes. Wouldn't that be something? Anti-nuke Japan, the only country ever to have A-bombs used against them, could easily build them. Then what?
No one wants war. I don't think NK does, we don't, So Korea, even China. War would interrupt their plans to be the richest country as trade could stop. It'll be a disaster for the world.
-
Not sure why you used an image with Bill Clinton in his second year of office, but he did announce an agreement that prevented North Korea from withdrawing from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid. The NTP lasted from 1985 till 2002 when, under President George W. Bush, North Korea effectively withdrew from it.
Here is a more complete overview of all the talks that took place over time:
Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron
Cheers,
Bart
But Clinton's diplomacy didn't work, nor did Bush's or Obama's. While we were giving the North Korean aid, they were secretly working on developing nuclear technology.
Meanwhile, some of that technology was probably transferred back and forth to Iran who we have a treaty with that won't stop them from developing nukes either. We'll be facing a nuclear Iran in a few years with the same situation as we have now with NK.
-
There is a lot of talk about North Korea attacking. Who are they going to attack and for what purpose? I haven't read anything that clearly describes NK's end-game or at least what they're trying to accomplish. Can someone point me to a credible analysis of NK's goal in all this.
Is South Korea ramping up their military preparedness? Is China? Is Japan? Is Australia? Shouldn't they be if this threat is credible?
If hostilities do break out, there will probably be a race to get in there and capture the NK scientists and engineers who worked on the missiles and nuclear arsenal (if there is one). If they have developed sophisticated weaponry with their limited resources, it probably means that they have really good personnel. I am not being facetious in any way. They might have the next Wernher von Braun in their employ.
-
Back to illegal immigration... this is actually brilliant:
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sentiment-building-to-deport-nations-billionaires
HA! Thanks for that. It's good to leave this thread with a smile.
-
US has regained foothold as leader in East Asia.
Countries like Taiwan, So Korea, Philippines, Japan, and others who had been pulling away from America towards China because of Obama's disengagement in the Pacific have gone back to America for support. This even includes Vietnam who despite their war with the US, fear the Chinese even more historically. They see America helping them against the Chinese.
Trump and NK's nukes are turning the Pacific topsy-turvy.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/349113-us-has-regained-foothold-as-leader-in-east-asia
-
... a credible analysis of NK's goal in all this...
A credible analysis of a lunatic's mind!?
Even non-crazy leadership makes fatal mistakes by attacking first, without considering several steps ahead. I am sure Japan regrets Pearl Harbor to this day.
-
I just learned something:
Taxing whites because they are rich is not equitable enough. Social justice demands that we tax the rich because they are white.
What we need is a white privilege tax according to Seattle's progressive City Council, which proposed a race tax on diet soda because white people drink diet more than black people do. The mayor felt it was the best way to fight "white privileged institutionalized racism."
http://redalertpolitics.com/2017/05/07/seattles-mayor-tried-fight-white-privilege-soda-tax-backfired/ (http://redalertpolitics.com/2017/05/07/seattles-mayor-tried-fight-white-privilege-soda-tax-backfired/)
(http://www.plymouthpatriotpost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1369/2017/02/Whitey2-680x350.png)
Do you see where we're headed? An affirmative action tax code.
-
Donald Trump 'lashed out' at new chief of staff John Kelly amid rising tension in White House
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/president-donald-trump-lashes-out-chief-of-staff-john-kelly-marine-corps-general-white-house-a7927181.html
QUOTE "Donald Trump has reportedly lashed out against his new chief of staff John Kelly following reports the pair were on a "collision course" due to tensions in the White House.
The US president gave the retired Marine Corps general a dressing down in an incident seen by a number of administration staff, it is claimed.
Mr Trump's temper is said to have flared after advisers suggested he should stop politicising normal issues of government following another blistering attack on the media at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona.
Sources told the New York Times that Mr Kelly, 67, reacted to the outburst calmly, but said he later told colleagues he had never been spoken to in such a way during 35 years of military service and would not put up with similar treatment again."
Oh my. Trouble in Paradise ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
The fact is over 100 intercepts of people connected to Trump were transcribed and given to Obama through his Adviser Susan Rice.
And the fact is, it was Congressman Devin Nunes that created the controversy regarding National Security Adviser Susan Rice unmasking Americans. You know why? Because White House aids "discovered" the records that Susan Rice reported as part of her job of National Security Adviser and the White House wanted a way to disclose this information.
And guess what happened? That whole thing landed Nunes in hot water for violations of law and House Rules...
And, I can point you to articles that backup the facts and make your claim that Susan Rice did anything wrong is bullshit.
First, there's this...
Top Republican: Controversy surrounding Susan Rice unmasking was 'created' by Devin Nunes (http://www.businessinsider.com/burr-says-questions-about-susan-rice-unmasking-created-by-devin-nunes-2017-7)
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Friday that the controversy surrounding whether former National Security Adviser Susan Rice politicized intelligence about President Donald Trump and his associates "was all created" by House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes.
Remember the breathless press release Nunes gave after meeting with Trump at the White House? The "info" he gave Trump was the same information White Aids told Nunes about...so why was a congressman telling Trump something the White House already knew? Nunes was being used as a stooge to launder the sensitive information. And that got him in trouble...
Ethics panel opens investigation into Nunes (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/327594-ethics-panel-announces-investigation-into-nunes)
“The disclosure of this information by Chairman Nunes was evidently intended to try to lend some credence to President Trump’ claims that former President Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped — claims that have been repeatedly been shown to be absolutely baseless, as confirmed by FBI Director Comey in his testimony before Chairman Nunes’ own committee,” MoveOn.org’s ethics complaint read.
“In his quest to assist President Trump politically, however, it appears that Chairman Nunes has committed serious violations of law and House Rules.
So, that whole story about Rice legally unmasking Americans and supposedly leaking the information and making it available to Obama for political use is, well, it's bullshit Alan.
So, scratch that off the list...what other surveillance do you allege Obama had done? Carter Page? The FBI had a FISA warrant...who else? Come on, clearly you think Trump was right when he claimed Obama was eavesdropping on him. Nobody else does–not even the people in his administration like the FBI and DOJ. But somehow, both you and Trump are convinced it's real and not a rightwing conspiracy theory...
-
...So, that whole story about Rice legally unmasking Americans and supposedly leaking the information and making it available to Obama for political use is, well, it's bullshit Alan.
So, scratch that off the list...what other surveillance do you allege Obama had done? Carter Page? The FBI had a FISA warrant...who else? Come on, clearly you think Trump was right when he claimed Obama was eavesdropping on him. Nobody else does–not even the people in his administration like the FBI and DOJ. But somehow, both you and Trump are convinced it's real and not a rightwing conspiracy theory...
No one said the original surveillance wasn't instituted by the NSA as part of their surveilling Russians calls. It's what happened with that information afterwards that was political. The fact is over 100 intercepts of people connected to Trump were transcribed and given to Obama through his Adviser Susan Rice. Their looking smacks of politics. I'm sure they were waiting and hoping for Trump to "collude".
But in the end, all that monitoring of Trump organization phone calls with the Russians and the transcripts of them given to Obama, there was no collusion. Had Obama found something, it would have been released before the election to damage Trump.
-
It's what happened with that information afterwards that was political. The fact is over 100 intercepts of people connected to Trump were transcribed and given to Obama through his Adviser Susan Rice. Their looking smacks of politics.
Their looking "smacks of politics"? Bullshit. You have no idea what the transcripts showed and you have no proof that anything done with them was anything other that national security related–which is why Rice requested the unmasking and logged each request making sure there was a record of the request–which is how the White House aids "discovered" what Rice did and brought in Congressman Devin Nunes in a feeble attempt at laundering the intel.
And, you have no clue whether or not anything that was in the transcripts proved or disproved Trump or his campaign colluding with the Russians...as far as I know, nothing about those transcripts have been released publicly other than their existence which was leaked by Nunes who is not being investigated by the House for ethics violations...
-
Their looking "smacks of politics"? Bullshit. You have no idea what the transcripts showed and you have no proof that anything done with them was anything other that national security related–which is why Rice requested the unmasking and logged each request making sure there was a record of the request–which is how the White House aids "discovered" what Rice did and brought in Congressman Devin Nunes in a feeble attempt at laundering the intel.
And, you have no clue whether or not anything that was in the transcripts proved or disproved Trump or his campaign colluding with the Russians...as far as I know, nothing about those transcripts have been released publicly other than their existence which was leaked by Nunes who is not being investigated by the House for ethics violations...
There is proof. Both Director of the FBI Comey and Director of National Intelligence Clapper said there were no evidence of collusion. Both of these men had seen the transcripts of all the surveillance "tapping" of phone calls. Have you forgotten that Comey told this to Trump privately that he wasn't being investigated for colluding with the Russians. But, Comey would not release his statement publicly as requested by President Trump who then fired him for not doing that?
-
There is proof. Both Director of the FBI Comey and Director of National Intelligence Clapper said there were no evidence of collusion.
No they didn't...Clapper said he wasn't aware of any collusion when he left office but when he left office he didn't even know that the FBI was investigating the Russians collusion so ya gotta pretty much rule out Clapper because his job
Did Obama's director of national intelligence say there is no evidence of Trump-Russian collusion? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2017/06/07/fact-check-andy-biggs-james-clapper-donald-trump-russia-collusion/346993001/)
ANALYSIS: On May 8, Clapper testified under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Congress. He reaffirmed statements he made in a March interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."
In the "Meet the Press" interview, he was asked if there were "improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.” Clapper responded that there was no evidence of that "included in our report," referring to the Intelligence Community Assessment written about the 2016 presidential election and filed jointly by the NSA, FBI and CIA before Clapper left his post.
Host Chuck Todd asked him to clarify, "I understand that, but does it exist?"
Clapper responded, "Not to my knowledge."
During his May 8 appearance before Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, asked Clapper if this was still accurate.
Clapper said it was. However, Clapper also said he wasn't always kept in the loop with the FBI. “It was my practice to defer to the FBI director ... on whether, when and to what extent they would inform me about such investigations,” he said.
--snip--
He addressed a question Graham posed about why Clapper wasn't aware of activities inside the FBI investigation.
“It’s not surprising or abnormal that I would not have known about the investigation, or more even importantly, the content of that investigation,” Clapper said. “So I don’t know if there was collusion or not. I don’t know if there was evidence of collusion or not, nor should I have.”
So, you just gotta let that one go Alan...Clapper didn't say what you claim he said...pants on fire dude...
Now, as to Comey, the former FBI Director, care to show a quote where Comes said there was no collusion? I certainly don't remember Comey saying anything like that...from his testimony:
No, Republicans, James Comey Did Not Say President Trump Is in the Clear on Russia (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/no-comey-did-not-say-trump-is-in-the-clear-on-russia.html)
The most telling exchange came when Republican Senator Tom Cotton asked Comey whether Trump personally colluded with Russia. This is a different question than whether the FBI was investigating Trump personally at the time the two spoke, and it produced a very different answer:
Cotton: Do you think Donald Trump colluded with Russia?
Comey: That’s a question I don’t think I should answer in an opening setting. As I said, when I left, we did not have an investigation focused on President Trump. But that’s a question that will be answered by the investigation, I think.
I take that to mean he wouldn't say whether or not he (Comes) thought there was collusion, only that the investigation–which is still ongoing–will answer that question and that Trump personally was not a target of the investigation–YET.
So, again, I call pants of fire dude...Comey never said what you claim he said.
-
no evidence of collusion.
No evidence of collusion only proves we should keep investigating.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/cd/94/7f/cd947f93386dd04a91a826ccfaafa801.jpg)
-
Last Week Was Trump's Worst Legislative Week Ever, And Congress Wasn't Even In Session (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2017/09/04/last-week-was-trumps-worst-legislative-week-ever-and-congress-wasnt-even-in-session/)
(https://i0.wp.com/madmikesamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/trump-pout-701x345.jpg)
Donald Trump last week suffered enormous setbacks on his three highest legislative priorities and Congress wasn't even in session.
Each of these losses took away most or all of the leverage Trump is going to need to get Congress to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, fund his wall and do something on taxes. As a result, Trump's legislative agenda, which was already in deep trouble before last week, is now in a complete shambles.
Trump's biggest problem occurred when the parliamentarian ruled on Friday (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-01/senate-official-complicates-any-new-obamacare-repeal-effort) that the Senate only had until September 30 to use the reconciliation instructions from the fiscal 2017 budget resolution to consider ACA repeal and replace legislation. While this appears to be the kind of ruling only a budget process geek like me could love, it actually has enormous political implications for Trump: As of October 1, the Senate will need 60 votes rather than a simple majority to pass the health care change the White House has been promising and demanding.
And there aren't 60 votes in the Senate to do anything on health care.
Heck, the Trumpster loses ground with congress even when they aren't in session...so much for his promise of repeal and replace on day one, huh?
-
So, this happened...while we were otherwise occupied.
NOT AT ALL QUIET FOR TRUMP ON THE RUSSIA FRONT (http://themoderatevoice.com/not-quiet-trump-russia-front/)
(http://themoderatevoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/198773_600-1.jpg)
WASHINGTON — Just so there’s no confusion: Donald Trump’s longtime personal lawyer emailed Vladimir Putin’s personal spokesman? Seeking help from the Kremlin on a deal to build a Trump Tower in Moscow? During the presidential campaign?
Yes, this really happened. While most attention was rightly focused on the devastating flood in Houston, there was quite a bit of news on the Russia front — all of it, from Trump’s perspective, quite bad.
The revelations begin with a Trump business associate named Felix Sater. A Russian emigre who bragged about his Kremlin connections, Sater was a principal figure in development of the Trump Soho hotel and condominium project in lower Manhattan. Sater wrote a series of emails to Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, touting the Moscow Trump Tower project as a way to help Trump win the presidency.
In November 2015 — five months after Trump had entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination — Sater wrote to Cohen that he had “arranged” for Trump’s daughter Ivanka, during a 2006 visit to Moscow, “to sit in Putins private chair at his desk and office in the Kremlin.”
The email went on, “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected. We both know no one else knows how to pull this off without stupidity or greed getting in the way. I know how to play it and we will get this done. Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this.”
--snip--
And there’s more: In January 2016, with the Moscow project apparently stalled, Cohen went straight to the top to get it back on track — or at least tried to. He sent an email to Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s longtime personal spokesman, “hereby requesting your assistance.”
Peskov confirmed that the email was received but said he did nothing about it and that it was not given to Putin.
So Trump was lying when he tweeted, shortly before his inauguration, that “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA — NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!” The truth is that in October 2015, on the same day he participated in a GOP candidates’ debate, he signed a letter of intent for the Moscow Trump Tower project.
That is a “deal,” and Trump’s hunger to keep it alive may explain his reluctance to say anything critical about Putin. Or it may tell just part of the story.
--snip--
The other part involves the whole question of collusion between Russian officials and the Trump campaign to meddle with the election and boost Trump’s chances. Sater’s boasts, by themselves, are hardly definitive. But of course there is the larger context, which includes the infamous meeting that Donald Trump Jr. convened in New York at which he hoped to receive dirt, courtesy of the Russian government, on Hillary Clinton.
Thus far we have the president’s son, his son-in-law Jared Kushner (who was at that meeting), his then-campaign manager Paul Manafort (also at the meeting), and now his personal lawyer all seemingly eager for Russian help in the election. Who in the campaign (BEG ITAL)wasn’t (END ITAL)willing to collude?
All of this is under scrutiny by special counsel Robert Mueller and the various congressional committees that are conducting investigations. Some have suggested that Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio, the unrepentant “birther” and racial profiler, might have been a message to Trump associates facing heat from prosecutors: Hang tough and don’t worry, you’ll get pardons.
But there was more bad news for the president: Politico reported that Mueller is now cooperating and sharing information with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Presidents can only issue pardons for federal offenses, not state crimes. Uh-oh.
Collusion? Business dealing in Russia? People trying to get the Russians to help get Trump elected?
-
Last Week Was Trump's Worst Legislative Week Ever, And Congress Wasn't Even In Session (https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2017/09/04/last-week-was-trumps-worst-legislative-week-ever-and-congress-wasnt-even-in-session/)
Heck, the Trumpster loses ground with congress even when they aren't in session...so much for his promise of repeal and replace on day one, huh?
The Republicans in the Senate could not repeal and replace Obamacare with 51 votes so it really doesn't matter if they'll need 61 votes in October. Except that may hurt the Dems more in the Congressional elections in 2018. Since almost all Republicans voted for repeal, Democrat Senators up for re=election from states won by Trump may face the wrath of their voters for not voting for repeal and helping the Republicans get it done. republicans will blame Democrats for not getting them to the 61 votes. So Democrat Senators may take a bigger hit than the Republicans.
-
The Republicans in the Senate could not repeal and replace Obamacare with 51 votes so it really doesn't matter if they'll need 61 votes in October. Except that may hurt the Dems more in the Congressional elections in 2018. Since almost all Republicans voted for repeal, Democrat Senators up for re=election from states won by Trump may face the wrath of their voters for not voting for repeal and helping the Republicans get it done. republicans will blame Democrats for not getting them to the 61 votes. So Democrat Senators may take a bigger hit than the Republicans.
Smells like wishful thinking to me, but we'll see. Another scenario might be that people are so fed up with Trump and the Republicans for not getting the stuff done that was promised that they will vote for the Democrats this time around. Only time will tell, all the rest is speculation.
-
Smells like wishful thinking to me, but we'll see. Another scenario might be that people are so fed up with Trump and the Republicans for not getting the stuff done that was promised that they will vote for the Democrats this time around. Only time will tell, all the rest is speculation.
I read a really great opinion piece by Chris Cillizza, editor-in-chief at CNN, who has been writing negative opinion pieces on Trump pretty much every day since the election, that said it is more then likely Dems will loose seats next year.
His reasoning was that the numbers just don't fair well for the Dems. You can read why below.
Why 2018 might not be such an amazing election for Democrats (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/politics/2018-midterms-trump/index.html)
-
I read a really great opinion piece by Chris Cillizza, editor-in-chief at CNN, who has been writing negative opinion pieces on Trump pretty much every day since the election, that said it is more then likely Dems will loose seats next year.
I wondered why I hadn't seen Cillizza in the Washington Post. Did not know he left for CNN
[/quote]His reasoning was that the numbers just don't fair well for the Dems. You can read why below.
Why 2018 might not be such an amazing election for Democrats (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/07/politics/2018-midterms-trump/index.html)
[/quote]
None of this is news and those of us who work for the Democratic Party have known these difficulties for some time. The Democrats need to stop whining and focus on getting voters registered (irrespective of any of the suppression laws that Republican state legislatures will try to implement) and get them to the polls in 2018. If they cannot do those two simple things they deserve to be consigned to the trash bin of history.
-
... getting voters registered... and get them to the polls in 2018...
That is not your problem, since you won the popular vote. Your problem is that you forgot the U.S. is a federation and that you need to work each state, in particular those close to call. You tend to preach to the choir: out of the three million popular votes in Hillary's favor, four were generated in California. Take CA out of the equation, and Trump has one million votes in his favor in the other 49 states. So, get your a$$ out of California and work with the rest of the country, trying to persuade them that the fringe issues you champion, affecting 1-2% of the population at best, are the most important ones. Oh, wait, maybe that is your problem? ;)
-
The Democrats need a platform besides: "Trump is a Big Orange Dummy". It didn't work in the 2016 Presidential election. Hoping to win Senatorial and Congressional seats in 2018 with the same mantra will continue to be a loser. Continuing with the race card, gender and identity politics, climate change, LGBT bathrooms, gays in the military, helping illegals, etc. will continue to turn average voters off. People want solutions to putting food on the table for their families. If Republicans pass economy issue legislation like tax reform, they'll be the party getting things done. On the other hand, if they fail to get it done, and the Democrats can be blamed for blocking them due to the 60 vote requirements in the Senate, the GOP could still paint the Democrats as the party unconcerned about Americans. Right now it seems the Dems are the party sitting on their hands and obstructing. 2018 is going to be an interesting year.
-
That is not your problem, since you won the popular vote. Your problem is that you forgot the U.S. is a federation and that you need to work each state, in particular those close to call. You tend to preach to the choir: out of the three million popular votes in Hillary's favor, four were generated in California. Take CA out of the equation, and Trump has one million votes in his favor in the other 49 states. So, get your a$$ out of California and work with the rest of the country, trying to persuade them that the fringe issues you champion, affecting 1-2% of the population at best, are the most important ones. Oh, wait, maybe that is your problem? ;)
This is exactly the point (your final point is the same key one that I believe in). They have to get good candidates in every single election in every state, get voters registered and get them to the polls. I'm not a fringe issue champion (most of the big issues have already been resolved) and think the Democratic National Committee lost its way post 2008. Part of it is Obama's fault as he really did not care for the nuts and bolts of politics (Rahm Emanuel did but he left to run Chicago).
-
It's not only nuts and bolts. Obama was a divisive president who played identity Politics. The Democrats continue to do that. People are tired of it. They want the government to take action that helps their lives. Despite everything being said about Trump, he's a man of action and appears to be a guy who wants to help the average voter.
-
The Democrats need a platform besides: "Trump is a Big Orange Dummy". It didn't work in the 2016 Presidential election.
I dunno, but the "not Hillary" seemed to work pretty well.
The Democrats need to nominate a candidate that appeals to and represents the voters. Not a candidate that just appeals to the DNC.
Hillary lost the election because she did not appeal to the majority of the voters spread across the nation. The purpose of the Electoral College is to choose the candidate that garners the majority of the votes in the majority of the states... not just the majority of the votes. Looking at the election maps, it is pretty clear that while Hillary was popular in some isolated high population areas, there were many larger areas spread across the nation where she was not popular.
The Democrats also need to run a campaign that mobilizes and excites the voters. I truly believe that many voters thought that neither choice was good and were not motivated. Hillary probably has as large an ego as Trump does and she probably thought that people would naturally love her. Well they didn't. For a multitude of reasons (some valid, some invalid) Hillary did not appeal to the people like she thought she would. I feel that she truly thinks that she is better than she really is.
I also feel that Hillary felt that she was "owed" this nomination and unfortunately, the DNC agreed with her. Well, the DNC, being a private corporation can make their decisions the way they like, but they also much accept the consequences of those decisions. I think in 2016, the DNC choose unwisely.
Both parties need to work on their platform.. their identity. Running on a platform of "don't choose that other idiot" can only carry you so far. It will carry your base, but the independent moderate demography does not accept that. Often we are placed in a position of voting for the lessor of two evils, but this last election was truly a race to the bottom of the barrel.
Think about it for a moment. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton represented the best of the best of the best that their respective party could nominate. These were the best? Depressing ain't it?
I think that both the RNC and the DNC confused Cream with Scum. Both rise to the top, but are not the same.
I think that is what the voters were sick of -- Don't tell me why I should not vote for the other idiot, please tell me why I should vote for this idiot. That's where both parties fail for me.
Personally, I can't remember the last time I voted FOR a candidate for president. It has always been voting against the other idiot. I so much want to vote for a candidate for a chance... just to see how it feels.
So I agree with the other poster in that the Democrats will have a hard time in 2018 and an even harder time in 2020 unless they get their act together.
How much you wanna bet that the 2020 Democratic platform will be 99% "I am not Trump". That is not a way to elect our chief executive.
It did not work for Kerry nor for Romney. The cogent question is whether the political parties have learned their lesson. Personally, I have little hope they did.
-
The Democrats need a platform besides: "Trump is a Big Orange Dummy".
I couldn't agree more. This kind of gross oversimplification insults the intelligence of the American voter. At the very least the slogan ought to be: "Trump is a big orange, incompetent, uninformed pathological liar with a narcissistic personality and financial conflicts-of-interest."
-
The Democrats also need to run a campaign that mobilizes and excites the voters. I truly believe that many voters thought that neither choice was good and were not motivated. Hillary probably has as large an ego as Trump does and she probably thought that people would naturally love her. Well they didn't. For a multitude of reasons (some valid, some invalid) Hillary did not appeal to the people like she thought she would. I feel that she truly thinks that she is better than she really is.
Saw this just now, and, well, yes, I would say her ego is pretty damn big!
New Clinton Book Blasts Sanders for 'Lasting Damage' in 2016 Race (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-what-happened/index.html)
I guess the Dems should rack up Sanders as another reason on the list of why HRC lost; list not including anything to do with her of course.
-
New Clinton Book Blasts Sanders for 'Lasting Damage' in 2016 Race (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-what-happened/index.html)
From the excerpts that have been published, it is clear that Hillary not being elected is everyone else's fault but Hillary's.
My favourite was that Hillary was too powerful of a woman and that the US was not ready for a powerful woman. Rule 1, It is never Hillary's fault. Rule 2 Hillary is never wrong.
(http://www.xbhp.com/talkies/attachments/motorcycle-ownership-experiences/167310d1419471234-ktm-rc-200-experience-thread-3801066-2.jpg)
-
I couldn't agree more. This kind of gross oversimplification insults the intelligence of the American voter. At the very least the slogan ought to be: "Trump is a big orange, incompetent, uninformed pathological liar with a narcissistic personality and financial conflicts-of-interest."
...and a dummy!!! (don't forget dummy)
-
I dunno, but the "not Hillary" seemed to work pretty well.
The Democrats need to nominate a candidate that appeals to and represents the voters. Not a candidate that just appeals to the DNC.
Hillary lost the election because she did not appeal to the majority of the voters spread across the nation. The purpose of the Electoral College is to choose the candidate that garners the majority of the votes in the majority of the states... not just the majority of the votes. Looking at the election maps, it is pretty clear that while Hillary was popular in some isolated high population areas, there were many larger areas spread across the nation where she was not popular.
The Democrats also need to run a campaign that mobilizes and excites the voters. I truly believe that many voters thought that neither choice was good and were not motivated. Hillary probably has as large an ego as Trump does and she probably thought that people would naturally love her. Well they didn't. For a multitude of reasons (some valid, some invalid) Hillary did not appeal to the people like she thought she would. I feel that she truly thinks that she is better than she really is.
I also feel that Hillary felt that she was "owed" this nomination and unfortunately, the DNC agreed with her. Well, the DNC, being a private corporation can make their decisions the way they like, but they also much accept the consequences of those decisions. I think in 2016, the DNC choose unwisely.
Both parties need to work on their platform.. their identity. Running on a platform of "don't choose that other idiot" can only carry you so far. It will carry your base, but the independent moderate demography does not accept that. Often we are placed in a position of voting for the lessor of two evils, but this last election was truly a race to the bottom of the barrel.
Think about it for a moment. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton represented the best of the best of the best that their respective party could nominate. These were the best? Depressing ain't it?
I think that both the RNC and the DNC confused Cream with Scum. Both rise to the top, but are not the same.
I think that is what the voters were sick of -- Don't tell me why I should not vote for the other idiot, please tell me why I should vote for this idiot. That's where both parties fail for me.
Personally, I can't remember the last time I voted FOR a candidate for president. It has always been voting against the other idiot. I so much want to vote for a candidate for a chance... just to see how it feels.
So I agree with the other poster in that the Democrats will have a hard time in 2018 and an even harder time in 2020 unless they get their act together.
How much you wanna bet that the 2020 Democratic platform will be 99% "I am not Trump". That is not a way to elect our chief executive.
It did not work for Kerry nor for Romney. The cogent question is whether the political parties have learned their lesson. Personally, I have little hope they did.
I agree with many of your points. But you're not giving credit where credit is due.
The Republicans did give us their best. There were 16 candidates representing different philosophies, backgrounds and personalities. Bush a former governor of Florida and a son and brother of past presidents got 5% of the vote despite spending over $100 million on his campaign. 5%! There were conservatives like Cruz, a woman, a black, libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul, a kind of liberal or middle of the roader Gov. Kasich of Ohio, and other types all people of stature and experience. But they chose Trump because he was an outsider and populist, someone who was going to bring something different to the table. They wanted to shake things up, not politics as usual.
On the Democrat side, you had the Anointed One, Saint Hillary who had smoothe sailing to the White House until the Populist on the Left, Sen Sanders derailed her coronation. Of course, in the end, he had no chance of winning. Hillary had collected the super delegate's nomination votes before the first vote. And as our friends, the Russians, kindly advised us, the fix was in against Bernie at the Democratic National Committee, DNC. Hillary had a deal with the DNC chairwoman to marginalize Bernie. No wonder the Democrats are so pissed at the Russians. They told everyone how corrupt the Democrats are. And their sycophants, the biased press, keeps telling us how bad the Russians are while ignoring the truth of how corrupt the Democrats are in fixing the nomination in Hillary's favor.
But it was the electorate, so tired of business as usual from our politicians, that made the difference. The political elites, the insiders, the crony capitalists, the corruption, the phony promises, the biased press, the "usual suspects", just didn't get the people's support this time around. So we hired an outsider, a guy who never ran for political office before and made him President. I'm sure he was as surprised as the rest of us. Well, our founders did say that politicians should come from the regular common people, that we shouldn't have a professional political class. Well Trump is no professional and many say he has no class. So he seems to fit right in with what the people wanted.
-
Maybe something was lost in translation?
Trump is 'not my bride,' Russian President Vladimir Putin says (http://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-bride-russian-president-vladimir-putin/story?id=49624290)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/putin-epa-ml-170905_4x3_992.jpg)
Russian President Vladimir Putin today called it “naïve” to ask him whether he is disappointed with the presidency of Donald Trump, saying the relationship between the two leaders, often described as a so-called bromance, isn’t personal.
“He’s not my bride,” Putin told reporters at an economic summit in the Chinese city of Xiamen.
“I am also not his bride, nor his groom,” he went on, according to remarks carried by Russian news agencies.
Speaking to the reporter who asked, Putin said the question “sounds very naïve to me,” adding, “We are engaged in state activity.”
As relations between Russia and the United States have spiraled into a cycle of diplomatic tit-for-tat, with both countries recently closing embassy properties belonging to one another, there has been speculation that the Kremlin— which U.S. intelligence officials accuse of meddling in the 2016 presidential election— might be disillusioned with a president who, as a candidate, pledged to get along with Moscow.
--snip--
Putin was also asked to comment on discussions in the United States that Trump could face impeachment during his presidency as multiple investigations continue into alleged ties between members of his campaign team and Russian intelligence, and into whether he might have obstructed justice in firing former FBI Director James Comey.
Putin declined to comment, saying, “It’s not our business.”
I would have expect Putie to say "our work here is done..." He's got us on the rocks...just where he wants us :~( But I find the word "bride" an unusual word for Putie to claim he wasn't. I'm thinking there might have been something lost in translation...could what he said be better translated as He's not my bitch"?
-
Trump Rescinds Obama's DACA Dreamer's Decision.
Now it's up to Congress where it belonged in the first place. Personally, we should work out some deal where illegals who were brought in as kids can find a path to legal citizenship. America created this problem when we let them stay in the first place because we wanted their parents to mow our grass, pick our crops, and clean restaurant tables. And we should resolve it in a fair way.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-daca-decision-puts-dreamers-future-in-the-hands-of-congress
-
Well, there goes the Dreamers program.
Link (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/donald-trump-dreamers-program-young-immigrants)
The program is officially closed to new applications and 800,000 people will loose their current immigration status by 2020, which will allow the law enforcers to deport them.
These were the requirements that were in place to be able to apply to the Dreamers program:
1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday;
3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or their lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Dark times ahead for a lot of people.
-
...On the Democrat side, you had the Anointed One, Saint Hillary who had smoothe sailing to the White House until the Populist on the Left, Sen Sanders derailed her coronation. Of course, in the end, he had no chance of winning. Hillary had collected the super delegate's nomination votes before the first vote. And as our friends, the Russians, kindly advised us, the fix was in against Bernie at the Democratic National Committee, DNC. Hillary had a deal with the DNC chairwoman to marginalize Bernie. No wonder the Democrats are so pissed at the Russians. They told everyone how corrupt the Democrats are. And their sycophants, the biased press, keeps telling us how bad the Russians are while ignoring the truth of how corrupt the Democrats are in fixing the nomination in Hillary's favor...
Oh, did I mention that now Hillary blames Sanders. It's all his fault, apparently. This will surely help the Democrat Party shore up support with those on the left who supported Bernie.
New Clinton book blasts Sanders for 'lasting damage' in 2016 race
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-what-happened/index.html
-
Well, there goes the Dreamers program.
Link (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/05/donald-trump-dreamers-program-young-immigrants)
The program is officially closed to new applications and 800,000 people will loose their current immigration status by 2020, which will allow the law enforcers to deport them.
These were the requirements that were in place to be able to apply to the Dreamers program:
1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching their 16th birthday;
3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
5. Entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or their lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;
6. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
7. Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Dark times ahead for a lot of people.
Obama's edict did nothing to protect them permanently as we now find out with Trump's decision reversing the 2015 rules. Better that Congress enact legislation that can give permanent status at some point and allow them to become full citizens in the future. Otherwise they'll be on tenterhooks the rest of their lives. Trump is in favor of doing the right thing by them. So he'll support legislation that will let them stay eventually. It's actually a positive development for dreamers although there has to be fear as well. Better to have fear and hope then having to look over your shoulder the rest of your life.
-
Obama's edict did nothing to protect them permanently as we now find out with Trump's decision reversing the 2015 rules. Better that Congress enact legislation that can give permanent status at some point and allow them to become full citizens in the future. Otherwise they'll be on tenterhooks the rest of their lives. Trump is in favor of doing the right thing by them. So he'll support legislation that will let them stay eventually. It's actually a positive development for dreamers although there has to be fear as well. Better to have fear and hope then having to look over your shoulder the rest of your life.
Obama was being blocked by a Republican Congress that offered no solutions, as happened during much of his term. Sure, he didn't protect them permanently, but at least something got done. Remains to be seen if Reps will reach an agreement on this.
-
But I find the word "bride" an unusual word for Putin to claim he wasn't. I'm thinking there might have been something lost in translation...could what he said be better translated as He's not my bitch"?
he was using a polite wording on purpose so the "bride" was a good way to translate... otherwise he'd use something like "шестерка" (N6) - it is a more direct equivalent of the word "bitch" in such context
-
he was using a polite wording on purpose so the "bride" was a good way to translate... otherwise he'd use something like "шестерка" (N6) - it is a more direct equivalent of the word "bitch" in such context
Hey, can you send me a PM? I am curious about the origin and meaning of the No.6... have not heard that one before.
-
Hey, can you send me a PM? I am curious about the origin and meaning of the No.6... have not heard that one before.
https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%A3%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_playing_cards
where 6 was the lowest one
-
Obama was being blocked by a Republican Congress that offered no solutions, as happened during much of his term. Sure, he didn't protect them permanently, but at least something got done. Remains to be seen if Reps will reach an agreement on this.
DACA doesn't provide permanent safety for dreamers. Only legislation will do that. After all, DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Now it's up to Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to work out a permanent solution so the country can move forward.
-
DACA doesn't provide permanent safety for dreamers. Only legislation will do that.
And which was blocked by Republicans during Obama's term, which only left him the imperfect DACA option.
After all, DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Now it's up to Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to work out a permanent solution so the country can move forward.
The chance of moving forward is slim, due to the polarization (and despite the Republican majority). Trump hasn't achieved any major legislation, he is only obsessed with what Obama tried to achieve, and attempts to destroy policies based on scientific insights in order to protect his swamp buddies.
One of the most recent cases in point;
EPA runs all grants past a political appointee in its PR office
Consultant with no science background reportedly on lookout for climate change.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/epa-runs-all-grants-past-a-political-appointee-in-its-pr-office/
QUOTE "While the EPA is often portrayed as a massive bureaucracy, about half of its budget goes directly to other organizations through grants. While many of these are focused on cleanups and reducing environmental risks, the agency also funds scientific research into various health and environmental risks. The money for these research grants has historically been allocated based on a combination of scientific merit and environmental concerns.
All that started to change in August. That's when the EPA issued a new policy dictating that all grant programs must be run past a political appointee from the EPA's public affairs office. Now, a new report indicates that this PR specialist is cancelling individual grants.
The appointee is named John Konkus. He occupies the position of Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs, which is a public relations position. Konkus has a bachelor's degree in government and politics, and he appears to have no scientific background—the closest is having worked for former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) back when Boehlert chaired the House Science Committee. Since then, Konkus worked for then-Lieutenant Governor Rick Scott in Florida, spent time at a political consulting firm, and then got involved with the Trump campaign.
Despite the complete lack of scientific qualifications, however, the EPA decided to put him in charge of grants. In August, E&E News obtained a policy document stating that any proposals for grant programs need to be run through the Office of Public Affairs, specifically John Konkus. No funding program is allowed to go forward if Konkus does not approve it. This can include scientific funding, as well as grants for educational or environmental programs.
Now, The Washington Post is reporting that Konkus isn't only reviewing future grant programs; he has cancelled millions of dollars in grants that had already been through the review process and deemed worthy of funding. Some of these grants went to universities and so were likely involved in funding basic research. In addition, the report notes that the EPA briefly suspended funding for grants to Alaska at a time when the Trump administration was feuding with one of its senators.
According to the Post, "Konkus has told staff that he is on the lookout for 'the double C-word'—climate change—and repeatedly has instructed grant officers to eliminate references to the subject in solicitations."
"
It's sad to see that the USA is really turning into a banana republic.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And which was blocked by Republicans during Obama's term, which only left him the imperfect DACA option.
you mean GOP blocked attempts to push an amnesty for illegal aliens /Dutch are welcome to take them all in ... / and Obama circumvented the legislative branch in an attempt to buy the brown vote ?
-
And which was blocked by Republicans during Obama's term, which only left him the imperfect DACA option.
It was blocked by both Democrats and Republicans. Both presidents Bush and Obama, between 2001 and 2011 have attempted to get their versions of the "dream' like legislation passed and it failed. Even when the Democrats controlled the congress, during the Obama administration, the legislation did not pass.
There is credence in the claim that DACA was an abuse of executive power.
Presidents Bush and Obama attempted to get similar legislation passed through the congress. That's the way our system works -- The president proposes legislation and the Legislative Branch makes the decision about laws. When the Legislative Branch did not pass this law, President Obama went around congress and issued an Executive Order.
This "Yes, I asked congress' permission first but I am going to do it anyway" attitude goes against the concept of separation of powers.
President Obama could not even use the excuse of "better to ask forgiveness than to get permission" as he asked for permission and was told no.
Since DACA was an Executive Order, the current executive, President Trump, can easily change it. Can change it, not necessarily should change it, in my opinion.
It is unfortunate, and in my opinion unfair, that many people will be adversely affected if President Trump changes/rescinds President Obama's Executive Order.
But this is the risk that the Obama administration assumed when President Obama defied congress and issued what he knew could only be a temporary Executive Order. This is why these types of policy need to be enacted by law so that they remain in place between administrations.
One of my criticisms of the DACA was that it did not have an exit path. DACA, if enacted as law, could serve as a pathway to permanent residency for the applicants. Unfortunately, due to DACA being an Executive Order, this option was not possible. So what was left was this state of limbo where the applicant could reapply every 18 months and hope that their application was renewed. Rinse and repeat until???
We have to keep in mind that every applicant for DACA understood that they were going to be deported. All DACA promised was that this deportation would be deferred for two years. This two year deferment could be extended by two years upon a successful renewal, but at no time was the deportation action being removed.
These types of policy need to be codified into law and not decided by Executive Order. If the congress, decides not to enact a DACA type law, then that is the legislative position of the US.
-
like father like son or where the moral guidance comes from for the crooked lady & dem-schizo = http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/clinton-pastor-book-pulled-plagiarism/index.html
-
It was blocked by both Democrats and Republicans.
for the same reasons, right ;) ?
That's the way our system works -- The president proposes legislation and the Legislative Branch makes the decision about laws.
seriously ? president brings a text and they vote ? I think native born citizens shall take an exam...
(https://gsa-cmp-fileupload.s3.amazonaws.com/How_Bill_Becomes_Law.png)
We have to keep in mind that every applicant for DACA understood that they were going to be deported.
absolutely not - there are all arrogant in their brazen, impertinent, you name it
beliefs that somehow the country owes them something and have no intention to cease their illegal activities - namely to continue their presence here.
DACA, if enacted as law, could serve as a pathway to permanent residency for the applicants.
yet another amnesty that will only further stimulate inflow of illegal aliens... the only compromise solutions is to get a law that will give them a temporary non-immigrant status (a-la working visa/student status), allow them to seek employment based permanent residency sponsor just like people who come legally do (common grounds) and bar them from ever applying/obtaining US citizenship in such case (at best leave them PR for life) and bar them to sponsor their relatives for immigration...
-
Nothing in that chart invalidates what I posted. Did you even look at the number one block in the chart you posted?
The president can, and often does propose legislation to the congress. I did not write that this was the only way legislation is proposed. Nor did I write that the president is responsible for the wording of the legislation. Even when the president proposes legislation it still goes through the same process as if the proposal came from anyone else. Did you know that an ordinary citizen can also propose legislation to the congress?
-
Nothing in that chart invalidates what I posted. Did you even look at the number one block in the chart you posted?
anybody can come with an idea, even a president or the next village idiot ...
I did not write that this was the only way legislation is proposed.
it is exactly what you did = that is the way how the text "That's the way our system works -- The president proposes legislation" looks like...
-
yet another amnesty that will only further stimulate inflow of illegal aliens... the only compromise solutions is to get a law that will give them a temporary non-immigrant status (a-la working visa/student status), allow them to seek employment based permanent residency sponsor just like people who come legally do (common grounds) and bar them from ever applying/obtaining US citizenship in such case (at best leave them PR for life) and bar them to sponsor their relatives for immigration...
Why bar them? We allow them to fight in the US armed forces, they pay income and other tax, they often work at jobs that others don't want to undertake. Are they not worthy for citizenship in the US?
-
anybody can come with an idea, even a president or the next village idiot ...
it is exactly what you did = that is the way how the text "That's the way our system works -- The president proposes legislation" looks like...
Perhaps you are confusing proposing legislation and drafting a bill. The two are quite different.
-
Why bar them? We allow them to fight in the US armed forces, they pay income and other tax, they often work at jobs that others don't want to undertake. Are they not worthy for citizenship in the US?
why not ? it is a simple trade - we pay low wages while they fight and die for the United Fruit of Marines and then taxpayers shall have no further obligations - there will be a lot of takers - just it is high time to end the defined benefits options here for all federal/state & municipal parasites and only allow defined contributions ... if you are so charity minded by all means please adopt couple of kids from Guatemala or simply send your money there ...
-
Perhaps you are confusing proposing legislation and drafting a bill. The two are quite different.
anybody can express some incoherent desire or propose some absurd idea or tweet some BS... but the actual proposal (which is some coherently written text that we call a bill) is done by a member of the legislative branch ...
-
The president regularly submits budget requests to congress which then legislates it for his approval or veto. Of course they can start any legislation they want on their own for his final approval or veto.
https://www.google.com/search?q=annual+federal+budget+process&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSlwEJZYtzXWMxRIsaiwELEKjU2AQaBAgBCAkMCxCwjKcIGmIKYAgDEiiMCd8I2wiZE-AI7xP0E48KvAP3E789nz2TN7Y-vj3hPbE07zONN7I0GjCNtXrAGok0Id1-6QBnwlegPFbEnduxjMzWgH_1la-f1pnMZlb01BRk5XHcFVXuaGWogBAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBHTzFiwM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNssG0jZHWAhUMaVAKHb0eCRwQwg4IIigA&biw=360&bih=560#imgrc=mrERBaEI1Nz_YM:
-
anybody can express some incoherent desire or propose some absurd idea or tweet some BS... but the actual proposal (which is some coherently written text that we call a bill) is done by a member of the legislative branch ...
Yes, that's the letter of the law.
However the practical reality is that frequently bills are drawn up more or less directly by other sources (lobbying groups, special interests, the President and his advisors) in conjunction with a member of Congress, who then submits the bill under his/her name. And as Alan says, the President also submits a budget to Congress.
On how laws get written: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill
On the budget process (with helpful pretty pictures): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/federal-budget-process/budgetprocess.pdf
-
DONALD TRUMP TWITTER: WHO WRITES THE PRESIDENT’S TWEETS? (http://www.newsweek.com/who-writes-trumps-tweets-660074)
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/lg/public/2017/09/06/rtx3evkz2.jpg)
U.S. President Donald Trump's tweeting threatens to derail his administration's message, says former Trump White House
communications director Mike Dubke.
President Donald Trump’s off-the-cuff tweets serve to derail his administration’s message and leave White House staff scrambling to do damage control, former White House Communications Director Mike Dubke said Tuesday.
One of Trump’s tweets can change “the entire narrative” on cable news, Dubke said, speaking at a Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service event at Georgetown University.
“The president writes a number of his own tweets, while some are suggested to him,” Dubke said.
The tweets that aren’t checked for accuracy or passed through the filter of Trump’s closest aides and staff, Dubke said, can often leave those same people scrambling to clean up after a tweet storm resulting from a post that wasn’t vetted before it went out.
A single tweet from the president can dictate the programming “for the next hour and a half on cable news, which was an amazing power but also an amazing distraction,” Dubke said, according to Georgetown University’s The Hoya.
--snip--
Despite these difficulties, Trump is very savvy when it comes to the impact the media has on his presidency. “I think that’s where a good level of his frustration comes, where he is hearing things come out of the press that he doesn’t believe are true or are a slant on the truth that is trying to paint an entirely different picture,” Dubke said.
Many of Trump’s sharpest tweets focus on the ongoing Russia investigations looking at whether his campaign helped Russia in their attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.
Trump has argued that Twitter and other forms of social media are the key way that he’s able to get his unfiltered message directly to his supporters. “Only the Fake News Media and Trump enemies want me to stop using Social Media (110 million people),” he wrote August 1. Polls, however, show that his tweets are alienating the average voter.
Since this is the first "job" Trump has ever held (and running his own company does count as a job) he still doesn't understand the difference between being a candidate running for office vs an office holder that needs to govern. Trump could use Twitter for good, but he uses it as a weapon against his enemies and often his own supporters. But he doesn't really care about governing...he just wants to have fun and order people around. That's really his only job experience that he has.
-
Why bar them? We allow them to fight in the US armed forces, they pay income and other tax, they often work at jobs that others don't want to undertake. Are they not worthy for citizenship in the US?
Their descendants overwhelmingly vote Democrat. So of course they should be granted amnesty.
And why should undocumented children pay for the crimes of their parents? Make American children pay the costs, instead.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcNW_T6WoAEQ8cT.jpg)
And let's not leave out the cousins. It would be cruel to separate families.
(https://www.nathanrouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/crazy-train.jpg)
But seriously, why can't we have both amnesty AND secure borders? Is that so unreasonable?
-
Hum...maybe the Russians do have kompromat on the Trumpster...
Russian politician says 'let's hit Trump with our Kompromat' on state TV (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-donald-trump-kompromat-nikita-isaev-new-russia-movement-state-tv-us-president-a7929966.html)
(https://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/uploads/2017/09/russian-tv-pee-tape-1504642835-compressed.jpg)
The politician made the salacious claims during a debate on the Russian state broadcaster Screenshot
Claims made in explosive Trump Russia dossier, though unproven, have led many to speculate Kremlin could be holding sensitive information on former real estate mogul
A Russian politician has threatened to "hit Donald Trump with our Kompromat" on state TV.
Speaking on Russia-24 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNeqoVDHxmw&feature=youtu.be&t=3370), Nikita Isaev, leader of the far-right New Russia Movement, said the compromising material should be released in retaliation over the closure of several Russian diplomatic compounds across the US.
When asked whether Russia has such material, Mr Isaev, who is also director of the Russian Institute of Contemporary Economics, replied: "Of course we have it!"
The exchanges were first translated and reported by Russian media analyst Julia Davis. (https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews).
Maybe the Russian speakers can watch the video from Russia-24 to see if the translation says what this article says it does, but it sure seems like the Russians may have "something" on The Donald...
-
Facebook says it sold political ads to Russian company during 2016 election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/facebook-says-it-sold-political-ads-to-russian-company-during-2016-election/2017/09/06/32f01fd2-931e-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html
QUOTE "Representatives of Facebook told congressional investigators Wednesday that it has discovered it sold ads during the U.S. presidential election to a shadowy Russian company seeking to target voters, according to several people familiar with the company’s findings.
Facebook officials reported that they traced the ad sales, totaling $100,000, to a Russian “troll farm” with a history of pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda, these people said.
A small portion of the ads, which began in the summer of 2015, directly named Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, the people said, though they declined to say which candidate the ads favored.
Most of the ads, according to a blog post published late Wednesday by Facebook’s chief security officer, Alex Stamos, “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.”
The acknowledgment by Facebook comes as congressional investigators and special counsel Robert Mueller are probing Russian interference in the U.S. election, including allegations that the Kremlin may have coordinated with the Trump campaign.
The U.S. intelligence community concluded in January that Russia had interfered in the U.S. election to help elect Trump, including by using paid social media trolls to spread fake news intended to influence public opinion.
Even though the ad spending from Russia is tiny relative to overall campaign costs, the report from Facebook that a Russian firm was able to target political messages is likely to fuel pointed questions from investigators about whether the Russians received guidance from people in the United States — a question some Democrats have been asking for months."
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Maybe the Russian speakers can watch the video from Russia-24 to see if the translation says what this article says it does...
It does.
-
Seems like Trump tries to make money off of everything–including natural disasters....
Trump and Mar-a-Lago have a long and questionable history with hurricanes (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-and-mar-a-lago-have-a-long-and-questionable-history-with-hurricanes/ar-AArtesi)
(http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AArt6WP.img?h=411&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f)
As Hurricane Irma makes its way toward Florida, requisite preparations are underway at Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach private club and so-called “Winter White House” owned by US president Donald Trump.
“We are closely monitoring Hurricane Irma,” a Trump organization spokesperson told CNN. “Our teams at the Trump properties in Florida are taking all of the proper precautions and following local and Florida State Advisories very closely to ensure that everyone is kept safe and secure.”
Mar-a-Lago is located in a coastal county in southeast Florida that sees regular tidal flooding and has withstood multiple storms since it was built in 1927. In recent years, the estate was in the path of hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in 2004, and Wilma in 2005.
Trump received a $17-million insurance payout in 2005 for damage caused by Wilma to the private club. Yet an Associated Press investigation published last year revealed there was little evidence of large-scale damage to Mar-a-Lago, and that Trump also kept some of the insurance money for his personal use rather than spending it on repairs. From the AP:
Two years after a series of storms, the real-estate tycoon said he didn’t know how much had been spent on repairs but acknowledged he pocketed some of the money. Trump transferred funds into his personal accounts, saying that under the terms of his policy, “you didn’t have to reinvest it.”
So, one wonder how much damage there really was?
“That house has never been seriously damaged,” Trump’s long-time (and controversial) former butler Anthony Senecal said in an interview with the AP. “I was there for all of [the hurricanes].”
The AP also looked at building records and permits that showed no significant construction took place at Mar-a-Lago after the storm, aside from $3,000 in repairs to lighting and a cleaning of a beachfront pool.
Hum...if I was that insurance company I think I would have done a bit better job of surveying the damage before making a payout–hell, we all know how The Donald likes to exaggerate (read: LIE). $3,000 for minor prepares, $17 mil payout? You figure it out...
-
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the odds are REAL GOOD it is a friggin' duck...
Donald Trump governs the way any white racist would (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-donald-trump-white-racist-20170907-story.html)
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-59b043ad/turbine/ct-1504723881-87qnkfxpmg-snap-image/750/750x422)
President Donald Trump arrives at a rally on Aug. 22, 2017, at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix. (Alex Brandon / AP)
by Steve Chapman / Contact Reporter
It was easy to get confused trying to guess what Donald Trump would do about the young people brought to this country illegally as children. Would he act on his professed love of the so-called Dreamers or cater to his hard-line anti-immigrant base? Would he listen to Paul Ryan or Jeff Sessions? Would he side with business executives or Breitbart?
But it’s not really hard to tell what President Trump will do on any issue. Just ask: What would a white racist do? If you can answer that question, you have a good idea which way Trump will go.
His record on the campaign trail and in office shows a clear pattern. He said Mexican immigrants are “bringing crime. They’re rapists.” He called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He said the Indiana-born judge presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University was unfair because “he’s a Mexican.”
He accused China and South Korea of stealing our jobs. His budget included cuts in funding for prevention of HIV and AIDS abroad. He wants to reduce legal immigration by half. He pardoned former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was found guilty of illegal racial profiling.
More recently, Trump exhibited a strong reluctance to disown the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Va. After finally coming forth with a condemnation of neo-Nazis and their ilk, he backtracked, blaming “both sides” for the violence.
There is a single unmistakable thread running through this entire fabric: race. The people he attacks or shortchanges are almost always nonwhite. And the pattern is too consistent to be accidental. What has Trump done, after all, that a white racist would not have done?
--snip--
There is, of course, one person widely reviled by Republicans as well as Democrats who escapes Trump’s criticism. But then, Vladimir Putin is as pale as Siberian snow.
It’s not entirely clear whether Trump is a privileged ignoramus whose life has blinded him to the perspective of nonwhites or a conscious bigot who regards various minorities as inferior. But it doesn’t really matter what it’s in his heart. It’s enough that his public conduct is so consistent with outright racism.
The last line if the article says it all...
You don’t have to be a white racist to be satisfied with Trump’s presidency. But it certainly helps.
When you have racists and bigots supporting you and happy with your words and deeds, you are on the wrong side.
-
but it sure seems like the Russians may have "something" on The Donald...
the dude who says like "we shall hit them with компромат" is a fringe figure ... he was never ever even elected anywhere - not even to some middle of nowhere municipal level, not even from whatever was/is the Putin party... so this is an example of the Western-style "fake" news ;D - when the media does not describe the background of the person who says something that suits their agenda ... he is invited to such talk shows in Russia just to spice them up ... but he is nowhere near the circles who might actually know something... he was a civil servant (not elected, appointed) for 3 years (2008-2011) @ a middle level and his area was social services/youth matters/tourism...
-
And again the Trump "Travel Bad" gets a court rejection for attempt to prevent extended family members of Americans from entering the country from those 6 countries...
9th Circuit narrows Trump's travel ban (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/09/07/9th-Circuit-narrows-Trumps-travel-ban/1671504825334/)
Sept. 7 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court on Thursday reject President Donald Trump's attempts to prevent extended family members of Americans from entering the country as part of his executive order banning travel from six majority-Muslim countries.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the administration can't exclude grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins in its attempts to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's limitations on Trump's revised travel ban.
In June, the high court said it would decide the overall legality of the travel ban this fall. The court ruled that travelers from the six targeted countries can bypass the travel ban and enter the United States if they can prove they have a "bona fide" relationship with a U.S. person or entity.
We'll see what transpires when the Supremes have the ultimate say about Trump's ban when arguments are heard starting Oct 10th. Bring popcorn!!!
-
Wait, first a deal on the debt ceiling and Harvey aid and not Nancy talks to Trump and gets him to tweet?
What?
Trump Tweets Reassurance to ‘Dreamers’ at Pelosi’s Request (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-tweets-reassurance-dreamers-pelosi-s-request-n799526)
(https://www.conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/nancy_pelosi.jpg)
Donny, you really should tell those poor "Dreamers" not to worry...
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke with President Donald Trump Thursday morning and asked him to tweet reassurance to "Dreamers" that deportation wasn't imminent.
And he did, Pelosi told reporters, "boom, boom, boom."
"When he called this morning, I said, 'Thanks for calling, people really need a reassurance from you, Mr. President, that the six-month period is not a period of round-up,'" Pelosi said during her weekly press conference Thursday, explaining that young immigrants were worried the six-month window Trump put in place before winding down DACA could be used as a period to begin removals.
A senior Democratic aide told NBC News Thursday that Pelosi told her colleagues at a whip meeting she specifically asked Trump to tweet a message clarifying that current DACA recipients would not be subject to deportation for another six months.
Sure enough, the president tweeted Pelosi’s requested message after the call, at 9:42 a.m.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about - No action!
8:42 AM - Sep 7, 2017
Things that make you go hum....
-
When the government tells you "you have nothing to worry about"; that's when you need to start worrying.
-
When the government tells you "you have nothing to worry about"; that's when you need to start worrying.
gov't or private business - same shit ...
-
Seems like Trump tries to make money off of everything–including natural disasters....
Trump and Mar-a-Lago have a long and questionable history with hurricanes (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-and-mar-a-lago-have-a-long-and-questionable-history-with-hurricanes/ar-AArtesi)
So, one wonder how much damage there really was?
Hum...if I was that insurance company I think I would have done a bit better job of surveying the damage before making a payout–hell, we all know how The Donald likes to exaggerate (read: LIE). $3,000 for minor prepares, $17 mil payout? You figure it out...
I don't know what happened at Mar-a-lago with the insurance payment. But it does remnind me of the joke about two businessmen. They met one day and discussed how they wound up in Florida in retirement.
"Well," said retired guy #1. "My clothing store had a fire and burned down completely. So, I retired to Florida with the insurance money they paid me."
"Oh, " said retired guy #2. "Something similar happened to me. I retired to Florida with insurance money too when my shoe store was ruined. Except I had a flood."
"A flood?" asked retired guy #1, incredulously. "How do you make a flood?"
-
And again the Trump "Travel Bad" gets a court rejection for attempt to prevent extended family members of Americans from entering the country from those 6 countries...
9th Circuit narrows Trump's travel ban (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/09/07/9th-Circuit-narrows-Trumps-travel-ban/1671504825334/)
We'll see what transpires when the Supremes have the ultimate say about Trump's ban when arguments are heard starting Oct 10th. Bring popcorn!!!
The 9th circuit, I believe, punted on this issue to begin with up to the appeals court without ruling because they didn't want to get slapped down again by SCOTUS like they did the first time. Nothing's really changed. The ban is in effect for 99.9% of the people who live in those 6 countries. Only the .01% of those countries' population who can show some credible relationship with America will be allowed to enter. Frankly, I think SCOTUS is going to allow the existing situation to stand. Or the whole thing will be moot if Trump issues the new procedures which he was suppose to do within 90 days which would occur before October. If that happens, the Administration might just withdraw its objection and the case will end on its own.
-
https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/videos/517166461961682/
-
https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/videos/517166461961682/
When New York Senator Schumer found out that there are 40,000 DACA people living in his State who could vote for him if they became citizens, he suddenly became their champion.
-
https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/videos/517166461961682/
I mean, YOU came here legally. Why the hell can't some 5 year old take the test and become a citizen the RIGHT way? Why do kids hate America, and all we stand for? Why? WHY?
-
Because his parents made the wrong decision, so they ended up here illegally. If you don't agree with me, listen what Hillary was saying in that video.
-
Because his parents made the wrong decision, so they ended up here illegally. If you don't agree with me, listen what Hillary was saying in that video.
No worries - I'm perfectly comfortable disagreeing with you AND with Hillary. Here's what I'm NOT comfortable with - rounding up some poor kid from Fresno who was brought here as a 5-year-old, grew up speaking English with American friends at her American elementary school, then went on to college or to work or whatever, and frog-marching her to the border of Mexico and saying, "hasta la vista, kid. Good luck!" If you're cool with that, I don't know what to say.
Incidentally, Hillary's not really addressing the kids already here, but rather the potential ramifications the law. You want to repeal DACA? I can see a case for it. But there has to be abetter option for those already here than, "later, dude. See ya."
-
I am more than cool with it.
Every time you offer amnesty, regardless how compassionate it might be, you are writing an invitation for the next generation of illegal crossings, waiting for the next amnesty. Have you noticed the surge of "unaccompanied" minors crossing the border during Obama years and especially after DACA? Surprising? Hardly.
-
I am more than cool with it.
Unfathomably cruel.
-
Unfathomably cruel.
Not just cruel, but bad for your country too. You round up a bunch of valuable assets and get rid of them because of some bad circumstances in their parents lives years earlier. Oh yeah, that'll make America great again, no question. Then factor in the amount of money you have to spend to accomplish this in police and judicial manpower. You probably benefit from their presence. Those folks are practically pre-selected for ambition and drive.
-
https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/videos/517166461961682/
Nice...course that's a cherry picked set of excerpts that don't provide any context and explanation why Schumer in the 2009 video (the one on the left) was saying what he said...
He was talking about what he though were the 7 principles of concept of comprehensive immigration reform. You can see the complete Shumer address HERE (https://youtu.be/a8z2L42qedM) and the first principle he stated was: “First, illegal immigration is wrong,and a primary goal of comprehensive immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration.”
You see, Schumer wasn't talking about DACA...he was talking about how to work towards comprehensive immigration reform. So, watch the full video and compare it to the recent statement on Trump's killing DACA and I think you'll see there really isn't a contradiction there, just nicely inflammatory video editing that The Trump Republicans (https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/) found useful to muddy the water and create FUD...(totally useless FB page BTW)
Heck, even the Daily Caller provided a link for the full statement from 2009. Chuck Schumer In 2009: ‘Illegal Immigration Is Wrong’ [VIDEO] (http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/chuck-schumer-in-2009-illegal-immigration-is-wrong-video/) and illegal immigration is, well, illegal and should be curtailed to the extent that is reasonable with the understanding that the best way to deal with it is to work towards comprehensive immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration. which is what Schumer said...
-
So, let me get this straight...even AFTER Trump announced his presidential campaign, Trump was still trying to do a deal in Russia...conflict of interest anybody?
Document details scrapped deal for Trump Tower Moscow (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/politics/document-trump-tower-moscow/index.html)
(http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/trump-russia-feat-uproxx.jpg?quality=100&w=650)
Washington (CNN)Around the time presidential candidate Donald Trump was touting his real estate dealings at a Republican primary debate, a proposal was in the works to build a Trump Tower in Russia that would have given his company a $4 million upfront fee, no upfront costs, a percentage of the sales, and control over marketing and design. And that's not all: the deal included the opportunity to name the hotel spa after his daughter Ivanka.
An internal Trump Organization document from October 2015 (http://cnn.it/2wfDLtZ), obtained by CNN on Thursday, reveals the details of a 17-page letter of intent that set the stage for Trump's attorney to negotiate a promising branding venture for Trump condominiums, a hotel and commercial property in the heart of Moscow. Trump signed the document later that month, according to Michael Cohen, his corporate attorney at the time. The document CNN obtained does not have Trump's signature because it is a copy of the deal that Cohen brought to Trump to sign.
Cohen pulled out of the arrangement three months later as the project failed to get off the ground.
Trump did not mention during the presidential campaign that his company explored the business deal in Russia. Instead, he insisted that he had "nothing to do with Russia." Even when talking about his past dealings with Russians -- like the Miss Universe pageant he held in Moscow in 2013 -- Trump never referred to the prospective licensing deal that fell through a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses.
So, it's not like Trump wasn't TRYING to do biz in Russia, it's just he wasn't successful. Funny that TrumpTowerMoscow.com was just updated on 6-28-2017 and is owned by Trump...
Trump Organization renews rights to TrumpTowerMoscow.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/trump-tower-moscow-240238)
Domain Name: TRUMPTOWERMOSCOW.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1508992055_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2017-06-28T20:25:39Z
Creation Date: 2008-07-17T20:24:44Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2018-07-01T03:59:59Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
Registrant Name: General Counsel
Registrant Organization: The Trump Organization
Registrant Street: 725 Fifth Avenue
Registrant City: New York
Registrant State/Province: New York
Registrant Postal Code: 10022
Registrant Country: US
So, it's not like Trump has completely given up on the thought. (go daddy.com? Well, of course, Trump is cheap)
-
...“First, illegal immigration is wrong,and a primary goal of comprehensive immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration.”..
And your point is...?
If you really want to "dramatically curtail" the future, you can not possibly reward the past with amnesty and benefits. Not only it rewards the past, but it stimulates and incentivizes the future.
By the way, DACA is about illegal immigration, so you can't be simultaneously against illegal immigration and for DACA... unless you are a politician, of course.
Besides, what's the big deal? They can't go back where they came from? No problem. Canada, Holland, Norway, Denmark, and other bleeding heart liberals can't wait to get them. Right, Canada? Right??? Coming with American education, speaking perfect English (plus), with American accent (minus), with a great experience how to play and beat the American system. Who wouldn't want them?
-
Since illegals are so beneficial to our economy, I'm sure Democrats wouldn't mind picking up the tab.
http://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer (http://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer)
(http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2013/05/sr133/sr-immigration-costs-2013-chart-12.jpg)
-
Real money betting odds nowadays are about even that Trump will be out of office during his first term, sides regardless. See here (https://m.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/#!event_details?id=225147663) and here (https://sports.paddypower.mobi/#sport/33/competition/13089/event/11707456).
Sorry if the links don't last, but they are working as I post. Ladbrokes and Paddy Power.
-
Besides, what's the big deal? They can't go back where they came from? No problem. Canada, Holland, Norway, Denmark, and other bleeding heart liberals can't wait to get them. Right, Canada? Right??? Coming with American education, speaking perfect English (plus), with American accent (minus), with a great experience how to play and beat the American system. Who wouldn't want them?
The exodus has already begun. 200 people a day are crossing the border just at Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que.
On the American side, New York state taxis have built a booming cottage industry taking people to Roxham Road. There's always another wave to deliver. And the next one is never far behind.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/asylum-seekers-quebec-roxham-1.4232608
-
Since illegals are so beneficial to our economy, I'm sure Democrats wouldn't mind picking up the tab.
http://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer (http://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer)
The Heritage Foundation's mission statement:
The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
Okay, so there might be some conservative bias in their reporting.
Now, how does this (chart 12) compare to the Lifetime cost of Lawful citizens? Lower, equal, higher?
According to the article:
in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.
How much is that for Lifetime cost?
In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household.
So that's a deficit that's less than half ...
And when these "Dreamers" received the same level of education as other American youngsters, they may, unlike their parents, even contibute more to society than other unlawful immigrant households with poor or incompatible education.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What I find interesting about the DACA debate, not that I know much about it other than what I read here and elsewhere, is that it seems like a manufactured issue of the week to me. Trump needs to keeps his base on an emotional high, lest they stop and analyze things too closely, so let's chase after a few foreigners. It must help things if they're not white too.
Of course a rational legal immigration policy is required, you can't just let people walk in at their leisure, but after they've been in for a while and are integrated and are working and contributing to the economy, how is anyone better off by wasting resources chasing them down? It's not as if there isn't precedent for selective prosecution. The authorities don't chase after and arrest EVERY prostitute or drug dealer, and they certainly don't spend much time chasing after biker gangs and the mob, from what I can tell. If Trump and others stopped foaming at the mouth about this, the entire issue would disappear in 2 news cycles because, really, it does not matter to anyone, in the sense that its importance rounds to zero. The emotional support for it is manufactured. It's got "fake" written all over it.
It's not like the US doesn't have bigger more important problems to address. But those things require work, and it's easier to whip up a frenzy about other things. For instance, how does reducing taxes square with rebuilding a crumbling infrastructure. I don't see many frenzied battles about that. Trump must be following KISS thinking. Priority one is keeping the base energized for the 2020 vote, I guess, as re-election seems to be what politics is all about now.
-
Trump's base on an "emotional high"!? The whole DACA approach is based on emotions in the first place. You know, on the sympathy for their situation and that it is "cruel" do uphold the rule of law.
-
...So that's a deficit that's less than half ...
Except you are conveniently comparing apples and oranges, i.e., a no-high school household with an average one. Never mind that citizens vs. illegals shouldn't be compared in the first place.
-
Real money betting odds nowadays are about even that Trump will be out of office during his first term, sides regardless. See here (https://m.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/#!event_details?id=225147663) and here (https://sports.paddypower.mobi/#sport/33/competition/13089/event/11707456).
Sorry if the links don't last, but they are working as I post. Ladbrokes and Paddy Power.
What's your point?
Odds are not determined by any real life data or facts, but the ratios of bets being placed and how much those bets are worth.
PS, after looking at the odds, I have to ask, who is actually betting against Trump? Although the odds (really overall opinions of those whom are betting; nothing to do with facts) strongly suggest he will not make it, the pay out is really damn low for those who bet against him. One should just bet he will make it through to 2024 for the hell of it. A $100 bet would net $10,000.
-
Of course a rational legal immigration policy is required, you can't just let people walk in at their leisure, but after they've been in for a while and are integrated and are working and contributing to the economy, how is anyone better off by wasting resources chasing them down? It's not as if there isn't precedent for selective prosecution. The authorities don't chase after and arrest EVERY prostitute or drug dealer, and they certainly don't spend much time chasing after biker gangs and the mob, from what I can tell. If Trump and others stopped foaming at the mouth about this, the entire issue would disappear in 2 news cycles because, really, it does not matter to anyone, in the sense that its importance rounds to zero. The emotional support for it is manufactured. It's got "fake" written all over it.
What ???
There are numerous law agencies that do just that, spend their time chasing biker gangs, the mob (well the mob was really destroyed in the late 90s), organized crime, pimps, etc. There are just so many that they out number the police, but I am sure the goal is to get all of them.
I am not even sure how someone could believe this statement.
-
And to take your analogy one step further, should we, just like with DACA, give amnesty to all organized crime figures, drug dealers and pimps?
Sure.
After all they contribute to the economy. There is no "fiscal deficit," only surplus. They are not on benefits, they pay taxes (at least the sales tax on all those gold chains, fancy cars and mansions) and invest in legitimate businesses (after laundering the illegitimate proceeds).
-
So, let me get this straight...even AFTER Trump announced his presidential campaign, Trump was still trying to do a deal in Russia...conflict of interest anybody?
Document details scrapped deal for Trump Tower Moscow (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/politics/document-trump-tower-moscow/index.html)
So, it's not like Trump wasn't TRYING to do biz in Russia, it's just he wasn't successful. Funny that TrumpTowerMoscow.com was just updated on 6-28-2017 and is owned by Trump...
Trump Organization renews rights to TrumpTowerMoscow.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/05/trump-tower-moscow-240238)
So, it's not like Trump has completely given up on the thought. (go daddy.com? Well, of course, Trump is cheap)
So Trump does business around the world. His voters understood that when they voted for him. In fact, that's one of the reasons they did vote for him. That he wasn't an establishment politician but a rich CEO who would bring real world business experiences to help the US economy that had been muddling along for 8 years under Socialist Obama.
By the way, your own post shows he originally filed for the domain name in 2008 before Obama even became president the first time. So he had been trying to build in Moscow for 8 years. He then renewed the domain name process in June of 2015 two months before the first republican debate when his odds of becoming president were probably 200 to 1. Even during the campaign, was he suppose to stop working for a living? It's not a big deal except to Trump haters.
Domain Name: TRUMPTOWERMOSCOW.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1508992055_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Updated Date: 2017-06-28T20:25:39Z
Creation Date: 2008-07-17T20:24:44Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2018-07-01T03:59:59Z
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
Registrant Name: General Counsel
Registrant Organization: The Trump Organization
Registrant Street: 725 Fifth Avenue
Registrant City: New York
Registrant State/Province: New York
Registrant Postal Code: 10022
Registrant Country: US
-
Haitians are willing to work cheaper than Mexicans, so shouldn't we let them all in, too? It would be cruel and racist not to.
(https://img.haikudeck.com/mi/045938034e83385005eba3352609bdd9.jpeg)
-
Unfathomably cruel.
Perhaps.
Then again, maybe I just believe that a nation is best governed by brains, not hearts.
-
Perhaps.
Then again, maybe I just believe that a nation is best governed by brains, not hearts.
Well, that rules out Trump ... :P
Cheers,
Bart
-
Well, that rules out Trump ... :P
Cheers,
Bart
+100!
-
That's a good one, Bart.
Then again, maybe his brain works in mysterious ways ;)
-
What ???
There are numerous law agencies that do just that, spend their time chasing biker gangs, the mob (well the mob was really destroyed in the late 90s), organized crime, pimps, etc. There are just so many that they out number the police, but I am sure the goal is to get all of them.
I am not even sure how someone could believe this statement.
I don't understand how you could arrive at that interpretation of what I wrote.
My point was not self-evident it seems. Of course there are agencies investigating the groups that I mentioned. There should be. But given the number of those crooks (and others) still roaming the streets, they're not exactly getting them all (the foolish and ineffective war on drugs is a glaring example). So why would you want to waste those resources chasing people who are doing an honest day's work to throw them out of the country? How are you further ahead by doing so, is what I was asking. Is that really a priority or is it just ramped-up anti-foreigner emotion? It's not clear to me which it is.
And by selective prosecution, what I was getting at was that the authorities probably ignore some criminals to give priority to others all the time. So that it's well within the investigative discretion to NOT give priority to some things at certain times. Which is another reason for me to scoff at the chasing down of illegal immigrants. Does anyone actually believe that the authorities will be able to maintain the momentum of doing that over the next 5 months, 5 years, 15 years? I just find that hard to believe.
I guess what I'm saying is, in crude terms, if you can't keep illegal drugs out of prisons, how are you going to chase down millions of illegal immigrants, DACA or otherwise? As offended and irritated as some people are at their presence in the country, I find it impossible to believe that anything much can be realistically done about it.
-
... anti-foreigner emotion?...
It is not anti-foreigner, it is anti-illegal. I am a foreigner, I have an accent...never felt anti-foreigner anything.
... And by selective prosecution... the authorities probably ignore some criminals to give priority to others all the time...
What you are missing in your examples (hookers, bikers, etc.) is that you can't just round them up and arrest them. You have to charge them with something and then you'd have to prove their guilt in court. If you don't have enough evidence, you don't want to waste everybody's time. Contrast that with illegals. The guilt is there from day one.
-
Not just cruel, but bad for your country too. You round up a bunch of valuable assets
if they are valuable assets then surely they can come back legally on working visas ;D ... if they are very valuable they can come on working visas (of even F1 student visas like countless indians and chineese do) allowing application for permanent residency if not on some kind of bracero-visas not allowing anything ... simple adjustment to the law is to allow such illegal aliens (who were smuggled by parents, etc) to apply for legal re-entry... that's it... and if you can't make it legally then you are not a valuable asset at all, sorry
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZUYp25UEAA44Hu.jpg)
-
So Trump does business around the world.
And apparently tried really, REALLY hard to do a deal in Russia even after announcing his run for prez. Did he tell his supporters that? Nope...but he did, at several occasions claim he had nothing to do with Russia...
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!
7:31 AM - Jan 11, 2017
Well, that wasn't due to lack of trying now was it?
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1 in terror, no problem!
7:11 AM - Feb 7, 2017
Funny, at one point Trump claimed he and Putie had a great relationship...From Donald Trump gets a Full Flop for whether he's had a relationship to Vladimir Putin (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-gets-full-flop-whether-hes-had-relati/)
Here are four occasions between 2013 and 2015 when Trump touted his ties to Putin.
• When Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Trump responded, "I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form." -- interview (http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/watch/trump-discusses-putin-in-2013-734124099973), November, 2013
• "You know, I was in Moscow a couple of months ago. I own the Miss Universe Pageant and they treated me so great. Putin even sent me a present, a beautiful present." -- address at the CPAC conference (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/06/donald-trump-peppers-cpac-speeches-with-humblebrags), March 2014
• "Russia does not respect our country any longer. They see we've been greatly weakened, both militarily and otherwise, and he certainly does not respect President Obama. So what I would do—as an example, I own Miss Universe, I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success. The show was live from Moscow, and we had tremendous success there and it was amazing, but to do well, you have to get the other side to respect you, and he does not respect our president, which is very sad." -- address at the National Press Club (http://www.press.org/events/npc-luncheon-donald-trump-chairman-and-president-trump-organization), May 2014
• "As far as the Ukraine is concerned … if Putin wants to go in -- and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes. We were stablemates, and we did very well that night." -- portion of an answer at the Fox Business News debate (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-debate-transcript-primetime-debate-on-economy), Nov. 2015. (The notion that the two men appeared together on 60 Minutes has been debunked. As Time magazine put it succinctly (http://time.com/4108198/donald-trump-60-minutes-putin/), "In fact, they weren’t even on the same continent.")
So, did he or didn't he have a relationship with Putie? Hum, don't know...depends on which "Donald" you talk to and when...but it sure seems like it wasn't due to lack of trying...
So, trying to do business in Russia and lying about it, claiming a relationship with Putin and lying about it then claiming he DOESN'T have any business with Russia and has no relationship with Putin, and lying about it.
And you are ok with that? You're ok with the fact that Trump REFUSES to say anything bad about Putin and Russia. Why? Is it because Putin and Russia has done nothing wrong or is it because Trump WANTS to do business in Russia and doesn't want to piss off Putin because he figures that would be the kiss of death to doing any biz over there.
I'm not so sure Trump supporters are really ok with Trump and Putie having a love affair ya know?
(https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2016/05/13/c3c9b5dc-b8f8-4697-b87e-68c23f130d70/thumbnail/620x350/e721eecd6c8f34fef3c82eaa9e0f5063/screen-shot-2016-05-13-at-2-25-28-pm.png)
-
And your point is...?
If you really want to "dramatically curtail" the future, you can not possibly reward the past with amnesty and benefits. Not only it rewards the past, but it stimulates and incentivizes the future.
The point is, Schumers 2009 speech was about working to bring about immigration reform. The DACA program is about dealing with existing children of undocumented immigrants who met certain eligibility requirements, registered and paid a fee. Once granted, they received a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work permit. What Schumer in the second video was talking about is the fact that these "Dreamers" did everything they were asked to do, paid their fees and lived productive and useful lives not a undocumented immigrants but as legal non-permanent residents. What Trump did was end the program throwing over 800 thousand people into a precarious position and denying other new eligible applicants.
So, my point was you offered a bogus Facebook post by a obviously partisan group showing videos taken out of context and trying to make a partisan claim that was phony on the surface.
Ending DACA does NOTHING to address the problems of undocumented immigrants–the many of which are NOT from Mexico and do NOT go across the boarder but in fact come by plane with legal visas that expire. Ending DACA does nothing to reduce the number of illegal immigrants being taken advantage of by unscrupulous businesses that exploit their undocumented status–heck even Trump did that by using undocumented workers from Poland to build his Trump Tower in NYC...but hey, that was then and now he's President (and the next big Trump Tower is likely to be built in Moscow).
So, Trump eliminated DACA and solved what? Legal immigration reform? No...Trump solved nothing except put a lot of peoples' lives in an uproar...
BYW Slobodan, how is it YOU are in this country? Are you a citizen? Did you or your parents come to America to reach for the American Dream?
-
Giant portrait of toddler peers over U.S.-Mexico border wall (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-border-wall-toddler-20170909-story.html)
(https://www.vallartadaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/baby-wall.jpg)
A photo of a giant toddler stands in Mexico and peers over a steel wall dividing the country from the United States.
The boy appears to grip the barrier with his fingers, leaving the impression the entire thing could be toppled with a giggle.
A French artist who goes by the moniker "JR" erected the cutout of the boy that stands nearly 65 feet tall and is meant to prompt discussion of immigration.
On Friday, a steady stream of people drove to the remote section of wall near the Tecate border crossing, about 40 miles southeast of San Diego. Border Patrol agents warned visitors to keep the dirt road clear for their patrols and not to pass anything through the fence.
I'm not sure this is what Trump meant when he said we have a big problem with Mexicans trying to get into the US :~)
-
What's your point?
Odds are not determined by any real life data or facts, but the ratios of bets being placed and how much those bets are worth.
PS, after looking at the odds, I have to ask, who is actually betting against Trump? Although the odds (really overall opinions of those whom are betting; nothing to do with facts) strongly suggest he will not make it, the pay out is really damn low for those who bet against him. One should just bet he will make it through to 2024 for the hell of it. A $100 bet would net $10,000.
My point for now is that some of the world's largest betting sites have Trump staying in office, or resigning or being impeached during his first term at about even odds.
-
Ending DACA does NOTHING to address the problems of undocumented immigrants
it does - it kills the backdoor amnesty of illegal aliens thus inviting further countless hordes of illegal aliens to infiltrate
-
put a lot of peoples' lives in an uproar...
not enough ... the next step is get the illegal aliens out of the country and it is high time to start prosecuting those who are aiding and abetting them
-
it does - it kills the backdoor amnesty of illegal aliens thus inviting further countless hordes of illegal aliens to infiltrate
it does - it kills the backdoor amnesty of illegal aliens = all Americans except for the native indians.
thus
inviting further countless hordes of new illegal aliens to infiltrate do the dirty work for almost nothing
-
I mean, YOU came here legally. Why the hell can't some 5 year old take the test and become a citizen the RIGHT way?...
... BTW Slobodan, how is it YOU are in this country? Are you a citizen? Did you or your parents come to America to reach for the American Dream?
James, unless I misunderstood your point, it seems that you are saying that becoming a citizen here is just a matter of passing the citizenship test?
It took me 12 years to become a citizen.
But first, a prequel:
Before coming here, I spent four years in Spain (Barcelona). During that time, we met several acquaintances that came as tourists and overstayed their visas, becoming illegals. In those four years, there were THREE rounds of amnesties for illegals. All our acquaintances became legal residents. I couldn't. Why? Because I was legally there and therefore couldn't apply. Do you have any idea how that makes a law-abiding citizen feel? That all those breaking the law were ultimately rewarded for it (three times), while I had to leave?
12 Years
It took me 12 years, though it might have taken 15-16. I was on a fast track because I already had an advance degree from an American university (a legal requirement).
Before coming here on an H1b visa, I had to wait in Spain one whole year for the process to take its course. That's one year of my life I'll never get back. Was I allowed to temporarily come to the States during that year, to perhaps get to know where I am going to work and live, where to buy a house, where my kid is going to go to school? No. In that year, the company that was hiring me had to take photos of their offices, showing people working in there, present a dozen of client contracts, tax returns, etc. Let's not mention the lawyer fees for all that time.
Then six years in the H1b status. During that time I was paid what the government said was a typical pay for an American worker doing the same type of job. So, no, it is not because I, as a foreigner, was willing to work for less than an American, the company was just following the rules set by the government.
During those six years, I couldn't travel out of the country (i.e., without obtaining a return authorization letter in advance from the authorities). I was the best man on my friend's wedding in Aruba (a Dutch territory), got that letter belatedly and missed the wedding. I couldn't even cross to the Canadian side of the Niagara Falls, which is said to be nicer than the dilapidated American one. If someone in my family got sick or died back home, I would not be able to visit them or attend their funeral, as those return-authorization letters take ages to obtain.
Drivers License: My then-wife was in an L1-visa status (family member). She was rear-ended in a car accident by another guy. Yet, we paid $275 fine plus lawyer's $200 fee. Why? Because, although in the country legally, she couldn't get a drivers license. I argued, in front of the judge, how is a stay-at-home mom, with a young child, going to live in a suburb, where the nearest supermarket, doctor, etc. is several miles away, without being able to drive a car? Judges answer: "I do not care. I follow the law." Had she been illegal, however... there would be a red-carpet welcome for her at the DMV.
College Tuition: my daughter (American citizen) considered an out-of-state college, where the tuition is usually double that for in-state students. Had she been an illegal, however, her tuition would equal the in-state one.
Do you see a pattern there and why law-abiding citizens are pissed off with Democrats showering privileges on illegals?
Then the green card, in the year five to six. As I said, I got it within a year, though it typically takes 4-5 years.
Then five years after the green card, one qualifies to apply for the citizenship.
So, do I think it is cruel to send Dreamers out and have them wait one year for re-entry (if they qualify)? No, I don't, as I did the same. I was already in the States (again, legally), getting a degree from the University of Chicago, but had to go back to Spain and wait a year to re-enter.
-
Seems like Jeff forgot to track Trump's approval ratings, so I have to step in:
Trump's Approval Rating Just Bounced Back From Worst In History for a President - Newsweek
https://apple.news/AnHFBRI83To2QJPhEjLInTQ
46% for the 45th 😊
-
James, unless I misunderstood your point, it seems that you are saying that becoming a citizen here is just a matter of passing the citizenship test?
It took me 12 years to become a citizen.
But first, a prequel:
Before coming here, I spent four years in Spain (Barcelona). During that time, we met several acquaintances that came as tourists and overstayed their visas, becoming illegals. In those four years, there were THREE rounds of amnesties for illegals. All our acquaintances became legal residents. I couldn't. Why? Because I was legally there and therefore couldn't apply. Do you have any idea how that makes a law-abiding citizen feel? That all those breaking the law were ultimately rewarded for it (three times), while I had to leave?
12 Years
It took me 12 years, though it might have taken 15-16. I was on a fast track because I already had an advance degree from an American university (a legal requirement).
Before coming here on an H1b visa, I had to wait in Spain one whole year for the process to take its course. That's one year of my life I'll never get back. Was I allowed to temporarily come to the States during that year, to perhaps get to know where I am going to work and live, where to buy a house, where my kid is going to go to school? No. In that year, the company that was hiring me had to take photos of their offices, showing people working in there, present a dozen of client contracts, tax returns, etc. Let's not mention the lawyer fees for all that time.
Then six years in the H1b status. During that time I was paid what the government said was a typical pay for an American worker doing the same type of job. So, no, it is not because I, as a foreigner, was willing to work for less than an American, the company was just following the rules set by the government.
During those six years, I couldn't travel out of the country (i.e., without obtaining a return authorization letter in advance from the authorities). I was the best man on my friend's wedding in Aruba (a Dutch territory), got that letter belatedly and missed the wedding. I couldn't even cross to the Canadian side of the Niagara Falls, which is said to be nicer than the dilapidated American one. If someone in my family got sick or died back home, I would not be able to visit them or attend their funeral, as those return-authorization letters take ages to obtain.
Drivers License: My then-wife was in an L1-visa status (family member). She was rear-ended in a car accident by another guy. Yet, we paid $275 fine plus lawyer's $200 fee. Why? Because, although in the country legally, she couldn't get a drivers license. I argued, in front of the judge, how is a stay-at-home mom, with a young child, going to live in a suburb, where the nearest supermarket, doctor, etc. is several miles away, without being able to drive a car? Judges answer: "I do not care. I follow the law." Had she been illegal, however... there would be a red-carpet welcome for her at the DMV.
College Tuition: my daughter (American citizen) considered an out-of-state college, where the tuition is usually double that for in-state students. Had she been an illegal, however, her tuition would equal the in-state one.
Do you see a pattern there and why law-abiding citizens are pissed off with Democrats showering privileges on illegals?
Then the green card, in the year five to six. As I said, I got it within a year, though it typically takes 4-5 years.
Then five years after the green card, one qualifies to apply for the citizenship.
So, do I think it is cruel to send Dreamers out and have them wait one year for re-entry (if they qualify)? No, I don't, as I did the same. I was already in the States (again, legally), getting a degree from the University of Chicago, but had to go back to Spain and wait a year to re-enter.
This isn't personal, but so what? A wise man once told me, "...then again, maybe I just believe that a nation is best governed by brains, not hearts." These people are here, they're contributing, and staying out of trouble. The specific people we're discussing here didn't even make the proactive choice to break the law. They were brought here as minors. They're "illegal" only by statute, and are otherwise largely assimilated and "American" in education, culture and outlook. Why should I care how it makes you feel, or if it's "fair" when you are unwilling to extend the same courtesy?
-
Seems like Jeff forgot to track Trump's approval ratings, so I have to step in:
Trump's Approval Rating Just Bounced Back From Worst In History for a President - Newsweek
https://apple.news/AnHFBRI83To2QJPhEjLInTQ
46% for the 45th 😊
Interesting. 46% was his popular vote in the election. This is going to upset Jeff.
-
Interesting. 46% was his popular vote in the election. This is going to upset Jeff.
I'm curious to see where that bump came from. Telling the "Freedom" caucus to effectively "F-off" was a positive move, even if I'm pretty sure it's merely transactional. And, believe it or not, I think his action to force Congress to deal with DACA (despite my feelings on the program itself) is probably the correct Constitutional move. Take those things, and a conspicuous lack of Twitter idiocy and I'm not surprised to see a bounce.
-
I'm curious to see where that bump came from. Telling the "Freedom" caucus to effectively "F-off" was a positive move, even if I'm pretty sure it's merely transactional. And, believe it or not, I think his action to force Congress to deal with DACA (despite my feelings on the program itself) is probably the correct Constitutional move. Take those things, and a conspicuous lack of Twitter idiocy and I'm not surprised to see a bounce.
I think Republicans are more afraid of him now because of the popularity bump and because he made a deal with Democrats Pelosi and Schumer. All the talk about impeachment is just that, talk. If you're a Republican up for re-election, you don't want to get on his bad side or he'll come after you. After the failure of the "repeal" of Obamacare, Trump now understand that Republicans are not going to be able to anything on their own. He's going to cross the aisle and make deals with Democrats so legislation will not be frozen as it has for years. All the complaints on both sides about Congress not being able to do anything will end as the "dealmaker" makes deals. He doesn't care about the Republican establishment but doing things. Those who stand in his way will be thrown under the bus.
-
... Why should I care how it makes you feel...
Maybe you shouldn't care how it makes me feel. Then again, enough people like me are saying "enough is enough" and elected a guy who promised to take care of it. Maybe that's why you should care?
On the other hand, I provided several "brainy" reasons, in addition to feelings, that you seem to ignore: undermining rule of law, awarding law breakers, incentivizing future law breaking, etc. One of the direct consequences of DACA and the overall favoritism toward illegals is the surge in unaccompanied minors crossing the border. Because, you know, "kids can not be responsible for the sins of their fathers."
-
... These people are here, they're contributing, and staying out of trouble...
I was here, I was contributing, I was staying out of trouble. And yet, I had to leave and wait one year to come back.
-
I was here, I was contributing, I was staying out of trouble. And yet, I had to leave and wait one year to come back.
Good for you. If Donald Trump decides you should be deported because it's politically expedient to deport guys from the Balkans I'll advocate against that too.
-
I was here, I was contributing, I was staying out of trouble. And yet, I had to leave and wait one year to come back.
Had your parents not cursed you with pale skin and had you moved to a sanctuary city, you could be $200,000 richer.
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/06/illegal-alien-wins-san-francisco-police-handed-ice/ (https://www.spartareport.com/2017/06/illegal-alien-wins-san-francisco-police-handed-ice/)
(http://valleypatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/illegal-immigrant-cities.jpg)
-
Had your parents not cursed you with pale skin and had you moved to a sanctuary city, you could be $200,000 richer.
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/06/illegal-alien-wins-san-francisco-police-handed-ice/ (https://www.spartareport.com/2017/06/illegal-alien-wins-san-francisco-police-handed-ice/)
(http://valleypatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/illegal-immigrant-cities.jpg)
That's mighty white of you, son.
-
That's mighty white of you, son.
I would have never have thought you two were related, let alone direct decedents.
-
I would have never have thought you two were related, let alone direct decedents.
Things get weird here in Texas :o
-
Things get weird here in Texas :o
;D
-
Things get weird here in Texas :o
A liberal in Texas!? The end is nigh 😀
-
A liberal in Texas!? The end is nigh 😀
I live in Austin. That explains a lot ;).
-
46% for the 45th 😊
Well, let's unpack that a bit, shall we?
Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Date Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove
08-Sep -16 29% 45% 46% 53%
So, Trump's TOTAL approval of both strongly and kinda approve is 1% higher than his STRONGLY disapprove total...and you're happy about that?
Interestingly, his Sept 7 Strongly approve was 30%...wonder what he did to have it drop 1% over nite on Fri.
As to why Trump's Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll has bounced up from it's 38% total approval on Aug 1st, oh, maybe because he hasn't said anything that supported white supremacists and actually got something passed in congress-with the democrats-for hurricane aid and rising the debt ceiling?
But a Presidential Approval Index of -16 is nothing to be patting yourself on the back about Slobodan...
--edited to correct typo--
-
And speaking of Trump saying stupid things...
Donald Trump Can't Help But Bring Up Hurricane Irma's Branding Opportunities (http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/donald-trump-cant-help-bring-hurricane-irmas-branding-opportunities/2066427/)
(https://i.elitestatic.com/content/uploads/2017/09/10190842/donald-trump-hurricane.jpg)
President Donald Trump should be pretty well informed about what not to do in a disaster situation by this point. After being criticized for his initial response to last month's Hurricane Harvey, should know by now to stick to public expressions of concern for those affected and discussions of how to help. But it looks like he hasn't learned his lesson yet. The president stuck his foot in his mouth again on Sept. 10, when Trump said hurricanes were improving the Coast Guard's brand.
Trump started the statement he made to a reporter in the White House pool on Sunday right. As Hurricane Irma pounded Florida, devastating the state with catastrophic flooding, intense wind, and heavy rain, the president began by praising the work of the government agencies working to help, like the Coast Guard. Trump said that “a group that really deserves tremendous credit is the United States Coast Guard,” according to The Hill. So far, so good — acknowledging the severity of the situation, praising those who are risking their own safety to help, talking up his administration's response an acceptable, but not boastful, amount.
But then, he screwed the pooch. Trump quickly reminded us of his inability to overlook a branding opportunity, no matter how gauche or mistimed. He said,
What they've done — I mean, they've gone right into that, and you never know. When you go in there, you don't know if you're going to come out. They are really — if you talk about branding, no brand has improved more than the United States Coast Guard.
Oh, no. Oh, Donald, Donald, Donald. You were doing so well. Okay, it was for, like, a split second, but hey, the bar is pretty low these days.
Just in case it needs to be said: no, the Coast Guard probably isn't worried about their “brand.”
Open mouth, insert foot...then bite!
-
...As to why Trump's Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll has bounced up from it's 38% total approval on Aug 1st, oh, maybe because he hasn't said anything that supported white supremacists and actually got something passed in congress-with the democrats-for hurricane aid and rising the debt ceiling?...
Yes, he's figured out how to start making deals. He needs the Democrats. So now he's made the first deal and it shows in his poll numbers. This will continue. You'll have to change your arguments that start with how many people disapprove of him. What will be your next argument? How will you explain his improving numbers?
-
Let's see. Quick learner. Making deals with the Democrats. Ending Congressional gridlock. Acting presidential.
-
Let's see. Quick learner. Making deals with the Democrats. Ending Congressional gridlock. Acting presidential.
Let's see; multiple hurricanes, firing Bannon, using a teleprompter at a policy speech instead of unscripted at a political rally, going to Camp David to work instead of golfing at one of his clubs, John Kelly...
-
Well, I was gonna go to bed but Alan prompted me to check my sources to see what's up...
Crossing Trump on climate, new Miss America fears no tweet (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Crossing-Trump-on-climate-new-Miss-America-fears-12187581.php)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/WireAP_a99ae088076c46d694997e5c3b030cf1_12x5_992.jpg)
Miss North Dakota Cara Mund reacts after being named Miss America during Miss America 2018 pageant, Sunday, Sept. 10, 2017, in Atlantic City, N.J
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — Cara Mund is not worried that she may begin her year-long reign as Miss America by starting a Twitter war with the nation's Tweeter-In-Chief.
The 23-year-old Miss North Dakota won the crown Sunday night in Atlantic City after saying in an onstage interview that President Donald Trump was wrong to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord.
Mund topped a field of 51 contestants to win in the New Jersey seaside resort, where most of the 97 Miss Americas have been selected.
She will take the traditional winner's morning-after dip in the Atlantic City ocean Monday morning outside Boardwalk Hall, where she was crowned.
In one of her onstage interviews, Mund said Trump, a Republican, was wrong to withdraw the U.S. from the climate accord aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.
"It's a bad decision," she said. "There is evidence that climate change is existing and we need to be at that table."
Meeting with reporters after winning the crown, Mund stood her ground, saying she wanted first and foremost to give a real answer to the question.
"I wasn't really afraid if my opinion wasn't the opinion of my judges," she said. "Miss America needs to have an opinion and she needs to know what's happening in the current climate."
You go girl...
Trump doesn't own any interest in Miss America right? He was "hooked up" with Miss USA and Miss Universe but sold Miss Universe and was disinvited to have anything to do with Miss USA by NBC:
NBC dumps Donald Trump: Broadcaster cuts ties (http://ew.com/article/2015/06/29/nbc-dumps-donald-trump/)
“At NBC, respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values. Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump. To that end, the annual Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, which are part of a joint venture between NBC and Trump, will no longer air on NBC. In addition, as Mr. Trump has already indicated, he will not be participating in The Celebrity Apprentice on NBC. Celebrity Apprentice is licensed from Mark Burnett’s United Artists Media Group and that relationship will continue.”
Oh, yeah did you all forget that stuff? Beauty pageants, reality TV shows, bankrupt casinos...remember this stuff when you hear the words President Trump said out loud...
-
Trump Supporters Attempt At Stephen King Boycott Backfires Spectacularly (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporters-stephen-king-boycott-it_us_59b5fd51e4b0354e4412b81e)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/king1.jpg?w=620&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C9999px)
Fans of President Donald Trump called for a boycott of the new film “It” because of author Stephen King’s relentless criticism of the president.
It didn’t work.
The highly anticipated movie smashed box office records and is expected to earn a whopping $117 million during its opening weekend.
The most recent feud between the author and Trump supporters stems from last month, when King learned that Trump had blocked him on Twitter. The horror master attempted to seek revenge by “blocking” the president from seeing “It” and “Mr. Mercedes.”
Stephen King ✔ @StephenKing
Donald Trump blocked me on Twitter. I am hereby blocking him from seeing IT or MR. MERCEDES. No clowns for you, Donald. Go float yourself.
8:55 PM - Aug 24, 2017
In response, Trump supporters posted a message to Reddit last week urging the president’s fans to avoid seeing “It” during the film’s opening weekend with the hopes that the movie would have a “lousy showing.”
Okay, Everyone. Please DO NOT go see Stephen King's new "IT" movie this weekend when it opens. If you have to see it, wait till after opening weekend so he has a lousy showing this week. Trump stands up for us, so we should stand up for him!
[deleted]
r/The_Donald[deleted]5d ago
Instead, Variety reported Sunday that “It” will become the largest September debut and rake in the biggest opening weekend ever for a horror or supernatural film.
Seems that the 29% who STRONGLY support Trump prolly go to see Stephen King’s movies anyway...wonder what Stephen King’s approval ratings are?
:~)
-
Let's see. Quick learner. Making deals with the Democrats. Ending Congressional gridlock. Acting presidential.
-
"Acting presidential" because he's putting the country ahead off his party by making deals with Democrats to end the gridlock on capitol hill.
-
Let's see; multiple hurricanes, firing Bannon, using a teleprompter at a policy speech instead of unscripted at a political rally, going to Camp David to work instead of golfing at one of his clubs, John Kelly...
Now you're really grasping for straws. You've got to be worried.
-
What? Trump tried to block Stephen King on Twitter? Are you kidding me?
The President of the USA took time out of his day to block someone on Twitter (or to ask someone else to do it on his behalf). Is this some kind of bad joke?
-
Is this some kind of bad joke?
I believe the correct technical term is farce.
-
it does - it kills the backdoor amnesty of illegal aliens = all Americans except for the native indians.
thus
inviting further countless hordes of new illegal aliens to infiltrate do the dirty work for almost nothing
the point is mute because we are note native americans... so if you are yourself an illegal alien or a native american then surely speak for yourself and your kind... I speak as a citizen, neither native american nor illegal alien... hence I want to exploit those and give them nothing in return, that simple.
-
the point is mute because we are note native americans... so if you are yourself an illegal alien or a native american then surely speak for yourself and your kind... I speak as a citizen, neither native american nor illegal alien... hence I want to exploit those and give them nothing in return, that simple.
i understand your fear - i have seen part one till seven in Cinema. They are everywhere.
-
not enough ... the next step is get the illegal aliens out of the country and it is high time to start prosecuting those who are aiding and abetting them
Yes, let's go after all those folks who have their lawns and gardens tended by illegals, have cooks and nannies who may also be illegals;
While we are at it let's also support Attorney General Sessions and strictly enforce all the laws of the land. Round up all the crack heads, pot heads, opiate uses and incarcerate them to the extend of the law. I'm sick and tired of seeing our Constitution sullied and stamped on by all the illegal activity going on. Let's also strictly enforce all traffic laws and do away with the tap on the wrist. DUIs should always lead to license suspension for one year and incarceration after the second offense. Littering of our streets......don't even think about it.
-
That's mighty white of you, son.
Never leave home without it.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5KfHlwQ7frY/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Never leave home without it.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5KfHlwQ7frY/hqdefault.jpg)
You "have Mexican friends," dontcha?
-
Is this where I shout my line, "Some of my best friends are. . .[ ]"
(https://media.tenor.com/images/2acda9fd87e6984a8d6d718efb7502d9/tenor.gif)
-
heh. ;D
-
Yes, let's go after all those folks who have their lawns and gardens tended by illegals, have cooks and nannies who may also be illegals;
absolutely... their employers have to suffer too and seriously - having said that I shall repeat that the country needs a bracero-type visa again to let low qualified workforce in while preventing them from applying for any permanent residency, SS & MC benefits and their born kids shall be like kids of diplomats not bestowed by US citizenship ( https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/born-in-us-to-foreign-diplomat - except not even give PR status to them either ) ... purely a trade - you work, we pay you low wages - you don't work - go away w/o a trace left... you want to immigrate - welcome to do this through proper channels including H-1B, F1 or other existing visas allowing to do this and regular GC process... and DACA kids if they are really valuable can easily do this the same way... all those CEOs of tech companies who are whining about the end of DACA are welcome to bring those people back in on their working visas and pay them accordingly
-
I believe that once we start throwing some CEOs and business owners in the slam for violating employment laws, that the allure of illegal immigration will decrease.
Supply often follows demand.
-
I believe that once we start throwing some CEOs and business owners in the slam for violating employment laws, that the allure of illegal immigration will decrease.
Supply often follows demand.
+1
And you won't need a wall.
-
Got to love The Onion!
Revelations From Hillary Clinton’s New Memoir (http://www.theonion.com/infographic/revelations-hillary-clintons-new-memoir-56909)
-
Supreme Court agrees with Trump administration, says some refugees can be barred for now
Part of travel ban effecting refugees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-agrees-with-trump-administration-says-some-refugees-can-be-barred-for-now/2017/09/12/f38d5884-97ee-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html
-
Maryland soon to grant illegal aliens the right to vote.
Whilst Trumpsters still debate deportation. Boy are they stuck in a time warp!
Revolutionary socialism coming soon to a municipality near you.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450417/maryland-illegal-immigration-and-voting (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450417/maryland-illegal-immigration-and-voting)
(http://blog.victimsofcommunism.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Escasez_en_Venezuela_Central_Madeirense_8-514x276.jpg)
-
Maryland soon to grant illegal aliens the right to vote.
Soon? Did you read the article? One town is "thinking" about letting non-citizens vote on only local issues...so, it ain't Maryland as you claim. And I would add that I suspect the phrase 'cold day in hell" would describe the likelihood this happens. But hey, spread all the FUD you want...
-
And I would add that I suspect the phrase 'cold day in hell" would describe the likelihood this happens.
Lefties can dream, can't they?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WBCdu83AYnI/Uqoo5EohyXI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/BYUDx7GADSw/s1600/26078b013a35717b73e9ebecbf1f49c546bed2ac29f7976e503b14d2e867ed1f.jpg)
-
Wow...some numbnuts supposedly thinks he found proof, PROOF I tell you that out of state voters tilted the New Hampshire senate race and maybe even allowed Clinton to win New Hampshire...perish the thought, maybe there really WERE enough illegal voters to allow Clinton to beat the Trumpster in the popular vote. But, ah, no...seems Kris Kobach got a few fundamental facts wrong. Doooh...
Trump election commission head lambasted for voter fraud claims (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/politics/kris-kobach-trump-voter-commission-meeting/index.html)
(http://files.rightwingwatch.org/uploads/kris-kobach400x225.jpg)
Boy, I guess I'm as dumb as a rock...
Manchester, New Hampshire (CNN)Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach took President Donald Trump's voting commission to New Hampshire on Tuesday for a meeting that was designed to justify fears of rampant voter fraud that he -- and the President -- claimed was responsible for Hillary Clinton's narrow win over Trump there last year.
But Kobach was greeted with a tongue-lashing from New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner -- the nation's longest-serving elections official.
Gardner blasted Kobach for arriving with "preconceived, preordained ideas about what the facts are going to turn out to be."
"The problem that occurred because of what you wrote is that the question of whether our election as we have recorded it is real and valid. And it is real and valid," Gardner told Kobach as a small audience applauded Gardner's comment.
He was referring to an op-ed that Kobach, the commission's vice chair, penned for Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/07/exclusive-kobach-out-of-state-voters-changed-outcome-new-hampshire-senate-race/) last week claiming he'd found "proof" that out-of-state voters had taken advantage of the state's same-day registration to cast illegal votes. Kobach claimed those voters handed Democrats a win in New Hampshire's hotly contested Senate race last year -- and may have tipped the state in Clinton's favor, too.
Kobach's "proof" was that 6,540 same-day registrants used out-of-state driver's licenses to prove their identity.
But Gardner pointed out that New Hampshire law allows another category -- those domiciled in the state -- to legally vote. That category could include college students, active-duty military stationed in New Hampshire and more. He pointed to a state Supreme Court decision that found those people could use out-of-state driver's license to prove their identity, as long as they meet other registration requirements.
And what the heck is Kansas Secretary of State and commission vice chair Kris Kobach doing writing an op/ed for Breitbart (and writing it so poorly)? He so wanted to find some sort of proof of voter fraud for his master, The Donald!
-
And Devin Nunes continues to fumble around trying so hard to make the unmasking of Americans caught talking to Russians the story instead of, you know, collusion!
Oooops, maybe he should try a different approach...
Republican attempt to deflect Trump-Russia probes could backfire: Report (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/republican-attempt-to-deflect-trump-russia-probes-could-backfire-report.html)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3025463.1491503683!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/usa-trump-russia-nunes.jpg)
Hum...maybe that wasn't such a good idea...
The reports contain no evidence that any aides to former President Obama acted improperly, the sources said.
But they do indicate some Trump associates may have violated an obscure 1799 law, the Logan Act.
Republican lawmaker Devin Nunes' investigation into whether Obama administration officials used classified intelligence reports to discredit Donald Trump's 2016 campaign team could backfire on the congressman - and the president, sources familiar with the reports said.
The reports contain no evidence that any aides to former Democratic President Barack Obama acted improperly, the sources said, but they do indicate some Trump associates may have violated an obscure 1799 law, the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with a foreign government that has a dispute with the United States.
The spying reports also are relevant to the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into conclusions by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia worked to tilt last November's election in Republican Trump's favor, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Mueller's office declined to comment.
Remember, Devin Nunes is facing an ethics investigation for his handling of classified info and then issues subpoenas to the FBI and Department of Justice? Wait, what?
Deflect and distract: Trying to slow the Russia investigation (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article172120712.html)
First there was the president’s claim that his predecessor had wiretapped Trump Tower.
Then there were accusations that a top aide to former President Barack Obama had politicized intelligence about Donald Trump and others.
Now comes another in a series of rear guard actions by Republicans that critics say are designed to deflect and distract from the ongoing investigations into Russia’s meddling — possibly in coordination with the Trump campaign — in the 2016 presidential election, even as evidence mounts.
Several lawmakers involved in the investigations, former intelligence officers and ex-prosecutors all said that recent subpoenas to the FBI and Department of Justice issued by Rep. Devin Nunes were designed to cloud the facts and shift the direction of the inquiry.
Looks like he's learned from the Great Deflector in Chief, Donny Trump..."look over there, shiny, shiny!"
-
Porn Industry Irrevocably Damaged by Association with Ted Cruz (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/porn-industry-irrevocably-damaged-by-association-with-ted-cruz)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59b7ff6c12c3b73159168df1/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-Porn-Industry-Damaged-Ted-Cruz.jpg)
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The pornography industry has likely suffered permanent damage as a result of its unfortunate association with the Texas senator Ted Cruz, industry sources said on Tuesday.
Porn, which takes in annual profits of fifteen billion dollars, could see those revenues decimated if, as some industry experts fear, users begin to have intrusive thoughts involving Senator Cruz.
“For porn producers, this is a crisis with no simple solution,” Harland Dorrinson, an industry insider, said. “If you warn viewers not to think about Ted Cruz, there’s a real danger that that’s all they’ll think about.”
In the hours since porn first became associated with the Texas senator, traffic to porn sites has plummeted in what industry sources are ruefully calling “the Cruz effect.”
“I’ve enjoyed porn for years and never dreamed that anything could ruin the experience for me,” Davis Logsdon, a porn user from Minnesota, said.
“Thanks a lot, Ted Cruz.”
8)
-
Porn Industry Irrevocably Damaged by Association with Ted Cruz (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/porn-industry-irrevocably-damaged-by-association-with-ted-cruz)
No worries, the industry is in safe hands.
(http://i3.cpcache.com/product/2020747896/grab_them_by_the_pussy_tshirt.jpg?width=750&height=750&Filters=%5B%7B"name"%3A"crop"%2C"value"%3A%7B"x"%3A125.0%2C"y"%3A0.0%2C"w"%3A500%2C"h"%3A680.0%7D%2C"sequence"%3A1%7D%2C%7B"name"%3A"background"%2C"value"%3A"F2F2F2"%2C"sequence"%3A2%7D%5D)
-
here the unisex version
-
No worries, the industry is in safe hands.
The porn industry is in good hands. I saw what you did there. ;)
-
Very interesting article about how things are not sticking to Trump: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/teflon-trump-democrats-messaging-242607 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/teflon-trump-democrats-messaging-242607).
-
Soon? Did you read the article? One town is "thinking" about letting non-citizens vote on only local issues...so, it ain't Maryland as you claim. And I would add that I suspect the phrase 'cold day in hell" would describe the likelihood this happens. But hey, spread all the FUD you want...
Apparently, you didn't read the article. It stated in the first paragraph that there are already 10 other Maryland towns that currently have local voting by illegal aliens. This is crazy.
What isn't clear is how an illegal is prevented from voting in national and state elections once they're on the voter rolls. The local election officials monitoring voters would have no incentive to block the illegals from voting in presidential and other national and state elections.
-
Jeff, here is the ultimate proof of the Russian collusion:
-
...a state Supreme Court decision that found those people could use out-of-state driver's license to prove their identity, as long as they meet other registration requirements.
How does that decision of the wise men in black prevent double voting?
-
So many gems this week!
Clinton won't forgive people who regret not voting in 2016 (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-2016/index.html)
Really, it is everyone else's fault I guess. :o
-
The pandemonium continues.
Look on the bright side. Somebody had to crack open a history book to learn who was Francis Scott Key.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/vandals-scrawl-racist-anthem-on-francis-scott-key-monument/ (http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/vandals-scrawl-racist-anthem-on-francis-scott-key-monument/)
(http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/730x420-ec77461b7b26bf4bfed50f15e3769dd7.jpg)
-
So many gems this week!
Clinton won't forgive people who regret not voting in 2016 (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-2016/index.html)
Really, it is everyone else's fault I guess. :o
It is NEVER Hillary's fault. Ever.
For the sake of the Democratic party, she really needs to quietly fade away. Hillary is, and in my opinion has been for a while, a liability and no longer an asset to the Democratic party.
Hillary's legacy is being probably the only candidate that could lose to a buffoon like Trump. Put that in the history books.
-
So many gems this week!
Clinton won't forgive people who regret not voting in 2016 (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-2016/index.html)
Really, it is everyone else's fault I guess. :o
I agree, Clinton was a bad candidate
The democratic party should not have let the "one horse race" run like this and rightfully paid a price for that
It even seems they're not learning from their mistake which might cost them the mid-term elections
But, get over it, the election is long past, Trump won. The way I evaluate him is that he's the worst and most wonky president the US has ever experienced. That's what this thread is about, not about the candidate/party that lost to him.
-
I agree, Clinton was a bad candidate
The democratic party should not have let the "one horse race" run like this and rightfully paid a price for that
It even seems they're not learning from their mistake which might cost them the mid-term elections
But, get over it, the election is long past, Trump won. The way I evaluate him is that he's the worst and most wonky president the US has ever experienced. That's what this thread is about, not about the candidate/party that lost to him.
Your words give you away. It still bothers you. Victory is so sweet.
-
Your words give you away. It still bothers you. Victory is so sweet.
Wishful thinking Alan, it isn't the first time you jump to the wrong conclusion what other people think.
-
Trump's poll ratings have jumped from 36% to 44% favorable. Apparently Jeff must have changed his mind. :)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aol.com/amp/2017/09/11/poll-president-trump-approval-rating-surges-after-august-slump/
-
Apparently, Trump's predecessor set the bar for achievements so low that it won't be too difficult for Trump to raise it: 😉
-
Trump's poll ratings have jumped from 36% to 44% favorable. Apparently Jeff must have changed his mind. :)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aol.com/amp/2017/09/11/poll-president-trump-approval-rating-surges-after-august-slump/
If you go from an E to a D- you still failed ;)
However I sincerely hope he can improve his ratings further and start governing instead of tweeting. Hate think how much worse we would be off with president Pence or Ryan.
-
Well, the latest seems to be that there is some kind of deal with Dems re DACA, which is twisting some people's knickers. He is all over the map on policy, isn't he? Never a dull moment, have to give him that.
It will be interesting to see if his poll ratings continue to go up the more deals he makes with Dems and the more he ticks off the GOP. That would be too funny. How to interpret that? (Personally, I would interpret it this: ignore all polls.)
Last week, those 800,000 DACA youngsters (I don't know the age range) were public enemy No. 1. Now, not so much. Oh well, who's the "enemy" next week then? Any predictions?
-
Only you made them "public enemy."
-
"PIERS MORGAN: We all know what happened, Hillary: you’re a loser! Now get over it and give the rest of us a break"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/~/article-4880156/index.html
-
"PIERS MORGAN: We all know what happened, Hillary: you’re a loser! Now get over it and give the rest of us a break"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/~/article-4880156/index.html
Slobo: I thought it was your fault she lost! I'm sure you're in her book somewhere.
-
Slobo: I thought it was your fault she lost! I'm sure you're in her book somewhere.
Well, I am a white, old(er) male, so... guilty as charged 😊
-
Trump's poll ratings have jumped from 36% to 44% favorable. Apparently Jeff must have changed his mind. :)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aol.com/amp/2017/09/11/poll-president-trump-approval-rating-surges-after-august-slump/
Alan, you seem to be repeating yourself...the last time we discussed the Trump bounce he was at 46% and I talked about it in Reply #6086 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116264.msg998887#msg998887) on: September 11, 2017, 01:07:16 AM »
Remember?
But I wonder why he slipped from 46% to 44% in your URL...and his Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 is lower than the -16 last time we talked about it. Note his Strongly Disapprove of 44% is way higher than his Strongly Approve of 26%. So, this is something you are proud about? Really?
So, let's look at the Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval (http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx) shall we? Wow, 37% approval...just over 1/3 of America think he's doing a good job.
-
If you go from an E to a D- you still failed ;)
However I sincerely hope he can improve his ratings further and start governing instead of tweeting. Hate think how much worse we would be off with president Pence or Ryan.
He hasn't failed. He' president until 2021. After 8 months in the job and never having been in politics at all beforehand, I think he's getting into the swing of it. When you started a new job, how long did it take you to get up-to-speed?
In any case, he's made his military bones with bombing the Syrian air base. He's become the "emphasizer-in-chief" with his warm visits to hurricane disaster areas and meeting people who are suffering. He's learned that the establishment Republicans are full of it like he said during the nomination process, just like the Dems. So now, after wasting his time watching Republicans trying to repeal Obamacare and looking like a Chinese fire drill, he's learned that he has to cross the aisle and bring the opposition party into the fray to get legislation passed. Just like previous presidents had to do. As he does it, all the complaints from Democrats especially about "grid lock" in Washington DC, will be reversed. The public will applaud Trump for doing what Obama failed to do. Sure, people will complain that he's not getting everything he promised during the campaign. But people will respect Trump's practicality. It's better to get 80% of something than 0% of everything you would have liked to get. Deals only work when they're win-win, not win-lose. You've got to compromise.
Since the Senate especially requires 60 votes to stop filibustering, an impossible task currently, the opposing party has to be brought into the deal. Either Republican Senate leadership agrees to this or they have to do away with the filibuster rule, something that Senate Leader Mitch McConnell does not want to do. So he'll have to work with Trump to bring in Democrats and moderate Republican requirements to get legislation passed. Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer will have to work with him as well. Otherwise the public will blame them for stopping legislation and continuing gridlock.
In the end, the public with applaud Trump for getting things done. Most of his supporters will understand the process as well even though they don;t get all they expected. Soon you'll see his popularity go above 50% as independents and others in the middle join in his approval. Of course, the die-hard haters will continue to complain about his hair. :)
-
Soon you'll see his popularity go above 50%
We'll place about as much faith in that prediction as we did in your hurricane track prediction.
-
We'll place about as much faith in that prediction as we did in your hurricane track prediction.
Well the NY Times gave Trump about a 7 to 1 chance to become president. What odds would you give me for my 50% prediction? I'm willing to make a bet. :)
-
We knew Jefferson was next. The Visigoths are at the gates.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/protesters-cover-uvas-thomas-jefferson-statue-in-black-shroud/ (http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/protesters-cover-uvas-thomas-jefferson-statue-in-black-shroud/)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480x320/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-09-12/AP/Charlottesville_Jefferson_Statue_70726-b58d7.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-K73llTqQnc0/WUzv5KY-mCI/AAAAAAAANTQ/8tekY7YK3tMeesWyK27lirO4ff-K8diqQCJoC/w400-h532/231a64ee3dcd655a76df8ba55ba940ee.jpg)
-
Strange times: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/14/daca-gop-feels-betrayed-by-trump-deal-242740 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/14/daca-gop-feels-betrayed-by-trump-deal-242740).
-
We knew Jefferson was next. The Visigoths are at the gates.
The inherent violence of the left already on display; distroying historic artifacts just like ISIS, Taliban and Al Qaeda.
-
He hasn't failed. He' president until 2021.
Bollocks, the fact he is president is equivalent to being enrolled in school, his grades currently are D- or lower, so he's failing his tests.
And what you call his "successes" are shaky at best.
But I do hope he succeeds in the end, especially since the alternatives are worse.
-
He is already successful. He is stopping, and in some cases reversing, the march toward a leftist totalitarian society. That, in itself, is a success.
-
He is already successful. He is stopping, and in some cases reversing, the march toward a leftist totalitarian society. That, in itself, is a success.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;)
-
Well the NY Times gave Trump about a 7 to 1 chance to become president. What odds would you give me for my 50% prediction? I'm willing to make a bet. :)
Looking at the weather maps, I predict Irma is going to go into the gulf, that the weathermen are wrong. Florida's going to miss the bullet with minimum damage.
You aren't very good at predictions Alan???
-
Looking at the weather maps, I predict Irma is going to go into the gulf, that the weathermen are wrong. Florida's going to miss the bullet with minimum damage.
You aren't very good at predictions Alan???
That wasn't such a bad prediction. Florida, as a whole, did indeed end up with minimum damage, relative to the expected "catastrophic" damage. Certain parts, in the direction of the Gulf, as Alan said, did suffer a bit more damage, but hardly "catastrophic." And certain individuals, of course, might have suffered, for them, a catastrophic damage. But, as a whole, Alan's prediction wasn't that much off the mark.
-
He is already successful. He is stopping, and in some cases reversing, the march toward a leftist totalitarian society.
You speak of such a society as if it were a bad thing. I happen to like rabbit.
"Let them eat rabbit." -Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/09/14/551026492/let-them-eat-rabbit-is-venezuelan-presidents-response-to-food-shortages
(http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2014/04/Baby-with-chocolate-Easter-bunny.jpg)
-
Real pussy grabbing, caught on camera:
(http://cdn2.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/TrumpCatsFake-900x898.jpg)
-
That wasn't such a bad prediction. Florida, as a whole, did indeed end up with minimum damage, relative to the expected "catastrophic" damage. Certain parts, in the direction of the Gulf, as Alan said, did suffer a bit more damage, but hardly "catastrophic." And certain individuals, of course, might have suffered, for them, a catastrophic damage. But, as a whole, Alan's prediction wasn't that much off the mark.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/12/damage_reports_from_areas_of_florida_hit_hardest_by_hurricane_irma.html
-
Real pussy grabbing, caught on camera:
Funny, but obviously a fake image. Attached you'll find the original(?) image.
Credit to the real firefighter, not to the policy makers who are instrumental in such tragedies happening more often in the future.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Funny, but obviously a fake image....
Oh, no!? Did I fall for it again!?
...the policy makers who are instrumental in such tragedies happening more often in the future.
Now you are sounding just as smart as those seeing hurricanes as a punishment for electing Trump.
-
Oh, no!? Did I fall for it again!?
Now you are sounding just as smart as those seeing hurricanes as a punishment for electing Trump.
Your remark makes no sense.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Your remark makes no sense.
The only difference between you and those guys is that they place the punishment (for electing Trump) in the present, and you place it in the future.
-
Mixed messages usually indicate ya don't have a friggin' clue what you are doing....welcome to Donald Trump's world–incompetence and shooting himself in the foot.
Trump repeats equivocal Charlottesville rhetoric after meeting with black senator (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/trump-antifa-charlottesville-tim-scott/index.html)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170906172250-01-trump-nd-09-06-2017-exlarge-169.jpg)
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump maintained Thursday his controversial position that people on both sides of the deadly Charlottesville clashes were at fault, one day after meeting with the lone African-American Senate Republican who publicly condemned him over it.
Asked about the meeting with South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the President told reporters on Air Force One that many people have said he had a point when he remarked that there was "blame on both sides."
"We had a great talk yesterday," Trump said of his meeting with Scott. "I think especially in light of the advent of Antifa, if you look at what's going on there. You have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also, and essentially that's what I said. Now, because of what's happened since then with Antifa — you look at really what's happened since Charlottesville, a lot of people are saying and people have actually written, 'Gee, Trump might have a point.' I said, 'You've got some very bad people on the other side also,' which is true."
Then he turns around and does this...
Trump signs resolution condemning white supremacy (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/donald-trump-charlottesville-resolution-white-supremacy/index.html)
(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/a1e2f7e/2147483647/resize/1160x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Ffc%2F57%2F98a573244bf19ab93b89e1c6d9e2%2F11-donald-trump-92-gty-1160.jpg)
“As Americans, we condemn the recent violence in Charlottesville and oppose hatred, bigotry, and racism in all forms,” President Donald Trump said.
Washington (CNN)Hours after he returned to rhetoric equating violence from white supremacists with those protesting them, the White House said Thursday that President Donald Trump signed a resolution condemning white supremacy.
In the White House statement, Trump said he opposed bigotry in all forms.
"No matter the color of our skin or our ethnic heritage, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God," Trump said.
Congress passed the resolution earlier this week, pushing Trump to put his signature on something expressly singling out white supremacy for condemnation. The White House said in response to the resolution's passage that Trump would "absolutely" sign it, and looked forward to the opportunity.
The resolution condemned the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, last month and "white nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other hate groups."
And this is the guy who has his finger on the nuclear trigger...
-
And, speaking of hands...
Donald Trump Really Can’t Stop Talking About His Hands (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/09/donald-trump-cant-stop-talking-about-his-hands-hurricane-irma-relief)
(https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/59baeb9cc8ca3e3a2cc2dbd6/master/w_960,c_limit/Donald-Trump-Hand-Talk.jpg)
Tiny hands?
In the weeks since both Hurricanes Harvey and Irma hit the U.S., Donald Trump has been traveling to the southern parts of the country to respond to the first natural disasters of his presidency, or in his case, to talk about himself. When he prepared to put on a pair of latex gloves while helping with Harvey relief earlier this month, Trump claimed “his hands were too big” for the gloves. And, in a clear move to recycle his bit, he said the same thing while helping with Irma relief in Florida on Thursday.
Per the Washington Post pool report, while Trump prepared to serve food to hurricane clean-up workers in Naples, Florida, he picked up a pair of rubber gloves and said, “They’re too small.”
It was hard to imagine when Graydon Carter, then the editor of Spy, called Trump a “short-fingered vulgarian (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/spy-vs-trump)” in 1988, that the insult would gnaw at Trump for decades. Even Trump’s competition in the 2016 election used it as a cudgel; Marco Rubio made mention of his fellow candidate’s “small hands” at a rally. Then again, Trump's nickname for Rubio, “Little Marco,” stuck, so he may have come out on top on that one.
But Trump has never been known to allow jokes at his expense, no matter how small. When both Seth Meyers and Barack Obama (https://www.vanityfair.com/people/barack-obama#intcid=dt-hot-link) went after Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YGITlxfT6s&feature=youtu.be) at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, he did not react favorably.
“I saw him a couple of nights afterward at an event in New York, and I walked over to thank him for being a good sport and he really impressed on me then that I had taken it too far,” Meyers recalled to The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/time-donald-trump-told-seth-912453) in 2016. “He did not accept my offer of good sport.”
What a petty, petty man. So, I guess we have Seth Meyers to blame for motivating Trump to run for prez...Trump didn't like it when Seth said:
"Donald Trump has been saying he will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke. Donald Trump often appears on Fox, which is ironic because a Fox often appears on Donald Trump's head. Donald Trump said recently he has a great relationship with the blacks, but unless the Blacks are a family of white people, I bet he is mistaken."
Incase you want a good laugh at Trump's expense:
Watch Meyers full 2011 speech (https://youtu.be/7YGITlxfT6s)
20:48
-
So, first Trump hails Harvey and Irma as historic storms but that's not "convenient" so now this sort of stuff has happened before? Except, it hasn't...
Trump dismisses climate change question by contradicting himself on hurricanes (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/trump-climate-change-hurricanes/index.html)
(https://s.w-x.co/wu/3-sep7.jpg)
Katia, Irma & Jose in single satellite capture.
(CNN)President Donald Trump, pressed on whether back-to-back deadly hurricanes have changed his views on climate change, dodged the question on Thursday by contradicting past comments he made about the size of storms that have rocked Texas and Florida.
But we all know that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to make our industry less competitive, right? Isn't that what he said?
Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday after touring damage from Hurricane Irma on Florida's west coast, said "we've had bigger storms than this" when asked about climate change.
"If you go back into the 1930s and the 1940s, and you take a look, we've had storms over the years that have been bigger than this," Trump said. "If you go back into the teens, you'll see storms that were as big or bigger. So we did have two horrific storms, epic storms, but if you go back into the '30s and '40s, and you go back into the teens, you'll see storms that were very similar and even bigger, OK?"
Scientists say rising global temperatures are likely to increase the intensity and impact of major storms. Last year was the Earth's warmest year on record for the third year in a row, NOAA reported.
--snip--
Trump's comments Thursday go against the hyperbolic language he used in the lead-up and aftermath of Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma.
"Hurricane Irma is of epic proportion, perhaps bigger than we have ever seen," Trump tweeted as Irma moved closer to Florida.
Earlier this month he tweeted, "Hurricane looks like largest ever recorded in the Atlantic!"
And on Thursday in Florida, before his comments aboard Air Force One about climate change, Trump said the people of Florida experienced something "the likes of which we can say really say nobody's ever seen before."
So, which Trump do we listen to? The one who doesn't know what he's talking about or the other one who spins hyperbolic exaggerations and lies? That's like asking the fellow about to be executed would you prefer to be shot or hung? Neither are an optimal outcome.
-
... So, which Trump do we listen to? ...
Ask the weathermen whose predictions he used.
-
Funny, but obviously a fake image. Attached you'll find the original(?) image.
My Photoshop doesn't allow processing of any banknotes. The next version of Photoshop should check for Trump content and if present, it should sound an alarm and abort.
I haven't checked if Affinity has similar restrictions.
-
"Frank wrote the president that it would be his "honor to mow the White House lawn..."
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/Frank-Falls-Church-Mows-White-House-Lawn-444657323.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_MIBrand
The future of this country seems to be in safe hands. No snowflakes, safe spaces, and trigger-warnings here. The only trigger being the one that starts the lawn mower.
-
I haven't checked if Affinity has similar restrictions.
Affinity Photo is a British product and only objects if one tries to manipulate pictures of the Royal Family.
-
So, first Trump hails Harvey and Irma as historic storms but that's not "convenient" so now this sort of stuff has happened before? Except, it hasn't...
Trump dismisses climate change question by contradicting himself on hurricanes (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/trump-climate-change-hurricanes/index.html)
Katia, Irma & Jose in single satellite capture.
So, which Trump do we listen to? The one who doesn't know what he's talking about or the other one who spins hyperbolic exaggerations and lies? That's like asking the fellow about to be executed would you prefer to be shot or hung? Neither are an optimal outcome.
Trump's a salesman and marketer. He deals in superlatives. Hasn't everyone figured that out yet? Everything is tremendous, horrendous or stupendous.
-
Trump's a salesman and marketer. He deals in superlatives. Hasn't everyone figured that out yet? Everything is tremendous, horrendous or stupendous.
So, you finally admit he's a liar that you can't trust when he tells you something?
-
Trump . . . deals in superlatives. . . . Everything is tremendous, horrendous or stupendous.
Close, but I believe the correct adjectives are preposterous, ludicrous, and ridiculous.
-
So, you finally admit he's a liar that you can't trust when he tells you something?
You mean like when Obama told us we could keep our doctors and that medical insurance costs would go down?
-
You mean like when Obama told us we could keep our doctors and that medical insurance costs would go down?
At the time, that was the goal so realistically, at the time he wasn't lying...and yes, it turned out not to be true in the end but that doesn't make it a lie retroactively. On the other hand, Trump says things he KNOWS are not true and those, my friend, are outright bald face lies.
But if you want to compare quantity, clearly even you would have to admit Trump beats Obama...I mean, about 70% of what Trump says is a lie and Trump talks and tweets a lot so Trump wins hands down. The Toronto Star has a running list just since Trump took office...
All 576 false claims Donald Trump has made as president (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/09/11/daniel-dales-donald-trump-fact-check-updates.html)
The Star’s running tally of every false thing the president of the United States of America has said — 576 so far. (as of Mon., Sept. 11, 2017)
It's a pretty nicely organized list which you can search by topic.
So, how can you tell if Trump is lying? His lips or fingers are moving...odds are he is spewing forth another lie.
(https://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/Campaign-2016/trump-lies.jpg)
-
BTW, remember President Donald Trump's inaugural committee's promise to give any left over funds to charity? Yeah, like that's gonna happen, right?
Still no charity money from leftover Trump inaugural funds (http://www.ctpost.com/news/politics/article/Still-no-charity-money-from-leftover-Trump-12201495.php)
(http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/65/66/52/14117549/3/920x920.jpg)
In this Jan. 20, 2017, file photo, President Donald Trump dances with first lady Melania Trump, at The Salute To Our Armed Services
Inaugural Ball in Washington.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's inaugural committee raised an unprecedented $107 million for a ceremony that officials promised would be "workmanlike," and the committee pledged to give leftover funds to charity. Nearly eight months later, the group has helped pay for redecorating at the White House and the vice president's residence in Washington.
But nothing has yet gone to charity.
What is left from the massive fundraising is a mystery, clouded by messy and, at times, budget-busting management of a private fund that requires little public disclosure. The Associated Press spoke with eight people — vendors, donors and Trump associates — involved in planning and political fundraising for the celebration, an event that provides an early look at the new president's management style and priorities. The people described a chaotic process marked by last-minute decisions, staffing turnover and little financial oversight.
What are the odds that how that $107 mil was spent and what charity will receive any money will ever be publicly disclosed? Slim and none I would say...
-
At the time, that was the goal so realistically, at the time he wasn't lying...and yes, it turned out not to be true in the end but that doesn't make it a lie retroactively. ...
You won't convince anyone that Obama didn't know that Obamacare would cost more and that people would lose the option to keep their doctors. He lied to everyone about these things because he knew it would be the only way he could sell Obamacare. If Obama had told the truth, even Democrats would have voted against it.
-
Remember that threat by the DOJ to withhold money from Sanctuary Cities? Maybe not so much...
Federal Court Says Trump Administration Can't Deny Funds To Sanctuary Cities (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/15/551397597/federal-court-says-trump-administration-can-t-deny-funds-to-sanctuary-cities)
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/09/15/ap_17248550365260-2d10f4ee1f00377cb85444d24d565772c7dd1baf-s800-c85.jpg)
A federal court ruled that Attorney General Jeff Sessions exceeded his authority by requiring cities to cooperate with
federal immigration officials or lose grant money for fighting crime.
A federal judge in Chicago has ruled that the Trump administration may not withhold public-safety grants to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision issued Friday is a setback to the administration's efforts to force local jurisdictions to help federal authorities crack down on illegal immigration.
U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber ruled that Attorney General Jeff Sessions exceeded his authority by requiring cities to cooperate with federal immigration officials or lose grant money for fighting crime. Sessions wanted local authorities to detain people in this country illegally for 48 hours, so immigration agents could apprehend them, and allow agents into local jails.
The judge issued a temporary nationwide injunction in response to a lawsuit brought by the city of Chicago. The order prevents the Justice Department from withholding grant money until there is a final determination in the lawsuit, which could take months.
Wow...can't anybody in the Trump admin do anything right?
-
Really, Trump wanted an apology? Really?
White House Asked If Donald Trump Will Apologize For Birtherism Untruths After Morning Tweet (http://deadline.com/2017/09/donald-trump-birtherism-espn-jemele-hill-white-supremacist-sarah-huckabe-sanders-1202170669/)
President Donald Trump set himself up this morning when he tweeted a demand that ESPN apologize for Jemele Hill’s “untruths” about him. He was referring to Hill’s tweet calling him a “white supremacist,” among other remarks.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrump
ESPN is paying a really big price for its politics (and bad programming). People are dumping it in RECORD numbers. Apologize for untruth!
4:20 AM - 15 Sep 2017
Sure enough, a few hours later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders got asked at her briefing, “Does that mean he’s willing to apologize for birtherism claims that he had made for years?”
“I think the president has made many comments on that front,” Sanders responded, making the reporter’s point. Trump for years led the charge on spreading the lie that President Barack Obama could not hold the office because he was not born in this country.
“ESPN has been hypocritical,” Sanders continued quickly, clinging to her talking point. “They should hold anchors to a fair and consistent standard.”
Pretty darn sure Trump NEVER even came close to offering anything remotely like an apology to Obama for the years he spent pushing Birtherism...and now _HE_ wants an apology?
Don't hold your breath Donny...
Hill did apologize to ESPN and her colleagues...
“My comments on Twitter expressed my personal beliefs. My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfair light. My respect for the company and my colleagues remains unconditional.”
Personally, I'm pretty sure most Americans would agree with what she tweeted...
Jemele Hill ✔ @jemelehill
Replying to @DonnyParlock and 2 others
Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime. His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period.
6:58 PM - Sep 11, 2017
I mean, she's right, right?
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/trump_confederate_ap_img.jpg)
Trump supporters pose with a Confederate flag in Jacksonville, Florida.
This Is What White Supremacy Looks Like (https://www.thenation.com/article/this-is-what-white-supremacy-looks-like/)
Don’t be confused. Trump’s voters didn’t vote against their own interests, they voted for the preservation of white privilege—their paramount interest.
here is an understandable inclination to believe that by voting for and ultimately electing Donald Trump, white people (particularly working-class white people) voted against their own self-interests. After all, this is a man who became a billionaire by swindling and defrauding and sometimes just outright not paying people exactly like them, and there’s no real evidence that a Trump presidency will be much different for them than the Trump industry has been.
This is not particularly untrue. But it misses the point—as I did.
In this election, they (white people) did not vote against their self-interests. They may have voted against a self-interest—several self-interests, actually—but not their most important one: the preservation of white supremacy.
-
In case you are a member go the GOP, here's your chance to give The Big Orange One some feedback...don't worry, none of the feedback will be "bad".
New GOP Poll ...THE PREZ CAN'T FAIL!! (http://www.tmz.com/2017/09/15/president-trump-gop-poll-fail/)
(https://media.tmz.com/2017/09/15/0915-donald-trump-tmz-6.jpg)
The GOP has sent out a survey ... actually more like a report card for Donald Trump, but it's rigged so the Prez can't fail.
Check it out. It's called the Official Approval Poll and it's sent by the official GOP website. Here's the big question:
(https://media.tmz.com/2017/09/15/0915-president-trump-skewed-poll-2.jpg)
If you click "other," the GOP asks you express your concerns, but you can never give him an F.
And the people behind the poll promise those who voted, "We'll be sure to pass it along to President Trump."
Compare that to the Gallup Poll (http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx):
Donald Trump's Presidential Job Approval Ratings
Approval rating % Dates
Most recent weekly average 37 Sep 4-10, 2017
Term average to date 39 Jan 20, 2017-present
High point, weekly average 45 Jan 20-29, 2017
Low point, weekly average 35 Aug 21-27, 2017
High point, three-day average 46 twice; last on Jan 23-25, 2017
Low point, three-day average 34 six times; last on Aug 30-Sep 1, 2017
-
Wait, Trump has an "Ethics Chief"? What's his job I wonder? Oh, maybe this...
TRUMP ETHICS CHIEF APPROVES ANONYMOUS DONATIONS FOR RUSSIA-RELATED LEGAL FEES (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/trump-white-house-anonymous-donations-lawyers)
(https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/59ba958bc8554637b680691b/master/w_960,c_limit/trump-staffers-legal-defense-fund.jpg)
The Washington swamp just got a little bit swampier.
The White House has a Russia problem, and over the past few months, staffers have been lawyering up to protect themselves. Robert Mueller is looking at several Trump associates in particular: Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, and the president’s son Donald Trump Jr., are all reportedly central players given their past connections with Kremlin operatives. But practically everyone in the West Wing who had extensive interactions with those principals is a potential witness, too, forcing Hope Hicks, Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer, Mike Pence, and Michael Caputo, among others, to retain counsel, too. As my colleague Abby Tracy reported in June, those lawyers are expensive, and not everyone is the scion of a billionaire with direct access to their presidential campaign’s funds, like Kushner or Trump Jr. For many members of Donald Trump’s staff, the $750 to $1,000 per hour cost of a top-tier attorney is either out of reach or a recipe for bankruptcy. (One expert noted that even for an individual facing a single interview with the F.B.I., a lawyer could easily devote 40 to 60 hours to their case, resulting in bill for anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000.) And so this week, with Trump staffers staring down the barrel of Mueller’s investigation, the White House opened the floodgates to outside money for penurious aides and advisers, eliminating the transparency requirement for their legal defense funds entirely.
Politico reports that the U.S. Office of Government Ethics has, with little fanfare, reversed an internal rule preventing White House staffers from accepting anonymous donations to help pay for their legal bills. Under this new status, government employees under investigation can solicit and accept money from parties normally prohibited from donating money to them—such as lobbyists, interest groups, and the broad category of “people with business before the government”—as long as their identities are unknown. “You can picture a whole army of people with business before the government willing to step in here and make [the debt] go away,” Marylin Glynn, a former acting director of the O.G.E., told Politico.
Any time the words Ethics and Trump are in the same headline ya gotta figure it ain't about HAVING ethics but most likely NOT having ethics. So, as long as donors are "anonymous" White House staffers can accept money to apply towards their legal fees? I'll betcha a lawyer figured this one out.
-
#MAGA some day...maybe...when he gets around to it...
Plans for drug abuse emergency join others in the slow lane (http://www.newsday.com/long-island/columnists/dan-janison/plans-for-drug-abuse-emergency-join-others-in-the-slow-lane-1.14143419)
(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.14145801.1505208228!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.jpg)
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on Thursday, Aug. 10, 2017.
One month ago, President Donald Trump said he was about to brand widespread opioid abuse a national emergency. “It’s a serious problem the likes of which we’ve never had,” he said.
Formally declaring an emergency would allow federal agencies to quickly take steps and tap more funds for treatment and prevention.
Trump said Aug. 10 the White House was drawing up the necessary documents.
There has been no visible action since.
“The president’s policy advisers are working through the details with all of the relevant components and agencies,” a spokesman said. Monday. “Right now, these actions are undergoing a legal review.”
Yeah, right...any day now huh Donny?
-
Oh, wait...never mind...
Government ethics office says it will stick with ban on anonymous gifts (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/15/anonymous-gifts-white-house-legal-defense-ethics-242779?lo=ap_a1)
(https://static.vibe.com/files/2017/02/white-house-light-switches-1486407297-640x360.jpg)
Changes to a 1993 guidance on donations to legal defense funds for government employees raised concerns that longstanding internal policy would be reversed.
The head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics said on Friday that the agency is sticking with its long-standing stance prohibiting anonymous donations to White House legal defense funds, despite recently putting forward language that appeared to undercut that position.
OGE has been under fire this week in the wake of a POLITICO report detailing a small but potentially critical change to the agency’s official guidance document that the OGE’s recently departed director said could give a green light to President Donald Trump’s aides to accept anonymous donations to pay their attorney bills.
But David Apol, the acting OGE director, said in an interview Friday that there’s been no change — and he’s been giving advice to outside groups that are coming forward to set up legal defense funds for Trump aides as the Russia probe intensifies that they should have their donors disclose their identities.
“OGE has not changed its policy on anonymous donations,” Apol said.
-
the quality of yankee leaders on both sides & of their media
http://www.lifezette.com/referral/hillary-maddow-south-korea-literally-within-miles-border-north-korea/
;D
-
You mean like when Obama told us we could keep our doctors and that medical insurance costs would go down?
Why do you always divert to another subject when you can't win. It's so obvious and ineffective.
You keep telling us the election is over and Trump won. So stop trying to divert attention to Obama and Clinton. Get over it, Trump is a big lyer, he knows it and his supporters accept it.
-
the quality of yankee leaders on both sides & of their media
http://www.lifezette.com/referral/hillary-maddow-south-korea-literally-within-miles-border-north-korea/
;D
Actually Hillary was correct...it's called the DMZ.
Korean Demilitarized Zone (From Wikipedia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone)
The Demilitarized zone (DMZ) is a border barrier that divides the Korean Peninsula roughly in half. It was created by agreement between North Korea, China and the United Nations in 1953. The DMZ is 250 kilometres (160 miles) long, and about 4 kilometres (2.5 miles) wide.
The DMZ is a no man's land and ironically because of the no go nature has actually become one of the most pristine undeveloped areas in Asia. Of course that would change is war broke out.
-
So, according to Jeff Schewe and some others (and Jeff claims "the majority"), the system we live in is... white supremacy.
-
At the time, that was the goal so realistically, at the time he wasn't lying...and yes, it turned out not to be true in the end but that doesn't make it a lie retroactively. On the other hand, Trump says things he KNOWS are not true and those, my friend, are outright bald face lies.
Wow, looks like another one got Grubered.
It has been reported extensively that at the time Obama made those statements, he know what the full outcome of the policies would be including current plans being cancelled and people no loner being able to keep their doctors. This is how Gruber designed the bill, and Gruber fully explained it to the president at the time.
Thanks to Jonathan Gruber for revealing Obamacare deception (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-thanks-to-jonathan-gruber-for-revealing-obamacare-deception/2014/11/17/356514b2-6e72-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html?utm_term=.4191f20cdf42)
-
Why do you always divert to another subject when you can't win. It's so obvious and ineffective.
You keep telling us the election is over and Trump won. So stop trying to divert attention to Obama and Clinton. Get over it, Trump is a big lyer, he knows it and his supporters accept it.
How quickly we forget how Obama blamed Bush for 7 years for his problems. But you do make a good point that we should forget what previous presidents did and who Trump's competitor, a corrupt politician, was in the election.
So let's get back to Trump. As a supporter, I'm not concerned with his hyperbolic salesmanship. His inflation of statistics to make superlatives comes from a lifetime of selling the Trump name. He shouldn't do it. But that's how he sells his policies and positions. But I'm mainly concerned with his election promises and what he's doing about policy. He's keeping to his word that he'll do everything he can to make America safer, destroy ISIS, strengthen our military, produce jobs and help the economy, replace Obamacare, limit illegal immigration, get others to respect America's military and power position in the world, installing a conservative Supreme Court Justice, leaving the Paris Accord, cutting back regulations, trade agreements, allowing the pipelines, etc. He hasn't yet accomplished all these things fully. But it's only been 8 months. And some of these will not get done without compromise with the Democrats as is required in a divided Congress. But so far, so good. He's kept his word.
-
And just to annoy Pieter. And to annoy Bart, here is the original: ;)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uEqMe4eeRU4/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Treasury's Mnuchin says no tax cut for wealthy - Reuters
https://apple.news/AzF04qUL8QMWQfuRfsIif4Q
-
Treasury's Mnuchin says no tax cut for wealthy - Reuters
https://apple.news/AzF04qUL8QMWQfuRfsIif4Q
Ho hum. Why would we believe anything from these idiots?
Meanwhile, the lies continue. He even makes up shit on international events about which he could have little knowledge.
WASHINGTON — President Trump seized on a terrorist attack in London on Friday to promote his ban on travel to the United States by Muslims and, in the process, ran afoul of Britain by claiming without evidence that the assailants had been “in the sights” of the British police.
In a fusillade of early morning tweets, Mr. Trump cited the chaotic scene in a London Underground station as Exhibit A for his hard-line policies. His ban on visitors from predominantly Muslim countries, he wrote, should be “far larger, tougher and more specific” — a statement that seemed calculated to mollify his political base after a week in which Mr. Trump suddenly began playing dealmaker with Democrats on immigration.
But Mr. Trump’s assertion that the assailants had been known to Scotland Yard angered Prime Minister Theresa May, who said it was not helpful for anyone to speculate while an investigation was underway. Mr. Trump was later briefed about the attack and called Mrs. May with condolences, according to a senior official, though he did not apologize.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/us/politics/trump-seizes-on-london-attack-to-push-for-expanding-a-travel-ban.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
-
Ho hum. Why would we believe anything from these idiots?
Meanwhile, the lies continue. He even makes up shit on international events about which he could have little knowledge.
WASHINGTON — President Trump seized on a terrorist attack in London on Friday to promote his ban on travel to the United States by Muslims and, in the process, ran afoul of Britain by claiming without evidence that the assailants had been “in the sights” of the British police.
In a fusillade of early morning tweets, Mr. Trump cited the chaotic scene in a London Underground station as Exhibit A for his hard-line policies. His ban on visitors from predominantly Muslim countries, he wrote, should be “far larger, tougher and more specific” — a statement that seemed calculated to mollify his political base after a week in which Mr. Trump suddenly began playing dealmaker with Democrats on immigration.
But Mr. Trump’s assertion that the assailants had been known to Scotland Yard angered Prime Minister Theresa May, who said it was not helpful for anyone to speculate while an investigation was underway. Mr. Trump was later briefed about the attack and called Mrs. May with condolences, according to a senior official, though he did not apologize.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/us/politics/trump-seizes-on-london-attack-to-push-for-expanding-a-travel-ban.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Won't you be embarrassed if they find out that the assailant was known by Scotland Yard?
But his main point was when he added in the tweet that people need to be "more proactive.” As usual the liberal press played gotcha games ignoring the thrust of his tweet. The Brits appear to be slack about stopping terrorists. This is about the fifth time recently they were attacked. He intends not to be slack like that. His tweet is a political statement that really has nothing to do whether the assailant was known or not. The point is here is this guy with a bomb within proximity of Scotland Yard and they couldn't stop him because British policies are weak and Trump's by comparison are strong.
-
Won't you be embarrassed if they find out that the assailant was known by Scotland Yard?...
If the history is any guide, many of the recent terrorists were known to security forces, here and in Europe. Many even questioned, then released. Boston bomber, for one (but since we didn't want to "collude" with Russians, we ignored their warning).
-
Won't you be embarrassed if they find out that the assailant was known by Scotland Yard?
But his main point was when he added in the tweet that people need to be "more proactive.” As usual the liberal press played gotcha games ignoring the thrust of his tweet. The Brits appear to be slack about stopping terrorists. This is about the fifth time recently they were attacked. He intends not to be slack like that. His tweet is a political statement that really has nothing to do whether the assailant was known or not. The point is here is this guy with a bomb within proximity of Scotland Yard and they couldn't stop him because British policies are weak and Trump's by comparison are strong.
No Alan,
Trump should be embarrassed - only he .
But it seems to be something he never experienced in his life .
-
No Alan,
Trump should be embarrassed - only he .
But it seems to be something he never experienced in his life .
Trump doesn't mince words. He tells it like it is. Europe has fallen victim to Muslim radicalism. They barely can protect themselves from the cultural, national and religious shocks that are coming, never mind the terrorism. He intends to not let that happen here. Americans who support him understand this. Those who don't are blinded by their hate of him and can't see the forest through the trees.
-
Trump doesn't mince words. He tells it like it is.
He does no such thing. He tells it like he thinks his supporters want to hear.
-
(but since we didn't want to "collude" with Russians, we ignored their warning).
I guess you forgot this?
Russia Didn’t Share All Details on Boston Bombing Suspect, Report Says (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/us/russia-failed-to-share-details-on-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect.html)
WASHINGTON — The Russian government declined to provide the F.B.I. with information about one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects that would most likely have led to more extensive scrutiny of him at least two years before the attack, according to an inspector general’s report.
Russian officials had told the F.B.I. in 2011 that the suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, “was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer” and that Mr. Tsarnaev “had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.”
But after an initial investigation by the F.B.I., the Russians declined several requests for additional information about Mr. Tsarnaev, according to the report, a review of how intelligence and law enforcement agencies could have thwarted the bombing.
At the time, American law enforcement officials believed that Mr. Tsarnaev posed a far greater threat to Russia.
But hey why let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
-
Won't you be embarrassed if they find out that the assailant was known by Scotland Yard?
But his main point was when he added in the tweet that people need to be "more proactive.” As usual the liberal press played gotcha games ignoring the thrust of his tweet. The Brits appear to be slack about stopping terrorists. This is about the fifth time recently they were attacked. He intends not to be slack like that. His tweet is a political statement that really has nothing to do whether the assailant was known or not. The point is here is this guy with a bomb within proximity of Scotland Yard and they couldn't stop him because British policies are weak and Trump's by comparison are strong.
You criticize Europeans when they comment on American politics, but you interfere in European politics. Double standards and hypocrisy ??? It looks like you are here only to stir the brown stuff ?
-
I guess you forgot this?
Russia Didn’t Share All Details on Boston Bombing Suspect, Report Says (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/us/russia-failed-to-share-details-on-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect.html)
But hey why let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
Oh, dear, here we go again! The lamest excuse by the FBI, trying to cover their asinus (but, mom... Russians didn't tell us everything they know so that we can gain insight into their methods and operating network... not our fault, mom). It is not enough that they warned us, you wanted them to do all the work, provide all the evidence, so that we just show up and arrest him? Or we hoped that, by letting him be, he would indeed be a "greater threat to Russia" and act on it?
If someone calls police that a suspicious individual moved into your neighborhood, sexual predatar, child molester, drug dealer, etc., do you ask them to provide all the evidence? When we ask people "see something, say something," do we asked them to provide written evidence, in triplicate?
-
You criticize Europeans when they comment on American politics, but you interfere in European politics. Double standards and hypocrisy ??? It looks like you are here only to stir the brown stuff ?
This is a thread about Trump, not European politics. Trump's tweet was about his position regarding being strong against terrorism here in the USA. Frankly, if Europe wants to be weak and let in terrorists, that's there business as long as they don't come here. However, I thought we were working together to stop terrorism. British and European weakness makes it harder on us. Maybe you need to be tougher.
-
This is a thread about Trump, not European politics. Trump's tweet was about his position regarding being strong against terrorism here in the USA. Frankly, if Europe wants to be weak and let in terrorists, that's there business as long as they don't come here. However, I thought we were working together to stop terrorism. British and European weakness makes it harder on us. Maybe you need to be tougher.
Your right wing John Wayne attitude isn't appreciated in Europe. It looks like you are itching for world war three? Just keep to American politics. ::)
-
Your right wing John Wayne attitude isn't appreciated in Europe. It looks like you are itching for world war three? Just keep to American politics. ::)
One sure way to avoid war in Europe is to peacefully surrender and become a caliphate. Some in Europe are really good at that ;)
-
One sure way to avoid war in Europe is to peacefully surrender and become a caliphate. Some in Europe are really good at that ;)
One sure way to avoid war in Europe is to peacefully surrender and become a caliphate. Some in Europe are really good at that ;)
Is that why you escaped from East Europe/Russia/Spain to a safe haven?
-
And just to annoy Pieter. And to annoy Bart, here is the original: ;)
Why would that annoy me? Contrary to what you think I'm not a Hillary supporter. But since the US echo chamber here stereotype all Trump opposers as liberal, Hillary supporting leftists I can see where you are coming from. ;)
-
Is that why you escaped from East Europe/Russia/Spain to a safe haven?
Of course. Then again, (some) Eastern Europe and Russia do know how to fight. Some others, in Western Europe in particular, prefer immediate surrender ;)
-
Why would that annoy me? ...
Because you said we should drop mentioning Hillary, no?
-
Because you said we should drop mentioning Hillary, no?
These type of jokes are fine by me, what I don't like (but it doesn't annoy me) is that when there is Trump critique the discussion gets diverted to Hillary, Obama or anybody else besides Trump just to divert attention away from his bonehead and stupid mistakes.
-
Actually Hillary was correct...it's called the DMZ.
the border is this = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Demarcation_Line
north of it the land and air is sovereign property of NK, south of - SK ... there are not miles of space (belonging to whom ?) between 2 countries... armed NK soldiers partol DMZ north of MDL, armed SK soldiers & probably Americans south of it... the agreement not to put any "heavy arms" stationary on soil inside it does not change the situation
-
Or we hoped that, by letting him be, he would indeed be a "greater threat to Russia" and act on it?
exactly, we just need to remember who and why fed Osama in 80s ;D ... but justice was served, you reap what you saw, amen !
-
... diverted to Hillary, Obama or anybody else besides Trump just to divert attention away from his bonehead and stupid mistakes.
The point is not to divert, but to point out the hypocrisy of "worrying about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own."
-
The point is not to divert, but to point out the hypocrisy of "worrying about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own."
I think it's more a log in Trump's eye vs. a spec in others, but as I said before, beauty (or the opposite) is in the eye of the beholder ;)
-
Of course. Then again, (some) Eastern Europe and Russia do know how to fight. Some others, in Western Europe in particular, prefer immediate surrender ;)
When are you going to enlist? The marines need a few good mindless men!
-
These type of jokes are fine by me, what I don't like (but it doesn't annoy me) is that when there is Trump critique the discussion gets diverted to Hillary, Obama or anybody else besides Trump just to divert attention away from his bonehead and stupid mistakes.
Well Trump is correcting some of the bonehead mistakes of Obama and Hillary. So we are mentioning them to make a point. Such as Obama's Syria red line which emboldened all our enemies and pulling our fleet out of the Pacific and giving a green light to China to build those islands into military bases. How about the mess of Obamacare creating medical insurance costs out of site? Hillary's giving the green light to execute Libya's Gadhafi and fracturing that country into a terrorist nest? Obama doing nothing about North Korea so now we have to deal with his missiles and nukes almost at our doorstep. Any mistakes Trump has made, so far, are rather minor and more about tone than policies.
-
China's claims in the South China Sea predate Obama by over sixty years. Blaming him for that situation displays nothing but ignorance of the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line
We'll see what Trump does about the South China Sea and North Korea. If you think he has a magic solution to those issues, you're further revealing how well he's hoodwinked y'alls.
-
When are you going to enlist? The marines need a few good mindless men!
I tried enlisting for the The Expendables, but got rejected. Something about age, I think ;)
-
Well Trump is correcting some of the bonehead mistakes of Obama and Hillary.
As we used to say at work, some people throw over more stuff with their a$$ then they can ever dream of puttting back up with their hands ;)
-
China's claims in the South China Sea predate Obama by over sixty years. Blaming him for that situation displays nothing but ignorance of the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-Dash_Line
We'll see what Trump does about the South China Sea and North Korea. If you think he has a magic solution to those issues, you're further revealing how well he's hoodwinked y'alls.
The facts are China did nothing during those 60 years because they were afraid of America. But when Obama pulled our navy out of patrolling the South China Sea in 2013, that gave them the green light. They immediately went to work building up those islands into military bases. Obama did nothing, just like his red line in Syria. His fecklessness is what caused the reaction.
Now we have a real problem. It would require us to go to war to dislodge them from those islands, something we're not going to do. However, Trump has re-started our patrols and we'll see if China will try to test Trump at other islands. Maybe your country should take them on. North Korea too.
-
As we used to say at work, some people throw over more stuff with their a$$ then they can ever dream of puttting back up with their hands ;)
Peter, I admit I throw a lot of American idiomatic expressions at you (deliberately :) )and you do fine with understanding them. Kudos to you. Frankly, I'm not as astute as you. Could you explain yours?
-
Wow, looks like another one got Grubered.
Hum...not sure that article proved anything other than Obama was trying to keep the individual mandate from being counted as a tax increase by the CBO, nothing in the article definitively says anything about the if you like your plan you can keep your plan except for this:
President Obama insists none of this represents the views of his administration. Asked in Australia whether he had intentionally misled the American people to get the law passed, Obama replied curtly, “No, I did not.”
Yes, he did. Put aside his now infamous lie of the year in 2013 that “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.” Obama also insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In a 2009 interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos pressed him on it no less than five times. He even read Obama the definition of “tax” from Webster’s dictionary. Obama was adamant: “My critics say everything is a tax increase. . . . I absolutely reject that notion.”
So, where does that say Obama knew in advance that people would not be able to keep their plans if they liked their plans? Note also that many if not most people COULD keep their plans at least in the beginning and for some people–myself included–Obama care WAS cheaper than what I could buy as an individual before Obamacare came out. Plus, I could change insurance and still be assured I would not be denied because of a preexisting condition.
Ironically, now that the GOP is in charge of trying to kill Obamacare with their repeal and replace bullshit, Obamacare is even more popular now that at any time when Obama was president.
-
Oh, dear, here we go again! The lamest excuse by the FBI, trying to cover their asinus (but, mom... Russians didn't tell us everything they know so that we can gain insight into their methods and operating network... not our fault, mom). It is not enough that they warned us, you wanted them to do all the work, provide all the evidence, so that we just show up and arrest him? Or we hoped that, by letting him be, he would indeed be a "greater threat to Russia" and act on it?
Wow, you must have taken advanced lessons on methods of deflection and obfuscation...
The Russians withheld certain facts from the FBI, right? Do you admit that? Some of the facts the Russians withheld were text messages where jihad was discussed...that might have been useful info for the FBI in their investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev's activities. Russia didn't share that info until after the bombing occurred.
So, yes, the FBI failed to find anything that would lead them to suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was planing on a terrorist attack in America...shame on the FBI for not being able to read minds. That skill would come in REAL handy in the fight against terrorism.
-
there are not miles of space (belonging to whom ?) between 2 countries... armed NK soldiers partol DMZ north of MDL, armed SK soldiers & probably Americans south of it... the agreement not to put any "heavy arms" stationary on soil inside it does not change the situation
The DMZ is a "no man's land" owned neither by North Korea nor South Korea and the DMZ is 2.5 miles wide. Which put's NK's southern border 2.5 miles north of SM's northern border. Which means North Korea is 2.5 miles away from South Korea...I know English isn't you first language but I'm pretty sure if NK and SK are 2.5 miles apart, what Hillary said was correct.
-
... The Russians withheld certain facts from the FBI...
That would be lying to federal agents and obstruction of justice. Serves them well that they are now rotting in our prisons.
Oh, wait... they are not our citizens and do not have ANY obligation to tell anything to the "enemy." Whatever we got (a warning) was a pure goodwill on their part. We should have said "thank you, comrades" and then continue to investigate on our own. Surely the Russians do not have better spies than we do, right?
-
That would be lying to federal agents and obstruction of justice. Serves them well that they are now rotting in our prisons.
Oh, wait... they are not our citizens and do not have ANY obligation to tell anything to the "enemy." Whatever we got (a warning) was a pure goodwill on their part. We should have said "thank you, comrades" and then continue to investigate on our own. Surely the Russians do not have better spies than we do, right?
I'm trying to remember. When the Boston bombing happened, were the Russians still friends with us or had they become the enemy again? What about the time around the brothers returning to the US? The answers might resolve this issue as to who was at fault we didn't nab the bombers in time - the Russians or us. :)
-
That would be lying to federal agents and obstruction of justice. Serves them well that they are now rotting in our prisons.
Oh, wait... they are not our citizens and do not have ANY obligation to tell anything to the "enemy." Whatever we got (a warning) was a pure goodwill on their part. We should have said "thank you, comrades" and then continue to investigate on our own. Surely the Russians do not have better spies than we do, right?
Do they still call each other "comrade"? No wonder we can't get along with them.
-
White House Rejects Supremacist Label: “No One Has Done More Than Trump to Prove White People Are Not Superior” (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/white-house-rejects-supremacist-label-no-one-has-done-more-than-trump-to-prove-white-people-are-not-superior)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59b9ad70b642a3562656002f/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-White-House-Rejects-Supremacist-Label.jpg)
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Upbraiding the ESPN anchor Jemele Hill for calling Donald Trump a “white supremacist,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said on Wednesday that “no one has done more than President Trump to prove that white people are not superior.”
“It’s grossly unfair that Ms. Hill sought to portray Donald Trump as an upholder of white supremacy, when everything he says or does directly undermines that whole concept,” Sanders said. “Anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is on some mission to make white people look good hasn’t been paying attention.”
Sanders urged the ESPN anchor to “do her homework” on Trump before making baseless allegations. “Read his tweets,” she said. “Listen to his speeches. If you still think Donald Trump is trying to prove that white people are superior, I tip my hat to you.”
Ending on a personal note, Sanders said that she was “a hundred-per-cent sure” that her boss is not a white supremacist. “Donald Trump cannot even spell the word ‘supremacist,’ ” she said.
8)
-
“Donald Trump cannot even spell the word ‘supremacist,’ ” she said.
That's funny, Jeff. :)
-
That's funny, Jeff. :)
That is beyond funny. That is a contemporary classic! :)
-
You mean like when Obama told us we could keep our doctors and that medical insurance costs would go down?
It was true for me. I have had the same doctor for well over a decade. My contribution to my health insurance went down as well as my company's contribution. Our total cost of health insurance went down after the ACA.
-
Peter, I admit I throw a lot of American idiomatic expressions at you (deliberately :) )and you do fine with understanding them. Kudos to you. Frankly, I'm not as astute as you. Could you explain yours?
Well, it's actually a translated Dutch expression. You commented Trump was correcting "Obama's and Hillery's bonehead mistakes". Maybe Trump is correcting some of their mistakes but in my opinion he's doing much more damage then that he is correcting, hence he's "throwing more stuff over with his a$$ then he is putting back up with his hands"
In Dutch: Hij gooit meer om met z'n kont dan dat hij met zijn handen rechtop zet.
-
Ah, yes, the typical Germanic "subtlety" ;)
-
Ah, yes, the typical Germanic "subtlety" ;)
Be careful, Alan is from German orgin ;)
And believe it or not, English is also a Germanic language (if we believe Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages)) :o
-
I'm trying to remember. When the Boston bombing happened, were the Russians still friends with us or had they become the enemy again?
the question is - were you ever friends with Russians... the answer is - never, so ... you got warned, good enough... remember Trump tried to tell about bombs in notebooks in airplanes to Russians ? and the hysterical reaction to this (aka "Trump's classified intel leak") ? so next time you will not get even a warning, brother
-
The DMZ is a "no man's land" owned neither by North Korea nor South Korea and the DMZ is 2.5 miles wide.
in your dreams only - try to step north of MDL and you feel the ownership ;D right away in shape of 7.62mm or whatever is the current caliber used by NK... MDL is the border and both sides partrol their territory on both sides of that border ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Demarcation_Line )...
-
Well, it's actually a translated Dutch expression. You commented Trump was correcting "Obama's and Hillery's bonehead mistakes". Maybe Trump is correcting some of their mistakes but in my opinion he's doing much more damage then that he is correcting, hence he's "throwing more stuff over with his a$$ then he is putting back up with his hands"
In Dutch: Hij gooit meer om met z'n kont dan dat hij met zijn handen rechtop zet.
Thanks for explaining it. It is true he's reversing stuff especially Obamas. But that's one of the reasons people voted for him.
-
Thanks for explaining it. It is true he's reversing stuff especially Obamas. But that's one of the reasons people voted for him.
Reversing a prior government's executive orders is simple, even Trump can achieve that (some of the time), although he's taking an awfully long time doing it. Wonder when he will start doing something constructive instead of destructive ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Reversing a prior government's executive orders is simple
try DACA ? the screeching of the alt-left harpies is deafening
-
try DACA ? the screeching of the alt-left harpies is deafening
And the screeching of the moderate GOP members too, right?
Here are the Republicans in Congress who support DREAMers without conditions (https://thinkprogress.org/just-nine-republicans-in-congress-support-protecting-dreamers-without-conditions-e6f3e796bbad/)
Here are some GOP congressmen who support a DACA fix through legislative action:
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehinen (R-FL)
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO)
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
So, apparently it's not just the alt-left harpies that are joining in on trying to preserve the Dreamers ability to stay and to make at least aspects of DACA into legislation.
And that include The Donald it seems...
-
try DACA ? the screeching of the alt-left harpies is deafening
Repealing such an order only takes a signature.
Understanding the consequences of the repeal, or putting something better or a modification in place, requires knowledge and a long-term vision.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And then there's this...maybe hanging around Donald Trump ends up eroding one's intelligence?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ-aftSXoAA4lZS.jpg:small)
Kenneth P. Vogel (https://twitter.com/kenvogel) Verified account
@kenvogel
a photo of Ty Cobb & John Dowd casually & loudly discussing details of Russia investigation at @BLTSteakDC while I sat at next table.
8:10 PM - 17 Sep 2017
Why is this news? Ken Vogel is a reporter for the friggin' New York Times!
Trump Lawyers Clash Over How Much to Cooperate With Russia Inquiry (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/17/us/politics/trump-lawyers-white-house-russia-mcgahn-ty-cobb.html?_r=0)
By PETER BAKER and KENNETH P. VOGEL SEPT. 17, 2017
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s legal team is wrestling with how much to cooperate with the special counsel looking into Russian election interference, an internal debate that led to an angry confrontation last week between two White House lawyers and that could shape the course of the investigation.
At the heart of the clash is an issue that has challenged multiple presidents during high-stakes Washington investigations: how to handle the demands of investigators without surrendering the institutional prerogatives of the office of the presidency. Similar conflicts during the Watergate and Monica S. Lewinsky scandals resulted in court rulings that limited a president’s right to confidentiality.
The debate in Mr. Trump’s West Wing has pitted Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, against Ty Cobb, a lawyer brought in to manage the response to the investigation. Mr. Cobb has argued for turning over as many of the emails and documents requested by the special counsel as possible in hopes of quickly ending the investigation — or at least its focus on Mr. Trump.
Mr. McGahn supports cooperation, but has expressed worry about setting a precedent that would weaken the White House long after Mr. Trump’s tenure is over. He is described as particularly concerned about whether the president will invoke executive or attorney-client privilege to limit how forthcoming Mr. McGahn could be if he himself is interviewed by the special counsel as requested.
The friction escalated in recent days after Mr. Cobb was overheard by a reporter for The New York Times discussing the dispute during a lunchtime conversation at a popular Washington steakhouse. Mr. Cobb was heard talking about a White House lawyer he deemed “a McGahn spy” and saying Mr. McGahn had “a couple documents locked in a safe” that he seemed to suggest he wanted access to. He also mentioned a colleague whom he blamed for “some of these earlier leaks,” and who he said “tried to push Jared out,” meaning Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who has been a previous source of dispute for the legal team.
After The Times contacted the White House about the situation, Mr. McGahn privately erupted at Mr. Cobb, according to people informed about the confrontation who asked not to be named describing internal matters. John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, sharply reprimanded Mr. Cobb for his indiscretion, the people said.
Wait, what? Trump's lawyers are discussing private information and strategies in public within earshot of a NYT reporter? You couldn't make this shit up. If you wrote this into a movie script, people would say no lawyer in his right minds would be talking about serious stuff in public–let alone within earshot of a reporter, right?
But no, Ty Cobb and John Dowd are apparently drinking the same water in the White House that is making everybody else stupid.
And why do two high profile lawyers go to a bast steakhouse to do their "leak"?
Trump lawyers spill beans, thanks to terrible choice of restaurant — next door to the New York Times (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/18/trump-lawyers-spill-beans-after-terrible-restaurant-choice-next-to-nyt/?utm_term=.5acc0ec89d94)
It is every Washington reporter’s dream to sit down at a restaurant, overhear secret stuff and get a scoop. It rarely happens.
Still, everyone in town important enough to have secrets worth keeping knows that secrets are not safe on the Acela train and in Washington restaurants.
This is especially true in eateries next door to a major newspaper.
Yes, Ty Cobb and John Dowd, lawyers for President Trump, we’re talking to you.
But it’s too late now.
Dowd represents Trump but does not work at the White House. Cobb is a White House employee who is instantly recognizable to many because of his handlebar mustache.
Together, they went for what appears to have been a working lunch at BLT Steak, 1625 I St. NW in Washington. It’s close to the White House and very convenient.
It’s also next door to 1627 I St. NW, which happens to house the Washington bureau of the New York Times.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2017/09/bltmap-1024x490.jpeg)
Sitting at the next table, according to the Times, was Kenneth Vogel, one of Washington’s most skillful investigative reporters. Vogel is a former reporter for Politico, which is based in Virginia, who arrived at the Times just in time for the Russia investigation and, as it turned out, just in time for lunch.
Welcome to America home of the President Trump's White House Reality Show
Don't drink the swamp water...it makes you stupid!
-
Of course it did, right?
The Trump administration’s big new anti-leak memo leaked last night (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/14/16305384/mcmaster-memo-leaks)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1F02CKOXLDdZI2vO5MuCh2acTxM=/0x0:1120x742/920x613/filters:focal(459x194:637x372)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56672027/2.20.1.0.jpg)
Every administration faces leaks, and no administration likes them. The Obama administration went further than its predecessors in launching criminal prosecutions of national security leakers, but the Trump administration appears to be positively obsessed with both leaks and leaking in a very different way. There are two big signs of that right now.
First, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster wrote a memo demanding anti-leak action not only from the security services but from civilian agencies as well. It takes on leaks of classified information, then also asserts that “unauthorized disclosure” of “controlled unclassified” information “causes harm to our Nation and shakes the confidence of the American people.”
Second, that memo — which went out a few days ago — leaked Wednesday night to BuzzFeed News’s Chris Geidner, because in the Trump administration everything leaks (https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/trump-administration-launches-broad-new-anti-leak-program?utm_term=.nma1bMKNw#.kf41Dq5yr)
The President Trump's White House Reality Show has a new episode about LEAKS!!!
Full text of the leaked anti-leaking memo
SUBJECT: Request for Provision of Training on Unauthorized Disclosures
The unauthorized disclosure of classified information or controlled unclassified United States Government information causes harm to our Nation and shakes the confidence of the American people. In this era of unprecedented unauthorized disclosures, it is important to take time to review with your workforce their roles and responsibilities in safeguarding United States Government information.
In light of the recent press conference by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence regarding unauthorized disclosures, I am requesting that every Federal Government department and agency dedicate a 1-hour, organization-wide event to engage their workforce in a discussion on the importance of protecting classified and controlled unclassified information, and measures to prevent and detect unauthorized disclosures.
For those with access to classified information, a review of the non-disclosure agreement reminds us of the responsibilities that come with access to, and penalties for unauthorized disclosure of, classified information. However, it is equally important to discuss the importance of protecting controlled unclassified and personally identifiable information from unauthorized public disclosure.
Although there are policies and guidance already in place to prevent unauthorized disclosures, it will be time well spent to shine a spotlight on the importance of this issue, and engage the workforce in conversation about what it means to be a steward of United States Government information. It is particularly important to stress the sharp difference between unauthorized disclosures of information and whistleblowing — the responsibility of all federal employees to report waste, fraud and abuse through proper channels.
There are many resources available to frame this 1-hour event, including a review of policies, guidance, videos, and training materials, and perhaps most important, an open discussion to answer questions and raise issues to ensure that our safeguarding measures are understood and effective.
Suggested training materials are attached. In order to ensure a consistent and strong message is given to the entire federal workforce, such training should occur the week of September 18-22, 2017.
H.R. McMaster
Lieutenant General, United States Army
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
So, basically, go sit in a corner for 1 hour and contemplate your bad behavior...
-
Now, about those darn email (and no, not Hillary's email)
Experts Say the Use of Private Email by Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission Isn’t Legal (https://www.propublica.org/article/experts-say-the-use-of-private-email-by-trumps-voter-fraud-commission-isnt-legal)
(http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.13810718.1500507438!/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.jpeg)
President Donald Trump, accompanied by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of
State Kris Kobach, speaks at the first meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on
Election Integrity at the White House on Wednesday, July 19.
President Donald Trump’s voter fraud commission came under fire earlier this month when a lawsuit and media reports revealed that the commissioners were using private emails to conduct public business. Commission co-chair Kris Kobach confirmed this week that most of them continue to do so.
Experts say the commission’s email practices do not appear to comport with federal law. “The statute here is clear,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
Essentially, Baron said, the commissioners have three options: 1. They can use a government email address; 2. They can use a private email address but copy every message to a government account; or 3. They can use a private email address and forward each message to a government account within 20 days. According to Baron, those are the requirements of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which the commission must comply with under its charter.
“All written communications between or among its members involving commission business are permanent records destined to be preserved at the National Archives,” said Baron. “Without specific guidance, commission members may not realize that their email communications about commission business constitute White House records.”
So, did Trump's administration learn nothing about recent events? If you do the government's business, best not to do so using private emails?
Oh, and an interesting side note to the emails provided to ProPublica for review while writing this story;
One footnote: Among the emails provided by Dunlap was a message from Carter Page (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4051327-Carter-Page-Email.html), a former policy adviser to the Trump campaign who has reportedly attracted the attention of investigators probing the Russia imbroglio. Page sent an email on July 5 to three accounts associated with Kobach and cc’d Dunlap, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner and Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson. In it, he implored the commission to investigate “the Obama administration’s misuse of federal resources of the Intelligence Community in their unjustified attacks on myself and other volunteers who peacefully supported [Trump’s] campaign as private citizens.”
“The work of your commission offers an essential opportunity to take further steps toward helping to further restore the integrity of the American democracy following their abuses of last year,” he wrote.
There is no evidence this email was forwarded to a federal email account. Page, Kossack and Kobach did not respond to requests for comment about the email.
Wait, what is Carter Page doing sending emails off to members of this commission? WTF?
Another episode of the President Trump's White House Reality Show™
-
Sleep where Trump used to sleep...
Trump's childhood home becomes showcase for refugees (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/trumps-childhood-home-showcase-refugees-49922088)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/resized/Refugees-Welcome-Trump-Childhood-Home-Oxfam-67_800x500.jpg)
In this Saturday, Sept. 16, 2017 photo, Abdi Iftin, left, of Somalia, Uyen Nguyen, second from left, of Vietnam, Eiman Ali,
right, of Somalia born in Yemen, and Ghassan al-Chahada, of Syria pose for a photo outside President Donald Trump's
boyhood home in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of the Queens borough of New York.
President Donald Trump's childhood home in New York had some new occupants over the weekend — refugees who shared their stories as a way to draw attention to the refugee crisis as the United Nations General Assembly convenes this week with Trump in attendance.
The three-story Tudor-style home in Queens that Trump's father, Fred, built in 1940 is now a rental available on Airbnb that anyone can stay in for $725 a night. It was auctioned off to an unidentified buyer in March for $2.14 million, its second time going up for auction.
The international anti-poverty organization Oxfam rented it Saturday and invited four refugees to talk with journalists. The Republican president's administration issued travel bans on people from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees. After various court challenges, the Supreme Court last week allowed the restrictive policy on refugees to remain temporarily. The justices will hear arguments on the bans Oct. 10.
"We wanted to send a strong message to Trump and world leaders that they must do more to welcome refugees," said Shannon Scribner, acting director for the humanitarian department of Oxfam America.
Trump lived in the house on a tree-lined street of single-family dwellings until he was about 4, when his family moved to another home his father had built nearby.
Delicious irony...
Another episode of The President Trump's White House Reality Show™
-
Sleep where Trump used to sleep...
Trump's childhood home becomes showcase for refugees (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/trumps-childhood-home-showcase-refugees-49922088)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/resized/Refugees-Welcome-Trump-Childhood-Home-Oxfam-67_800x500.jpg)
In this Saturday, Sept. 16, 2017 photo, Abdi Iftin, left, of Somalia, Uyen Nguyen, second from left, of Vietnam, Eiman Ali,
right, of Somalia born in Yemen, and Ghassan al-Chahada, of Syria pose for a photo outside President Donald Trump's
boyhood home in the Jamaica Estates neighborhood of the Queens borough of New York.
Delicious irony...
Another episode of The President Trump's White House Reality Show™
The two on the right are stepping on his lawn.
-
Reversing a prior government's executive orders is simple, even Trump can achieve that (some of the time), although he's taking an awfully long time doing it. Wonder when he will start doing something constructive instead of destructive ...
Cheers,
Bart
As soon as he has Hillary arrested. :)
-
As soon as he has Hillary arrested. :)
So you mean never? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
So you mean never? ;)
Cheers,
Bart
Well, she already owns an orange jump suit. :)
http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Hillary-Clinton-Orange-Pants-Suit-cropped-e1440624696535-620x438.png
-
Well, she already owns an orange jump suit. :)
Just look at that huge audience surrounding her ;)
-
Well, looks like Dems have a new delusion to entertain themselves with:
"Clinton opens door to questioning legitimacy of 2016 election"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-2016-election/index.html
-
So, how about that wiretapping of Trump:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html
The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.
The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources.
-
And the screeching of the moderate GOP members too, right?
known traitors
-
Repealing such an order only takes a signature.
Understanding the consequences of the repeal, or putting something better or a modification in place, requires knowledge and a long-term vision.
Cheers,
Bart
consequences are very good - no more backdoor amnesty for illegal aliens and decimating alt-left potential electoral base ... what is there not to like ?
-
Enough of this negative talk of third world illegal migrants. Europe is doing just fine ever since they flew open their borders. So will we.
Paris Yesterday
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9d/a3/3e/9da33e1bb3ca9b99dd53274ba39520c8--bretagne-france-la-france.jpg)
Paris today.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Njd388tObhA/VRu-ye69BeI/AAAAAAAATlI/R1xbBT1v0hg/s1600/rue_denoyez-e1413967360590.jpg)
Paris tomorrow.
(http://pigeonproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Poverty-in-India.jpg)
-
So, how about that wiretapping of Trump:
Incidental collection or maybe it's collateral damage?
Depends on what Donny may have said to Paul while Paul's phones were tapped, huh?
Seems Paul J. Manafort is looking down the barrel of an indictment and has been under surveillance granted by a FISA warrant since last year...but the news is that he was also under a FISA warrant in 2014 because of activities as a foreign agent and being involved with a lobby firm Black, Manafort & Stone (yeah, that Stone, Roger J. Stone).
Between Flynn and Manafort the odds are really good they'll be spending some time in prison...unless that have an interesting story to tell.
Think they have anything worthy to tell? Flynn claims he does...ya think he might? Ya think Manafort has anything interesting to say?
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170214231609-manafort-trump-flynn-large-169.jpg)
Fun people that Donny hang around with huh?
Manafort is in deep dodo...
With a Picked Lock and a Threatened Indictment, Mueller’s Inquiry Sets a Tone (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/mueller-russia-investigation.html?_r=0)
WASHINGTON — Paul J. Manafort was in bed early one morning in July when federal agents bearing a search warrant picked the lock on his front door and raided his Virginia home. They took binders stuffed with documents and copied his computer files, looking for evidence that Mr. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, set up secret offshore bank accounts. They even photographed the expensive suits in his closet.
The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, then followed the house search with a warning: His prosecutors told Mr. Manafort they planned to indict him, said two people close to the investigation.
I hope they both have their affairs in order...
-
Enough of this negative talk of third world migrants. France is doing just fine ever since they flew open their borders. So will we.
Paris Yesterday
Oh, that's a nice shot of Bretagne, France!
30 Picturesque Villages Straight Out of Fairy Tales [PICS] (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/398357529521576127/)
Oh, wait, did you think that shot was from Paris? Oh, sorry to pop you bubble...
Oh, and about that shot of the slums? The file name of tag image is Poverty-in-India.jpg from this site: Is India’s government redefining poverty to improve the country’s image? (http://pigeonproject.com/2011/05/29/is-indias-government-is-redefining-poverty-to-improve-the-countrys-image/)
Did you somehow mistake that for Paris too?
-
How's this for Paris Yesterday?
(https://my-live.slatic.net/v2/resize/products/100277417-5491c31c1ce25c1479232647c8d00218.jpg)
-
How's this for Paris Yesterday?
Nice painting...oh, wait, did you think that was a photo instead of a romanticized illustration?
-
So, how about that wiretapping of Trump:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html
Manafort had an office in Trump Tower. The article isn't clear whether his phone were tapped there as well as other places confirming Trump's complaint all along about phones being tapped at Trump Tower. Yeah, others will say that it wasn't Trump's phone. But, Manafort was his campaign manager and tapping his phone would be the same thing proving Trump was right all along.
So we had Rice giving Obama transcripts and the FBI doing their own tapping. It smells of politics.
-
It smells of politics.
If they had a FISA warrant (the reports said they did) then it actually smells more like a criminal conspiracy...particularly since Manafort is now being threatened with an indictment.
-
Wait, what? Trump's lawyers are discussing private information and strategies in public within earshot of a NYT reporter? You couldn't make this shit up. If you wrote this into a movie script, people would say no lawyer in his right minds would be talking about serious stuff in public–let alone within earshot of a reporter, right?
What is with people these days? Is there no one that can be trusted to keep sensitive information secure?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1wqciODsC8/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
If they had a FISA warrant (the reports said they did) then it actually smells more like a criminal conspiracy...particularly since Manafort is now being threatened with an indictment.
You're jumping to conclusions. Why a conspiracy? Manafort had previously been investigated and tapped a couple of years before Trump decided to run. Frankly, he seems like a shady character to me. I suspect some of his dealings were questionable if not illegal. Ditto with Flynn, although maybe of an administrative type violation like not filing before representing a foreign nation.
-
If they had a FISA warrant (the reports said they did) then it actually smells more like a criminal conspiracy...particularly since Manafort is now being threatened with an indictment.
A "FISA warrant," issued by a special court established by Congress as part of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, does not require the government to show probable cause of a crime, as it would to get authority to conduct another form of search or surveillance. The government only needs to persuade one of the court's judges that there is reason to believe the target is acting as an agent of a foreign government. In other words, it appears that Manafort, along with Carter Page and possibly other advisors to the Trump campaign, was believed by the FBI to be engaged in some form of espionage—presumably as part of the Russian government's effort to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
Traditional warrants, such as the one issued in July to search Manafort's home in Virginia, do indicate that investigators have reason to believe the target engaged in criminal activity, and the New York Times reported yesterday that "[t]he special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, then followed the house search with a warning: His prosecutors told Mr. Manafort they planned to indict him, said two people close to the investigation."
-
Hum...
Exclusive: Trump using campaign, RNC funds to pay legal bills from Russia probe (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-lawyers-exclusive/exclusive-trump-using-campaign-rnc-funds-to-pay-legal-bills-from-russia-probe-idUSKCN1BU2OS)
(https://www.redstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/trump-hand-gestures-620x443.jpg)
Caricature by DonkeyHotey flic.kr/p/Ct4G4K https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is using money donated to his reelection campaign and the Republican National Committee to pay for his lawyers in the probe of alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The U.S. Federal Election Commission allows the use of private campaign funds to pay legal bills arising from being a candidate or elected official.
While previous presidential campaigns have used these funds to pay for routine legal matters such as ballot access disputes and compliance requirements, Trump would be the first U.S. president in the modern campaign finance era to use such funds to cover the costs of responding to a criminal probe, said election law experts.
One person familiar with the matter said the first payments, the amount of which Reuters could not determine, has already been made and would be disclosed in public filings. The person did not explain how the costs would be allocated between the campaign and the RNC.
The Republican National Committee is expected to make its August spending public on Wednesday, and the Trump campaign is due for another disclosure on Oct. 15.
John Dowd, Trump’s lead lawyer, declined to say how the president’s legal bills were being paid, adding: “That’s none of your business.”
Hey John, how was that lunch the other day with Ty Cobb at BLT Steak? Funny, one of the Yep reviews (I'm not kidding here) said:
Gordy Z.
Gordy Z.
Fort Lauderdale, FL
1.0 star rating 9/19/2017 Updated review
Changed to one star will never eat their again .
No respect for privacy. Nice place to go if you want your private business overheard . I thought this was a good place for business meeting, I was so wrong !
John W. voted for this review
Useful Funny 1 Cool
Hum, so I guess Trump supporters and the RNC paid for that lunch at BLT Steak, huh? John would prolly say: “That’s none of your business.”
Edited to add cartoon :~)
-
There are some jobs that I could not do for any amount of money...John Kelly has such a job.
Here was John Kelly's reaction during Trump's big UN speech (http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kelly-photo-trump-un-speech-reaction-2017-9)
President Donald Trump kicked off Tuesday by delivering an impassioned speech to delegates from the 193 member states of the United Nations.
Among other things, Trump lashed out at North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and denounced "the scourge of our planet," which he described as a "small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based."
Trump said in the speech that if North Korea didn't back down from its nuclear aggression, the US would "have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
Trump also singled out Iran, calling the US's nuclear deal with the country, brokered by President Barack Obama, an "embarrassment."
At one point, Trump said, "Major portions of the world are in conflict, and some, in fact, are going to hell."
John Kelly, Trump's chief of staff who has a reputation as a strict disciplinarian, was also at the UN when the president delivered his remarks. This was his reaction:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKHKjd6W4AUbB3s.jpg)
But that wasn't the only shot (although it's the one most noted in the news and on Twitter)
-
There are some jobs that I could not do for any amount of money...John Kelly has such a job. . . . Here was John Kelly's reaction during Trump's big UN speech
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKHKjd6W4AUbB3s.jpg)
Eh? What's the big deal? Kelly was obviously just trying to concentrate on understanding the subtle nuances of the presentation by el señor Loco.
-
If they had a FISA warrant (the reports said they did) then it actually smells more like a criminal conspiracy...particularly since Manafort is now being threatened with an indictment.
Trump was right that the phones were tapped at Trump Tower. You and most others had been laughing at his assertion for over 6 months. Regardless of the reasons for taps, Trump was right.
-
There are some jobs that I could not do for any amount of money...John Kelly has such a job.
Don't stay up waiting for a call from Trump.
-
Speaking of the city of romance. . .
The Eiffel Tower gets a bulletproof perimeter glass wall to combat terrorism.
Kudos to the Left for social progress! Think of the scores of squeegee jobs created.
https://www.rt.com/news/403779-eiffel-tower-bulletproof-wall/ (https://www.rt.com/news/403779-eiffel-tower-bulletproof-wall/)
(http://cdne.diariocorreo.pe/thumbs/uploads/img/2017/05/05/elecciones-en-francia-refue-jpg_600x315.jpg)
-
You and most others had been laughing at his assertion for over 6 months.
I'm still laughing...he pulled a tweet out of his ass because he was pissed that Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and got all revved up by wingnut Mark Levin and out popped Trump's wild claim. And Trump and the right (alt-right) have jumped on every little crumb as proof that Obama tapped Trump's phones...but sadly, Trump and his supporters remain disappointed.
Again, in case you forgot what Trump tweeted...
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
6:35 AM - Mar 4, 2017
and
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
6:49 AM - Mar 4, 2017
and
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
6:52 AM - Mar 4, 2017
and
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
7:02 AM - Mar 4, 2017
So, explain to me how the fact that Paul Manafort was under surveillance because of a FISA warrant proves Trump's claims?
Right Wing Revives Claim That Trump’s Obama Wiretap Accusation Has Been “Vindicated.” (It Hasn’t.) (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/19/trump_obama_wiretapping_accusations_not_vindicated_by_manafort_news.html)
On Monday, CNN reported that Paul Manafort—who was briefly Trump's campaign chairman—has been the subject of intermittent court-approved surveillance since 2014. As you can see above, Breitbart immediately announced that the news "vindicated" Trump. Nope. Here's what CNN wrote:
Manafort was initially being surveilled not because of his connection to Trump but because of an investigation opened in 2014 into his work as a political consultant in Ukraine.
He was subsequently placed under surveillance again "last fall" because of his connections to "suspected Russian operatives," but it's "unclear" exactly when that happened—which is to say that it's not certain whether it happened before or after the election.
The investigation was led by the FBI and required the approval of Justice Department officials, i.e., not Obama himself.
Regarding Trump's "nothing found" remark, the investigation into Manafort appears to have in fact escalated; one of his homes was raided in July.
"While Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower, it's unclear whether FBI surveillance of him took place there."
"It's unclear whether Trump himself was picked up on the surveillance."
Tap is still spelled with the traditional single p.
What's particularly funny about the idea that Trump has been vindicated by the revelation of a literal wiretap on Paul Manafort is that the White House and its stooges in the right-wing press spent months earlier this year insisting that Trump's tweets weren't referring to literal wiretapping. Here's Sean Spicer in March:
I think there’s no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election. That is a widely reported activity that occurred back then. The President used the word “wiretap” to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities during that.
At another point, Spicer also argued that Trump's comments about surveillance having taken place "just before" the 2016 election might have also been meant to suggest that surveillance took place well after the election:
If we're splitting hairs on what day of the calendar it was, that's a pretty interesting development. If the allegation is, well it was actually on the 1st of December or the 10th of December versus the 31st of October, I think we're starting to split some serious hairs here.
At the time, Breitbart made a nearly identical argument (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/22/nunes-unmasking-report-vindicates-trump-claims-surveillance/). You know, I'm really beginning to suspect that these guys are not being 100 percent honest with us all the time.
Sorry Alan, claiming Trump was "right" is really pretty silly.
(entertaining but silly)
-
This is pretty cool!
Rob Reiner Helps Launch Committee to Investigate Russia (http://variety.com/2017/politics/news/rob-reiner-david-frum-committee-to-investigate-russia-1202563293/)
(https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/rob-reiner.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1)
WASHINGTON — Director Rob Reiner is joining a new group called the Committee to Investigate Russia (http://variety.com/t/committee-to-investigate-russia/), to highlight what is known about the Russian threat to interfere with American elections and other institutions.
The committee was scheduled to go live with a website on Tuesday at InvestigateRussia.org (https://investigaterussia.org/), as well as a video featuring Morgan Freeman. Reiner and David Frum of The Atlantic were expected to announce the launch of the group.
The committee’s advisory board members include Reiner; James Clapper, the former director of National Intelligence; Charlie Sykes, the conservative political commentator; Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; and Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In an interview, Reiner said that they are hoping to be a “one-stop shop where people can come and be made aware pop what the breaking news stories are today, the various investigations, what stages they are in, but also to the understand the history, and what the Soviet Union and now Russia has been trying to do for many, many years.” He also said that a goal is to understand “what cyberwarfare is all about.”
And the site is pretty handy to keep track of recent updates to the Russian investigation...
(https://investigaterussia.org/themes/russia/logo.svg)
https://investigaterussia.org
-
My people's sense of humor mixed with creative advertising:
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/national-international/Melania-Trump-threatens-lawsuit-over-English-class-billboard-445849083.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_MIBrand
-
If they had a FISA warrant
FISA is a pocket tool of executive branch - they rubber stamp everything ...
-
I'm still laughing...he pulled a tweet out of his ass because he was pissed that Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation and got all revved up by wingnut Mark Levin and out popped Trump's wild claim. And Trump and the right (alt-right) have jumped on every little crumb as proof that Obama tapped Trump's phones...but sadly, Trump and his supporters remain disappointed.
...
So, explain to me how the fact that Paul Manafort was under surveillance because of a FISA warrant proves Trump's claims?
So first we found out Flynn was being tapped and Rice and Obama got all the transcripts of the telephone conversations. Now we find out that Manafort was tapped. It's not yet clear where those transcripts went. So at least two of the opposition party's president's main campaign people were tapped. Who else will we find out was tapped?
Gee, I wonder if they tapped my phone too?
-
FISA is a pocket tool of executive branch - they rubber stamp everything ...
I agree. The whole FISA setup is dangerous for American democracy. The executive branch, either party who's in power, can use it against their opposition or just regular citizens who aren't on their side. I keep feeling like we're living with a KGB. Sure, I understand we need something to defend ourselves against foreigners who want to do us harm. But, like what happen with the IRS in the previous election under Obama, the power of the government can be dangerously used in domestic political affairs.
-
With Trump's paranoia, I wonder who he is wiretapping?
-
With Trump's paranoia, I wonder who he is wiretapping?
I agree, with Trump's shady character the chance of abuse is much higher.
-
So first we found out Flynn was being tapped and Rice and Obama got all the transcripts of the telephone conversations.
To be clear, Flynn's phone wasn't tapped it was the Russian he was talking to (which he failed to report and lied about) whose phone was tapped. He got scooped up as incidental contact. The reason he was unmasked was because of legitimate national security conserns. Flynn was not then under surveillance (prolly is now)
The only other person related to Trump that subject to a FISA warrent was the idiot Carter Page because he was trying to be recruited by known Russian agents. The reason I called him an idiot was that's what the Russians called him.
None of which supports Trump's silly claim that Obama had his phones tapped...
-
I agree, with Trump's shady character the chance of abuse is much higher.
Trump can't keep his mouth shut - so w/ Trump you have a greater chance to hear = less chance to clamp the abuse ... vs magic negro president not to mention WMD war criminal W
-
I agree. The whole FISA setup is dangerous for American democracy. The executive branch, either party who's in power, can use it against their opposition or just regular citizens who aren't on their side. I keep feeling like we're living with a KGB. Sure, I understand we need something to defend ourselves against foreigners who want to do us harm. But, like what happen with the IRS in the previous election under Obama, the power of the government can be dangerously used in domestic political affairs.
Do you realize that the Chief Justice of the US, John Roberts, appoints the members of the FISA court? Hardly a bastion of liberal thinking!!!
-
I keep feeling like we're living with a KGB.
nope... w/ KGB everybody (alive) were aware about the rules of the game - here in the land of free 99% are unsuspecting idiots ;D
if we are to believe published (fake news) FISA statistics executive branch is spotless in their work... always 0% rejections (may once or twice not) - that alone shows how stupid alt-left dudes here are to be happy about FISA warrants toward manafort, etc ... but what can you expect from them ? brain-washed liberals
-
May I kindly suggest to tone down the rhetoric of “stupid, idiots, brain-washed” etc. It is as productive and beneficial for a reasonable debate as calling the other side racists, bigots, and deplorables. We are all here reasonably intelligent and educated people, just with different value systems and opinions.
-
I suppose one can be a little bit of each.
(https://dairyofacallcentreguy.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/matrix.jpg)
-
If putting America first is "evil," then so is putting America last.
Team America First
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d5/3f/7f/d53f7ff432c07a1b0e5b0d0db3cd9387.jpg)
Team America Last
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c1/ca/99/c1ca992a37c82578a9d8ec792ad64d9a--wicked-witch-ding-dong.jpg)
-
To be clear, Flynn's phone wasn't tapped it was the Russian he was talking to (which he failed to report and lied about) whose phone was tapped. He got scooped up as incidental contact. The reason he was unmasked was because of legitimate national security conserns. Flynn was not then under surveillance (prolly is now)
The only other person related to Trump that subject to a FISA warrent was the idiot Carter Page because he was trying to be recruited by known Russian agents. The reason I called him an idiot was that's what the Russians called him.
None of which supports Trump's silly claim that Obama had his phones tapped...
This may be the 3rd or 4th time in this thread that you've pointed out that it wasn't Trump's phone that was tapped. But each time, a few posts later, Alan restates the assertion.
-
... it wasn't Trump's phone that was tapped...
... every phone conversation has (as a minimum) two ends, so same difference.
-
This may be the 3rd or 4th time in this thread that you've pointed out that it wasn't Trump's phone that was tapped. But each time, a few posts later, Alan restates the assertion.
Yeah, I know...at some point I may give up, but I just can't let stuff like that go. One of the reasons Trump pisses me off so much is because he's a pathological liar and his supporters seem to swallow his lies hook, line and sinker.
Which is one of the problems trying to communicate with Trump supporter, agreement on a common set of facts and reality is nearly impossible.
-
... every phone conversation has (as a minimum) two ends, so same difference.
Only if the wrong number was dialed ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
... every phone conversation has (as a minimum) two ends, so same difference.
Except in the case of a FISA warrant only the subject under surveillance is identified, other people who are American citizens are masked by the intelligence agency doing the surveillance. The unmasking of others is done only after a specific procedure is followed and is limited to a small subset of national security officers...
Sorry to parse your words, but facts do matter and the fact is, there is a difference in being a surveillance target or collected by incidental collection.
-
Ooooops! That can't be good :~)
Voter Fraud? A Trump Nominee Looks as if He Cast an Illegal Ballot (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/voter-fraud-trump-nominee-virginia-maryland-jeffry-gerrish.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/21/us/21dc-voterfraud/merlin-to-scoop-114140215-161331-master768.jpg)
WASHINGTON — As President Trump’s voter integrity commission looks under rocks for possible voter malfeasance, its members might want to examine a presidential nominee awaiting confirmation by the Senate Finance Committee.
Documents indicate that Jeffrey Gerrish, the president’s pick to be a deputy United States Trade Representative, moved from Virginia to Maryland last year, but opted in November to vote in the more competitive state of Virginia than his bright blue new home.
The Senate Finance Committee, which has been considering Mr. Gerrish’s nomination, was briefed on the matter on Tuesday, including the fact that Mr. Gerrish had almost certainly voted illegally, according to three Democratic congressional aides familiar with the briefing. Public records back up that notion.
Given Mr. Trump’s intense focus on alleged widespread voter fraud in last year’s election — the president has claimed that millions of people voted illegally, without evidence — Democrats are likely to pounce on the misstep to try to sink Mr. Gerrish’s nomination.
Ya think? But it really calls into question Trump's whole attempt at saying massive illegal votes made him loose the popular vote. Seems his special "commission" hasn't been able back that up. So, now it's gotta be embarrassing to find out one of his own nominee may have broken the law by voting multiple time.
Ya gotta love The Trump White House Reality Show™!
-
How does that decision of the wise men in black prevent double voting?
So, Jeff, you never answered my question?
-
Ya gotta love The Trump White House Reality Show™!
Yes, to be sure it has had its hilarious moments, but I, for one, am finding it increasingly tiresome and I'm ready for the season finale.
-
So, Jeff, you never answered my question?
instead of posting riddles, care to say what question?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, to be sure it has had its hilarious moments, but I, for one, am finding it increasingly tiresome and I'm ready for the season finale.
Chris, brace yourself for 4 season finales ... :(
Cheers,
Bart
-
How does that decision of the wise MEN IN BLACK prevent double voting?
Plant a false memory of having already double voted.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Neuralizer1.jpg)
-
instead of posting riddles, care to say what question?
No riddle, there is a time stamp, which can lead you to my post #6122 (forum software does not let quoting a quote). But here is the post, as a screenshot, for your convenience:
-
No riddle, there is a time stamp, which can lead you to my post #6122 (forum software does not let quoting a quote). But here is the post, as a screenshot, for your convenience:
Thanks, but to unravel the riddle a bit further (since it is a while ago) who's quote (which it doesn't say) were you referring to?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Ya gotta love The Trump White House Reality Show™!
Yes, to be sure it has had its hilarious moments, but I, for one, am finding it increasingly tiresome and I'm ready for the season finale.
Chris, brace yourself for 4 season finales ...
Of course you may be correct. But there's always a possibility the network management may decide to cancel the series.
-
Thanks, but to unravel the riddle a bit further (since it is a while ago) who's quote (which it doesn't say) were you referring to?
Jeff quoted a CNN article in the post #6113. Here is the link to the post: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116264.msg999269#msg999269
To summarize, the state of New Hampshire (and probably not only they) allows those with out-of-state drivers licenses to legally vote. Which opens the possibility for those voters to vote in two states.
-
To summarize, the state of New Hampshire (and probably not only they) allows those with out-of-state drivers licenses to legally vote. Which opens the possibility for those voters to vote in two states.
And what happens if you die in one state but are buried in another? Can you still vote twice?
https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2017/06/28/student-gets-prison-term-for-registering-dead-people-as-democratic-voters/ (https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2017/06/28/student-gets-prison-term-for-registering-dead-people-as-democratic-voters/)
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/voterfraud7.jpg)
-
May I kindly suggest to tone down the rhetoric of “stupid, idiots, brain-washed” etc. it is as productive and beneficial for a reasonable debate as calling the other side racists, bigots, and deplorables. We are are all here reasonably intelligent and educated people, just with different value systems and opinions.
I've sort of abandoned this thread, but I wanted to pop in and and agree with you here. Thanks for the reminder. :)
-
So, Jeff, you never answered my question?
To what decision were you referring to regarding the people in black robes?
-
To what decision were you referring to regarding the people in black robes?
That the state of New Hampshire (and probably not only they) allows those with out-of-state drivers licenses to legally vote. Which opens the possibility for those voters to vote in two states.
-
That the state of New Hampshire (and probably not only they) allows those with out-of-state drivers licenses to legally vote. Which opens the possibility for those voters to vote in two states.
I guess you misunderstand what New Hampshire's requirements are for voting...
Voter Registration in New Hampshire (http://www.dmv.org/nh-new-hampshire/voter-registration.php)
The Cliff notes:
Voter Eligibility in New Hampshire
To register to vote in New Hampshire, you must be:
A United States citizen.
At least 18 years old by the next election.
A resident of the state of New Hampshire.
When you register, you will need to provide documents as proof of:
Residency.
Identity.
Age.
You are required to present identification at the polling place on Election Day. The most common forms of ID that are accepted are:
A driver's license from any state or the federal government.
An ID card from the New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or other state DMV.
Your U.S. passport.
Your U.S. military ID.
If you look at the documents required to register: Residency, Identity and Age, a driver's license from any state or the federal government is suitable for proof of identity and age. It doesn't address proof of residency.
The Numnut Kris Kobach claimed that since people with out of state licenses voted, and that those are proof of voter fraud. He conveniently ignores the fact that there are a variety of reasons why somebody with an out of state license would still be a legitimate NH voter if they lived in NH. All they would need to do is show some sort of proof of residency such as a utility bill and proof of identity and age with the out of state license.
So, that whole this is false according to POLITIFACT (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/15/kris-kobach/there-evidence-voter-fraud-new-hampshire-kris-koba/)
Kris Kobach
Vice Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity
"Facts have come to light that indicate that a pivotal, close election was likely changed through voter fraud on November 8, 2016: New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate Seat, and perhaps also New Hampshire’s four Electoral College votes in the presidential election."
a Breitbart column – Thursday, September 7, 2017
And from Politifact:
Our ruling
Kobach said, "Facts have come to light that indicate that a pivotal, close election was likely changed through voter fraud on November 8, 2016: New Hampshire’s U.S. Senate Seat, and perhaps also New Hampshire’s four Electoral College votes in the presidential election."
He cited 5,313 votes cast with out-of-state IDs, but New Hampshire law says there’s nothing inherently fraudulent about them, as a person can lawfully vote in New Hampshire while holding motor vehicle registration or a driver’s license in another state.
As of yet, there is no evidence proving fraud, or that fraudulent votes pivoted the election against Trump and Ayotte.
We rate this statement False.
(https://dhpikd1t89arn.cloudfront.net/rating_images/politifact/tom-false.jpg)
Does that answer your question?
-
Hum...double dipping much?
Manafort used Trump campaign account to email Ukrainian operative (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/20/paul-manafort-trump-campaign-email-ukrainian-operative-242949)
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/578c01ed88e4a7531b8b8862-480/paul-manafort.jpg)
Oh, crap!
Former Donald Trump aide Paul Manafort used his presidential campaign email account to correspond with a Ukrainian political operative with suspected Russian ties, according to people familiar with the correspondence.
Manafort sent emails to seek repayment for previous work he did in Ukraine and to discuss potential new opportunities in the country, even as he chaired Trump’s presidential campaign, these people said.
Manafort had been a longtime consultant for Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president until 2014, and his Party of Regions. During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Ukrainian investigators said they had discovered evidence that Manafort received millions of dollars in off-the-books payments for his work there.
In the emails to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Manafort protégé who has previously been reported to have suspected ties to Russian intelligence, the longtime GOP operative made clear his significant sway in Trump’s campaign, one of the people familiar with the communications said. He and Kilimnik also met in the United States while Manafort worked for the Trump campaign, which he chaired until an August 2016 shake-up.
I think the Witch Hunt is finding some witches...
-
Shit's getting real (and real close to the White House)....
Mueller Seeks White House Documents Related to Trump’s Actions as President (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/mueller-trump-russia.html?_r=0)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/21/us/21dc-mueller/merlin-to-scoop-123794813-730209-master768.jpg)
WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, has asked the White House for documents about some of President Trump’s most scrutinized actions since taking office, including the firing of his national security adviser and F.B.I. director, according to White House officials.
Mr. Mueller is also interested in an Oval Office meeting Mr. Trump had with Russian officials in which he said the dismissal of the F.B.I. director had relieved “great pressure” on him.
The document requests provide the most details to date about the breadth of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, and show that several aspects of his inquiry are focused squarely on Mr. Trump’s behavior in the White House.
In recent weeks, Mr. Mueller’s office sent a document to the White House that detailed 13 areas in which investigators are seeking information. Since then, administration lawyers have been scouring White House emails and asking officials whether they have other documents or notes that may pertain to Mr. Mueller’s requests.
One of the requests is about a meeting Mr. Trump had in May with Russian officials in the Oval Office the day after James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, was fired. That day, Mr. Trump met with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and the Russian ambassador to the United States at the time, Sergey I. Kislyak, along with other Russian officials. The New York Times reported (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html) that in the meeting Mr. Trump had said that firing Mr. Comey relieved “great pressure” on him.
Mr. Mueller has also requested documents about the circumstances of the firing of Michael T. Flynn, who was Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser. Additionally, the special counsel has asked for documents about how the White House responded to questions from The Times about a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower. That meeting was set up by Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, to get derogatory information from Russians about Hillary Clinton.
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/21/us/21dc-mueller2/11photo-master675.jpg)
Russia’s official news agency photographed President Trump’s meeting with Sergey V. Lavrov, the
Russian foreign minister, in the Oval Office in May. The American news media was denied access.
Credit Alexander Shcherbak/TASS,
Remember that meeting? The only reason we know about it is that minutes of the meeting were leaked and the Russians used Twitter to post the photos of the meeting because, well, only Russian journalists were in the room. Seems Trump didn't want details of this meeting made public...
DOOOOH
This is the gang that can't shoot straight! This stuff must all be for the script ya know...for The Donald Trump White House Reality Show™
-
Lost in translation?
Trump Tells African Leaders His Friends Go There to 'Get Rich.' Awkward Silence Follows (http://time.com/4951006/trump-africa-get-rich/)
(https://im.newsheads.in/media/images/2017/09/20/992316782-donald-trump-un-full-speech.jpg)
U.S. President Donald Trump was met with silence from African leaders Wednesday when he tried to congratulate them for the economic progress the continent has made.
"Africa has tremendous business potential. I've so many friends going to your countries, trying to get rich," Trump told them at a luncheon Wednesday in New York, according to CNBC. "I congratulate you. They're spending a lot of money," he said.
Trump reportedly paused for laughter or applause, but none ensued.
The suggestion that wealthy Americans might be trying to enrich themselves in Africa would have been a sensitive one at the event, given that African labor and natural resources were subjected to centuries of European and American exploitation in the colonial era, including during the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
There he goes again, the President of the United States of America is as tone deaf as a stone. So, Trump rich friends go to Africa to get richer? Wonder what his friends do to help the local people?
Don't ya think the State Department might have told Donny not to rub this stuff in their faces? Oh, wait, that's right–Trump and Tillerson have gutted State...seems most governments in Africa don't have the benefit of having an ambassador to conduct diplomacy with the U.S.
-
That the state of New Hampshire (and probably not only they) allows those with out-of-state drivers licenses to legally vote. Which opens the possibility for those voters to vote in two states.
As long as Dems are the ones double dipping votes, who cares? The only reason Trump won is because the minority vote was suppressed by an Electoral College that values white votes more than non-white votes.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/08/white-peoples-votes-are-worth-more-electoral-college-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-alt-right/ (https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/08/white-peoples-votes-are-worth-more-electoral-college-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-alt-right/)
(https://i.imgur.com/WEnaQpN.jpg?fb)
-
I guess you misunderstand what New Hampshire's requirements are for voting...
... Does that answer your question?
Maybe.
Once again, this is an honest question (as in: not sarcastic, rhetorical, etc.).
It all hinges on the "residence" status. You could be a student in NH and vote there. Then you can go to your home state and vote there again. In NH, if you could have someone stating you are their roommate (!?), you could vote there and then go to your home state and vote again.
I also could have voted twice, if i wanted.
Just around the election, I moved from Illinois to Indiana. I still had my IL voter registration card and I went back and voted there. However, I could have also voted in IN, as I moved there, established residency, got a utility bill and a drivers license.
-
... The only reason Trump won is because the minority vote was suppressed by an Electoral College that values white votes more than non-white votes.
https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/08/white-peoples-votes-are-worth-more-electoral-college-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-alt-right/ (https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/08/white-peoples-votes-are-worth-more-electoral-college-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-alt-right/)
(https://i.imgur.com/WEnaQpN.jpg?fb)
The linked article is an utter garbage, of course. It also perpetuates the myth that Trump lost the popular vote and Clinton won the popular vote. None of which is true. We do not know who would have won the popular vote. Why? Because there was no popular voting. Period. What is peddled as the "popular vote" is an accidental byproduct of the electoral vote. If there was a popular voting, the turnout would be quite different. Many people abstained from voting for a number of reasons, one of which is that their vote would not count if it went against the prevailing voting pattern in their state. For instance, I could have voted in Illinois (and I did) or Indiana, but my vote would be only symbolic in either one, regardless who I voted for. Why? Because Illinois overwhelmingly votes Democrats, and Indiana overwhelmingly votes Republican.
-
I also could have voted twice, if i wanted.
Absent of a national register, there is little that can be done. That is just the way laws work. Laws do not prevent someone from doing something illegal, laws, with few exceptions, provide a way of punishing people after they do something wrong. The intent is that the punishment after committing the crime will discourage people from breaking the law. Whether this works or not is debatable.
There are no laws that prevent you from murdering someone. There are, however, laws that outline what will happen after you commit murder. No law will prevent someone from committing a crime. If they could, our society would be a lot better.
There are laws against voting twice, but realistically, they can only be applied after the person has voted illegally. The problem is that after the person votes, there is little that can be done to nullify that person's illegal vote. Provisional ballots are the only way, but we can't run elections using only provisional ballots.
It is a delicate balance. We want the freedom of a secret ballot, but at the same time we want accountability concerning voting. Finding a compromise, and everything ends up being a compromise, is an imperfect art.
What we want is a system that is secure "enough", convenient "enough", and cheap "enough". Oh yes, costs are an important factor. If we are not going to compromise, we have to pick one at the determent of the others. I can devise a voting system that is 99 +many decimal points secure. But you would not like the convenience and certainly could not afford the cost. It is easy to devise a voting system that prioritizes any of the three at the determent of the others. But that's not the ultimate solution.
Either an interstate register, run by the states, or a national register, run by the federal government, might be a solution to this.
There is a lot of resistance against a national registry.
The states, so far, have not been willing to cooperate with other states on this issue.
Despite the warts, I feel that we do a pretty good job with our elections. Not perfect and there is plenty of room for improvement. But overall, a good compromise that we should be proud of.
We have 50 states and some districts/territories who don't really talk to each other but somehow we manage to elect idiots to office.
-
The linked article is an utter garbage, of course. It also perpetuates the myth that Trump lost the popular vote and Clinton won the popular vote. None of which is true. We do not know who would have won the popular vote. Why? Because there was no popular voting. Period. What is peddled as the "popular vote" is an accidental byproduct of the electoral vote. If there was a popular voting, the turnout would be quite different. Many people abstained from voting for a number of reasons, one of which is that their vote would not count if it went against the prevailing voting pattern in their state. For instance, I could have voted in Illinois (and I did) or Indiana, but my vote would be only symbolic in either one, regardless who I voted for. Why? Because Illinois overwhelmingly votes Democrats, and Indiana overwhelmingly votes Republican.
+1. Voter turnout and voter behaviour is set by the system. If you change the system you get will get different voter turnout and behaviour. Transposing the voting results of one system in a "what if" type scenario to another system is useless and anybody deriving serious conclusions from that is trying to fool his readers. I think utter garbage is an understatement for the article :)
-
+1. Voter turnout and voter behaviour is set by the system. If you change the system you get will get different voter turnout and behaviour. Transposing the voting results of one system in a "what if" type scenario to another system is useless and anybody deriving serious conclusions from that is trying to fool his readers. I think utter garbage is an understatement for the article :)
"Utter garbage" might be too strong. The article might be incorrect for all the reasons that you and Slobodan state. However, it may also be correct. We can't know because there isn't a parallel universe where the election is run another way. It may be not entirely correct to attribute too much importance to that supposed "popular vote", but I don't think we can entirely dismiss it either. It means something, just maybe not as much as some would hope.
-
"Utter garbage" might be too strong. The article might be incorrect for all the reasons that you and Slobodan state. However, it may also be correct. We can't know because there isn't a parallel universe where the election is run another way. It may be not entirely correct to attribute too much importance to that supposed "popular vote", but I don't think we can entirely dismiss it either. It means something, just maybe not as much as some would hope.
There have been so many US presidents who were elected without winning the popular vote that it shows to me it's not just a peculiarity of the last election but something that is inherent in the system that is now in place. So putting value on that as a measure of "mandate" is pointless.
Campaigns, voter turnout as well as the results would be very different if the system was different, even another candidate could have won, we'll never know since like you say, parallel universes to test this aren't available.
-
That the state of New Hampshire (and probably not only they) allows those with out-of-state drivers licenses to legally vote. Which opens the possibility for those voters to vote in two states.
But this is what happens when the States and not the Federal government are responsible for establishing voting regulations. The only thing that is prescribed by the Federal government is the date of the election; eligibility, early voting (if any), type of ballot, and many other things are all run by the state. the votes in New Hampshire, according to the Secretary of State for NH, said that these were legal votes. Now it may be misguided in your mind for NH to allow such easy voting but that is for that state to decide.
-
Once again, this is an honest question (as in: not sarcastic, rhetorical, etc.).
It all hinges on the "residence" status. You could be a student in NH and vote there. Then you can go to your home state and vote there again. In NH, if you could have someone stating you are their roommate (!?), you could vote there and then go to your home state and vote again.
I also could have voted twice, if i wanted.
But what's different now? Is it the fact Trump claimed there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes cast that all of a sudden our system of registering and voting is faulty? Or is it the fact that the Russians so easily screwed with us? And we don't know what we don't know but more evidence is coming out that Russians did screw around with voter rolls even is that didn't actually change a Hillary vote to a Trump vote or visa versa.
What do you propose we do about it? You want the Federal government to step in and set requirements for voting in national records? You want a national voter registration and voter ID card? I would actually be averse to that if it could be done in a way that it insured voter enhancement rather than voter suppression–which is a typical problem in many red states where governors and statehouses have engaged in gerrymandering and voter suppression. What's to suggest that a national registration and voter ID card won't be used for discrimination? I think that would be a tough sell...
So, what was your point?
-
HOW THE RIGHT LOST ITS MIND AND EMBRACED DONALD TRUMP (http://www.newsweek.com/2017/09/29/right-lost-mind-embraced-donald-trump-668180.html)
BY CHARLES SYKES ON 9/21/17
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/0926gop.jpg)
This is a painful story for me to write.
For a quarter of a century, I was a major part of the conservative movement. But like many on the right, in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory I had to ask some uncomfortable questions. The 2016 presidential campaign was a brutal, disillusioning slog, and there came a moment when I realized that conservatives had created an alternate reality bubble—one that I had helped shape.
During the 2016 election, conservatives turned on the principles that had once animated them. Somehow a movement based on real ideas—such as economic freedom and limited government—had devolved into a tribe that valued neither principle nor truth; luminaries such as Edmund Burke and William F. Buckley Jr. had been replaced by media clowns such as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos. Icons such as Ronald Reagan—with his optimism and geniality—had been supplanted by the dark, erratic narcissism of Donald Trump. Gradualism, expertise and prudence—the values that once were taken for granted among conservatives—were replaced by polls and ratings spikes, as the right allowed liberal overreach in the Obama era to blind them to the crackpots and bigots in their midst.
Some have argued that the election was a binary choice, that Hillary Clinton had to be defeated by any means. I share many of their concerns about Clinton, but the price was ruinous. The right’s electoral victory has not wiped away its sins. It has magnified them, and the problems that were exposed during the 2016 campaign haven’t disappeared. Success does not necessarily imply virtue or sanity. Kings can be both mad and bad, and the courtiers are usually loath to point out the obvious—just look at Caligula or Kim Jong Un.
Today, with Trump in office, the problems of the right are the problems of all Americans. And the worst part of it is that we—conservatives—did this to ourselves.
Donald Trump is the president we deserve.
--snip--
If the conservative movement is defined by the nativist, authoritarian, post-truth culture of Trump and Bannon, I want no part of it. So once again, I am an ideological orphan.
Despite the demands that conservatives obey the new regime, precisely the opposite is needed. Rather than conformity, conservatism needs dissidents, contrarians. It needs people who believe in things like liberty, free markets, limited government and personal responsibility—but who have no obligation to defend the indefensible or rely on alternative facts. It needs people who can affirm that Trump won the election fairly and freely but recognize the gravity of Russia’s interference in the campaign. It needs those can support tougher border controls and still be appalled by the cruelty and incompetence of the president’s immigration bans. It needs those who applaud Trump’s support for Israel but are still thoroughly appalled by his slavish adulation of Putin and his flirtation with France’s Marine Le Pen.
This position will be a lonely one; we may lose some friends. But conservatives have a long history of being out of step with the spirit of the age. It’s worth remembering that conservative spokesmen like Buckley were actively opposed to Nixon during Watergate, well before he stepped down. Today, there are no “Nixon conservatives,” short of maybe Roger Stone.They are extinct. And good riddance.
He ain't my president, he's just the idiot that happens to currently live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...(well, some of the time at least).
-
Donald Trump: World-renowned primatologist Jane Goodall likens US President to a chimpanzee (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-chimpanzee-jane-goodall-dominance-ritual-a7959246.html)
(http://dy00k1db5oznd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Jane-Goodall-1109__065_bw_r.jpg)
'To impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
Stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks,' says prominent conservationist
World-renowned primatologist Dame Jane Goodall has likened Donald Trump's behaviour to that of a chimpanzee.
The British conservationist first gained international recognition for studying chimps in what is now Tanzania and has studied the primates for more than 50 years.
“In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” she told The Atlantic during the 2016 presidential election.
“In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: Stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks."
A more aggressive display was likely to lead the male to higher positions in the hierarchy and allow it to maintain its status for longer, she said.
Mr Trump's election campaign was littered with bombastic statements and since becoming President, he has issued increasingly aggressive threats towards North Korea.
--snipp--
Dame Jane's analysis of Mr Trump's behaviour has since been echoed by prominent psychologist Professor Dan P McAdams.
Describing what he called a male chimpanzee's "charging display" in an article in The Guardian, Professor Adams, of Northwestern University, said: "The top male essentially goes berserk and starts screaming, hooting, and gesticulating wildly as he charges toward other males nearby."
He added: "Trump’s incendiary tweets are the human equivalent of a charging display: Designed to intimidate his foes and rally his submissive base, these verbal outbursts reinforce the President’s dominance by reminding everybody of his wrath and his force."
Ok...I stand corrected, Trump is not a Big Orange Baboon he's a Big Orange Chimpanzee™ with a bad comb-over...
(http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/2441813/85230557.gif)
-
#MakeCanadaGreatAgain!
Canada's "reverse brain drain" in the age of Trump (https://www.axios.com/canadas-reverse-brain-drain-in-the-age-of-trump-2487152676.html)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/980x.jpg)
Numerous startups in the tech hub of Toronto say they have had steady, double-digit increases in job applications from the United States since last year's presidential election. This is among the first concrete evidence that President Trump's hard line on immigration may be impacting the global race to attract the best minds.
What they're saying: "I've been in tech for over 20 years in Canada and in Silicon Valley, too. I've never seen candidates from the U.S. apply for Canadian positions from places like Silicon Valley," Roy Pereira, the CEO of Zoom.ai, told Axios. "That's never happened."
Why it matters: Since Trump's election, with his attacks on immigration and threats to cut back on visas, France, China and Canada, among other countries, have openly sought to poach American technologists and scientists (as we have written). The reports from Toronto suggest a threat to the United States' long edge as the preeminent magnet for the world's brightest scientific talent.
--snip--
It is not only companies, but students — the seed of later scientists: U.S. applications to the University of Toronto, a leading center for the study of artificial intelligence, have risen 80% since November, the school says.
Why it happened: Pereira said that his discussions with American applicants indicated that they were "concerned just because of the directionality that the country was taking," often citing Trump's travel ban as a reason they were looking at jobs in Canada.
And they're influential: Figure 1 CEO Gregory Levey told Axios that he's meeting with American entrepreneurs this week who are looking to relocate to Toronto from Silicon Valley, describing them as "global-level talent," including "one high-flying startup CEO who just sold his company" for a significant amount of money.
A homecoming: Kurji, Pereira, and Levey all mentioned that they'd been personally contacted about the job market in Toronto by Canadian expats in the U.S., indicating that many of Canada's best and brightest are looking to come home. A big quote from Kurji:
"We're seeing a reverse brain drain for the first time. There are highly talented Canadians — educated in Canada or the U.S. — who are now seeking to come back home. There's has been a significant spike in those conversations. Some of the most highly sought-after talent are asking, 'What positions do you know of in Toronto?' These are leaders in their industries in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago."
So, Make America Great again by draining the best brains in the world and encourage them to go someplace else? Yeah, that's not gonna be a good strategy...better rethink that approach Donny.
The other problem is, of course, the fact that Trump seems to be anti-science...or it sure seems like that based on who he has tapped for his administration and his departments.
-
This is kinda funny (and rather revealing)
Who’s More Qualified to Give Opinions About Health Care Policy, Jimmy Kimmel or Donald Trump? (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/21/jimmy_kimmel_vs_donald_trump_who_s_more_qualified.html)
By Ben Mathis-Lilley
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/21/170921_SLATEST_Kimmel-Trump.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg)
Health care policy wonks Jimmy Kimmel and Donald Trump.
In a turn of events that began when his child was born with a condition that required open-heart surgery, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel has become the the face of public opposition to Affordable Care Act repeal (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/21/watch_jimmy_kimmel_respond_to_his_critics.html). Kimmel has been specifically critical of the way Republicans have proposed repeal bills that would allow states to waive the ACA's requirement that insurers offer reasonably priced coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. As he's (correctly) explained, such waivers—like the one in the Graham-Cassidy bill currently looming in the Senate—would likely make it impossible for many families like his whose breadwinners aren't well-compensated celebrities to afford care for their sick kids.
Some on the right have responded by telling Kimmel he should stick to entertainment (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/20/today_in_conservative_media_shut_up_jimmy_kimmel.html)
Joe Walsh ✔ @WalshFreedom
I miss Johnny Carson.
Didn't even know what his politics were. He was just funny.
Kimmel, Colbert...these guys are all nags. And boring.
2:06 PM - Sep 20, 2017
You may have noticed a flaw in this strategy, namely that the nation's most powerful Republican got elected president largely because he starred on a reality show for loud idiots (https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/910580906594848768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe_slatest%2F2017%2F09%2F20%2Ftoday_in_conservative_media_shut_up_jimmy_kimmel.html). So: Who is more qualified to discuss public policy, Jimmy Kimmel or president of the United States? Let's break it down.
1. Attitude toward reading complicated material:
Kimmel's detailed Wednesday monologue would indicate that he has done a fair amount of research on the issue of ACA repeal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/20/does-jimmy-kimmel-really-understand-the-gop-health-care-bill/?utm_term=.b9cac6a45ea3).
Trump famously doesn't like to read briefing papers if they're long and don't involve pictures (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-president-trump-consumes--or-does-not-consume--top-secret-intelligence/2017/05/29/1caaca3e-39ae-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html).
2. Ability to explain health care reform in layman's terms:
Kimmel, again, did this on Wednesday (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/09/21/watch_jimmy_kimmel_respond_to_his_critics.html).
Trump has famously (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/19/15997776/trump-health-care-complicated-deal) never demonstrated, in either public or private (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/us/health-care-bill-trump-pence.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1), any understanding of how Republican health care plans work.
3. Intellectual pedigree of TV co-stars:
Kimmel worked with a former presidential adviser and Yale Law School graduate on a distinguished high-brow program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_Ben_Stein's_Money) that involved tests of knowledge in areas such as literature and history.
Trump's Celebrity Apprentice co-stars included Gene Simmons and Jose Canseco.
4. History of being so bad at his ostensible occupation (business, for Trump; being a comedian, for Kimmel) that investors in one of his enterprises insisted shortly before its second bankruptcy filing that he resign from any role in its management:
In 2009, bondholders in Trump's publicly traded Trump Entertainment Resorts organization forced him out of his role running the company (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/business/14trump.html?dlbk) shortly before it filed for its second bankruptcy.
This sort of thing has never happened, to my knowledge, to Jimmy Kimmel. His relationships with the other creators of Crank Yankers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_Yankers) appear to be solid. The Man Show, its problematic sexual politics aside, never filed for bankruptcy even one time.
My verdict? Neither of these people should probably be president, but especially not Donald Trump.
The sad thing is the GOP is gonna try to vote on this steaming piece of crap next week without holding a single public hearing or even knowing what the CBO score is.
Republicans aren’t voting for Graham-Cassidy. They’re just voting for Obamacare repeal. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/21/16339524/republicans-obamacare-repeal-graham-cassidy-nobody-cares)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/juja3WBtShK2ci2RzS0eHSMtvos=/0x0:3000x2000/920x613/filters:focal(1260x760:1740x1240)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56778009/GettyImages_846510344.0.jpg)
“Apparently no one cares what the bill actually does.”
... Grassley was even more blunt.
“You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered,” he told local reporters this week. “But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.”
So when you cut through the salesmanship around state flexibility and the evils of Obamacare, Senate Republicans will tell you right to your face why Graham-Cassidy, a bill nobody had taken seriously until a week ago, might very well pass the chamber in the next few days. They promised to repeal Obamacare, and this is the only Obamacare repeal bill left.
That’s it.
Such an abdication of any coherent policy vision has other Republicans in Washington, particularly those well studied in health policy, baffled.
“I think this process with Graham-Cassidy is an embarrassment on top of the previous embarrassments — the cherry on top, if you will,” a second GOP health care lobbyist told me. “A sweeping revision of federal-state roles in and funding arrangements for health care, with one hearing, no markups, no CBO score. Good grief.”
“I still believe conservatives and Republicans have strong ideas for improving how health care is financed and delivered,” the lobbyist continued. “But will anyone listen to them after this debacle is finally and mercifully over?”
Screw the people...right? I mean, do they honestly think this is any kind of good for people?
-
Donald Trump: World-renowned primatologist Jane Goodall likens US President to a chimpanzee (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-chimpanzee-jane-goodall-dominance-ritual-a7959246.html)
(http://dy00k1db5oznd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Jane-Goodall-1109__065_bw_r.jpg)
'To impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
Stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks,' says prominent conservationist
Ok...I stand corrected, Trump is not a Big Orange Baboon he's a Big Orange Chimpanzee™ with a bad comb-over...
(http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/2441813/85230557.gif)
This is a dangerous route to go down and I am surprised you are posting this here.
The left always seems to open the door to call politicians on the right apes and monkeys (they did this with George W. Bush too), which then opens the door, and justifies it for those whom stoop down to this same level on the right, to call left wing politicians, like say Obama, apes too.
Personally, both sides should stop it.
-
The left always seems to open the door to call politicians on the right apes and monkeys (they did this with George W. Bush too), which then opens the door, and justifies it for those whom stoop down to this same level on the right, to call left wing politicians, like say Obama, apes too.
Well, I don't think the right posted photos of Obama as an ape because of behavior did they? Pretty sure it was a racial commentary...what Jane Goodall did was compare Trump's BEHAVIOR to that of a chimp...and Professor Adams said: "The top male essentially goes berserk and starts screaming, hooting, and gesticulating wildly as he charges toward other males nearby."
He added: "Trump’s incendiary tweets are the human equivalent of a charging display: Designed to intimidate his foes and rally his submissive base, these verbal outbursts reinforce the President’s dominance by reminding everybody of his wrath and his force."
Those are scientists saying that...but feel free to blame me for finding a chimp with a comb-over if ya want!
8)
-
There have been so many US presidents who were elected without winning the popular vote that it shows to me it's not just a peculiarity of the last election but something that is inherent in the system that is now in place. So putting value on that as a measure of "mandate" is pointless.
5 (maybe 6) out of 45 (although there have actually been 58 elections). There were 3 in the 19th Century and 2 in the 21st Century. The whole of the 20th Century had no such events officially, but there is some doubt about the 1960 election due to the way Alabama worked out its EC electors in which case it would have had 1 (hence my "5 (maybe 6)" comment to start with.
That's not really in the realms of "so many". It's not without precedent, but it's uncommon, being at best 10.3% of the time and probably 8.6% of the time.
-
Well, I don't think the right posted photos of Obama as an ape because of behavior did they? Pretty sure it was a racial commentary...what Jane Goodall did was compare Trump's BEHAVIOR to that of a chimp...and Professor Adams said: "The top male essentially goes berserk and starts screaming, hooting, and gesticulating wildly as he charges toward other males nearby."
He added: "Trump’s incendiary tweets are the human equivalent of a charging display: Designed to intimidate his foes and rally his submissive base, these verbal outbursts reinforce the President’s dominance by reminding everybody of his wrath and his force."
Those are scientists saying that...but feel free to blame me for finding a chimp with a comb-over if ya want!
8)
I am I pretty sure that (your) argument now falls on deaf ears since you are okay with referring to another president being a chimp.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, or at least that is the argument you are helping to support by calling our current president a chimp. Your actions, whether you realize it or not, greatly diminish any racial references to calling Obama a chimp.
-
... So, what was your point?
I've been wondering the same about your posts, 300+ pages later.
-
...That is just the way laws work. Laws do not prevent someone from doing something illegal, laws, with few exceptions, provide a way of punishing people after they do something wrong...
I agree with you about the nature of laws, crime, and punishment.
But... do we really have to make it so easy, so enticing, so tempting? You can come in the morning of the voting day to NH, find a sympathetic soul who will give you a note that you are his roommate, you go in and vote, and you still have the time to go to your home state and vote again. And that is all without taking into account early voting periods. And who is going to check later on whether you actually stayed in NH with your buddy, or your "residency" in NH lasted only a few hours?
-
It needs those can support tougher border controls and still be appalled by the cruelty and incompetence of the president’s immigration bans.
You want the cake and eat it too? Or, as my people fondly say: "You want to be f*&#ed, but not penetrated?"
-
I agree with you about the nature of laws, crime, and punishment.
But... do we really have to make it so easy, so enticing, so tempting? You can come in the morning of the voting day to NH, find a sympathetic soul who will give you a note that you are his roommate, you go in and vote, and you still have the time to go to your home state and vote again. And that is all without taking into account early voting periods. And who is going to check later on whether you actually stayed in NH with your buddy, or your "residency" in NH lasted only a few hours?
It's clearly a stupid situation. Get a federal standard and register and you'd go a long way to sorting things out, but that won't happen in the US.
-
Donald Trump: World-renowned primatologist Jane Goodall likens US President to a chimpanzee (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-chimpanzee-jane-goodall-dominance-ritual-a7959246.html)
(http://dy00k1db5oznd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Jane-Goodall-1109__065_bw_r.jpg)
'To impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays:
Stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks,' says prominent conservationist
Ok...I stand corrected, Trump is not a Big Orange Baboon he's a Big Orange Chimpanzee™ with a bad comb-over...
(http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/2441813/85230557.gif)
I wonder what she would say about Democrat President Clinton getting BJ's in the Oval Office?
-
+1. Voter turnout and voter behaviour is set by the system. If you change the system you get will get different voter turnout and behaviour. Transposing the voting results of one system in a "what if" type scenario to another system is useless and anybody deriving serious conclusions from that is trying to fool his readers. I think utter garbage is an understatement for the article :)
What's ironic is that when Hillary complains that she would have been elected if it were not for the electoral system, she fails to mention Democrat Superdelegates and the non-popular vote of the Democrat nomination process. Superdelegates make up 15% of the total Democrat delegates in the nomination process. She had that advantage from the beginning because she locked up their votes before Iowa. They are not bound by voters or caucuses. They were in her pocket. So the whole nomination process in the Democrat party is itself not by popular vote. The Superdelegates were grabbed up by her in the very beginning to vote for her nomination as the Democrat candidate. Bernie didn't have a chance. It would be refreshing if interviewers would ask her about Superdelegates whenever she complains about how she lost to the electoral process. But of course like most of the media, they are in her corner and hate Trump.
-
To be clear, Flynn's phone wasn't tapped it was the Russian he was talking to (which he failed to report and lied about) whose phone was tapped. He got scooped up as incidental contact. The reason he was unmasked was because of legitimate national security conserns. Flynn was not then under surveillance (prolly is now)
The only other person related to Trump that subject to a FISA warrent was the idiot Carter Page because he was trying to be recruited by known Russian agents. The reason I called him an idiot was that's what the Russians called him.
None of which supports Trump's silly claim that Obama had his phones tapped...
Obama was listening to Flynn by receiving over a hundred transcripts of phone calls. Trump could not have known exactly how he was being "tapped". That's just an expression for being surveilled. But he suspected, correct it turns out, that he was being surveilled. Now it turns out that Manafort, his campaign chief, was being tapped. Regardless of the reason for the tapping, Trump was again right. His key campaign players, Manafort and Flynn, were being listened to by the Obama administration. Considering what happened with the IRS being used to pressure conservative organizations during the election campaign of 2012, by Obama's administration, Trump was right on-the-money assuming he was being tapped or surveilled. The media and you are just playing word games.
Why was Obama so nosey? Don't you think it had something to do with politics? If there was some sort of espionage going on, that would have been for the FBI to investigate, not him or Rice.
-
It's clearly a stupid situation. Get a federal standard and register and you'd go a long way to sorting things out, but that won't happen in the US.
It would require a constitutional amendment. Since electors for each state are determine by each party according to their rules. There are almost no rules in the Constitution on how electors are chosen. If a state party wants to flip a coin, that's legal. Even after they're selected, there's no constitutional requirement on who they vote for. Some Hillary electors actually voted in the end for Trump. I don't think any Trump electors voted for Hillary. Now that's funny considering how Hillary supporters tried to get Trump electors to vote for her.
One recommendation I have to improve the process is to have white or gray smoke sent up in the air to show who won. Sort of like when they elect the Pope. Very picturesque. Also, it would minimize all the talking heads on cable who keep predicting the wrong winner all night. :)
A more detail description of electors is here. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html
-
One recommendation I have to improve the process is to have white or gray smoke sent up in the air to show who won. Sort of like when they elect the Pope. Very picturesque. Also, it would minimize all the talking heads on cable who keep predicting the wrong winner all night. :)
Never mind the pope, we can learn from Native American Indians. I'm sure that back in November, many tribes signalled all over the country with three black of puffs of smoke.
-
Never mind the pope, we can learn from Native American Indians. I'm sure that back in November, many tribes signalled all over the country with three black of puffs of smoke.
I've got it. Blue smoke if Democrat. Red smoke if Republican.
-
Why was Obama so nosey? Don't you think it had something to do with politics? If there was some sort of espionage going on, that would have been for the FBI to investigate, not him or Rice.
I think it might have had something to do about national security? You know, like Flynn talking to the Russians about lifting sanctions or Flynn talking to Saudi Arabia about installing Russian nuclear reactors or Flynn talking about kidnapping a Turkish dissident and sending him to Turkey or how about Jared Kushner talking to the Russians about using a back channel method (the Russian consulate) to negotiate so the US intelligence agencies couldn't eavesdrop or how about Kushner meeting with a Russian bankers who is under sanction and can't do business in the US or how about Kushner and Flynn secretly meeting with the King of Abdullah II of Jordan (to again pitch build nuclear reactors there) and Kushner and Flynn as well as Bannon met with United Arab Emirates crown prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. Why all that contact?
Boy, Flynn and Kushner sure were doing a lot of talking to people who they prolly shouldn't have been talking to about stuff they prolly shouldn't have been talking about.
But no worries...good ol' Bob Mueller will be taking care of all of that stuff and if somebody broke the law, then they will go to prison.
But the House intelligence committee had Barbara Rice in close session to explain exactly why she did what she did and the committee stated (even the GOP members) that Rice did nothing wrong or illegal. So, unless you know something the House intelligence committee doesn't know, ya might want to get over the whole Obama being nosey business. He and the rest of his administration were doing the people's business.
Here's the article that contains information about Rice...
SUSAN RICE EXPLAINS WHY SHE UNMASKED TRUMP OFFICIALS (http://www.newsweek.com/susan-rices-explains-why-she-unmasked-trump-officials-664726)
Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, has finally come clean on why she unmasked Trump campaign officials—an act President Donald Trump said he thinks is a crime.
Rice met with the House intelligence committee last week. Multiple sources told CNN Wednesday that Rice testified she unmasked the names of multiple members of the Trump campaign who were picked up on intelligence intercepts of foreign sources.
Her goal at the time, she said, was to find out who was meeting with United Arab Emirates crown prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan in New York last December after the election. In a break from custom, the prince had not told President Barack Obama he would be visiting the U.S.
--snip--
During Rice’s testimony last week, Representative Tom Rooney, the Republican from Florida and a member of the House intelligence committee, told CNN Wednesday, “I didn't hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal.”
South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy, another committee member, told the Daily Caller “nothing that came up” during Rice’s interview “led me to conclude” she improperly unmasked the Trump officials.
-
Wow...I wonder where those notes are? Betcha good ol' Bob Mueller knows where they are...
Spicer's note-taking could give investigators a Trump roadmap (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-notebook/index.html)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170727191554-sean-spicer-exlarge-169.jpg)
(CNN)Sean Spicer's copious note-taking during his time as White House press secretary could provide investigators with a behind-the-scenes roadmap of what transpired early in President Donald Trump's tenure.
Spicer was a zealous notetaker in the White House, sources tell CNN, a habit that dates to his time as the top strategist at the Republican National Committee. Spicer filled notebooks over his eight-month tenure as Trump's spokesperson, taking copious notes as the administration got off the ground.
Now, as special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's 2016 meddling begins to broaden and he seeks an array of documents from inside the White House, those notebooks could prove useful to investigators who hope to establish what was happening inside the West Wing at the time.
Multiple White House officials declined to comment on Spicer's note-taking or whether Mueller has asked for Spicer's notes.
One WH official is quoted as saying: "People are going to wish they'd been nicer to Sean...He was in a lot of meetings"
-
It would require a constitutional amendment.
Yup, I know exactly how it works. That's why I said it wouldn't change in the US!
-
"President Donald Trump lavished praise on the health care system of Nambia during a speech at the United Nations.
But there's one little problem -- there's no such country."...
The gaffe lit up social media, with many speculating whether he meant Namibia, Zambia or Gambia....
"Trump mentioned Nambia twice during the session attended by leaders of several nations, including Ghana, Namibia and Uganda..."
-
5 (maybe 6) out of 45 (although there have actually been 58 elections). There were 3 in the 19th Century and 2 in the 21st Century. The whole of the 20th Century had no such events officially, but there is some doubt about the 1960 election due to the way Alabama worked out its EC electors in which case it would have had 1 (hence my "5 (maybe 6)" comment to start with.
That's not really in the realms of "so many". It's not without precedent, but it's uncommon, being at best 10.3% of the time and probably 8.6% of the time.
Five
In 1824, John Quincy Adams
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison
In 2000, George W. Bush
In 2016, Donald Trump
Not insignificant, but I agree, hardly so many.
But good call on Alabama. Not too many know that. The way Alabama worked their electors was .... unusual.
The intent of the electoral college is to elect the candidate that garners the majority of the votes in the majority of states. Not just the majority of votes. Like most things in our government, it was a compromise. Similarly with representation in the Congress, there was a schism between large population states and low population states and how each can partake in the election of the chief executive. The compromise was the Electoral College. Imperfect, but it works.
According to the archives, when it comes to amending the constitution, the issue of the electoral college leads the way by far with over 700 proposed constitutional amendment bills. Significantly more that for any other single issue.
To me, the issue is not the Electoral College, but in how each state chooses (and it is their choice) of how to assign the electors. There is no federal law that mandates a "winner take all" schema as illustrated by Nebraska and Maine who have a modified proportional way of assigning electors.
Perhaps the solution is for each state to decide to assign their electors according to the proportion of the popular vote in that state. No more of this winner take all. No Constitutional Amendment needed, just a change to the individual state law.
The downside of using proportional allotment of electors is that it is quite possible that at the end of the election, no candidate will get the majority of electors across the nation. The Electoral College is one of the few if not the only election in the US that requires a majority instead of just a plurality to win. This would necessitate a run-off election of the top candidates. Other countries have run-off elections.
I wonder how the American people would react to a run off election? One thing that American's like is to get the election over and done with so they can go back to posting on the Internets Tubes. :)
Prolonging the agony of elections by having a run-off election (or worse two?) would be a cultural change.
-
I agree with you about the nature of laws, crime, and punishment.
But... do we really have to make it so easy, so enticing, so tempting?
Would you risk 10 Years in prison and a felony conviction for the rest of your life just to be able to cast one additional vote out of 50,000,000 votes?
I sure wouldn't. The "benefit" of my one extra vote is no where worth the risk of prison and a felony record.
Each state runs elections according to their laws. I also don't agree with the way NH runs their elections, but I am not a resident of NH. Clearly the legislation (which was republican at the time) agreed to running their election that way. Their state, their choice, their consequences.
I don't think the states want the federal government dictating how the individual states run elections..... but it may come to that.
To me, a much better solution is for the states to fix these problems themselves and work with the other states to have an interstate (instead of federal) voter registration database.
The problem is that each state does not consider this problem to be a problem... and that can be a problem. ;)
Perhaps what will happen is that we may have separate elections for State and Federal offices.
State elections are run according to the individual state laws
Federal elections are run according to federal laws.
That might be an acceptable compromise. And expensive one, but a workable one.
-
Presidential elections need to be decided by a cage match.
Pay per view to help out with the debt. The international viewership alone will take care of a lot of it.
Primaries: 10 walk in, 1 walks out
Final election: 2 walk in, 1 walks out
"How badly do you want to be president?"
I can just imagine that Star Trek "Kirk vs Spock" fighting soundtrack for this. ;D
-
I think it might have had something to do about national security? You know, like Flynn talking to the Russians about lifting sanctions or Flynn talking to Saudi Arabia about installing Russian nuclear reactors or Flynn talking about kidnapping a Turkish dissident and sending him to Turkey or how about Jared Kushner talking to the Russians about using a back channel method (the Russian consulate) to negotiate so the US intelligence agencies couldn't eavesdrop or how about Kushner meeting with a Russian bankers who is under sanction and can't do business in the US or how about Kushner and Flynn secretly meeting with the King of Abdullah II of Jordan (to again pitch build nuclear reactors there) and Kushner and Flynn as well as Bannon met with United Arab Emirates crown prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. Why all that contact?
Boy, Flynn and Kushner sure were doing a lot of talking to people who they prolly shouldn't have been talking to about stuff they prolly shouldn't have been talking about.
But no worries...good ol' Bob Mueller will be taking care of all of that stuff and if somebody broke the law, then they will go to prison.
But the House intelligence committee had Barbara Rice in close session to explain exactly why she did what she did and the committee stated (even the GOP members) that Rice did nothing wrong or illegal. So, unless you know something the House intelligence committee doesn't know, ya might want to get over the whole Obama being nosey business. He and the rest of his administration were doing the people's business.
Here's the article that contains information about Rice...
SUSAN RICE EXPLAINS WHY SHE UNMASKED TRUMP OFFICIALS (http://www.newsweek.com/susan-rices-explains-why-she-unmasked-trump-officials-664726)
Rice is a liar. This is the same Susan Rice who lied on 5 different Sunday news stations about the Benghazi attack. She said the attackers were not terrorists or combatants but just some regular people upset about what someone said about the Koran. Those were all lies. She and Obama and the Administration already knew days earlier that they were armed combatants who used machine guns and rocket propelled grenades who deliberately planned their attack on the anniversary of 9-11 on our embassy that killed our ambassador. Rice hid the real reasons to protect Obama for the upcoming election of 2012 so it wouldn't appear he lost control and terrorists were again gaining an upper hand.
They read the Flynn transcripts hoping to find some dirt on Flynn so they could weaken Trump during the presidential campaign. She lied to the Senate about unmasking as she lied to the news stations about Benghazi.
-
This is quite an indictment of the process: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/21/obamacare-repeal-division-earlier-bills-242997 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/21/obamacare-repeal-division-earlier-bills-242997), the idea that it's more important to pass something, anything, before an arbitrary deadline just so that a campaign promise appears fulfilled. Shouldn't the needs of citizens be paramount? Aren't the details the most important part?
-
Gotcha!
See, the news media would rather dump on Trump about his gaffe rather than tell us what he said about their health system that he liked. Unfortunately, that's what the fake news media does all the time. They just want to tear Trump down. They look for stupid little things to attack him and don't even mention the good things he said or minimize them. When Obama once said there were 58 states the USA, the media still told the world the main thrust of his speech. They didn't focus on Obama's gaffe.
-
...Shouldn't the needs of citizens be paramount?...
You say that as if ObamaCare matters to all citizens. It doesn't to a vast majority.
-
Five
In 1824, John Quincy Adams
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison
In 2000, George W. Bush
In 2016, Donald Trump
Not insignificant, but I agree, hardly so many.
But good call on Alabama. Not too many know that. The way Alabama worked their electors was .... unusual.
The intent of the electoral college is to elect the candidate that garners the majority of the votes in the majority of states. Not just the majority of votes. Like most things in our government, it was a compromise. Similarly with representation in the Congress, there was a schism between large population states and low population states and how each can partake in the election of the chief executive. The compromise was the Electoral College. Imperfect, but it works.
According to the archives, when it comes to amending the constitution, the issue of the electoral college leads the way by far with over 700 proposed constitutional amendment bills. Significantly more that for any other single issue.
To me, the issue is not the Electoral College, but in how each state chooses (and it is their choice) of how to assign the electors. There is no federal law that mandates a "winner take all" schema as illustrated by Nebraska and Maine who have a modified proportional way of assigning electors.
Perhaps the solution is for each state to decide to assign their electors according to the proportion of the popular vote in that state. No more of this winner take all. No Constitutional Amendment needed, just a change to the individual state law.
The downside of using proportional allotment of electors is that it is quite possible that at the end of the election, no candidate will get the majority of electors across the nation. The Electoral College is one of the few if not the only election in the US that requires a majority instead of just a plurality to win. This would necessitate a run-off election of the top candidates. Other countries have run-off elections.
I wonder how the American people would react to a run off election? One thing that American's like is to get the election over and done with so they can go back to posting on the Internets Tubes. :)
Prolonging the agony of elections by having a run-off election (or worse two?) would be a cultural change.
Elector process as required in the Constitution is what causes us to have a two party system. The fact you need 50+% of the electoral vote to become president reduces the chances that third party candidates will run. That's why the states allocate all the electoral votes to the majority vote getter in their state. Apportioning them would guarantee third and fourth party runs. If no one gets the majority of electoral votes, likely if there are more than two parties as in a Parliamentary system, then the House of Representatives decides who the next president will be. Of course, the party who is in power in the House will select their party's candidate. So states have no incentive to divide their electoral votes by proportioning them to the popular vote in their state. It's winner take all. (Maine is one state that splits its vote. They're strange up there :))
Because of the electoral vote, the whole two party system filters down to Senate, Congressman, and individual State and local government positions elections. The two parties garner all the power so the entire country is running on democrats and republicans. Sure there are other parties that enter candidates such as the Liberal Party, Green Party, Communist Party, Know-Nothing Party, etc. But most people belong to the two main parties.
-
Would you risk 10 Years in prison and a felony conviction for the rest of your life just to be able to cast one additional vote out of 50,000,000 votes?
I sure wouldn't...
You and I wouldn't, but this guy would (and did). Though just for 100 days in prison. I am sure he would carry those 100 days as a badge of honor for the rest of his life.
https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2017/06/28/student-gets-prison-term-for-registering-dead-people-as-democratic-voters/
-
You say that as if ObamaCare matters to all citizens. It doesn't to a vast majority.
+1.
85% of Americans were perfectly happy with their health plans before Obamacare. Most got theirs through their employer and paid a reasonable amount. Because of Obamacare, the whole system has been turned topsy turvy. Regular people who had insurance can't afford it any longer or their deductibles are so high, they can't really use the insurance except if they have major health issues.
If we wanted to help people in the 15%, we should address only those people. Keeping a competitive system otherwise would continue to provide the best research and doctors generally for everyone. Going to a government system is just going to result in lousy health care.
I'm on Medicare for over age 65. All the better doctors in NYC are opting out of Medicare because they refuse to accept the low payments Medicare requires them to accept. If you want their services, you have to pay out-of-pocket, the full amount they charge. Secondary insurance policies won't pick up any of the charges either because primary, Medicare, refuses. So you would have to pay for full services.
My wife when she was 63 had bone surgery to repair a break by one of the best orthopedic surgeons in the country. It cost her nothing for his operation. It was all picked up by her private health insurance paid for by her and her employer. Two weeks ago, she needed additional surgery by this same surgeon to remove the plate he had put in during the first operation. Because she is now on Medicare and this same surgeon had opted out of Medicare, it cost us $5300 in direct payments to him. We will get no reimbursements from Medicare or our secondary private insurance. Fortunately for us, the anesthesiologist, who had not opted out of Medicare, charged us $2800. However, Medicare is paying him only $250 which he'll have to accept. How long will he continue to accept Medicare's low payments?
So unless you're rich, your stuck with crappy surgeons and other specialists. If Medicare or government single payer goes national, the same thing will happen for younger people. If the government forces better doctors to accept low Medicare or government mandated fees, then smart students will switch to law and other professions and we'll no longer have the best doctors available to care for us even if we're willing to pay out of pocket.
-
Regarding the London bombing in their subways recently, "Iraqi asylum seeker Ahmed Hassan, 18, was motivated to unleash murder on the Tube because of his 'warped political views', it is alleged.
He entered the country illegally in 2015 and was put in foster care but before the terror attack he had 'expressed hatred for the UK government and society', the prosecution said."
Others involved are also Muslim refugees from the middle east.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4909992/Suspect-18-charged-Parsons-Green-bombing.html
Trump is trying to avoid this problem with his travel ban and other changes to our immigration procedures.
-
You say that as if ObamaCare matters to all citizens. It doesn't to a vast majority.
Using this logic, we should all be happy and support the Republican proposal. For two years, both of my daughters were independent contractors. They had good incomes but were reliant on Obamacare for their health insurance. A number of their friends are/were free-lance workers and also dependent on this type of healthcare access. Again, think twice before you post throw away lines. It may be a small group of individuals but these folks are important and in many cases are good earners and taxpayers.
-
Trump is trying to avoid this problem with his travel ban and other changes to our immigration procedures.
A great many of the domestic terrorists over the past quarter century were not Muslim and did cause a significant loss of life in the US.
-
You say that as if ObamaCare matters to all citizens. It doesn't to a vast majority.
Probably correct. It only affects, say 22 million people?
Cheers,
Bart
-
They had good incomes but were reliant on Obamacare for their health insurance.
something does not add here... why 'd somebody with good income be elibigble for Obamacare ?
-
You say that as if ObamaCare matters to all citizens. It doesn't to a vast majority.
actually it does - because vast majority is not insured against something bad that might happen with each one of them (even not with all of them at once)... от тюрьмы и сумы (c) folklore
PS: copyright protection of photographs so important for some people here does not matter to a way vaster majority of US population either and so on
-
Probably correct. It only affects, say 22 million people?
At start, it was 11 million ... how did it double in the meantime?
-
+1.
85% of Americans were perfectly happy with their health plans before Obamacare. Most got theirs through their employer and paid a reasonable amount. Because of Obamacare, the whole system has been turned topsy turvy. Regular people who had insurance can't afford it any longer or their deductibles are so high, they can't really use the insurance except if they have major health issues.
If we wanted to help people in the 15%, we should address only those people. Keeping a competitive system otherwise would continue to provide the best research and doctors generally for everyone. Going to a government system is just going to result in lousy health care.
I'm on Medicare for over age 65. All the better doctors in NYC are opting out of Medicare because they refuse to accept the low payments Medicare requires them to accept. If you want their services, you have to pay out-of-pocket, the full amount they charge. Secondary insurance policies won't pick up any of the charges either because primary, Medicare, refuses. So you would have to pay for full services.
My wife when she was 63 had bone surgery to repair a break by one of the best orthopedic surgeons in the country. It cost her nothing for his operation. It was all picked up by her private health insurance paid for by her and her employer. Two weeks ago, she needed additional surgery by this same surgeon to remove the plate he had put in during the first operation. Because she is now on Medicare and this same surgeon had opted out of Medicare, it cost us $5300 in direct payments to him. We will get no reimbursements from Medicare or our secondary private insurance. Fortunately for us, the anesthesiologist, who had not opted out of Medicare, charged us $2800. However, Medicare is paying him only $250 which he'll have to accept. How long will he continue to accept Medicare's low payments?
So unless you're rich, your stuck with crappy surgeons and other specialists. If Medicare or government single payer goes national, the same thing will happen for younger people. If the government forces better doctors to accept low Medicare or government mandated fees, then smart students will switch to law and other professions and we'll no longer have the best doctors available to care for us even if we're willing to pay out of pocket.
My wife and I are both healthy with no serious or chronic problems. I've been self-employed for most of my adult life so I am the employer who provides health insurance for my wife and I. Before Obamacare our insurance premiums were around $2000 per month, and it was only that low because we have group insurance through a regional council of smaller enterprises. Is $2000/month a "reasonable amount"? In the 5 or so years before Obamacare we were seeing annual increases on the order of 30%, so we increased the deductible to higher levels several times just to keep premiums in check. A year before Obamacare happened our deductible was already at very high catastrophic insurance levels. Since Obamacare happened our premiums have not decreased but we get all of the preventative care and tests at no charge only because of Obamacare. Without that we'd be paying 100% of all of that, plus a couple thousand dollars per month.
My wife recently had 5 one hour physical therapy appointments. On two (first and last) occasions an actual physical therapist saw her, and on the others she was seen by an "assistant". All of the sessions consisted of the person telling her what exercises to do and her doing them. No active treatment, like traction, etc., was ever performed and no special equipment except a big rubber band that you can buy for a couple dollars) was used. The bill to our insurance for this was $500 per session. Is that reasonable? Her appointment with the orthopedic surgeon, which included several x-rays was cheaper.
The health care system in America was broken long before Obamacare happened. Before Obamacare around 60% of all personal bankruptcies had a medical cause and now that's down to around 25%, so there has been a positive impact. Here's some "fake news" for you to digest:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-bankruptcy-20170509-story.html
Our kids in Australia don't sweat healthcare or insurance costs. Both have gone through having their own kids, and caring for one of those with special medical needs, all without a financial worry. Whenever I think about that I wonder why America can't do half as well for its citizens. My guess is because many fear any sort of change, bury their heads in the sand, and convince themselves that what we have is fine even though it's near the bottom of the heap for any developed nation.
-
...Again, think twice before you post throw away lines..
Alan, I gather that you don't like facing reality? Which is that the majority of Americans don't care about ObamaCare, for better or worse. I am just the messenger.
-
At start, it was 11 million ... how did it double in the meantime?
Was it?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-stocks/hospital-stocks-fall-after-republican-health-bill-seen-leaving-24-million-uninsured-idUSKBN16L1W1
So you are saying that it's okay if 11 million people are negatively impacted, very nice ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
something does not add here... why 'd somebody with good income be elibigble for Obamacare ?
Simple, they buy Obamacare policies but do not get any subsidy because their incomes do not qualify them for one. A lot of consultants fall under 'Obamacare' but without the financial aid.
-
Alan, every time you say this, you say it as if freelancers had difficulty finding/getting coverage and could not get it for a reasonable price.
This is simply not true; I, for years, prior to the ACA was able to get reasonable health insurance. Since the ACA, by the way, my premiums have almost doubled by now.
If your daughters, or their friends, could not find health insurance prior to the ACA being passed, then they certainly were not looking hard enough. I got my coverage in about a week after I started looking for it.
Both girls were free lancers after the implementation of Obamacare and had no prior experience with purchasing individual policies.
-
At start, it was 11 million ... how did it double in the meantime?
The Affordable Care Act applies to anyone not receiving employer insurance. It also specifies what has to be covered and sets forth various categories of coverage (bronze, silver, gold, platinum). Medicaid expansion is part of the ACA as are the subsidies. the actual number of people the ACA 'potentially' covers is quite large. Not everyone will be eligible for subsidies or the Medicaid expansion. I know a number of ex-pharmaceutical people who are active consultants and not old enough for Medicare. The all have ACA policies (no subsidies)>
-
Was it?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-stocks/hospital-stocks-fall-after-republican-health-bill-seen-leaving-24-million-uninsured-idUSKBN16L1W1
So you are saying that it's okay if 11 million people are negatively impacted, very nice ...
Cheers,
Bart
11 million people represent about 3%. Even 22 million represent 6%. Of course we don't want people not to be provided with health care. However, rather than changing the entire health care system which was working for 85% of the people before Obamacare, address people who don't have insurance or have problems with insurance due to pre-existing conditions. By keeping medical care competitive like other products, you'll have the best health care. Making it single payer or government provided like the VA, will provide terrible health care for all the people. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
-
Using this logic, we should all be happy and support the Republican proposal. For two years, both of my daughters were independent contractors. They had good incomes but were reliant on Obamacare for their health insurance. A number of their friends are/were free-lance workers and also dependent on this type of healthcare access. Again, think twice before you post throw away lines. It may be a small group of individuals but these folks are important and in many cases are good earners and taxpayers.
Your subsequent posts indicated that your daughters never worked before Obamacare. So your argument that they couldn't get health insurance without Obamacare is meaningless and frankly deceptive. You tried to make it seem like Obamacare helped your daughters when it is now obvious they would have had no problem getting insurance if Obamacare never happened. You never told the "whole" truth.
-
America and Americans existed before Obama and Obamacare. Both will continue to exist after just as well.
-
11 million people represent about 3%. Even 22 million represent 6%. Of course we don't want people not to be provided with health care. However, rather than changing the entire health care system which was working for 85% of the people before Obamacare, address people who don't have insurance or have problems with insurance due to pre-existing conditions. By keeping medical care competitive like other products, you'll have the best health care. Making it single payer or government provided like the VA, will provide terrible health care for all the people. We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
It was changed because it was not working well. Things seem to have improved for millions, but more can be done. Going back to the prior situation is ass-backward. American Healthcare in general is performing pretty mediocre, compared to the rest of the civilized world, so improvements are more needed than further deterioration.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Your subsequent posts indicated that your daughters never worked before Obamacare. So your argument that they couldn't get health insurance without Obamacare is meaningless and frankly deceptive. You tried to make it seem like Obamacare helped your daughters when it is now obvious they would have had no problem getting insurance if Obamacare never happened. You never told the "whole" truth.
I guess I'm out of here now, having had my veracity questioned. I don't think the private lives of my daughters is any business of yours or anyone else on LuLa. My comments were only about a certain time period of their lives when they were independent contractors and not receiving employer sponsored health insurance. their employment history either before or after that time period is irrelevant to the discussion. If you or Slobodan cannot understand why the ACA is needed of independent contractors you really should get out of the house more and look around and see how the current economy has changed. there are a lot of contract workers who rely on the ACA for fairly priced independently provided insurance policies that make sense for them.
-
I guess I'm out of here now, having had my veracity questioned. I don't think the private lives of my daughters is any business of yours or anyone else on LuLa. My comments were only about a certain time period of their lives when they were independent contractors and not receiving employer sponsored health insurance. their employment history either before or after that time period is irrelevant to the discussion. If you or Slobodan cannot understand why the ACA is needed of independent contractors you really should get out of the house more and look around and see how the current economy has changed. there are a lot of contract workers who rely on the ACA for fairly priced independently provided insurance policies that make sense for them.
I shouldn't have questioned your veracity. That was uncalled for. I apologize. Also, I didn't intend to get into your daughter's lives. You mentioned them first as to how Obamacare was helping them. The only point I was trying to make and should have made, is that before Obamacare, independent contractors were able to secure medical insurance.
As an aside, my cousins husband, an accountant and independent contractor, complained to me how their insurance under Obamacare went up and up to $18,000 a year for him and his wife (they're in their young 60's at the time). So while Obamacare provided insurance for your daughter and her friends, it seems that she could have got insurance before if she had be working then, and probably for less money.
One of the big problems with Obamacare is that while it provided health insurance for many who didn't have it or forced insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, the premiums and deductibles have escalated a lot for many who had coverage before at lower costs. Obamacare has helped some but hurt a lot of others. That's part of the discussion going on in Congress. How to resolve both issues without the government and the taxpayers busting the bank.
-
It was changed because it was not working well. Things seem to have improved for millions, but more can be done. Going back to the prior situation is ass-backward. American Healthcare in general is performing pretty mediocre, compared to the rest of the civilized world, so improvements are more needed than further deterioration.
Cheers,
Bart
That's not true. Healthcare in the US is fine. It's that we have more problems with drugs and other issues especially with a large black and poor white category in the younger years. So there's a lot more abuse that even great health care can't help.
I looked up life expectancies to compare US with UK.
Here are the results.
US for 2014
From birth Men 76.33 Women 81.11
UK for 2013-2015
From birth Men 79.4 Women 83.1
That's about a 3 year difference for men and 2 year for women favoring the Brits. These are the statistics you usually read about.
Now let's look at expectancies from age 65.
US
Men 82.84 Women 85.44
UK
Men 83.5 Women 85.9
That's about 7 months for men and 5 months for women, favoring the Brits. Basically the same between the two countries.
So it seems that once past the younger ages, adults in the US and UK seem to live about the same years. Whether this has to do with health care, DNA or both, I don't know.
Another factor is where you live in the US. We're a big country spread out all over the place. My friend who developed cancer was not being treated very well in the rural area he lived. Good specialists are not available in rural areas. They tend to congregate in larger cities where there are more potential patients. He now has been transferred to NYC and is at one of the top cancer hospitals in the country. So care varies. What's concerning about national health care, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is that the best doctors in NYC are opting out of government insurance programs. So only the very wealthy would be able to afford the best doctors in the future. Look at the floundering Veteran's Administration if you want to see how national health care might work.
-
That's not true. Healthcare in the US is fine. It's that we have more problems with drugs and other issues especially with a large black and poor white category in the younger years. So there's a lot more abuse that even great health care can't help.
I looked up life expectancies to compare US with UK.
Here are the results.
US for 2014
From birth Men 76.33 Women 81.11
UK for 2013-2015
From birth Men 79.4 Women 83.1
That's about a 3 year difference for men and 2 year for women favoring the Brits. These are the statistics you usually read about.
Now let's look at expectancies from age 65.
US
Men 82.84 Women 85.44
UK
Men 83.5 Women 85.9
That's about 7 months for men and 5 months for women, favoring the Brits. Basically the same between the two countries.
So it seems that once past the younger ages, adults in the US and UK seem to live about the same years. Whether this has to do with health care, DNA or both, I don't know.
Another factor is where you live in the US. We're a big country spread out all over the place. My friend who developed cancer was not being treated very well in the rural area he lived. Good specialists are not available in rural areas. They tend to congregate in larger cities where there are more potential patients. He now has been transferred to NYC and is at one of the top cancer hospitals in the country. So care varies. What's concerning about national health care, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is that the best doctors in NYC are opting out of government insurance programs. So only the very wealthy would be able to afford the best doctors in the future. Look at the floundering Veteran's Administration if you want to see how national health care might work.
That's a pretty lousy deal, I wonder why Trump (being the outstanding business man you claim he is) hasn't fixed it yet ;)
In the US you spend (2014 data) $ 9237 per year per person on healthcare
In the UK they spend (same 2014 data) $ 3749 per year per person on healthcare
So you spend 2.5 times the UK and live shorter, wether you look at it from birth or age 65. I wouldn't call on average 6 month difference in life expectancy between the countries "basically the same". The sample is large enough for the difference to be real (and statistically significant).
-
Brits will catch up with us. With morbid obesity becoming more and more European, not just American, you will catch up with us pretty soon.
-
Alan, I gather that you don't like facing reality? Which is that the majority of Americans don't care about ObamaCare, for better or worse. I am just the messenger.
The reality is that Obamacare has a higher favorability rating than the president...currently polling at 46% in favor vs 42% apposed (undecided was 10% and no opinion was 2.5%)
So, it would seem that more people favor keeping Obamacare than having it repealed and replaced...which is why after 8 years and over 50 some odd votes in congress, the friggin' GOP STILL can't make a move to fix health insurance (and healthcare) in America.
-
That's a pretty lousy deal, I wonder why Trump (being the outstanding business man you claim he is) hasn't fixed it yet ;)
In the US you spend (2014 data) $ 9237 per year per person on healthcare
In the UK they spend (same 2014 data) $ 3749 per year per person on healthcare
So you spend 2.5 times the UK and live shorter, wether you look at it from birth or age 65. I wouldn't call on average 6 month difference in life expectancy between the countries "basically the same". The sample is large enough for the difference to be real (and statistically significant).
We keep looking at mortality rates. Although these are important, what about better health care that leads to a better life. If I lose a leg to diabetes, and get a electronic leg that cot $35,000 vs. a Brit who gets a peg leg for $5.49, or get a machine to clean my blood at home at $600 a month vs having to travel to the hospital 5 times a month at $75 each time, how do you compare the two. Now I have no reports or statistics that shows these differences. But I do know that Canadians would cross the border to get an MRI the next day rather than waiting 6 months to get it schedule in Canada by the government. How do you measure those things?
All I know is that everything the government does, private industry does better. To think that I should my life care into the hands of some bureaucrat in Washington who cares little about me scares the hell out of me.
-
46% is still a minority, even if the number is true, and regardless what or who you are comparing it with.
-
That's not true. Healthcare in the US is fine.
Really?
Maybe it's so inefficient that it affects mortality? If so, then I'd fix that first, instead of changing the number of insured people.
Cheers,
Bart
-
We keep looking at mortality rates. Although these are important, what about better health care that leads to a better life. If I lose a leg to diabetes, and get a electronic leg that cot $35,000 vs. a Brit who gets a peg leg for $5.49, or get a machine to clean my blood at home at $600 a month vs having to travel to the hospital 5 times a month at $75 each time, how do you compare the two. Now I have no reports or statistics that shows these differences. But I do know that Canadians would cross the border to get an MRI the next day rather than waiting 6 months to get it schedule in Canada by the government. How do you measure those things?
Since you have no reports or statistics I guess it's fine to show more anecdotal evidence about the "better" care in the US vs. elsewhere. When my wife had a Caesarean section for the birth of our second daughter she was kicked out of hospital after just over 48 hours, she could barely walk, had to stay in bed and we had to get a private caretaker to help her and take care of our other two kids. I bet the cost for this caretaker is not in the healthcare statistics. When our first daughter was born 2 years before (Rotterdam) she stayed 8 days in the hospital and when she got home she was sufficiently recovered to slowly pick up her normal activities. Comparing the two bills for the total cost (~3days in a Texas hospital and ~8 days in a Rotterdam hospital) for the entire procedure the US cost was more then twice the cost in Rotterdam. So some things might be better in the US (if I believe your examples), but our personal experience was that it was worse and much more expensive.
-
46% is still a minority, even if the number is true, and regardless what or who you are comparing it with.
Interesting, isn't that the same 46% Trump won with?
(technically it was 45.9% but so what)
-
Since you have no reports or statistics I guess it's fine to show more anecdotal evidence about the "better" care in the US vs. elsewhere. When my wife had a Caesarean section for the birth of our second daughter she was kicked out of hospital after just over 48 hours, she could barely walk, had to stay in bed and we had to get a private caretaker to help her and take care of our other two kids. I bet the cost for this caretaker is not in the healthcare statistics. When our first daughter was born 2 years before (Rotterdam) she stayed 8 days in the hospital and when she got home she was sufficiently recovered to slowly pick up her normal activities. Comparing the two bills for the total cost (~3days in a Texas hospital and ~8 days in a Rotterdam hospital) for the entire procedure the US cost was more then twice the cost in Rotterdam. So some things might be better in the US (if I believe your examples), but our personal experience was that it was worse and much more expensive.
Yeah but there are other advantages of paying more. When the American comes home with his expensive, electronic, titanium false leg and makes love to his wife, she admiringly comments, "Wow. You're better than ever."
Meanwhile across the pond, the Brit comes home, unscrews and removes his peg leg, makes love to his wife, and she complains, "Nah. Something's missing. You were better before." Feeling insulted, the Brit then commences to beat his wife with his leg.
-
First the president fires you. Than you're shouted down at a university. You just can't get no respect.
‘James Comey, you’re not our homie!’: Protesters disrupt ex-FBI director’s speech at Howard University
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/protesters-disrupt-former-fbi-director-comeys-speech-at-howard-university/2017/09/22/ae75d1c8-9fae-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html
-
Brits will catch up with us. With morbid obesity becoming more and more European, not just American, you will catch up with us pretty soon.
So where is your source? Or did you make it up yourself?
the % USA starts where Europe ends
It will be hard for Europe to catch 'UP' to USA levels
-
... It will be hard for Europe to catch 'UP' to USA levels
Well, you are generally behind the U.S. in many aspects, so no wonder ;)
P.S. I was talking about trends, not the current snapshot that you provided. And trends are ticking upward. Just check the U.K., a nation of generally slender people, already leading Europe in obesity.
-
Speaking about obesity and mortality:
-
Yeah but there are other advantages of paying more. When the American comes home with his expensive, electronic, titanium false leg and makes love to his wife, she admiringly comments, "Wow. You're better than ever."
Meanwhile across the pond, the Brit comes home, unscrews and removes his peg leg, makes love to his wife, and she complains, "Nah. Something's missing. You were better before." Feeling insulted, the Brit then commences to beat his wife with his leg.
Wow, you really are a piece of work, aren't you? Why am I not surprised that you joke about beating your wife?
-
My wife and I are both healthy with no serious or chronic problems. I've been self-employed for most of my adult life so I am the employer who provides health insurance for my wife and I. Before Obamacare our insurance premiums were around $2000 per month, and it was only that low because we have group insurance through a regional council of smaller enterprises. Is $2000/month a "reasonable amount"? In the 5 or so years before Obamacare we were seeing annual increases on the order of 30%, so we increased the deductible to higher levels several times just to keep premiums in check. A year before Obamacare happened our deductible was already at very high catastrophic insurance levels. Since Obamacare happened our premiums have not decreased but we get all of the preventative care and tests at no charge only because of Obamacare. Without that we'd be paying 100% of all of that, plus a couple thousand dollars per month.
My wife recently had 5 one hour physical therapy appointments. On two (first and last) occasions an actual physical therapist saw her, and on the others she was seen by an "assistant". All of the sessions consisted of the person telling her what exercises to do and her doing them. No active treatment, like traction, etc., was ever performed and no special equipment except a big rubber band that you can buy for a couple dollars) was used. The bill to our insurance for this was $500 per session. Is that reasonable? Her appointment with the orthopedic surgeon, which included several x-rays was cheaper.
The health care system in America was broken long before Obamacare happened. Before Obamacare around 60% of all personal bankruptcies had a medical cause and now that's down to around 25%, so there has been a positive impact. Here's some "fake news" for you to digest:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-bankruptcy-20170509-story.html
Our kids in Australia don't sweat healthcare or insurance costs. Both have gone through having their own kids, and caring for one of those with special medical needs, all without a financial worry. Whenever I think about that I wonder why America can't do half as well for its citizens. My guess is because many fear any sort of change, bury their heads in the sand, and convince themselves that what we have is fine even though it's near the bottom of the heap for any developed nation.
In Australia, when you go to a physio, you get seen by a physio. My local practice has the owner with 25 years experience and his related degree, and his staff all have either a Masters or a Doctorate. The price for a normal 45 minute session (using any equipment required, hands on, and often with a colleague consulting as well if it's a tricky matter) is $90 at the top rate. If you are in one of the private health funds you'll generally pay slightly less - $85-, and then your health fund will cover a portion of that depending on your level of cover (for me, I'm 10% out of pocket). Of course, if you can't afford that you can get cover, based on a referral from a GP, for up to 4 sessions per injury, from Medicare which means you pay nothing. Or, you can be a public hospital outpatient and get unlimited care and pay nothing (but you may not be able to get short notice bookings - but when I snapped my leg in half 20 years ago, I had 2 sessions a week for 4 months learning how to walk again).
Of course, we pay taxes and a levy that covers that Medicare, but our tax rate is comparable to the US overall and we spend much less on health for better outcomes (I've posted the data before, and relevant data has been posted recently on this thread).
Private healthcare is optional, and gives you additional benefits. My wife and I have the highest possible level of private health insurance on top of our underlying universal cover through Medicare. It's $400- odd a month covering both of us.
So, yeah, the US problem is that every step of the way someone is making a margin and they throw people in between who aren't needed (like physio "assistants" and who knows what else).
Alan tells us 85% of people were happy. I would wager that 85% of that 85% simply didn't know they were being ripped off.
-
Speaking about obesity and mortality:
It's not entirely due to the language, maybe more due to bicycling (or drinking red wine).
USA shows twice the coronary heart disease (78%) of Netherlands, Spain or France (30%), but actually it doesn't fare so bad - compared to Hungary (172%), Afghanistan, Ukraine (384%) or Russia. The attached table compares 172 countries, and some of the results look quite surprising.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/coronary-heart-disease/by-country/
-
... you joke about beating your wife?
What's not to love and joke about it? Your Muslim friends think it is man's duty and their imams teach them how to do it without leaving much trace. ;)
-
What's not to love and joke about it? Your Muslim friends think it is man's duty and their imams teach them how to do it without leaving much trace. ;)
Not my Muslim friends - not any of my friends. But this whole "god" caper does have a lot to answer for:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/domestic-violence-church-submit-to-husbands/8652028
-
Not my Muslim friends - not any of my friends. But this whole "god" caper does have a lot to answer for:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/domestic-violence-church-submit-to-husbands/8652028
Individual idiots is one thing, but imams going on tv to advise how to do it "lightly" is quite a different thing. You can't possibly compare contemporary Christian treatment of women with contemporary Muslim one.
-
Donald is out of line, and Melania is out of gamut.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/melania-trump-takes-cyberbullying-luncheon-49991513 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/melania-trump-takes-cyberbullying-luncheon-49991513)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/melania-trump-abc-ml-170920_16x9_992.jpg)
-
You are out of line, and Melania is out of gamut.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/melania-trump-takes-cyberbullying-luncheon-49991513 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/melania-trump-takes-cyberbullying-luncheon-49991513)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/melania-trump-abc-ml-170920_16x9_992.jpg)
Yikes! A genuinely unprintable comment.
-
Let me repeat myself, I had absolutely no problems whatsoever in getting health insurance prior to the ACA.
What state were you in and how old were you when buying that pre-ACA insurance?
-
Individual idiots is one thing, but imams going on tv to advise how to do it "lightly" is quite a different thing. You can't possibly compare contemporary Christian treatment of women with contemporary Muslim one.
That link wasn't about an individual - it was about an entire Christian church.
-
Meanwhile, Trump is back to his funny business...
Trump Says ‘Fake News’ Won’t Show Crowd Size As CNN Shows Crowd Size (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-huntsville-crowd-size-cnn_us_59c5c124e4b06ddf45f810ec)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DKXmPjzVoAIuG3t.jpg)
“Fake news. They won’t show this,” the president says as CNN airs a split screen to include the audience.
President Donald Trump did what he usually does and attacked the so-called “fake news” during his speech at a campaign rally for Republican Sen. Luther Strange in Alabama on Friday night.
While hurling insults at his enemies in the press, Trump claimed that the news cameras posted at the back of the rally wouldn’t show the size of his crowd and would air only cropped footage of Trump standing at the lectern.
“Fake news. They won’t show this,” the president said. Then, after mocking news reporters, Trump pointed to the cameras and said, “Look at the crowd. I’d love to have them show it, but they won’t show it!”
The president made these remarks while many people were at home looking at the crowd as Trump made his speech on CNN, a news organization Trump has repeatedly insulted as “fake news.”
The irony was not lost on many people.
Daniel W. Drezner ✔ @dandrezner
"They won't show this," Trump says, which I know because I'm watching CNN.
7:32 PM - Sep 22, 2017
Jim Dalrymple II ✔ @JimDalrympleII
Trump says the fake news media won't show the crowd at his rally — while CNN is literally running a split screen of the crowd.
7:31 PM - Sep 22, 2017
I have long since stopped thinking this is funny...it's sad!
-
BTW, I love how you conveniently left out the rest of my paragraph, "Additionally, the insurance I had then was cheaper, had lower deductibles and better coverage then what I have now, unless you count the free yearly prostate exams or colon screenings or (my favorite) maternity care I am now offered."
I was only curious about where you were when you bought your pre-ACA insurance and your age. Why? Because when I bought healthcare insurance prior to ACA, I had a high deductible, a lifetime cap and was locked into a specific BCBS plan that kept getting more and more expensive because I couldn't change plans due to preexisting conditions. So, when we bought the first ACA plan the price was about 1/2, preexisting conditions didn't matter and there was no life time cap.
So, sorry if you didn't like your ACA plan, I liked mine. I'm just hoping the GOP/Trump doesn't screwup the entire healthcare insurance industry before I turn 65 and can get Medicare.
-
I really admire John McCain for standing up to the GOP/Trump to try to force an eventual bipartisan health insurance redo..
Why John McCain Killed Obamacare Repeal—Again (https://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/why-john-mccain-killed-obamacare-repealagain)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59c57a50f636b23358148a63/master/w_649,c_limit/Lizza-John-McCain.jpg)
McCain’s disdain for Donald Trump—and support for a bipartisan legislative process—prompted him
to deliver a likely fatal blow to the most radical Obamacare repeal-and-replace effort.
John McCain’s disdain for Donald Trump was stronger than his love of Lindsey Graham. That’s at least one sensible conclusion after the Arizona senator today came out against the Graham-Cassidy bill, the third serious attempt by Republicans this year to replace the Affordable Care Act with a new system. It’s also likely the last attempt for this Congress. The budget vehicle that Republicans planned to use to pass the bill—in order to circumvent a Senate filibuster—will expire on September 30th. Their long-standing plan has been to use the next budget vehicle to pass tax reform. Senator Rand Paul was already firmly against Graham-Cassidy, and Susan Collins said she was leaning toward a no vote, leaving the G.O.P., which has fifty-two senators, with room for just one more defection if it relied on Mike Pence to break a tie. Unlike last time, when McCain delivered the blow to Trump with a dramatic thumbs-down on the Senate floor, this time he sent out a press release.
Here's a link to McCains Press Release: SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON HEALTH CARE REFORM (https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/9/statement-by-senator-john-mccain-on-health-care-reform)
"As I have repeatedly stressed, health care reform legislation ought to be the product of regular order in the Senate. Committees of jurisdiction should mark up legislation with input from all committee members, and send their bill to the floor for debate and amendment. That is the only way we might achieve bipartisan consensus on lasting reform, without which a policy that affects one-fifth of our economy and every single American family will be subject to reversal with every change of administration and congressional majority."
I am actually looking forward to CNN's Town hall debate on Mon nite.
CNN to host town hall debate Monday with Graham, Cassidy, Sanders and Klobuchar (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/21/politics/graham-cassidy-town-hall-sanders-kobuchar/index.html)
(CNN)CNN will host a town hall with Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy, who will be debating health care with Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar on Monday, September 25 at 9 p.m. ET.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper and chief political correspondent Dana Bash will moderate the 90-minute live event from Washington.
Although I hope it will be a moot point by then...
-
Yeah but there are other advantages of paying more. When the American comes home with his expensive, electronic, titanium false leg and makes love to his wife, she admiringly comments, "Wow. You're better than ever."
Meanwhile across the pond, the Brit comes home, unscrews and removes his peg leg, makes love to his wife, and she complains, "Nah. Something's missing. You were better before." Feeling insulted, the Brit then commences to beat his wife with his leg.
It's always good to laugh your problems away ;) Much more fun then the usual ostrich tactics.
-
Meanwhile, Trump is back to his funny business...
Trump Says ‘Fake News’ Won’t Show Crowd Size As CNN Shows Crowd Size (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-huntsville-crowd-size-cnn_us_59c5c124e4b06ddf45f810ec)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/DKXmPjzVoAIuG3t.jpg)
“Fake news. They won’t show this,” the president says as CNN airs a split screen to include the audience.
I have long since stopped thinking this is funny...it's sad!
So Trump finally embarrassed CNN to show the crowds he draws. After two years of CNN hiding those images, it's about time they did it.
-
It's always good to laugh your problems away ;) Much more fun then the usual ostrich tactics.
I try to add a little humor. Life's too short. Anyway, after 320 pages no one's changed anyone's mind. Basically, we're all talking to ourselves. :)
-
Speaking of male chivalry...
Uber is now banned in London.
Why can't Uber find enough refugee drivers who don't rape their female passengers? Europe's idea of cultural enrichment I suppose.
http://freewestmedia.com/2017/09/23/london-shuts-down-uber-after-unreported-rapes-by-migrant-drivers/ (http://freewestmedia.com/2017/09/23/london-shuts-down-uber-after-unreported-rapes-by-migrant-drivers/)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.licensedtransportuncovered.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Uber-rape-and-sexual-assaults-London.jpg?fit=600%2C330&ssl=1)
-
Life's too short.
Mainly in the US? ;)
-
Mainly in the US? ;)
Oh that reminds me. Burial costs here in America are exorbitant. Undertakers haven't figured yet how they can get rebates from the government to their customers to subsidize burial costs. I mean, after all, not everyone needs a lot of health care insurance because they stay healthy. But everyone dies! :)
-
Oh that reminds me. Burial costs here in America are exorbitant. Undertakers haven't figured yet how they can get rebates from the government to their customers to subsidize burial costs. I mean, after all, not everyone needs a lot of health care insurance because they stay healthy. But everyone dies! :)
You are peddling for government subsidies? You disappoint me Alan ;)
Btw, where I live the burial plot cost are in line with a reasonable rent for the 2-3 m2 of area you occupy and needs to be paid up periodically. If you can't or won't pay up your plot is cleared and given to a new (dead) occupant. No subsidy or shady discounts involved.
-
You are peddling for government subsidies? You disappoint me Alan ;)
Btw, where I live the burial plot cost are in line with a reasonable rent for the 2-3 m2 of area you occupy and needs to be paid up periodically. If you can't or won't pay up your plot is cleared and given to a new (dead) occupant. No subsidy or shady discounts involved.
So if you fail to pay up for the plot, and they give it to a richer corpse, what happens to your body. :)
-
So if you fail to pay up for the plot, and they give it to a richer corpse, what happens to your body. :)
They don't give it to a richer corpse, they give to a corpse willing to pay :P
The remains of your body are "disposed" (probably burned)
-
They don't give it to a richer corpse, they give to a corpse willing to pay :P
The remains of your body are "disposed" (probably burned)
Wow. They burn your body. Do you have to pay after your dead or are the payments only before you die?
This reminds me of our dog who died a few years ago. My wife insisted that he be buried in a pet cemetery. Well, I wanted to also. We were both softies for our dog Buddy, a mini Poodle. Anyway, it was a lot of money to bury him plus we even got a headstone. People thought we were nuts. Then the following year, when the cemetery sent a notice for annual maintenance care to be paid for the year or in perpetuity. That's when we learned that if you don't pay the annual fees which would stop once we died, after five years they dig up the dog, cremate it and spread the ashes around the cemetery. Yikes. My wife was bereft and I had to spend $2000 to buy perpetual care to avoid this scenario. What a rip-off.
-
Wow. They burn your body. Do you have to pay after your dead or are the payments only before you die?
Paying after death is a bit problematic, not everybody sets up a trust to handle that. So it's ususally your family that does (or doesn't) pay the additional rent for the following 5-10 years after your initial time is up.
But the principle is simple, pay rent and your body will stay in place, stop paying rent and you have to go (dead or alive ;)). Seems a fair principle to me.
Perpetual schemes don't exist, or maybe to be more accurate, no longer exist. They existed in the past but new legislation put an end to that (and an end to the perpetuity).
Makes a lot of sense to me, why keep a grave of someone who died 100 years ago and nobody knows anymore, and if it's someone who's decendents still want to keep the grave they will have to pay the rent.
-
Having respect for the dead even if they're not our relatives makes us more caring humans.
-
Having respect for the dead even if they're not our relatives makes us more caring humans.
That's probably not untrue, but it's relatively easy to have respect for dead people, isn't it? It would be more useful if we cared for people while they were alive.
-
Well then, my recommendation to you is to stop using your children to justify keeping the ACA since neither has any 1st hand experience in how easy it was to buy insurance as a freelancer prior to the law going into effect. Considering this, using them as a justification for the ACA makes no sense, especially since many freelancers, myself included, easily bought health coverage prior to the ACA.
Furthermore, you should also stop using the increase in freelancers as a reason to keep the ACA since those freelancers you know have never tried to acquired coverage prior to the ACA.
I don't give a darn what your thoughts are about the ACA. My only point is that it is a critical resources for those who are working as contractors and not eligible for employer paid insurance. It is particularly valuable for women as they are not discriminated against as they were pre-ACA (higher premiums and restricted benefits). If you don't like how this evolved, that's fine you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you don't have children who are of working age and are female; I do and for me the ACA has been important to the lives of my two daughters. Both are now working for employers who provide insurance; one is a music therapist at a well respected children's hospital affiliated with a top ten medical school and the other is a special education teacher for grades 3-5 at a public elementary school.
-
Having respect for the dead even if they're not our relatives makes us more caring humans.
How about respecting those who live today and are still to be born? Leaving the Paris accords for mainly economic reasons isn't a sign of "caring humans" either.
I think this might even have a higher priority then respect for the dead.
-
That link wasn't about an individual - it was about an entire Christian church.
Wait, what!? The entire Christian church, the Pope and Orthodox patriarchs, preach beating women!?
-
... women as they are not discriminated against as they were pre-ACA (higher premiums and restricted benefits)...
Oh, please! Discriminated!? Or simply more costly? Just as every next age group is costlier than the previous one. Is that age discrimination? Or simply a common sense that those whose medical costs are higher should pay higher premiums?
-
How about respecting those who live today and are still to be born? Leaving the Paris accords for mainly economic reasons isn't a sign of "caring humans" either.
I think this might even have a higher priority then respect for the dead.
Rather than spending money on climate control that will affect great-grandchildren 50 years from now so they can live closer to the water and not be worried about a three inch increase in the sea levels, maybe we can take that money and save the hundreds of thousands of living people today who going to die of malaria tomorrow. Rather than wasting tax dollars on climate control, how about lowering taxes so that the people living today can provide better things for their families.
These would be more caring allocations of our resources to help people.
-
Oh, please! Discriminated!? Or simply more costly? Just as every next age group is costlier than the previous one. Is that age discrimination? Or simply a common sense that those whose medical costs are higher should pay higher premiums?
Yes, by all means let's return to discrimination in the name of cost control. Let's charge all women more for insurance, let's reverse the regulations regarding pre-existing conditions, let's change the current ratio for underwriting policies for older Americans; oh wait, that's what the Graham/Cassidy bill does. We have a winner.
-
My point here is simple. You keep on using freelancers as a reason to keep the ACA, while completely ignoring the fact that it was very easy to get coverage prior to the ACA and almost implying that this was not the case.
Therefore, your arguments are moot.
No Joe, you have constantly misread my comments since this thread began and the other one where there was a discussion of the ACA. I never made any comparison about the pre-ACA world as I had ZERO experience with it regarding my daughter's insurance. My comments were always about how the ACA helped THEM. You may not like that and your experience is different but DON'T go attacking me about what my observations are. The ACA worked for my daughters and a number of their friends, END OF STORY.
-
Yes, by all means let's return to discrimination in the name of cost control....
That's neither discrimination, nor cost control. This is how insurance works. You pay more based on risk. If I move the same car from one zip-code to another, my premium changes. If I buy a Honda Accord of certain vintage, my premium jumps (hint: Accords of certain vintage turn out to be the most stolen cars in the U.S.)
-
That's neither discrimination, nor cost control. This is how insurance works. You pay more based on risk. If I move the same car from one zip-code to another, my premium changes. If I buy a Honda Accord of certain vintage, my premium jumps (hint: Accords of certain vintage turn out to be the most stolen cars in the U.S.)
Yes, I'm aware of that and also the basic and to me unacceptable premise that health insurance will be super expensive for some people. Remember, you and I are both products of a genetic lottery and may or may not have certain pre-existing conditions that will cost money to treat. Sometimes this cost is trivial as in the case of controlling blood pressure and cholesterol using generic drugs. Other things are quite costly to treat. Now I'm not willing to accept the premise that someone, through no fault of their own, faces enormously large healthcare premiums. We do not allow this under the Medicare program, why should it be countenanced under the various insurance programs for those under 65.
But maybe you are OK with all of this.
-
It seems the US and North Korea aren't the only states waving their fingers at each other and acting belligerent. It seems India and Pakistan are doing the same thing at the UN and in Asia. Trump has company.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-india-pakistan/india-at-u-n-calls-pakistan-pre-eminent-export-factory-for-terror-idUSKCN1BY0S2?il=0
-
Wait, what!? The entire Christian church, the Pope and Orthodox patriarchs, preach beating women!?
"An" entire Church, Slobo. Come on, I know you can read, mate!
The Pope's busy heading a Church that protects priests who have sex with children, usually with boys because, you know, they also tell everyone that homosexuality is bad, right?
-
"Trump performs pick and roil on world of sports"
Cancels the customary NFL championship team meeting at the White House for what he feels are players disrespect for the National Anthem, flag and country.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-performs-pick-and-roil-on-world-of-sports/article/2635401
Trump speaks for the millions of Americans who are tired of listening to ungrateful athletes complain and disrespect their country that has made them famous and wealthy multi-millionaires. Everyone has right to give their opinions just like the athletes. It's a two-way street. It's time we showed that there are opinions beside the ungrateful few.
Additionally, he's playing politics, of course, as the left rails against him and the other "deplorables" he champions with his strong position. He's playing the "patriot" card to satisfy and expand his base because a lot of people, even those who didn't vote for him, are tired of rich athletes acting ungrateful.
-
If you're comments were limited to, "my daughters were able to buy insurance on the exchanges," then it it would be end of story.
But you then went on to talk about how "it is a critical resource for those who are working as contractors." It simply is not a critical resource! Many, and i repeat many, other resources existed, and still do, for freelancers to get health insurance besides the exchanges.
It is not so critical if so many other just as easy to use resources (or even better, websites that did not crash for ~5 months on end upon release) exist.
Oh, and today I got a "John Dear" letter from my insurance agency. Due to the regulations stemming from the ACA, my coverage will not be offered next year. Looks like I am in for another nice increase in my premium.
Sorry to hear about the cancellation. Does your state have other insurance companies you can go too? What's the situation there?
-
Cancels the customary NFL championship team meeting at the White House for what he feels are players disrespect for the National Anthem, flag and country.
LOL...that's funny. Trump decides to pick fights with pro athletes because, well who is gonna care about them, right?
Ya might want to reread the article Alan, you got it wrong–the Golden State Warriors are a pro basketball team that plays in the NBA, not in the NFL...
Last night Trump admonished the NFL "owners" to fire the sons of bitches for not standing for the National Anthem (like the NFL owners "owned" the players and not the teams). When Steph Curry said he wasn't interested in going to the White House because of what Trump has said (and not said–particularly regarding Charlottesville), Trump disinvited him (or them, it was a tweet and one never knows exactly what Trump means when he tweets).
No worries..."In lieu of a visit to the White House, we have decided that we'll constructively use our trip to the nation's capital in February to celebrate equality, diversity and inclusion — the values that we embrace as an organization," said the Warriors.
So, what was it that the right was bitching about regarding the 1st amendment and free speech? So, exercise your 1st amendment rights and get fired?
-
Bye now...bye bye...
Trump aides begin looking for the exits (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/22/trump-aides-staffers-departures-white-house-242990)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/90-1.jpeg)
“There is no joy in Trumpworld right now,” said one adviser of the environment among President Donald
Trump's current staffers.
After a wave of high-profile White House departures this summer, staffers who remained are reaching out to headhunters to discuss their next moves.
A fast-growing number of White House staffers are starting to look for the exits, even though the one-year mark of President Donald Trump’s first term is still months away.
Many who joined the administration in January did so with the explicit idea that they’d stay for at least a year, enough to credibly say they’d served. But in the aftermath of a wave of abrupt, high-profile departures over the summer that culminated with former chief strategist Steve Bannon’s ouster in August, aides up and down the chain are reaching out to headhunters, lobbyists, and GOP operatives for help finding their next job.
Staffers from the National Economic Council — where director Gary Cohn is expected to be on his way out altogether after tax reform or onto a different role — as well as the communications shop and beyond are quietly exploring their next moves. They’re talking to headhunters about positions as in-house government affairs experts at major companies, or as executives at trade associations, universities, or consulting firms — ironically, jobs that run counter to Trump’s “drain the swamp” mantra.
Political appointees want to leave for myriad reasons, according to recruiters, Republican operatives and White House officials. Morale is low, the Russia investigations seem only to grow in scope and constant churn at the top has left some staffers without patrons in a workplace known for backbiting and a tribal-like attitude.
-
A black guy's perspective on the SOBs:
https://www.facebook.com/newlypress/videos/1890963164501389/
-
Notwithstanding their hate for Trump, Americans are still patriotic. The NFL would be wise to sit this one out.
(https://assets.merriam-webster.com/mw/images/gallery/gal-home-edpick-lg/patriotism-2444-3ff5ffda79658b239e326be32486cbb9@1x.jpg)
-
Notwithstanding their hate for Trump, Americans are still patriotic. The NFL would be wise to sit this one out.
Why is the national anthem played before sporting events in the United States? What does patriotism have to do with watching football, basketball, or baseball games? Why do teams wear American flag patches on uniforms? Who really cares if a player stands or kneels?
I don't watch much American sports these days, preferring to watch European soccer. the only time national anthems are played is when national teams play one another in World Cup or European Cup matches. I've never heard national anthems played prior to club matches. this is only an American anachronism.
-
Sorry to hear about the cancellation. Does your state have other insurance companies you can go too? What's the situation there?
Thanks Alan.
Well I certainly plan on shopping around, or maybe I'll just go insurance free since the penalty is a joke.
Anyway, onto another subject. Now I am no conspiracy theorist, but when a highly liberal reporter whom I follow on Facebook posts a story from a liberal news source on the issue of government spying, I had to give it a read. You may enjoy it too.
It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me (http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/351495-it-looks-like-obama-did-spy-on-trump-just-as-he-did-to-me#.WcOq5PGY0xY.twitter)
I think the title is a little off, but hey you need people to read it. It is quite disturbing though how much government spying was down by the Obama administration on political enemies, especially reporters.
-
Anyway, onto another subject. Now I am no conspiracy theorist, but when a highly liberal reporter whom I follow on Facebook posts a story from a liberal news source on the issue of government spying, I had to give it a read. You may enjoy it too.
It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me (http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/351495-it-looks-like-obama-did-spy-on-trump-just-as-he-did-to-me#.WcOq5PGY0xY.twitter)
I think the title is a little off, but hey you need people to read it. It is quite disturbing though how much government spying was down by the Obama administration on political enemies, especially reporters.
To quote Ford Maddox Ford, Sharyl Attkisson is an "unreliable narrator."
-
Why is the national anthem played before sporting events in the United States? ... this is only an American anachronism.
Perhaps... but first you'd have to get rid of millions of American flags everyday and everywhere, on porches, roofs, yards, cranes, American presidents' and politicians' lapels, etc. And get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in every school in America.
Or perhaps... it is American patriotism. Americans love their country. Europeans, apparently not so much. Otherwise, they wouldn't let them be so easily OD (occupied and decimated) in not so distant future.
-
To quote Ford Maddox Ford, Sharyl Attkisson is an "unreliable narrator."
To be honest, I am not familiar with either of those, and her story does seem to be a little on the sensational side.
However, I still find it disturbing that the man on ran on having the most open administration in history has done more secret spying on innocent Americans then any other administration in history.
-
Which brings us to another interesting question: why are there so many black players in the NFL and NBA? Where is the left's demand for racial equality and proportional representation? They want women to reach 50% in everything, they want Oscars not to be "so white," but have no problem that certain sports are "so black"?
-
Or perhaps... it is American patriotism. Americans love their country. Europeans, apparently not so much. Otherwise, they wouldn't let them be so easily OD (occupied and decimated) in not so distant future.
YOu really think singing the national anthem at sporting events has anything to do with our country potentially being occupied by a foreign power?
-
I think the NFL is just going to continue to loose more viewers and eventually it will hurt their bottom line if it has not already.
Football will disappear as more and more young people do not play the sport because of accumulated concussion damage. The brain analysis of Aaron Hernandez was quite stark for someone who died at the age of 28. All that football turned his brain into Swiss cheese.
-
Which brings us to another interesting question: why are there so many black players in the NFL and NBA? Where is the left's demand for racial equality and proportional representation? They want women to reach 50% in everything, they want Oscars not to be "so white," but have no problem that certain sports are "so black"?
I think you will soon see legal action at the college level where most major college sports programs have participation by African Americans at higher levels than it should be based on population percentage.
-
Nobody gives a damn about the patriotism or otherwise of NFL players - least of all Trump. It's just another diversion to distract attention from the uncomfortable facts about his lamentable performance in office.
-
Nobody gives a damn about the patriotism or otherwise of NFL players - least of all Trump. It's just another diversion to distract attention from the uncomfortable facts about his lamentable performance in office.
There was one NFL player who fit the definition of patriotic. Pat Tillman, a starting defensive back on the Arizona team, joined the US Army after 9/11 and made it through Ranger training. He was killed from friendly fire in Afghanistan.
-
Football will disappear as more and more young people do not play the sport because of accumulated concussion damage. The brain analysis of Aaron Hernandez was quite stark for someone who died at the age of 28. All that football turned his brain into Swiss cheese.
I completely agree. I think in the long term, that will be football's demise. It's only that this protest is kind of speeding up the process.
Whatever side you are on, you don't tune into watching sports, or any type of entertainment, to continue the divisive arguments you have in your real life; you tune into escape. So we kind of have a perfect storm, brain injuries combined with too much BS when people are looking for an escape.
More interesting question, when/if football dies, what do we do with the left over stadiums?
-
In partial answer's to Slobodan's concern about discrimination against white players in the NFL, it turns out that there are plenty of circumstances where discrimination is permitted. It's why, for example, it's ok for Hooters to not hire male waiters and why there are no male "Rockettes". I heard a recent podcast about it, but I cannot remember where.
-
"Trump performs pick and roil on world of sports"
Cancels the customary NFL championship team meeting at the White House for what he feels are players disrespect for the National Anthem, flag and country.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-performs-pick-and-roil-on-world-of-sports/article/2635401
Trump speaks for the millions of Americans who are tired of listening to ungrateful athletes complain and disrespect their country that has made them famous and wealthy multi-millionaires. Everyone has right to give their opinions just like the athletes. It's a two-way street. It's time we showed that there are opinions beside the ungrateful few.
Additionally, he's playing politics, of course, as the left rails against him and the other "deplorables" he champions with his strong position. He's playing the "patriot" card to satisfy and expand his base because a lot of people, even those who didn't vote for him, are tired of rich athletes acting ungrateful.
What would happen, do you think, if suddenly lots of pro athletes starting kneeling during the anthem? Do you really think that the owners would "fire" their talent because Trump told them to? Do you think they care more about phoney TV patriotism than their own profits?
I've always thought that playing the anthem at the beginning of pro sports events is silly. Anthems should be reserved for use at important occasions.
-
More interesting question, when/if football dies, what do we do with the left over stadiums?
Most of the stadiums are large enough to accompany a full size soccer field. Many of the top European clubs play pre-season matches in US football stadiums and the big clubs such as Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man United sell out.
-
What would happen, do you think, if suddenly lots of pro athletes starting kneeling during the anthem? Do you really think that the owners would "fire" their talent because Trump told them to? Do you think they care more about phoney TV patriotism than their own profits?
Lots of kneeling took place today and several owners were in solidarity with their players
I've always thought that playing the anthem at the beginning of pro sports events is silly. Anthems should be reserved for use at important occasions.
My point exactly!!
-
YOu really think singing the national anthem at sporting events has anything to do with our country potentially being occupied by a foreign power?
Absolutely yes. Those kneeling and those supporting the SOBs (a.k.a. the left) I am sure would be more than happy if occupied by, say, a coalition of the happy socialists, e.g. Norway, Denmark, etc. ;)
-
... What would happen, do you think, if suddenly lots of pro athletes starting kneeling during the anthem? Do you really think that the owners would "fire" their talent because Trump told them to? Do you think they care more about phoney TV patriotism than their own profits?...
No because Trump told them so, but because it ultimately might hit their profits if the public starts balking at the idiotism. I don't watch sports anyway, so can't impact the decision.
-
Why is the national anthem played before sporting events in the United States? What does patriotism have to do with watching football, basketball, or baseball games? Why do teams wear American flag patches on uniforms? Who really cares if a player stands or kneels?...
If it so doesn't matter, doesn' mean anything, doesn't symbolize anything, than why protest it? Obviously, those who protest understand perfectly well just how much it matters and means, and chose the moment precisely for its significance and impact.
-
In partial answer's to Slobodan's concern about discrimination against white players in the NFL...
You might have misunderstood me. I never said I see it as a discrimination. I am perfectly ok if up to 100% of players are black, if they are the best at it. I also ok if the Oscar is white occasionally. I have no problem with Google being staffed by up to 100% female programers, if they are the best at it.
Obviously from the above, I am actually against an artificial push to establish proportionality for proportionality sake, just as I would be against someone actually trying to "affirmative action" white players into the game. My point was the hypocrisy of the left, which complains only when it affects white males.
-
From today's walk around a small, quiet Midwest town in Indiana (no federal, state, or local holiday in sight):
-
The American Flag and national anthem are symbols of racism, says ESPN anchor.
What's next, Picolo Petes and apple pie?
http://shark-tank.com/2017/09/14/american-flag-stands-for-racism-says-sports-tv-anchor/ (http://shark-tank.com/2017/09/14/american-flag-stands-for-racism-says-sports-tv-anchor/)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/WF6YxLLUNH8pRQ9ran6B2HrZzgReSsxdyJvtykAe7Pt5SEIiEdSxrpjSXIez_vZVSl3-3uq9oPqYTTvyKO7dB1AAsdMJpFOlOa_VUeJ-xbOokqNdrRI7mWOH9Pj7PGvx=w530-h353-p)
-
Why is the national anthem played before sporting events in the United States? What does patriotism have to do with watching football, basketball, or baseball games? Why do teams wear American flag patches on uniforms? Who really cares if a player stands or kneels?
I don't watch much American sports these days, preferring to watch European soccer. the only time national anthems are played is when national teams play one another in World Cup or European Cup matches. I've never heard national anthems played prior to club matches. this is only an American anachronism.
European sports are definitely more sane. Well, at least until the fights break out and the soccer fans start killing each other.
-
YOu really think singing the national anthem at sporting events has anything to do with our country potentially being occupied by a foreign power?
Allegiance pledges and singing the national anthem are civic rituals. Done in group settings on a regular basis,
they remind and reinforce us that we all are members of the same nation state. Regardless of whether we're black or white, rich or poor, male or female, famous or not, or have specific complaints about our nation, we acknowledge our allegiance with these rituals. Refusing to engage in the ritual is sensed as a threat to the unity and safety of the country. Just like both teams stand in respect of the anthem and than fight with each other aftetwatds, so too should team members reserve their complaints about the country until after the ritual of the anthem is over.
-
I am actually against an artificial push to establish proportionality for proportionality sake
This is a particular issue for (East and South) Asian-Americans these days, especially recent immigrants, many of whom argue that it's more difficult for their hard-working, highly-motivated children to be accepted for admission to selective colleges and universities than applicants with other backgrounds because the admissions committees are trying to achieve some sort of demographic target.
(Fortunately, this is a self-limiting problem: one aspect of the miracle of America is that after the first generation, the kids tend to be as lazy as all the rest of those whose parents were born here.)
-
Having said that, Trump should not use the issue to make political points. He should express that while he appreciates the concerns people have, these should be addressed at a different time. The anthem is our time to show the country's unity and support of each other.
-
Where is the left's demand for racial equality and proportional representation? They want women to reach 50% in everything, they want Oscars not to be "so white," but have no problem that certain sports are "so black"?
But previously you wrote:
May I kindly suggest to tone down the rhetoric of “stupid, idiots, brain-washed” etc. It is as productive and beneficial for a reasonable debate as calling the other side racists, bigots, and deplorables. We are all here reasonably intelligent and educated people, just with different value systems and opinions.
So, what is a leftist, liberal to do when confronted with rhetoric designed to be confrontational, insulting and generally ignorant and backward?
Well, I will defend people's right to say whatever they may want to say regardless of how stupid, idiotic, brainwashed and racist it may seem to some people but personally, I don't let it affect me.
But might I answer that the question is self evident (and rather obvious)?
This whole Trumped up brouhaha was designed to have the Sunday political shows forget about the fact that once again, it seems Trump and the GOP have stepped on their you know whats regarding Repeal & Replace™ and that even more news regarding Russia and Robert Mueller's investigation...we've learned that Facebook actually was used by the Russians for spreading fake news and stories to hurt Hillary and help Trump. We learned that the federal government on Friday told election officials in 21 states that hackers targeted their systems before last year's presidential election...
And we learned that A Group of Experts Wrote a Book About Donald Trump’s Mental Health—and the Controversy Has Just Begun (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/09/a-group-of-experts-wrote-a-book-about-donald-trumps-mental-health-and-the-controversy-has-just-begun/)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41xXzGms5qL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Due October 3, 2017
There will not be a book published this fall more urgent, important, or controversial than The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (https://us.macmillan.com/thedangerouscaseofdonaldtrump/bandyxlee/9781250179456/) the work of 27 psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health experts to assess President Trump’s mental health. They had come together last March at a conference at Yale University to wrestle with two questions. One was on countless minds across the country: “What’s wrong with him?” The second was directed to their own code of ethics: “Does Professional Responsibility Include a Duty to Warn” if they conclude the president to be dangerously unfit?
In the grand scheme of things, Trump could prolly have gotten away with what he said Fri night if he hadn't referred to the player's mothers as bitches...see, that's what calling somebody a son of a bitch means. That's offensive on many levels but pro athletes, particularly black pro athletes generally really love their mothers so if you wanted to get a group of players of any sports pissed off, start referring to their mothers.
I particularly like Teresa Kaepernick's (Colin's adopted mother) response...
Teresa Kaepernick
@B4IleaveU
replying to @JamilSmith
Guess that makes me a proud bitch!
8:46 PM - 22 Sep 2017
Oh, yeah, the "left's demands"?, pretty sure they were on fine display all over America today...lotta kneeling people–even in the game played in London–I wonder what Londoners think about all of this bullshyte?
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/303D/production/_97994321_fbd3b527-369b-4f34-84ce-23c6b9e20f3b.jpg)
Jacksonville Jaguars players kneel during the US anthem before a match in London
Oh, isn't that cute? They call it a "match" 8)
In case you are wondering, from BBC:
Trump NFL row: Defiance after US president urges boycott (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41379374)
-
The anthem is our time to show the country's unity and support of each other.
Look around you Alan...there is very little unity and support of each other...there's a lot of division and disunity and a disproportionate amount of that disunity is as a direct result of Trump's words. He's the one being insensitive and racially divisive...we won't heal as a country until we get rid of him...
-
Trump Invites Russian National Basketball Team to White House (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-invites-russian-national-basketball-team-to-white-house)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59c7c87fb8d85e34177b8dca/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-Trump-Russian-National-Basketball-Team.jpg)
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—One day after rescinding his invitation to the Golden State Warriors, Donald J. Trump invited the entire Russian national basketball team to celebrate with him at the White House.
Trump said that he looked forward to welcoming the Russian team, calling them “much, much better basketball players than those Golden State losers.”
When reporters pointed out that the Russians had won only a bronze in the 2012 Olympics and failed to qualify for the 2016 event, Trump was dismissive, calling the Olympics “rigged.”
“You ask anyone who knows, Steph Curry is nowhere near as good as Vladimir Ivlev,” Trump said.
But Trump’s plan to replace the Warriors with the Russians hit a snag just hours after he issued the invitation, when the Russian team released an official statement declining the offer.
“We feel that appearing with Donald Trump at this time would be bad for our brand,” the Russians’ statement read.
-
Remember this? I guess Trump still does...he always carries a grudge.
Donald Trump Fought the NFL Once Before. He Got Crushed. (http://fortune.com/2017/09/24/donald-trump-nfl-usfl/)
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/56b8e8165124c9ef778b456c-512-333/ap-how-donald-trump-with-pizazz-and-bluster-took-on-the-nfl.jpg)
In this Aug. 2, 1985, file photo, Donald Trump, right, New York real estate
magnates Stephen Ross, left, and USFL Commissioner Harry L. Usher, center,
participate in a news conference in New York to discuss the agreement they have
reached in principle to merge the Houston Gamblers and New Jersey Generals
football franchises. The New Jersey Generals have been largely forgotten, but
Trump’s ownership of the team was formative in his evolution as a public figure
and peerless self-publicist. With money and swagger, he led a shaky and relatively
low-budget spring football league, the USFL, into a showdown with the NFL.
President Donald Trump set off a firestorm (http://fortune.com/2017/09/23/donald-trump-nfl-players-anthem-response/) last Friday when he urged NFL owners to fire players who used the national anthem as an opportunity for protest. He doubled down this morning, suggesting a boycot (http://fortune.com/2017/09/24/donald-trump-nfl-boycott/) of the NFL. Team owners have been quick to line up against Trump and support their players.
This isn't the first time Trump has picked a fight with the NFL. And last time around, he lost spectacularly.
Trump’s football adventure began in 1984, when he bought the New Jersey Generals, part of the then-new United States Football League. The USFL, as chronicled in an excellent installment of ESPN’s 30 for 30 series, was envisioned by founder David Dixon as a complement to the National Football League that would play in the spring, leaving fall to the NFL. For its first three years, the strategy seemed successful.
But it wasn't enough for Trump. He pushed hard to shift the USFL to a fall schedule, where the USFL – with less talent and less public awareness – would go head-to-head with the bigger league.
The decision to switch to fall play immediately crippled several USFL teams, who wouldn’t be able to compete directly with local NFL teams. The league even turned down a lifeline in the form of lucrative TV offers to broadcast spring games.
But Trump’s plan was typically audacious and risky. Rather than organically grow a new league, he hoped to force an immediate merger with the NFL, which would provide huge returns for surviving USFL team owners. That goal hinged in part on an antitrust lawsuit alleging the NFL was an unlawful monopoly.
But things didn’t go Trump’s way. While the USFL technically won the antitrust case, the jury concluded mismanagement was mostly at fault for its problems. There was no merger and no buyouts. By 1986, the USFL was finished.
Trump’s current beef with the NFL has little direct parallel with his USFL days, and most current NFL owners weren’t around back then. But Trump is more than able to hold a grudge (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trumps-grudges-are-his-agenda/532395/), so you can bet the episode is on his mind.Football fans should remember it, too — because if it weren't for Donald Trump, we might have pro ball year-round.
-
Well, what do you expect of the Liar–in–Chief?
Trump's Mostly False claim that NFL ratings are 'way down' (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/24/donald-trump/trumps-mostly-false-claim-nfl-ratings-are-way-down/)
Our ruling
Trump said "NFL attendance and ratings are WAY DOWN. Boring games yes, but many stay away because they love our country."
Ratings were down 8 percent in 2016, but experts said the drop was modest and in line with general ratings for the sports industry. The NFL remains the most watched televised sports event in the United States.
Ratings in 2017 so far suggest a similar year-on-year drop, but experts say it’s too early to tell, and external factors like Hurricane Irma, which coincided with the season’s first week, may help explain the drop.
NFL game attendance dropped slightly from 2016 to 2017, and rose from 2015 to 2016.
As for political motivation, there’s little evidence to suggest people are boycotting the NFL. Most of the professional sports franchises are dealing with declines in popularity.
We rate this claim Mostly False.
(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-mostlyfalse.png)
-
Well, what do you expect of the Liar–in–Chief?
Trump's Mostly False claim that NFL ratings are 'way down' (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/24/donald-trump/trumps-mostly-false-claim-nfl-ratings-are-way-down/)
(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-mostlyfalse.png)
Ratings are down 16% over two years. How's that false? It's a lot. The owners must be pulling their hair out wishing this whole issue would just go away.
-
Look around you Alan...there is very little unity and support of each other...there's a lot of division and disunity and a disproportionate amount of that disunity is as a direct result of Trump's words. He's the one being insensitive and racially divisive...we won't heal as a country until we get rid of him...
Well Obama said when this thing started while he was president, that ballplayers who disrespect the anthem hurt lot of Americans when they do that. So players ought to show a little respect for others.
I disagree this is racial. Trump champions those many people who feel a lot of groups spit on America or see the country as being anti American. So his tweets speak for these people.
-
Ratings are down 16% over two years. How's that false?
Well, what you just claimed isn't in the article is it? 8)
There was an 8% drop in 2016 over 2015 ratings but remember what else was going on last year? That little thing called an election...what the experts said was that an 8% drop was in line with other pro sports' TV decline and that "NFL attendance and ratings are WAY DOWN" isn't true. BTW, the article said this regarding game attendance:
Trump might be referring to 2016, a year when the NFL saw a significant drop in viewership, although average game attendance increased by 3 percent from 2015 to 2016.
But none of that really matters...instead of doing or saying things to bring America together in the wake of 3 hurricanes, racial strife and serious international issues, the big orange dummy starts a war with the NFL...to what end?
Oh look, shiny, SHINY...Facebook and Russians, it's a HOAX!!!
(don't forget that Trump is an expert at carrying a grudge about that whole USFL slap down–and the courts awarded him a whole single dollar)
-
Trump is just giving Lefties a dose of their own medicine. Half of America is beginning to get annoyed from being labeled racist.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/jpaycheck/unclesamshow.jpg)
-
I disagree this is racial. Trump champions those many people who feel a lot of groups spit on America or see the country as being anti American. So his tweets speak for these people.
Of course this is racial...look where Trump brought this up...in Alabama in a crowd of his core supporters which are, well really, REALLY white, right? And all those people who dislike other people pointing out racial injustice and say that it's anti-American don't understand what it actually means to be an American...So, Trump's Tweets are designed to be divisive, contain clear and obvious dog whistles and stir up trouble rather than trying to calm the nation.
Show me what Trump has done to help resolve racial hostilities? "Fire the sons of bitches" is designed to help how? He knew what he was doing and he was enjoying the trouble it was stirring at that rally...
#MAGA or #MAWA? If you are non-white, the odds are it means pretty much the same.
-
Half of America is beginning to get annoyed from being labeled racist.
Then maybe that half might want to learn how to talk and behave in ways that don't come off as racist to the other half of the country...
-
It's about patriotism not racism.
-
Why is the national anthem played before sporting events in the United States?
I have often wondered about that myself. Do other countries play their anthem's before games?
Evidently, here it started with Baseball and a way to get the crowd excited during a boring championship game during a 7th inning stretch.
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/6957582/the-history-national-anthem-sports-espn-magazine
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41384053
What the BBC has to say about racism, the NFL and Trump.
A little distance often adds perspective.
-
Hum, last time I checked, people from Puerto Rico are American citizens, right?
While Trump Tweeted About Sports All Weekend, Puerto Rico Dealt With ‘Apocalyptic’ Hurricane Damage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-nfl-puerto-rico_us_59c8fa3be4b0cdc77332a352)
Trump tweeted about sports a total of 17 times between Saturday and Monday morning. He didn’t tweet once about Puerto Rico, where 3.5 million U.S. citizens live.
President Donald Trump spent his weekend tweeting about sports while U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico continued to deal with “apocalyptic” conditions in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.
Trump kicked off his sports tweets Saturday by saying he wouldn’t allow the NBA’s Golden State Warriors to visit the White House after player Stephen Curry said he didn’t want to go.
That afternoon, Trump started a tirade against athletes kneeling or sitting during the national anthem, a protest started last year by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who refused to stand during the anthem to protest oppression and police brutality against black people.
Trump tweeted about sports 17 times between Saturday and Monday morning. He didn’t tweet once about Puerto Rico, where citizens have been largely without power, water or means of communication since Maria hit Wednesday as a Category 5 hurricane.
Ricardo Rosselló, the governor of Puerto Rico, has called for a greater federal response to the disaster, which left at least 13 people dead. Polls show many mainland residents don’t realize that Puerto Ricans are Americans. In fact, 3.5 million U.S. citizens live there.
So, Trump can find the time while being President to tweet 17 times (I suspect it won't end there), Tweet about North Korea–where now NK thinks his Tweets amount to a declaration of war and, oh yeah, there was a couple of Tweets about Healthcare (dinging McCain again) and a proud Tweet about @FLOTUS going to Europe...
So, there ya go America...our President at work–picking a fight with black athletes because, well, it's fun for him! Never mind the citizens who will be without power potentially for weeks or months and who are trying to stay alive until help arrives...
-
If you have an issue with this, you should call your congressmen about it.
Oh, I have an issue with the way Puerto Rico is governed all right and while congress could certainly be held to blame for Puerto Rico's current financial plight, the fact is the president could make changes to the status using executive orders...
All of which is besides the point that Trump, instead of expressing any concern for American citizens suffering in Puerto Rico, is wasting his time fighting with pro sports athletes–particularly black athletes.
So, Joe, does this help America?
Is this a good use of presidential power?
Does this help race relations even a teeny tiny bit?
Or is Trump just playing a game because he thinks it's fun?
(with the side benefit of getting back at the NFL for ruining his USFL franchise)
-
Good, old days:
-
Good, old days:
That joke was below the belt.
-
That joke was below the belt.
😂😂😂
-
Right now though, you seem to be getting pretty mad at the President for something congress handles.
Right no I'm angry that the president is wasting time starting a war with the NFL while apparently (based on Tweets) totally ignoring the plight of millions of American citizens in Puerto Rico...arguing about who is responsible for governing Puerto Rico is irrelevant-that are US citizens and deserve the help and support to recover from hurricane damage just like citizens in the other Caribbean US territories as well as residents of Florida and Texas.
Funny, I didn't think there were different classes of US citizens...
Are you saying because US citizens are in Puerto Rico, they deserve less help and support than US citizens in Florida or Texas?
-
I am only implying that Puerto Rico is not a state, and, by law, does not get the same benefits and help that states do.
So, you are ok with Trump ignoring the problems of Puerto Rico's US citizens (even if it ain't a state) while picking a fight with the NFL? I mean, is that what you think is a good expenditure of the president's time?
-
I am only implying that Puerto Rico is not a state, and, by law, does not get the same benefits and help that states do. Regardless of the morality of the situation, this is how our constitution works.
Now the reason for this is because congress is not acting on the referendums, more then likely because Puerto Rico grossly mismanaged their affairs from years of poor governance. Congress does not want to foot that bill, but they also don't want to be seen executing a no vote. This is why the referendums are never brought to the floor.
They are markedly impacted by acts of Congress. A number of years ago, Congress put into the Tax Code a provision that gave companies a tax break if they established manufacturing in Puerto Rico (Section 936) and a lot of pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing moved there. These were decent paying jobs and helped the country financially. However, when the tax break was eliminated the jobs all left, many moving to low tax Ireland.
BTW, there are also lots of other weird things about being a territory, like you can't vote if you are a resident of one. Is this something you also take issue with?
Not true. If you are a US citizen you can indeed vote in the state of your last residence. My sister has lived in Israel since 1973 but is a US citizen and eligible to vote in elections via a California absentee ballot. Her old home address counts as the domicile. In addition, you 'could' move to Puerto Rico and not have to pay US tax any longer!!!
-
In addition, you 'could' move to Puerto Rico and not have to pay US tax any longer!!!
Well, ya might wanna put that move on hold for a while...reports are the Puerto Rico may be without power for months...
-
They are markedly impacted by acts of Congress. A number of years ago, Congress put into the Tax Code a provision that gave companies a tax break if they established manufacturing in Puerto Rico (Section 936) and a lot of pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing moved there. These were decent paying jobs and helped the country financially. However, when the tax break was eliminated the jobs all left, many moving to low tax Ireland.
Not true. If you are a US citizen you can indeed vote in the state of your last residence. My sister has lived in Israel since 1973 but is a US citizen and eligible to vote in elections via a California absentee ballot. Her old home address counts as the domicile. In addition, you 'could' move to Puerto Rico and not have to pay US tax any longer!!!
I am aware of that tax break code, but was it just for federal taxes or were companies exempt from PR taxes as well? I would assume just the former.
Insofar as voting, your example is a little different. Your sister left the country altogether and uses an absentee ballot. However, to best of my knowledge, this is not how it works if you move to PR. Once you become a legal resident of the island, you can no longer vote in national elections. However, if you move out of PR, assuming you are a citizen, you can vote (again).
First time I heard of not paying US taxes. Is this really the case? If you move out of the country, you still need to pay US taxes; kind of odd you avoid doing so in PR.
-
And getting back to my question, which US territories are current receive relief funds?
US Virgin Islands are getting relief effort. I'm not away of any other territories that have experienced natural disasters this year (I think the only big ones in the Pacific are Guam and Samoa; Marshall Islands are sparsely populated but did receive a large amount of aid and medical help in the 1950-60 time period following all the atomic and hydrogen bomb testing that went on there).
-
First time I heard of not paying US taxes. Is this really the case? If you move out of the country, you still need to pay US taxes; kind of odd you avoid doing so in PR.
If you believe the Internet it is possibly true: https://www.policygenius.com/blog/puerto-rico-tax-savings/
-
And getting back to my question, which US territories are current receive relief funds?
Trump already signed a disaster declaration issued for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands and can apply for Federal aid as outlined in this FEMA alert:
Federal Aid Programs for the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2017/09/07/federal-aid-programs-territory-us-virgin-islands)
Here's the alert for Puerto Rico:
Federal Aid Programs for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2017/09/21/federal-aid-programs-commonwealth-puerto-rico)
FEMA staff are on the ground now in Puerto Rico but are facing massive devastation:
FEMA teams in Puerto Rico: 'It's absolutely devastating' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/23/fema-teams-try-get-arms-around-maria-disaster-puerto-rico/697164001/)
TOA BAJA, Puerto Rico — People in this storm-torn town waded through muddy water, swept thick mud out of living rooms or drove through thigh-high water crossings in cars that sputtered, stalled and started again.
Nearby, a FEMA response team, with specialists from Indiana, California, Florida and other states, took notes or peered into an iPad GPS. The team was on a reconnaissance mission following Hurricane Maria and one of the first signs of the U.S. government's promised support in the disaster.
"You hear about the destruction, but honestly, until we get out here and see it firsthand, it's hard to frame it all up," said Mike Pruitt, of Indiana, of FEMA's Incident Support Command. "It's absolutely devastating to see what they've lost."
FEMA teams were already in Puerto Rico earlier this month working on relief efforts following Hurricane Irma and sprung into reconnaissance and search-and-rescue missions as soon as Maria's winds died down. FEMA is widely known as the federal disaster recovery agency, but it's also involved in dispatching rescue teams and gathering intel in the first chaotic days of a disaster.
President Trump has declared Puerto Rico a major disaster and pledged the full support of the U.S. government.
The last Tweet about Puerto Rico seems to have been posted on Sept 19th when he said:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrump
Puerto Rico being hit hard by new monster Hurricane. Be careful, our hearts are with you- will be there to help!
7:23 PM - 19 Sep 2017
But he's had the time to tweet over 17 times about the NFL and pro athletes?
What a bum...(that's what LeBron James called him...bit too mild for my taste)
-
So who is it up to, to initiate relief? The president or congress?
Seriously, I have no idea.
My thought was that unless congress approve the spending, relief will not be sent.
Additionally, how well funded in FEMA currently? I remember reading recently they were pretty much out of money.
FEMA is an executive branch agency so it's in the Prez's hands to mobilize aid. FEMA has a reserve fund to draw on but I think it would be gone following the Texas hurricane.
-
So who is it up to, to initiate relief? The president or congress?
The president declares an emergency and direct FEMA to respond.
But that response is way too little:
Trump Is Ignoring Puerto Rico’s Suffering (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/09/the_trump_administration_s_disaster_response_in_puerto_rico_after_hurricane.html)
The administration’s feeble response to Hurricane Maria rivals Bush’s after Katrina.
SEPT. 25 2017 4:44 PM
When it struck the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico six days ago, Hurricane Maria was the strongest storm to hit the American territories in 80 years. “Its force and fury stripped every tree of not just the leaves, but also the bark, leaving a rich agricultural region looking like the result of a postapocalyptic drought,” according to one New York Times dispatch from Puerto Rico. In its wake, more than 3 million Americans now live without electricity or adequate food or water, and under the specter of looting and disorder. Some 80 percent of island’s agriculture has been destroyed, decimating a source of food as well as a chunk of Puerto Rico’s economy. Ninety-five percent of cellphone towers on Puerto Rico are out, depriving locals of a way to ask for help—and crippling any government response, too. The situation will likely worsen as emergency supplies run out and as the local government finds itself unable to deliver support or maintain order across such a wrecked landscape.
So far, the Trump administration has dispatched an anemic Federal Emergency Management Agency mission and sundry military units to assess the situation and provide support. But in some cases it took the federal government days to even contact local leaders in Puerto Rico’s major cities, let alone deploy aid. Only the most rudimentary military support is now on the ground. This is inadequate and calls to mind the lethargic response by the Bush administration to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The U.S. military has a unique expeditionary capability to deliver humanitarian support, logistics, and security anywhere in the world, far above what FEMA or any other civilian agency can muster. American citizens are suffering and dying and need all their government can do for them (including the military). Unfortunately, their president and the military at his command appear focused elsewhere. Unless this changes, more Americans will die.
--snip--
The situation for 3.5 million Americans in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands grows more precarious by the day. These Americans can no longer wait for a response slowed by bureaucratic lethargy and political indifference. To paraphrase the military proverb: The best time for action was yesterday; the second-best time is now. President Trump must focus attention on this disaster and deploy appropriate military resources, immediately, or else bear the responsibility for deaths and suffering that could have been prevented.
Which is why I think it's a real sad commentary that the president is giving more attention to a spat with the NFL than bringing attention to the plight of US citizens in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands...
Oh, and if you are wondering about funding for FEMA, in previous trial budget discussions, Trump was cutting FEMA and other federal agency budgets...
Trump would slash disaster funding to the very agencies he’s praising for Harvey response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-agencies-respond-to-storm-some-face-cuts-under-trump-budget-proposal/2017/08/29/0fbbd6ca-8cc8-11e7-84c0-02cc069f2c37_story.html?utm_term=.cf55812067f3)
...The budget released by the Trump White House in March cuts roughly 9 percent for disaster-relief programs across the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. The cuts are in keeping with the president’s goal of creating a leaner, more efficient government that asks more of the private sector and the states, a goal FEMA Administrator William B. “Brock” Long has reiterated in recent days.
The cuts also shift away from Obama-era “resilience” efforts to prepare for climate change.
Trump officials recently struck down an Obama administration rule requiring building projects in line for federal funding to strongly consider climate change risks — for example, by elevating structures in flood zones away from the reach of rising water.
But hey, at least NASCAR is standing with Trump:
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
So proud of NASCAR and its supporters and fans. They won't put up with disrespecting our Country or our Flag - they said it loud and clear!
4:25 AM - 25 Sep 2017
-
But hey, at least NASCAR is standing with Trump:
Oooops...Donny spoke too soon, seems NASCAR has just released a statement that, uh, kinda takes issue...
NASCAR Statement NASCAR.com September 25, 2017 at 12:49 pm (https://www.nascar.com/news-media/2017/09/25/nascar-statement-september-25/)
“Sports are a unifying influence in our society, bringing people of differing backgrounds and beliefs together. Our respect for the national anthem has always been a hallmark of our pre-race events. Thanks to the sacrifices of many, we live in a country of unparalleled freedoms and countless liberties, including the right to peacefully express one’s opinion.”
Free Speech 1
Trump 0
Sorry Donny...now what about Puerto Rico?
-
And no Dale Earnhardt Jr. (Mr NASCAR) said this:
Dale Earnhardt Jr. ✔ @DaleJr
All Americans R granted rights 2 peaceful protests
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable-JFK
6:54 AM - Sep 25, 2017
-
Oh goodie...Trump finally posted some tweets about Puerto Rico...guess what he said.
Trump declares Puerto Rico is in ‘deep trouble’ as questions mount about his commitment (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/25/trump-declares-puerto-is-in-deep-trouble-as-questions-mount-about-his-commitment/?utm_term=.a04e800c82d4)
President Trump, facing mounting questions about his commitment to Puerto Rico’s recovery, took to Twitter Monday night, saying the U.S. territory is “in deep trouble,” in part because of problems that predated Hurricane Maria.
Trump said Puerto Rico was already suffering from “broken infrastructure,” including an old electrical grid, which he said was “devastated” by Hurricane Maria, as well as “massive debt.”
“Food, water and medical are top priorities — and doing well,” Trump said in his series of tweets, which credited the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He noted that, by contrast, Texas and Florida, hit by earlier hurricanes, “are doing great.”
Here's what he tweeted:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble..
7:45 PM - Sep 25, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...It's old electrical grid, which was in terrible shape, was devastated. Much of the Island was destroyed, with billions of dollars....
7:50 PM - Sep 25, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...owed to Wall Street and the banks which, sadly, must be dealt with. Food, water and medical are top priorities - and doing well. #FEMA
7:58 PM - Sep 25, 2017
So, is Trump dissing Puerto Rico for their power grid and financial situation with Wall Street and banks and not bothering to reach out and offer hope and encouragement...Typical bullshit response which sounds like somebody told him to tweet about Puerto Rico and this was the best he could come up with...and that line "Food, water and medical are top priorities - and doing well." is total crap...FEMA has been slow to react and doesn't have either the personnel nor equipment to do much other than make a bunch of assessments.
-
"Last September, Reuters conducted a survey in the wake of Colin Kaepernick's "taking a knee" for the national anthem and found that, although a majority said he had a constitutionally protected right to protest, 72% of Americans thought his display was "unpatriotic," and 61% disagreed with him doing it."
Trump's gut knows that America agrees with him on NFL controversy - CNN
https://apple.news/A6U0omhAaQgKKJcwiVIn-_w
-
"Last September, Reuters conducted a survey in the wake of Colin Kaepernick's "taking a knee" for the national anthem and found that, although a majority said he had a constitutionally protected right to protest, 72% of Americans thought his display was "unpatriotic," and 61% disagreed with him doing it."
Yep...a year ago...and Colin Kaepernick's taking a knee has largely pushed him out of the NFL...he suffered for his actions. But that was last year...what just happened to make Trump decide to call NFL players who take a knee sons of bitches? Seriously, since the pre season and the first 2 weeks of the season what's happened to suddenly make this an issue?
Read a transcript of Trump said (and reports are they were not prepared remarks and were completely ad-libbed):
00:38:51-00:43:13
Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners when somebody disrespects our flag to say get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he's fired, he's fired. [Applause, Audience Chants USA] You know, some owner is going to do that.
He's going to say that guy that disrespects our flag, he's fired. [Applause] And that owner, they don't know it, they don't know it, they're friends of mine, many of them, they don't know it, they'll be the most popular person for a week, they'll be the most popular person in this country because that's a total disrespect of our heritage, that's a total disrespect of everything that we stand for, OK? Everything that we stand for.
And I know we have freedoms and we have freedom of choice and many, many different freedoms. But you know what? It's still totally disrespectful. And, you know, when the NFL ratings are down massively, massively... [Applause] The NFL ratings are down massively.
Now, the number-one reason happens to be that they like watching what's happening on, you know, with yours truly. [Applause] They like what's happening. Because, you know, today if you hit too hard, right, they hit too hard, 15 yards, throw him out of the game. They had that last week.
I watched for a couple of minutes and two guys just really a beautiful tackle, boom, 15 yards. The referee gets on television, his wife it sitting at home, she's so proud of him, they're ruining the game. Right? [Applause] They're ruining the game. Hey, look, that's what they want to do, they want to hit, OK? They want to hit.
But it is hurting the game. But you know what's hurting the game more than that? When people like yourselves turn on television and you see those people taking the knee when they're playing our great "National Anthem."" [Booing] The only thing you could do better is if you see it
Not the same game anymore anyway. Now, one of the things we've done, and when I say "we"" it's us
Right? We cherish our magnificent Constitution and we believe judges must interpret the Constitution as written and that includes defending, as I just said, our great Second Amendment. [Applause] We support the rule of law and we stand strong with the incredible men and women of law enforcement. [Applause] We protect our citizens, uphold our traditions and we will always defend our borders. [Applause] These are Alabama values.
I understand the people of Alabama. I feel like I'm from Alabama, frankly. [Applause] Isn't it a little weird when a guy who lives on 5th Avenue in the most beautiful apartment you've ever seen comes to Alabama and Alabama loves that guy. I mean, it's crazy, it's crazy. [Applause]
So, what prompted this? But I suspect Colin Kaepernick is sitting back and watching and contemplating that it took an entire year for his protest to take root. Good for him...even if he never plays another down, he's had an impact.
Kaepernick's Triumph (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/trump-turned-kaepernicks-protest-into-a-success/540999/)
When he began taking a knee during the National Anthem, earning the attention of the president and the entire press was the best outcome he could possibly have desired.
Friday morning, things didn’t look great for Colin Kaepernick.
The former San Francisco 49er had made headlines around the world last season for kneeling during the National Anthem. The offseason had seen a raging debate about the fact that he hadn’t been signed from free agency, which boiled down to whether teams were justified in deciding that his controversial protest outweighed his talent. Despite some comically atrocious performances by quarterbacks on NFL rosters in the first two weeks of the season, Kaepernick remained unsigned. A few fellow players said publicly that he deserved a roster spot somewhere, and some had taken up his protest, but it remained a niche question, and the cause to which Kaepernick wished to draw attention—police brutality against people of color—had faded a bit from the headlines, overwhelmed by the onslaught of Trump-related news.
Then came President Trump’s riff during a rally in Alabama Friday night.
“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out,’” Trump said. “‘He’s fired. He’s fired!’”
By the close of the weekend, the president wasn’t contending just with Kaepernick. He was facing off with hundreds of NFL players, who had either taken a knee, like Kaepernick, or stayed in the locker room during the playing of the National Anthem. He’d been scolded by multiple team owners, including his personal friend Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots, and the NFL commissioner. The dispute had spilled over the bounds of NFL and included LeBron James and Steph Curry. Even Michael Jordan, who (supposedly) long evaded politics because “Republicans buy sneakers too” criticized Trump.
Many barrels of pixels have been spilled already trying to analyze the political implications for Trump of the spat, but just as important, and perhaps less recognized, is what a coup this is for Kaepernick. Over the course of a single weekend, Kaepernick was transformed from a down-and-out athlete into an icon of protest. What loftier goal can a symbolic protest like Kaepernick’s kneeling have than to capture the attention of the president of the United States and to dominate the news?
So, you think Trump wins this?
-
What are the football players actually protesting? Are they dissing the flag to get back at Trump because he calls that action unpatriotic?
-
Yep...a year ago...and Colin Kaepernick's taking a knee has largely pushed him out of the NFL...he suffered for his actions. But that was last year...what just happened to make Trump decide to call NFL players who take a knee sons of bitches? Seriously, since the pre season and the first 2 weeks of the season what's happened to suddenly make this an issue?
Read a transcript of Trump said (and reports are they were not prepared remarks and were completely ad-libbed):
00:38:51-00:43:13
So, what prompted this? But I suspect Colin Kaepernick is sitting back and watching and contemplating that it took an entire year for his protest to take root. Good for him...even if he never plays another down, he's had an impact.
Kaepernick's Triumph (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/trump-turned-kaepernicks-protest-into-a-success/540999/)
So, you think Trump wins this?
If Kaepernick'' protest was so important, why didn't you once mention what his protest was about? No, you'd rather sacrifice his career on the alter of anti Trumpism.
-
...what just happened to make Trump decide to call NFL players who take a knee sons of bitches? Seriously, since the pre season and the first 2 weeks of the season what's happened to suddenly make this an issue?
Our Trumpalyzer (not to be confused with "Trump's a liar") has been working around the clock since his latest Category 5 tweetstorm made landfall in an attempt to answer precisely this question, and has been able to narrow down the explanation to two possibilities:
- There was growing opposition to the latest Republican effort to blow up the government's medical insurance program. Trump found this very frustrating.
- Every time he turned on the 24-hour cable news channels, instead of coverage of him all he saw were reports about hurricanes destroying small islands he had never heard of and earthquakes devastating cities in Mexico, which still isn't paying for his wall. Trump found this very frustrating.
Clearly, he felt a need to change the subject: Trump has discovered that when he gets agitated, the best way for him to calm down is to say something that will stir up his supporters and get everyone else upset. We reached out for further information to two confidential White House sources who are very related to Trump. However, the private email addresses we have been using to contact them suddenly appear to have been shut down.
-
who is kopernick ?
-
"we will always defend our borders."
Except when we dodge the draft, of course.
-
"we will always defend our borders."
Except when we dodge the draft, of course.
since when the our borders were in Vietnam though ? I was watching NPR propaganda flick about Vietnam and damn, Ho Chi Min standing with CIA (precursor) officers :) it resembles Castro making his first visit to USA not to xUSSR... and both (Ho & Fidel) were "spitted" in the face
(https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_header_l_16x9_600px/public/image/2016/09/Ho-Chi-Minh.jpg?itok=f_r7zKO7)
-
since when the our borders were in Vietnam though ? I was watching NPR propaganda flick about Vietnam and damn, Ho Chi Min standing with CIA (precursor) officers :) it resembles Castro making his first visit to USA not to xUSSR... and both (Ho & Fidel) were "spitted" in the face
(https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_header_l_16x9_600px/public/image/2016/09/Ho-Chi-Minh.jpg?itok=f_r7zKO7)
NPR documentary on Vietnam made it very clear that Ho was trained in the Soviet Union as was General of the Vietnam Army Giap. They were both dedicated Communists. Sure, they tried to use America to free themselves from French colonial rule. But it would have wound up communist in any case. As did Fidel Castro also a dedicated but secret Communist who used America's good will before he acknowledged he was a communist.
-
Trump is called devisive for rebuking devisiviness.
Huh? What parallel universe does the NFL live in?
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-137c562a6ba9a254ad7b5dc41d7d50ee-c)
-
Trump is called devisive for rebuking devisiviness.
Trump is called devisive because he's a friggin' mean asshole that enjoys pissing people off and causing trouble. Show me where he has EVER rebuked divisiveness...he has done nothing–ZERO-to bring this country together...all he does is pit one group against another group because that's how he gets his jollies...he makes radially inappropriate statements and then sits back and enjoys the fall out...which is one thing when you are a reality show host but something entirely different when you are the president of the most powerful country on earth.
How would YOU like it if Trump Tweets us into a nuclear war? You down with that?
-
David Brooks pretty much nails it in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/opinion/abbie-hoffman-donald-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-columnists
It has to be admitted that Donald Trump is doing exactly what he was elected to do.
He was not elected to be a legislative president. He never showed any real interest in policy during the campaign. He was elected to be a cultural president. He was elected to shred the dominant American culture and to give voice to those who felt voiceless in that culture. He’s doing that every day.
What’s troubling to me is that those who are the targets of his assaults seem to have no clue about what is going on. When they feel the most righteous, like this past weekend, they are actually losing and in the most peril.
-
Just to be clear, when I'm calling Trump an asshole, I'm only agreeing with California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter who famously said "He’s an asshole, but he’s our asshole"...
TRUMP IS AN 'ASSHOLE, BUT HE’S OUR ASSHOLE,' SAYS GOP CONGRESSMAN (http://www.newsweek.com/trump-asshole-hes-our-asshole-says-gop-congressman-656240)
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed-lg/public/2017/08/29/rtx3dquk2.jpg)
U.S. President Donald Trump is an “asshole” according to California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter.
“He’s an asshole, but he’s our asshole,” Hunter said during a meetup of the Riverside County Young Republicans at a sports bar in the city of Murrieta near Anaheim last Friday.
“He’s just like he is on TV,” Hunter said, according to four people who were at the event who spoke with The San Diego Union-Tribune.
One of the attendees, Jose Guzman, told the Union-Tribune that Hunter’s assessment didn’t end there. Hunter continued by saying “all the stories you hear about [Trump], they’re true. Except the fake news.”
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/23/fa/d6/23fad6f9c7d4a368d18396378c48a9ee--funny-cards-adult-humor.jpg)
-
As free speech, patriotism, and religious liberties are under attack in America, Saudi Arabia inches closer to modernity by legalizing women to drive cars. It's good to hear freedom is on the rise somewhere in the world.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/saudi-arabia-women-drive-170926190857109.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/saudi-arabia-women-drive-170926190857109.html)
(http://satireworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Burqa-car.jpg)
-
Free speech, patriotism and religious liberties are under attack in America?
What?
-
Uh, oh! Twitter doubling character limit to 280! Doubling effectively Jeff's efforts to keep up with Trump's tweets. 😉
-
You think Trump is smart? Really?
Steve Bannon basically just admitted Trump is easily duped (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/26/steve-bannons-remarkable-admission-trump-is-easily-duped/?utm_term=.435bf155a030)
(http://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/trump-12-696x520.jpg)
The information that President Trump sees has been a major subplot of the White House's internal drama (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/enforcer-or-choke-point-kelly-seeks-to-bring-order-to-chaotic-white-house/2017/09/22/79783610-9fad-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html). Aides often privately describe the president as highly susceptible to acting upon the last piece of information he's seen — no matter how dubious. And controlling that flow of information is a big part of new White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly's effort to right the ship (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/us/politics/trump-white-house-kelly-memos.html) and keep the Oval Office on-task.
But rarely do you see someone close to the president just come out and admit how unsophisticated he is as a consumer of information.
That's what Stephen K. Bannon did Monday night, though not quite in so many words. While chatting with Fox News's Sean Hannity, the former White House chief strategist suggested that Trump was essentially duped into supporting appointed Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.) in Tuesday's Alabama special-election runoff. And it wasn't really all that subtle.
--snip--
“They tried to destroy Donald Trump; the same gang that is going after Roy Moore is the same gang that went after Donald Trump,” Bannon said. “And I have to tell you, I think at some time later after [Tuesday], a real, you know, review has to be done of how President Trump got the wrong information and came down on the wrong side of the football here.”
--snip--
But making that argument — that Trump was duped — also means arguing that he is capable of being duped, and apparently rather easily in this case. Inherent in Bannon's argument is the idea that Trump either isn't discerning enough to make that endorsement decision for himself, or at least that he doesn't do enough homework.
Bannon is basically confirming everything aides have said privately about how unsophisticated Trump is in consuming information. This is the president of the United States, and Bannon is talking about him as if he's still a total political novice — a weather vane, even.
That's a pretty stunning admission coming from one of the people who has worked closest with Trump.
So, Trump is a weather vane...
-
Uh, oh! Twitter doubling character limit to 280! Doubling effectively Jeff's efforts to keep up with Trump's tweets. 😉
Like this one?
(https://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/trumpiq.png)
The irony is that there a Trump tweet for every occasion...
Now with TWICE the stupidness!!!!
-
Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Stein, Sanders and Trump (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172)
At least one touted Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, who Clinton says "may well have thrown the election to Trump."
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was the beneficiary of at least one of the Russian-bought political ads on Facebook that federal government officials suspect were intended to influence the 2016 election.
Other advertisements paid for by shadowy Russian buyers criticized Hillary Clinton and promoted Donald Trump. Some backed Bernie Sanders and his platform even after his presidential campaign had ended, according to a person with knowledge of the ads.
The pro-Stein ad came late in the political campaign and pushed her candidacy for president, this person said.
“Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein,” the ad reads. “Trust me. It’s not a wasted vote. … The only way to take our country back is to stop voting for the corporations and banks that own us. #GrowaSpineVoteJillStein.”
The ads show a complicated effort that didn’t necessarily hew to promoting Trump and bashing Clinton. Instead, they show a desire to create divisions while sometimes praising Trump, Sanders and Stein. A number of the ads seemed to question Clinton’s authenticity and tout some of the liberal criticisms of her candidacy.
There is no indication Stein, Sanders or Trump was aware of the advertisements, which were described to POLITICO by people with knowledge of them.
Facebook declined to comment on the specifics of the advertisements but noted a previous statement: “The vast majority of ads run by these accounts didn’t specifically reference the U.S. presidential election or voting for a particular candidate. Rather, the ads and accounts appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.”
And look at the results in several swing states...
Trump's victory margin smaller than total Stein votes in key swing states (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three)
In two key states that President-elect Donald Trump won, his margin of victory was smaller than the total number of votes for Green Party nominee Jill Stein.
In Michigan, Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes, while Stein got 51,463 votes, according to current totals on the state’s official website.
And in Wisconsin, Trump’s margin over Clinton was 22,177, while Stein garnered 31,006 votes.
In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Stein’s total of 49,485 votes was just slightly smaller than Trump’s victory margin of 67,416 votes, according to the state’s latest numbers.
(http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/russia_dinner630.jpg)
And, exactly what was Jill Stein doing in Russia with Flynn and Putin? We know Flynn was paid $45K to attend.
-
Donald Trump deletes tweets backing losing candidate in Alabama Republican run-off (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/27/donald-trump-deletes-tweets-backing-losing-candidate-alabama/)
(https://dawm7kda6y2v0.cloudfront.net/uploads/2017/09/roy-moore-gun-654x362-60b3295.jpg)
Alabama Senate Candidate Roy Moore Whips Out A Handgun At Rally (VIDEO) (https://youtu.be/udY1VDQ8QkM)
Donald Trump was quick to issue a tweet congratulating the winner of the Republican Senate primary in Alabama and commiserating with the loser on Tuesday night.
But it must have stung.
-------------------------------------------
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama.
Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy, WIN in Dec!
9:17 PM - Sep 26, 2017
-------------------------------------------
The president - who told his supporters they would get tired of winning once he was in power - had backed Luther Strange, the losing candidate, rather than the populist figure of Roy Moore, who was backed by Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage among others.
And then something strange happened.
A string of tweets backing Mr Strange mysteriously disappeared as the result of the run-off became clear. ProPublica (http://telegraph.digidip.net/visit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fprojects.propublica.org%2Fpolitwoops%2Fuser%2FPOTUS&ppref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F), which maintains a tally of all the president's deleted tweets, listed the evidence in black and white.
• Luther Strange has been shooting up in the Alabama polls since my endorsement. Finish the job - vote today for "Big Luther."
• Big election tomorrow in the Great State of Alabama. Vote for Senator Luther Strange, tough on crime & border - will never let you down!
• ALABAMA, get out and vote for Luther Strange - he has proven to me that he will never let you down! #MAGA
The sad thing is I think Alabama just got a full blown loony tune to run as a GOP in the election to replace Jeff Sessions...not that I think the Dems would be able to find a democrat to run, but what the heck, maybe it could happen :~)
-
...
(http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/russia_dinner630.jpg)
And, exactly what was Jill Stein doing in Russia with Flynn and Putin?..
But hey, there are two Serbs between Putin and Stein ;)
-
Trump suddenly focuses on Puerto Rico, promises visit, aid (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Trump-says-he-ll-visit-Puerto-Rico-next-Tuesday-12229268.php)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Suddenly, just about all President Donald Trump can talk about is Puerto Rico.
After not mentioning the hurricane-devastated island for days, Trump on Tuesday pushed back aggressively and repeatedly against criticism that he had failed to quickly grasp the magnitude of Maria's destruction or give the U.S. commonwealth the top-priority treatment he had bestowed on Texas, Louisiana and Florida after previous storms.
Trump announced that he would visit Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands next week. He tweeted about Puerto Rico's needs. He talked about Puerto Rico during a meeting on tax cuts. He raised the subject at a Rose Garden news conference with the prime minister of Spain.
And he attended a hurricane briefing. He called a meeting of agency heads tasked with helping Puerto Rico recover, and sent top officials out to the White House driveway to talk to reporters. FEMA Administrator Brock Long delivered specifics: 16 Navy and Coast Guard ships in the waters around Puerto Rico and 10 more on the way.
--snip--
But Trump's fixation on Puerto Rico on Tuesday stood in sharp contrast to his focus on other matters between Maria's landfall Sept. 20 and Monday, including his fight with the NFL over football players protesting during the National Anthem. The president has tweeted about the NFL more than two dozen times since Friday.
By Monday, Democrats, Republicans and Rossello were emphasizing that Puerto Ricans are Americans, too.
Trump was intent on showing he'd gotten the message — but still wasn't ready to set aside the NFL issue entirely.
"We are totally focused on that," Trump said Tuesday of the growing crisis on the U.S. island. "But at the same time, it doesn't take me long to put out a wrong and maybe we'll get it right. I think it's a very important thing for the NFL to not allow people to kneel during the playing of our National Anthem."
Even as Trump insisted he has plenty of time to prioritize both issues — “I wasn’t preoccupied with the NFL,” Trump said. “To me, the NFL situation is a very important situation. I’ve heard that before about was I preoccupied. Not at all. Not at all. I have plenty of time on my hands. All I do is work.” — criticism lingered.
And when Trump talked about the difficulties in getting aid to Puerto Rico, well, classic Trump...
The ‘very big ocean’ between here and Puerto Rico is not a perfect excuse for a lack of aid (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/26/the-very-big-ocean-between-here-and-puerto-rico-is-not-a-perfect-excuse-for-a-lack-of-aid/?utm_term=.f1f3331fa0a7)
Twice on Tuesday, President Trump offered an excuse for why government aid to Puerto Rico has been slow to arrive after Hurricane Maria: Puerto Rico is an island.
“It’s very tough, because it’s an island,” Trump said during a meeting with members of the House. “In Texas, we can ship the trucks right out there. And you know, we’ve gotten A-pluses on Texas and on Florida, and we will also on Puerto Rico. But the difference is, this is an island sitting in the middle of an ocean. And it’s a big ocean; it’s a very big ocean. And we’re doing a really good job.”
Later, during a brief news conference, he repeated the assertion.
“Frankly, we’re doing — and it’s the most difficult job because it’s on the island — it’s on an island in the middle of the ocean,” he said. “It’s out in the ocean. You can’t just drive your trucks there from other states.”
That’s true. Instead, supplies must be transported by airplane or ship instead of by truck. But that’s still not a great excuse for why the island is awaiting supplies.
FEMA is coordinating airlifts from U.S. Air Force C-17 cargo planes into Puerto Rico, bringing food and water. An update from the agency on Monday indicated that eight aircraft were delivering relief supplies and cargo to both that island and the Virgin Islands. Each aircraft can hold some 100,000 pounds of cargo.
That’s important. But there’s a way to scale that up. In January, a cargo ship operated by the U.S. Navy delivered supplies to researchers in Antarctica totaling nearly 7 million pounds of supplies.
So couldn’t the government have either sent supplies in advance (as it did for Texas and Florida by truck) or sent cargo after the fact that could have gotten to Puerto Rico by now?
The answer is yes and yes.
Yes, Donny, we know Puerto Rico is an island, did you know it's an American commonwealth populated by US citizens?
I'm really not sure he did...he's not too smart ya know?
-
Exclusive: IRS shares information with special counsel in Russia probe (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/special-counsel-irs-russia-probe-information-sharing/index.html)
(http://mobile.wnd.com/files/2013/06/Robert_Mueller.jpg)
Washington (CNN)The IRS is now sharing information with special counsel Robert Mueller about key Trump campaign officials, after the two entities clashed this summer over both the scope of the investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and a raid on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's home, people briefed on the matter tell CNN.
Part of the concern centered on the far-reaching and broad requests from Mueller's team. In the case of Manafort, Mueller's investigators are reaching back 11 years as they investigate possible tax and financial crimes, according to search warrant documents. Mueller is bound by a written order issued by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May which allows the special counsel to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."
After several months of being at odds, one source said, the IRS Criminal Investigation division is now sharing information about campaign associates, including Manafort and former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn. The sharing happened after the two camps reached an agreement following consultation with officials at the Treasury Department.
Note that the article does not say Mueller has Trump's tax records:
The new information about the depth of IRS involvement renews questions surrounding the controversial issue of President Donald Trump's tax returns, which he refused to release during the campaign despite decades of precedent by presidential candidates.
It is not clear whether the special counsel has asked for or obtained Trump's tax returns. Sources say if Mueller's office does have Trump's returns, then Rosenstein, who oversees the probe, likely would have needed to sign off, given the sensitivity surrounding the matter.
-
A photographer friend of mine took a picture of his cat. He gave me permission to post it on LuLa, and I thought this was the right place for it.
His title is: Pussy Grabs Trump.
-
Who said Trump is heartless?
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/trump-peta.jpg?w=748&h=498&crop=1)
-
...
-
Player stretching during the national anthem. A model patriot by NFL standards.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/09/nfl-player-lesean-mccoy-stretches-field-national-anthem-video/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/09/nfl-player-lesean-mccoy-stretches-field-national-anthem-video/)
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/bncore/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/McCoy-750x445.jpg)
-
...
Indeed. What does that say, then, about all the "real Americans" for whom this act of protest - not those past crimes - is the breaking point?
-
Indeed. What does that say, then, about all the "real Americans" for whom this act of protest - not those past crimes - is the breaking point?
Huh? Care to elaborate?
-
Welcome to the real world Donny...stuff doesn't just happen when you snap your fingers (like it did when you were the emperor of The Trump Organization). You gotta actually do some real work (the job isn't as easy as you thought huh?)
Donald Trump discovers he alone can’t ‘fix it’ after all (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/donald-trump-discovers-he-alone-cant-fix-it-after-all)
In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Committee last summer, Donald Trump raised a few eyebrows when he declared (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/yes-we-can-i-alone-can-fix-it), “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”
It’s become increasingly obvious that pretty much everyone knows the system better than Trump, and he alone can’t seem to fix much of anything. In fact, with the latest demise of the Republican health care campaign, the president is already making the case that that buck doesn’t stop anywhere near him. He declared (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/913004378486984704) via Twitter this morning:
“With one Yes vote in hospital & very positive signs from Alaska and two others (McCain is out), we have the HCare Vote, but not for Friday! We will have the votes for Healthcare but not for the reconciliation deadline of Friday, after which we need 60. Get rid of Filibuster Rule!”
As Simon Maloy joked (https://twitter.com/SimonMaloy/status/913010944401399808) this morning, we’ve “come a long way” since “I alone can fix it.”
Part of the problem with Trump’s pitch is that it’s factually wrong. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) had a medical issue this week, but he’s not in the hospital. What’s more, the “filibuster rule” – I’ll never know why the president likes to capitalize random words he finds interesting – isn’t the principal problem for Republicans, at least not on this issue.
According to the White House’s legislative affairs director, the party this week was four votes short on health care. If my arithmetic is correct, whether the threshold for success is 50 votes or 60 votes doesn’t much matter if there were 48 Senate Republicans ready to move forward on the Graham-Cassidy plan.
But the underlying problem is Trump’s refusal to accept responsibility for his own failures.
I guess Trump doesn't have the math to know that if you can't get 51 votes for a law, eliminating the super majority voting rule isn't really going to help. Ya see Donny, if you can't get 51, what makes you think getting rid of the 60 vote super majority rules will make any difference? The whole reason the Senate has the super majority voting rule is to try to help increase the nonpartisan creation of laws...something we haven't seen really since the GOP got control of congress. At some point the republicans and democrats are gonna HAVE to work together if they want ANYTHING good to happen for America...if the GOP is intent on trying to ram stuff down our collective throat, I'm pretty sure we're all gonna gap when the midterms come and the GOP may get their asses handed to them (like the democrats did under Obama).
“Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”
Trump alone prolly can't do much of anything–at least he hasn't yet...
-
The Distance Between Donald Trump and Puerto Rico (https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson-sorkin/the-distance-between-donald-trump-and-puerto-rico)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59cbbd4fb260205e0af88916/master/w_649,c_limit/Davidson-Trump-Finally-Turns-Puerto-Rican-Crisis.jpg)
President Trump announced that he would visit Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands next Tuesday.
How far away is Puerto Rico, from President Donald Trump’s perspective? “This is an island sitting in the middle of an ocean. And it’s a big ocean, it’s a very big ocean,” he said, on Tuesday morning, before a meeting with House members. Puerto Rico is, indeed, an island, but it is also an American island, inhabited by three and a half million United States citizens who are in immediate danger, owing to the havoc wrought by Hurricane Maria. The storm made landfall on the commonwealth more than a week ago as a Category 4 hurricane and swept it from end to end, destroying fields of crops and ripping the façades off of apartment buildings. Relief workers have still not been able to reach some towns in the interior. Trump announced that he would visit Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which were also hard hit, next Tuesday, which he said was the soonest practical date. Meanwhile, the majority of people in Puerto Rico remain without clean water, the electricity grid is inoperable, cell towers are down, roads are impassable, food is rotting, and many of the elderly and the sick have been left without care. All of this is happening in America, rather than some place distant from this country. But instead of emphasizing that closeness, or a sense of mutual obligation, Trump has, so far, focussed on how different Puerto Rico is, and what its people owe him, which is, above all, their gratitude.
“We have been really treated very, very nicely by the governor and by everybody else,” Trump said later, during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon with Mariano Rajoy, the Prime Minister of Spain. Trump was referring to the governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rosselló, and his colleagues. “They know how hard we’re working and what a good job we’re doing.” When a reporter nonetheless asked Trump whether he had perhaps spent a disproportionate amount of time tweeting complaints about N.F.L. players kneeling during the national anthem, when he should have been rallying support for Puerto Rico, Trump bristled, and insisted that his attacks on the players were important for America. Then he went back to talking about what he had done for Puerto Rico—“I have plenty of time on my hands”—adding that the governor “is so grateful for the job we are doing. In fact, he thanked me specifically for fema and all the first responders.” Trump described that praise as “incredible” and “amazing,” and said, “We have had tremendous reviews from government officials.”
Governor Rosselló, as it happened, had spent the previous day giving interviews during which he had called urgently for more help for the island. He has expressed appreciation for the hard work that fema has been doing, along with members of the military—on Tuesday morning, the Marines were clearing roads—but he made it very clear that it isn’t enough. The mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulín Cruz, whom Trump also portrayed as an admirer, said that the island was in the grip of a “humanitarian crisis.” Congress has not acted; fema is still working with money appropriated for Hurricane Harvey. The Department of Homeland Security turned down a request from several members of Congress to waive the Jones Act, which places restrictions on shipping. And there is more that the government and military can do.
Trump thinks his administration is doing a great job because the people around him have said the governor of Puerto Rico and major of San Juan have said they appreciate the fact FEMA is on the ground...but stuff ain't getting done, planes are not arriving fast enough and only now are ships with supplies being being sent.
The problem is, even when generators and fuel get there, the roads are so screwed up that trucks can't get to the supplies let alone distribute it to the people...the sad thing is that it's likely Trump didn't even know that Puerto Ricans are US citizens...
Puerto Rico is limping along, with what are meant to be backup generators using dwindling supplies of fuel. A number of air-control towers and radar installations are also down, preventing sufficient supplies from coming in. CNN reported that a children’s hospital in San Juan was running out of power for the ventilators that were needed to keep a dozen boys and girls alive—and that is in the capital, the most well-equipped and accessible part of the island. Dozens of hospitals and clinics are simply closed. Various headlines said that Rosselló has “begged” for help, but the plea he made was not humbling for him but humiliating for the rest of us, who have not done enough for our compatriots in Puerto Rico or in the Virgin Islands. “We are proud U.S. citizens,” Rosselló, who had come to the aid of other U.S. citizens in time of need, said. It was a point he was forced to make; as the Times noted, in a recent poll of people on the mainland, half did not realize that Puerto Ricans were natural-born American citizens.
Trump, at various instances, failed to correct that misapprehension. Before the meeting with House members, he said, “I grew up in New York, so I know many people from Puerto Rico. I know many Puerto Ricans. And these are great people, and we have to help them.” Indeed, he said that they were “fantastic people,” but he did not note, either then or during the press conference, that they were American people. Even in a tweet on Tuesday night in which he said “America’s hearts & prayers” were with Puerto Rico and that we would get through this “together!,” he did not mention shared citizenship. He’ll likely get around to it—plenty of people in his party, including Marco Rubio, have made the point—but the delay has a cost. In a series of tweets on Monday night, which marked Trump’s first comments on Puerto Rico after a long interval, he stressed how different it was from Texas and Florida, because of logistics (it is an island) and also financial status. “Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble…” the tweets began. “It’s [sic] old electrical grid, which was in terrible shape, was devastated. Much of the Island was destroyed, with billions of dollars....”—he continued the thought in a third tweet—“owed to Wall Street and the banks which, sadly, must be dealt with. Food, water and medical are top priorities—and doing well. #FEMA.”
Puerto Rico is quickly becoming Trump's Katrina and sadly, people are going to die because Trump's administration did live up to the expectations of the results handling Harvey and Irma...
-
Trump, 'Not Happy,' Joins Critics Of His Own Highflying Cabinet Officials (http://www.npr.org/2017/09/27/554041212/trump-not-happy-joins-critics-of-his-own-high-flying-cabinet-officials)
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/09/27/ap_17205785876456_slide-262dca122f336a5998c047c2824e5daee16d5dad-s800-c85.jpg)
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price, joined by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, speaks
to media aboard Air Force One. Price has reportedly spent more than $400,000 of public money on trips using private aircraft.
President Trump joined members of Congress on Wednesday in scrutinizing alleged government travel abuses by the secretary of health and human services and at least two other Cabinet officials.
"I was looking into it, and I will look into it, and I will tell you personally I'm not happy about it. I am not happy about it," Trump told White House reporters.
HHS Secretary Tom Price has reportedly spent more than $400,000 of public money on trips using private aircraft, including a charter flight to Nashville, Tenn., and back for a six-hour visit that included lunch with his son. The story was first reported by Politico.
Asked on Wednesday if he would fire Price, Trump said, "We'll see."
On Capitol Hill, House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings, D-Md., sent letters instructing administration officials to supply details and documents from all trips on government-owned or chartered aircraft by nonelected political appointees.
Letters went to the heads of 24 executive departments and independent agencies and to White House chief of staff John Kelly.
So, how's that DRAIN THE SWAMP promise working out Donny?
Kinda ironic that Price has been the biggest abuser now since in 2009, Price slammed House Democrats for authorizing funding for private jets.
Draining the Swamps seems to be the height of hypocrisy...but that's Trump for ya...however, I suspect that with this scandal and the fact congress couldn't get rid of the ACA, I'm thinking the Price will become too costly to keep around :~)
-
The combined costs to repair the damage from the three hurricanes are currently (and conservatively) projected to top $150B.
So what does Trump recommend? Cutting taxes. Brilliant.
-
...
Sure. People are fine with cheering for guys who attack their wives and abuse their kids, but when a bunch of players, the vast majority of whom actually aren't criminals, express discontent in a nonviolent manner, all of a sudden THAT'S a problem that will impact their fandom. It doesn't speak well of those who were big fans UNTIL the protest became an issue.
-
The combined costs to repair the damage from the three hurricanes are currently (and conservatively) projected to top $150B.
So what does Trump recommend? Cutting taxes. Brilliant.
The combined costs to care for illegal immigrants each year is conservatively estimated to top $135 billion.
And the Left wants to raise taxes. Smart.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757)
(http://militarymediainc.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Wasting-Money1.jpg)
-
Well, not for nothing but I would take what the Washington Examiner has to say about many things since they are not an unbiased news organization...
According to MediaBias/FactCheck (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) The Washington Examiner (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/) is:
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The Washington Examiner is an American political journalism website and weekly magazine based in Washington, D.C. that covers politics and policy in the United States and internationally. The publication is influential with conservative circles in politics and government-related fields.
So...I followed the suggestion of requiring further investigation and found this:
The article references as it's main source this report: "The Fiscal Burden Of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers" (https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers) that claims the cost of illegal immigration is costing the US $115 billion (I actually read the report). See they claim the Fed and state cost of servicing the illegals is about $135 bil and only pay about $19 bil which is where they get the $115 bil...
Problem is the reports factual basis and how the organization FAIR (that generated the report) is questionable....
The Southern Poverty Law Center considers FAIR an extremist hate group with one mission: to severely limit immigration into the United States. Although FAIR maintains a veneer of legitimacy that has allowed its principals to testify in Congress and lobby the federal government, this veneer hides much ugliness. See: FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/federation-american-immigration-reform)
FAIR leaders have ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists and have made many racist statements. Its advertisements have been rejected because of racist content. FAIR’s founder, John Tanton, has expressed his wish that America remain a majority-white population: a goal to be achieved, presumably, by limiting the number of nonwhites who enter the country. One of the group’s main goals is upending the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended a decades-long, racist quota system that limited immigration mostly to northern Europeans. FAIR President Dan Stein has called the Act a "mistake."
If the SPLC is a bit too progressive for your tastes how about this article:
A radical anti-immigration group infiltrated the GOP. Now it's in the White House (https://news.vice.com/story/fair-trump-white-house-federation-for-american-immigration-reform)
Dan Stein was 27 years old when he came to work as the press secretary of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. It was 1982, and the group — better known by its acronym FAIR — was operating out of a run-down townhouse on P Street in Washington, D.C., a “cozy old joint” with rats in the ceiling, Stein once recalled. FAIR counted just 10 members and was essentially a fringe group; back then, its nativist, radically anti-immigration views didn’t align with positions held by mainstream politicians, Republican or Democrat.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/ARC_Zuma_20161129_zaf_e26_333-2.jpg)
FAIR President Dan Stein speaks on the group's plan for immigration reform in the Trump administration
during a November press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Not anymore. Today, FAIR enjoys broad support among Republican lawmakers and unprecedented influence in the Oval Office. A cadre of former staffers and allies fill the Trump administration’s highest ranks, and FAIR’s ideas are profoundly shaping national immigration policy. On Tuesday, Julie Kirchner, who served as FAIR’s executive director for 10 years until 2015, was named the new ombudsman of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. She will report directly to the deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security and will be in charge of helping immigrants navigate the green-card and citizenship-application process.
Besides Kirchner, at least five other key advisers to President Trump on immigration have ties to FAIR: Jeff Sessions, Kris Kobach, Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, and Lou Barletta. Among them, they acted as legal counsel, board members, and longtime allies of the group. (Kirchner declined to comment, and none of the other five responded to multiple requests to be interviewed for this article.)
So pardon me if I discount your post...and the fact the FAIR seems to have influence worries me...
-
The combined costs to care for illegal immigrants each year is conservatively estimated to top $135 billion.
And the Left wants to raise taxes. Smart.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757)
Source, these guys:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2007/federation-american-immigration-reform’s-hate-filled-track-record
A lovely bunch, founded by this pearl:
The papers in the Bentley Library also show that Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has corresponded with Holocaust deniers, former Klan lawyers and the leading white nationalist thinkers of the era. He introduced key FAIR leaders to the president of the Pioneer Fund, a white supremacist group set up to encourage "race betterment," at a 1997 meeting at a private club. He wrote a major funder to encourage her to read the work of a radical anti-Semitic professor — to "give you a new understanding of the Jewish outlook on life" — and suggested that the entire FAIR board discuss the professor's theories on the Jews. He practically worshipped a principal architect of the Immigration Act of 1924 (instituting a national origin quota system and barring Asian immigration), a rabid anti-Semite whose pro-Nazi American Coalition of Patriotic Societies was indicted for sedition in 1942.
-
Poll: Majority of voters say Trump isn't fit to be president (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/27/trump-poll-fit-to-be-president-243219)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/dumbtrump.jpeg)
More Democrats than Republicans say President Donald Trump is not fit for the office.
A majority of American voters say Donald Trump is not "fit to serve as president," according to a Quinnipiac University poll (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2487) released Wednesday, with 51 percent of respondents saying they are embarrassed to have Trump serve as president.
The poll reports that 59 percent say Trump is not honest, 60 percent say he does not have good leadership skills and 61 percent say he does not share their values.
Notably, voters say — 69 percent to 26 percent — that Trump should stop tweeting.
The survey highlighted deep divisions along racial lines. Fifty percent of white voters say Trump is fit to serve, while 94 percent of black voters say he is not fit for the role; Hispanic voters are split 60 percent to 40 percent. Overall, 62 percent of voters disapprove of the way the president has handled race relations. Sixty percent of voters say Trump is doing more to divide the country than unite it.
The poll also revealed divisions among men and women. Men are divided 49 percent to 49 percent, while 63 percent of women say Trump is not fit.
More Democrats than Republicans disapprove of Trump’s fitness for office. Ninety-four percent of Democrats say Trump is not fit to be president, while 84 percent of Republicans responded that he is fit for the job. Independent voters are split, with 57 saying he is fit and 40 percent saying he isn’t.
Forty-nine percent of voters in the poll are in favor of Democrats winning control of the Senate in 2018.
The poll was conducted Sept. 21-26 by phone, among 1,412 voters nationwide.
Yeah, well, Trump's numbers had started to go up but then he decided to call NFL players who kneel SOB's and well, it didn't go over real well...
DONALD TRUMP IS BACK TO BEING THE LEAST POPULAR PRESIDENT EVER AFTER NFL TWEETS (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-worst-president-ever-popularity-672592)
President Donald Trump's popularity among American voters is once again in decline, falling back to the historic lows that have marked the first eight months of his White House tenure.
The president’s approval rating hovers at 38.8 percent, according to a weighted average the polling site FiveThirtyEight released Wednesday morning. That total reflects a dip among several daily tracking polls, including from CBS News (35 percent), Gallup (39 percent), and Trump's favorite (and more favorable) right wing polling site, Rasmussen Reports (43 percent).
The decline appears to have started during the weekend, when Trump sparked controversy over his use of Twitter to condemn protests within the NFL against police brutality and racial inequality during televised national anthems at the beginnings of games.
I predict his ratings will fall even more because of the poor way the Trump admin's handling of Puerto Rico aid. Wait till we start hearing of people dying because of the lack of food, water and medicine. Yeah, I know, it's tough...Puerto Rico is an island in a really big ocean!
-
"we will always defend our borders."
Except when we dodge the draft, of course.
You do not become a rich entitled 1%er by defending your borders
You become a rich entitled 1%er by letting the other dumb poor bastages guard the boarders instead of you.
-
Kinda ironic that Price has been the biggest abuser now since in 2009, Price slammed House Democrats for authorizing funding for private jets.
Just because I am *that* type of guy, I need to point out that there is nothing ironic about this. The word you should have used is hypocritical.
-
[...]
Yeah, I know, it's tough...Puerto Rico is an island in a really big ocean!
And it was really hard to predict the hurricane's trajectory and force, not.
With Harvey and Irma The Dutch and French marines were already partly on the spot on the islands that are/were part of the nation's territory before the storms hit, and partly waiting a bit outside the trajectory on nearby islands and at sea with emergency aid to deploy as soon as the harbors and airfields were made accessible, and ready for airdrops of emergency supplies in case it would take too long to clear roads and restore electricity.
These activities need to be done, before the storm actually hits, or is likely to hit. Apparently little was done to protect the citizens of Puerto Rico against the aftermath of the devastation, making their situation even worse.
It's a bloody disgrace for such a powerful country doing so little for even its own citizens.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The combined costs to care for illegal immigrants each year is conservatively estimated to top $135 billion.
And the Left wants to raise taxes. Smart.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757)
This is the best you can do? This group is pretty much an extremist group: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/federation-american-immigration-reform
-
As is The Southern Poverty Law Center.
-
As is The Southern Poverty Law Center.
Only according to white supremist groups and the far right...any group that Bannon hates is ok in my book!
-
Once again, the repeatedly-failed "trickle down" economics con job is foisted off on the Trump base. Namely, under-educated middle aged white males. Will you guys ever learn? You are being HAD.
WASHINGTON — The tax plan that the Trump administration outlined on Wednesday is a potentially huge windfall for the wealthiest Americans. It would not directly benefit the bottom third of the population. As for the middle class, the benefits appear to be modest.
The administration and its congressional allies are proposing to sharply reduce taxation of business income, primarily benefiting the small share of the population that owns the vast majority of corporate equity. President Trump said on Wednesday that the cuts would increase investment and spur growth, creating broader prosperity. But experts say the upside is limited, not least because the economy is already expanding.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/us/politics/trump-tax-plan-wealthy-middle-class-poor.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
-
It gets better. The White House Economic Adviser "advises" Americans that "The wealthy are not getting a tax cut".
The advisor's name? Cohn. Gary Cohn.
Perfect.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/28/trump-tax-reform-tax-cuts-243246?lo=ap_c1
-
It gets better. The White House Economic Adviser "advises" Americans that "The wealthy are not getting a tax cut".
The advisor's name? Cohn. Gary Cohn.
Perfect.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/28/trump-tax-reform-tax-cuts-243246?lo=ap_c1
Of course we have no clue about any of this until we see an actual piece of legislation that outlines how everything will be handled. The big issue will be pass through corporations such as LLPs and LLCs that are able to move an individual into a lower 'corporate' bracket from their individual bracket. These are the types of tax shelters that real estate developers, hedge fund, and the like use. Since we do not have access to President Trump's taxes, there is no way to assess his whether his statement that he will not be getting a tax break from this proposal is true or not. Most real estate holding companies such as Trump's and Kushner's are a complex maze of multiple LLCs. I'm sure they will make out quite well under any "tax reform" proposal. It's ironic that Gary Cohn's former company Goldman Sachs would be doing much better today had they kept to the partnership model rather than going public as a stock company. Since they are a bank, most of the expense write offs being discussed are not applicable to them whereas they might see a huge gain were they pass through company.
-
Since we do not have access to President Trump's taxes, there is no way to assess his whether his statement that he will not be getting a tax break from this proposal is true or not.
Yes we do...
Based on Politifact's compiling of Trump's lies (being about 60% of the time) we have about a 30% chance Trump is telling the truth when he talks about anything...so the odds are real good that what Trump says about this new tax reform is a lie.
-
With Tax Cuts on the Table, Once-Mighty Deficit Hawks Hardly Chirp
For years, Republican lawmakers lamented the soaring national debt, pressing for spending cuts and clinging to the mantle of fiscal responsibility. But last week, Senate Republicans hammered out a deal to allow for as much as $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, betting that supercharged growth will make up for lost revenue, a potentially dubious prospect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/politics/trump-tax-cuts-deficit-republicans-congress.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
-
...so the odds are real good that what Trump says about this new tax reform is a lie.
Like I said...lies spew forth when Trump opens his mouth to speak!
Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim about the estate tax, small businesses and farms (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-about-estate-tax-sm/)
(https://www.capradio.org/media/8152731/POF%20twitter%20card.jpg)
Quick, grab the fire extinguisher!!!
Our ruling
Trump said that ending the estate tax would "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer."
That’s a ridiculously high estimate. Only 5,460 estates even pay the tax each year, according to a credible estimate, and of those, about 80 represented small businesses or farms. We rate the statement Pants on Fire.
Donald the Liar said:
Ending the estate tax would "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer."
Indianapolis – Wednesday, September 27, 2017
In fact, it's really a major tax break for the 0.1%ers...
So how many estates are affected by the tax? Not many, and the people who pay it are usually among the country’s richest families.
For 2017, the Tax Policy Center estimated, based on past tax data and modeling, that 11,310 individuals will have estates big enough to file an estate tax return. "After allowing for deductions and credits, 5,460 estates will owe tax," the center concluded. "Over two-thirds of these taxable estates will come from the top 10 percent of income earners and close to one-fourth will come from the top 1 percent alone."
The top 10 percent of income earners would pay 88 percent of estate tax revenues, the center found, while the richest 0.1 percent could pay 27 percent.
So, ask yourself this...does this help you at all?
If so, what the hell are you doing posting here on LuLa–go out and spend your millions going to great places to shoot your obscenely expensive camera equipment. Oh, wait...that covers a lot of us 8)
-
See foot...grab foot...stick in mouth...then choke. That's what Elaine Duke just did...
Homeland Security chief Elaine Duke just made Trump's Puerto Rico problem worse (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/elaine-duke-hurricane-maria/index.html)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/6e692618ead22efd1bb5f481476a66d82c39266a/c=58-0-966-683&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2017/09/26/USATODAY/USATODAY/636420527465153967-OPPOSE-2-.JPG)
Washington (CNN)After spending the weekend tweeting about the NFL and why its owners should force players to stand during the National Anthem (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/donald-trump-nfl-owners-afraid-of-their-players-health-care/index.html), President Donald Trump has spent this week playing catchup on the still-unfolding humanitarian crisis in the wake of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.
On Thursday afternoon, acting Homeland Security head Elaine Duke made that task even more complicated. Duke was asked by reporters at the White House whether she was satisfied with the federal government's response to Hurricane Maria and the devastation it has wrought.
Here's her answer (bolding is mine):
"I am very satisfied. I know it's a hard storm to recover from but the amount of progress that's been made, and I really would appreciate any support that we get. I know it is really a good news story in terms of our ability to reach people and the limited number of deaths that have taken place in such a devastating hurricane."
Remember the context here. Puerto Rico is dealing with mass devastation (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/us/puerto-rico-maria-by-the-numbers-trnd/index.html). They have no power. Food is in short supply. So is water.
Given that some of those most basic needs aren't being met -- and the fact that Trump's administration has come under fire for not moving as aggressively to address the devastation caused by Maria as it did for hurricanes Irma and Harvey -- Duke's comment feels deeply out of touch.
Remember that just yesterday, Trump had to defend himself from criticism he was distracted from Puerto Rico by his NFL fight. "Was I preoccupied? Not at all," Trump told reporters Wednesday. "Not at all. I have plenty of time on my hands. All I do is work."
Focusing on process is almost never a good thing for politicians -- and that goes double or even triple when you are dealing with ANY loss of life or ANY sort of humanitarian crisis.
I would guess that Elaine Duke is a tiny bit out of touch with reality (and perhaps should be out of a job)
-
Only according to white supremist groups and the far right...any group that Bannon hates is ok in my book!
Do you include the Wall Street Journal in that distinguished group?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-insidious-influence-of-the-splc-1498085416
The Insidious Influence of the SPLC
Its branding of ‘hate groups’ and individuals is biased, sometimes false—and feeds polarization.
-
Do you include the Wall Street Journal in that distinguished group?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-insidious-influence-of-the-splc-1498085416
Sorry, can't read the article...and a headline and subhead can't give context to the story itself. Got any other sources that can be read without a subscription?
(and in general I find the WSJ pretty far on the right side of the political spectrum because, you know, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch. Not a very progressive sort of guy–just saying')
-
and in general I find the WSJ pretty far on the right side of the political spectrum because, you know, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The news articles in the Journal still qualify as accurate reporting, as far as I can tell, as they did before the Murdoch acquisition. The opinion pieces tend to have a strong conservative bias—usually business conservative, which was also the case before the Murdoch acquisition, rather than right-wing Bannonista populist. (Although arguably since Murdoch acquired it, the paper may be more receptive to extreme views than it was in the pre-Murdoch era.)
Edited to improve punctuation.
-
The news articles in the Journal still qualify as accurate reporting, as far as I can tell, as they did before the Murdoch acquisition. The opinion pieces tend to have a strong conservative bias—usually business conservative, which was also the case before the Murdoch acquisition—rather than right-wing Bannonista populist. (Although arguably since Murdoch acquired it, the paper may be more receptive to extreme views than it was in the pre-Murdoch era.)
You don't even believe your own beliefs. First you stated that news is accurately reported. You also state that they have a strong business conservative viewpoint but not Bannonista. Then you sum up by contradicting yourself by saying that the paper may be more receptive to extreme views. But nothing you said at first indicates that they have published those extreme views. So just how are they more receptive? Don't you think you should wait until they publish extreme views before accusing them? It just shows that the left won't believe the truth even if it hits them in the head.
-
Sure. People are fine with cheering for guys who attack their wives and abuse their kids, but when a bunch of players, the vast majority of whom actually aren't criminals, express discontent in a nonviolent manner, all of a sudden THAT'S a problem that will impact their fandom. It doesn't speak well of those who were big fans UNTIL the protest became an issue.
Who was cheering players who beat their wives? Weren't they in fact fired? Fans were pretty upset about that too.
Regarding Kaepernick, when he kneeled a year ago before Trump, the team fired him, not fans. President Obama said of that incident that his action was disrespectful to many Americans and was inappropriate to do during the anthem even if he had a right to protest. It's only now that entire teams including managements are disrespecting the flag that the fans are throwing in the towel.
Frankly, I think the country has lost it's way. We don't have civics classes anymore where the anthem, pledges of allegiance, and patriotism are taught. What the flag represents. And it's not about race. They should teach history classes that show how many blacks as well as white nd others who have died fighting for that flag and our country. It belongs to all of us. We should show some respect. To blacks and whites and all Americans for what the flag and country represent.
-
Welcome to the real world Donny...stuff doesn't just happen when you snap your fingers (like it did when you were the emperor of The Trump Organization). You gotta actually do some real work (the job isn't as easy as you thought huh?)
Donald Trump discovers he alone can’t ‘fix it’ after all (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/donald-trump-discovers-he-alone-cant-fix-it-after-all)
I guess Trump doesn't have the math to know that if you can't get 51 votes for a law, eliminating the super majority voting rule isn't really going to help. Ya see Donny, if you can't get 51, what makes you think getting rid of the 60 vote super majority rules will make any difference? The whole reason the Senate has the super majority voting rule is to try to help increase the nonpartisan creation of laws...something we haven't seen really since the GOP got control of congress. At some point the republicans and democrats are gonna HAVE to work together if they want ANYTHING good to happen for America...if the GOP is intent on trying to ram stuff down our collective throat, I'm pretty sure we're all gonna gap when the midterms come and the GOP may get their asses handed to them (like the democrats did under Obama).
“Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”
Trump alone prolly can't do much of anything–at least he hasn't yet...
The Democrats will not vote for anything. They want this Republican congress to fail so they call it a "do nothing Congress" and Trump as a do nothing president. Then they hope to win in 2018 and take over. It might work. On the other hand , it's possible it could backfire if the Republicans could blame the Democrats like the Republicans did when the Dems were in power, of obstructionists. Their argument will be along the line of, give us more Republican Senators and then we'll get the bills passed. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.
Regarding the tax bill, I suspect that will go to failure. There are too many conservative Republicans who will refuse to cut taxes regardless who gets the cut. They will vote against any bill that increases the deficit and debt. Democrats will continue to play rope-a-dope and lend no support regardless of whether it's good for the country.
-
And it was really hard to predict the hurricane's trajectory and force, not.
With Harvey and Irma The Dutch and French marines were already partly on the spot on the islands that are/were part of the nation's territory before the storms hit, and partly waiting a bit outside the trajectory on nearby islands and at sea with emergency aid to deploy as soon as the harbors and airfields were made accessible, and ready for airdrops of emergency supplies in case it would take too long to clear roads and restore electricity.
These activities need to be done, before the storm actually hits, or is likely to hit. Apparently little was done to protect the citizens of Puerto Rico against the aftermath of the devastation, making their situation even worse.
It's a bloody disgrace for such a powerful country doing so little for even its own citizens.
Cheers,
Bart
First of all, the US through FEMA started prepositioning even before Irma the storm that hit long before Maria even became a direct threat.
FEMA bulletin of 9/5/17: "Approximately 124 FEMA staff have been deployed to the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, with an additional 83 staff currently serving in the FEMA call center in Puerto Rico. FEMA has pre-staged meals and water in preparation for the storm, to be provided as requested by Commonwealth and territory partners. Regional Response Coordination Centers in Atlanta, Georgia, New York, New York, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are all activated with interagency partners to monitor Hurricane Irma, and respond as the storm track changes. FEMA regional and national Incident Management Assistance Teams are on the ground in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and en route to Florida."
https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2017/09/05/fema-and-federal-partners-prepare-catastrophic-category-5-hurricane-irma
Beside that, there an issue with scale. I'm not knocking your marines. But. my wife and I cruised to St Martin, a very rich and well developed island. It's tiny. It's so small, we were able to hire a cab that took us to sightsee both the Dutch and French sides in just a few hours. The island is split approximately in two with the French owning one half and the Dutch the other half. The island is only 34 square miles compared to Puerto Rico which is 3500 square miles, more than one hundred times the size of St. Martin and larger than the State of Delaware. It's 1000 miles at sea from the American mainland. Beside the main island, there are two other islands making up Puerto Rico-Vieques and Culebra. That complicates the support. St. Martin has about 80,000 people, French and Dutch sides total. Puerto Rico has about 4,000,000 people about 50 times the size. If Puerto Rico was a city, it would be the second largest city in America before NYC the largest but ahead of LA and Chicago. When I was in St Maartin, the Dutch side, there were 5-6 100,000+ ton cruise vessels in a modern port beside mine. The infrastructure is top notch because of tourists as it's a very rich island.
Puerto Rico which governs itself has let its infrastructure deteriorate over the years. They went into huge debt like Venezuela even though they pay no US taxes and for many years corporations, including many of the largest American pharmaceutical companies, who located there also didn't have to pay taxes. This created many great jobs and wealth for the island. Additionally, the US federal government has bailed them out before due to storms and will again. But P.R. did nothing to improve their infrastructure situation and probably won't again. We should help them as quickly as we can. But they have to do better to improve their infrastructure especially electricity, telephones, marine ports and airports. Frankly considering their debt, I don't know how they'll do it. Maybe they'll vote to become a state so they can get bailed out.
-
Betsy DeVos Says She Did Math on Trump’s Tax Plan and It Will Save Nation Eleventy Krillion (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/betsy-devos-says-she-did-math-on-trumps-tax-plan-and-it-will-save-nation-eleventy-krillion)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59cd65801f0b2232b04b2770/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-Betsy-DeVos-Says-Math-Trumps-Tax-Plan-Will-Save-Nation-Eleventy-Krillion.jpg)
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report))—In a ringing endorsement from the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos said on Thursday that she did the math on Donald Trump’s tax plan and that she estimates it will save the United States roughly eleventy krillion dollars.
“I took out a pencil and paper and figured it out the old-fashioned way,” DeVos told reporters. “I wound up going through a lot of paper, because eleventy krillion has ten hundredteen zeroes.”
DeVos stressed that the eleventy-krillion figure was actually a conservative estimate. “The exact number was between eleventy and ninety-quelve, but I rounded down to eleventy,” she said.
The Education Secretary said that the national debt, which currently stands at more than twenty trillion dollars, would be greatly reduced by the eleventy-krillion-dollar windfall.
“If you subtract eleventy krillion from twenty trillion, you get a number so small it has no name,” she explained.
-
The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/28/us/politics/trump-tax-benefit.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202&_r=0) has done a rough analysis of the savings President Trump will realize under the new "tax reform" proposal.
President Trump could cut his tax bills by more than $1.1 billion, including saving tens of millions of dollars in a single year, under his proposed tax changes, a New York Times analysis has found.
-
I hope this isn't true, https://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/listen-trump-brags-about-turning-away-in-disgust-as-elderly-mar-a-lago-guest-laid-bleeding-on-the-floor/amp/ (https://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/listen-trump-brags-about-turning-away-in-disgust-as-elderly-mar-a-lago-guest-laid-bleeding-on-the-floor/amp/), but it sounds like it is.
-
There has been some talk of offshoring jobs in this thread. Here is an interesting article about it wrt IBM; some of the comments are the most interesting part.
https://wolfstreet.com/2017/09/28/ibm-bulks-up-in-india-guts-us-jobs-to-please-wall-street/ (https://wolfstreet.com/2017/09/28/ibm-bulks-up-in-india-guts-us-jobs-to-please-wall-street/)
Instead of looking at this as off-shoring, which is a North American-centric point of view, maybe it’s better to think of it as the future. There are only 330 million people in the US and 33 million in Canada. We think we’re important, but maybe we’re not. We’re dwarfed by India and China, so maybe the real long-term reason that companies want a footprint in those countries is because that’s where all the real the action will soon be.
-
Mueller lost his second top FBI investigator. Maybe there's not much to do.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/robert-muellers-russia-investigation-team-loses-2nd-fbi/story?id=50166109
-
Hehe...
-
I might be going out on a limb here, but I seriously doubt Trump will be in favor of any tax plan that does not benefit him and his family
-
I thought kneeling was a show of respect.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/274/312/879.jpg)
-
I might be going out on a limb here, but I seriously doubt Trump will be in favor of any tax plan that does not benefit him and his family
Even if true, it matters how? Congress votes, not Trump.
You might argue that Republican representatives in Congress are wealthy by themselves and would vote for it out of self-interest, but that has nothing to do with Trump.
-
You might argue that Republican representatives in Congress are wealthy by themselves and would vote for it out of self-interest, but that has nothing to do with Trump.
Indeed: I've seen no evidence, based on his vague public comments about it, that Trump actually has any clue what is included in the tax "reform" framework that has been submitted to the Congress in his name.
And, frankly, I'm skeptical about whether the tax proposal was crafted to serve the personal financial interests of Republican members of the House of Representatives or the Senate, either. While few of them are living from paycheck to paycheck, even fewer could be characterized as among the very rich who would benefit from the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax or the estate tax. (By the way, it's worth noting that the Democratic members of Congress, on average, aren't exactly hovering at the poverty line, either.)
I suspect the Republican tax bill was crafted primarily to benefit major donors to Republican congressional re-election campaigns. Trump and his heirs might save many millions if Congress were to implement these proposals, but probably that is just lagniappe.
-
DOJ demands Facebook information from 'anti-administration activists'
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/facebook-anti-administration-activists/index.html
QUOTE "Washington (CNN)Trump administration lawyers are demanding the private account information of potentially thousands of Facebook users in three separate search warrants served on the social media giant, according to court documents obtained by CNN.
The warrants specifically target the accounts of three Facebook users who are described by their attorneys as "anti-administration activists who have spoken out at organized events, and who are generally very critical of this administration's policies." "
So what's up with the USA's first amendment?
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, Carol Ann! We cannot read Cat in the Hat today! Dr. Seuss was a racist. Are you a racist, Carol Ann?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/29/librarian-rejects-melania-trump-s-dr-seuss-books-calls-them-racist-propaganda.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/29/librarian-rejects-melania-trump-s-dr-seuss-books-calls-them-racist-propaganda.html)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/ec371ad74498166d3853bf71e81510c0220393a8/c=54-0-4650-3456&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2016/03/02/IAGroup/IowaCity/635925223490055676-read-america-1.jpg)
-
The Left -- "Taking the Knee is not about protesting the Flag. It's a call to live up to the values the American Flag represents."
Really? Then wouldn't it be even more reverent to stomp, burn and spit on the Flag?
https://www.bustle.com/p/is-taking-a-knee-protesting-the-flag-football-players-are-making-a-much-bigger-point-2440073 (https://www.bustle.com/p/is-taking-a-knee-protesting-the-flag-football-players-are-making-a-much-bigger-point-2440073)
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-28-at-8.24.04-PM-640x319.png)
-
Really? Then wouldn't it be even more reverent to stomp, burn and spit on the Flag?
If you have to ask the question, you wouldn't understand the answer...
-
The “middle class miracle”? Surely you jest...right?
Trump could save more than $1 billion under his new tax plan (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-could-save-more-than-dollar1-billion-under-his-new-tax-plan/ar-AAsBLyY)
(http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAsBLyW.img?h=486&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=636&y=277)
President Trump has argued that he would not personally benefit from his tax plan.
President Donald Trump could cut his tax bills by more than $1.1 billion, including saving tens of millions of dollars in a single year, under his proposed tax changes, a New York Times analysis has found.
On Wednesday, the White House announced a sweeping plan to cut a variety of taxes that would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. The estimate of Trump’s savings is based in part on information from his 2005 federal tax return. The analysis compares what his tax burden would be under current law with what it would be under the proposal.
Trump’s 2005 return is the most recent available publicly and was released in March by David Cay Johnston, a former New York Times reporter. The Times’ figure also relies on an estimate of Trump’s net worth, calculated by the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index to be $2.86 billion.
“I don’t benefit. I don’t benefit,” Trump said Wednesday. “In fact, very, very strongly, as you see, I think there’s very little benefit for people of wealth.”
In fact, high-income earners like Trump are likely to benefit disproportionately if the White House proposal becomes law. The estimates, calculated with the help of Robert Willens, an accounting expert, and Stephen Breitstone, a tax lawyer, provide a view into precisely how.
Savings of about $1.1 billion from repealing the estate tax
Though it would not be reflected on his income tax return, Trump’s proposal to eliminate the estate tax would generate the largest tax savings. If his assets — reportedly valued at $2.86 billion — were transferred after his death under today’s rules, his estate would be taxed at about 40 percent. Repealing the federal estate tax could save his family about $1.1 billion, though it could still be subject to New York estate taxes.
Savings of $31 million from repealing the alternative minimum tax
The decades-old alternative minimum tax is meant to prevent America’s wealthiest from using deductions to pay very low or no federal income tax. In 2005, it accounted for about 80 percent of Trump’s overall income tax payment. His plan to repeal the tax would save him $31.3 million.
Savings of about $16 million from taxing certain types of business income at 25 percent
Trump’s proposed changes could allow individuals to qualify for a significantly reduced tax rate of 25 percent on certain types of income they receive through business partnerships and similar entities. That is up from the original proposal in April of 15 percent, but far lower than the top tax rates currently faced by high-income earners of 39.6 percent.
Trump could save as much as $6.2 million on business income and $9.8 million on income from real estate and other kinds of partnerships under this plan, compared with his tax burden under current law. (In 2005, much of this taxable income was offset by a $103.2 million write-down in business losses.)
The proposal released Wednesday “contemplates” that Congress will adopt measures to prevent the wealthy from recharacterizing their income to take advantage of the new, lower rate and avoid the top personal rate. If that happens, it could have a big effect on Trump’s tax bill.
Savings of about $500,000 from cutting the highest tax rate
The proposal to reduce the highest tax rate to 35 percent from 39.6 percent would save high-income earners similar to Trump a relatively small amount compared with the repeal of the alternative minimum tax. The $500,000 in savings is a rough estimate because Trump has not specified income levels for his proposed tax brackets.
Increase of $3 million to $5 million in taxes from repealing most deductions
Trump would probably lose most of the deductions he reported in 2005. Depending on his effective tax rate under the proposal, Trump could pay roughly $3 million to $5 million more in taxes.
As a resident of New York City, the largest portion of Trump’s deductions probably came from his local and state income taxes. Under his proposal, mortgage interest and charitable giving would still be deductible.
Yeah, ok...so he looses some deductions but his charitable giving would still be deductible...wait, has he ever given any real money to charity? I mean, I know his foundation bought a big portrait of himself at a charity auction...did that count as a charitable deduction?
-
Tom Price broke Trump's cardinal rule: Never get bad headlines for the boss (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/politics/tom-price-donald-trump-fired/index.html)
(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170928161928-tom-price-09-28-2017-exlarge-169.jpg)
(CNN)Less than an hour before Donald Trump fired accepted the resignation of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/politics/tom-price-resigns/index.html), the President made very clear why his Cabinet secretary was being let go.
"I don't like the optics," Trump said, adding: "We're renegotiating NAFTA, we renegotiating so many things and making much better deals. You'll be seeing other things come up. So I don't like to see somebody that perhaps there's the perception that it wasn't right."
Just in case you missed the point, Trump also noted: "I was disappointed because I didn't like it, cosmetically or otherwise."
"Optics." "Perception." "Cosmetically."
You get the idea.
Price was fired not because of the more than two dozen private flights he took at taxpayer expense. He was fired because he violated Trump's first principle: Never, ever make the boss look bad -- especially in the press.
So, Tom paid the Price...get it?
8)
-
So what's up with the USA's first amendment?
This is a follow up of the story that the DOJ got a search warrant to get the IP numbers of people who visited the disruptj20.org web site leading up to the Trump Inauguration.
The Department of Justice Demands Records on Every Visit to Anti-Trump Protest Site DisruptJ20 (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/08/15/department_of_justice_demands_1_3_million_ip_addresses_of_visitors_to_disruptj20.html)
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2017/08/15/department_of_justice_demands_1_3_million_ip_addresses_of_visitors_to_disruptj20/USPOLITICSTRUMPINAUGURATIONPARADE.jpeg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpeg)
Protesters shout at President Donald Trump and first lady Melania as they drive past in the
inaugural parade in Washington on Jan. 20.
If you’ve visited the website DisruptJ20, which helped organize protests during the inauguration of Donald Trump, the Department of Justice is interested in learning more about you.
On Saturday, a judge in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia approved a search warrant that would require DreamHost, DisruptJ20’s provider, to turn over a wide range of information about the site and its visitors. In addition to information about the site’s creators, the DOJ demands “logs showing connections related to the website, and any other transactional information, including records of session times and duration.” In short, the government is looking for records of everyone who even visited the site, which is to say it's effectively compiling info on those who showed even a modicum of interest in protesting the administration.
It seems that the DOJ (Trump) didn't appreciate "the resistance"...
-
Trump played the game to win according to the rules and won, so suck it up.
Sorry guys but something is wrong in American election system. Trump got 2 millions votes less...but every country deserves the winner!
-
Hilarious!
-
Hilarious!
Hilarious for some, not so much for others:
Post on Logan County Sheriff's Facebook page causes controversy
http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska/post-on-logan-county-sheriff-s-facebook-page-causes-controversy/article_b8d71e22-a55a-11e7-b5ea-4799c9e58655.html
Frankly, in a less divided nation it might be seen as a good joke, but not in a nation that has a government that sows division.
Sow division, reap division or worse.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...a nation that has a government that sows division...
Yes, the division started with Trump.
It was all peachy under Obama and his predecessors. What a wonderful unity we had in Ferguson, BLM, etc. Not to mention McCarthyism, hippies, Chicago Democratic Convention, etc.
-
Yes, the division started with Trump.
That's your opinion. But he surely didn't bring people together but widened existing gaps instead.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Trump attacks San Juan mayor over hurricane response
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/30/politics/trump-tweets-puerto-rico-mayor/index.html
QUOTE "Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump launched an attack on San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz on Saturday for criticizing the White House's hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico, accusing her of "poor leadership" and suggesting that the island's residents are not doing enough to help themselves.
"The Mayor of San Juan, who was very complimentary only a few days ago, has now been told by the Democrats that you must be nasty to Trump," the President tweeted from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, where he is spending the weekend. "... Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort." "
It's hard to imagine that the FEMA personnel on the ground in Puerto Rico, have not been able to do more. So what's going on there? Obviously not an easy task with a totally destructed infrastructure, but doesn't the FEMA have airdrop capabilities to deliver food and water? Also, the only recently lifted ban on foreign ships for bringing supplies, was a waste of valuable time.
Of course, it's not hard to understand Trump's reaction.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Apparently the FEMA is more involved with paperwork than with actual assistance?
https://www.reuters.com/video/2017/09/30/we-are-dying-here-san-juan-mayor?videoId=372641035&videoChannel=1003
-
Obama, a uniter?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/O0PjRe72qC1RS/giphy.gif)
-
This kinda explains a lot...
Letters: lack of sleep could be bad for the character too. Look at Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2017/sep/30/lack-sleep-had-for-character-mental-health)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c91bb6e2c34347f73a007fbbf681551c664fa7bd/825_529_1374_825/master/1374.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=58941232c725e0bf2b06702de197c344)
‘Don’t sleep any more than you have to,’ Donald Trump advised in Think Like a Billionaire,
where he claimed to sleep only four hours a night.
Too little sleep, like alcohol, tobacco, red meat, burnt toast and everything else, can kill us (Rachel Cooke, “‘‘Sleep should be prescribed’ (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/24/why-lack-of-sleep-health-worst-enemy-matthew-walker-why-we-sleep)’”, New Review). But beyond sleep and death, there is sleep and life. The sleep expert Prof Matthew Walker implies that lack of sleep can cause mental illness; he also says: “I get on a flight at 10am when people should be at peak alert, and I look around, and half of the plane has immediately fallen asleep.”
The less people sleep, the less they remember, the less they learn, the less they understand and the less they empathise. In the moralist’s terms, the less people sleep, the less capable they will be of having a conscience, feeling solidarity or possessing a decent character. At the same time, sacrificing sleep presumably correlates to advancement in business and politics and being an important person flying somewhere.
Successful people are, through the Faustian bargain they have made with the night, more likely than most to be bad people, evil people, people who make the world a worse place for living in it. Donald Trump addressed the point in Think Like a Billionaire (2004): “Don’t sleep any more than you have to. I usually sleep about four hours per night.”
Benjamin Letzler
Oberursel
Germany
-
Trump keeps Tweeting his true colors...
Donald Trump sparks outrage after lashing out at Puerto Rico mayor over Hurricane Maria relief efforts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/donald-trump-lashes-puerto-rico-mayor-asked-help-wake-hurricane/)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/TELEMMGLPICT000141466118.jpg)
Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz hugs a woman during her visit to an elderly home.
irst came the desperate appeal for more help. Carmen Yulin Cruz, mayor of Puerto Rico’s main city San Juan, made it clear with a T-shirt slogan that read: " Help Us, We Are Dying. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/mayor-puerto-ricos-capital-city-wears-t-shirt-saying-help-us/)"
In interviews she pleaded for more federal aid for an island battered by Hurricane Maria (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/puerto-rico-hurricane-dispatch-anger-growing-among-americas/), where she said people had no choice but to drink from creeks.
And then she addressed her message directly to the President.
“I keep saying it: SOS. If anyone can hear us; if Mr. Trump can hear us, let's just get it over with and get the ball rolling," she told CNN.
Donald Trump heard her but was not impressed. As he has done so many times before he used Twitter to hit back at what he took to be personal criticism, accusing Ms Cruz of poor leadership.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The Mayor of San Juan, who was very complimentary only a few days ago, has now been told by the Democrats that you must be nasty to Trump.
6:19 AM - Sep 30, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They....
6:26 AM - Sep 30, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. 10,000 Federal workers now on Island doing a fantastic job.
6:29 AM - Sep 30, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The military and first responders, despite no electric, roads, phones etc., have done an amazing job. Puerto Rico was totally destroyed.
6:33 AM - Sep 30, 2017
Really, at 6:30am Trump is up fuming because a lady major who happens to be Hispanic needs to be slapped down and put in her place like an upstart servant? So, in the middle of a humanitarian tragedy, Trump reaches out and uses the office of President of the United States of America to do what? Make matters worse...which is about all Trump knows how to do, make a bad situation worse...
Uh, but did he let it go? No, not only does the mayor gets the slap, now Trump is blaming the media for making all this bad news up...
After winning praise for his response to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which stormed through Texas and Florida respectively, Mr Trump has been accused of neglecting Puerto Rico, home to 3.4 million Americans.
He spent last weekend addressing supporters in Alabama and igniting a row over American footballers and their attitude to the American flag and anthem, a dispute that appeared to preoccupy the President for days.
At least 16 people died on the island when the hurricane barrelled ashore. It took until Thursday, more than a week after Maria struck, for the administration to waive a law that banned foreign ships from delivering goods to Puerto Rico. Almost half the population remains without potable water and no-one knows when the island’s electricity grid will be back online.
He later resumed the defence of his handling of the crisis in a series of tweets
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
To the people of Puerto Rico:
Do not believe the #FakeNews!#PRStrong🇵🇷
2:53 PM - Sep 30, 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
My Administration, Governor @RicardoRossello, and many others are working together to help the people of Puerto Rico in every way...
2:55 PM - Sep 30, 2017
So, rather than believe the mayor who has been walking the streets of San Juan in the heat, helping people and even wading in the flood waters, you are supposed to believe Trump–who is tweeting from the comfort of his golf resort in New Jersey.
For her part, Ms Cruz avoided engaging in a tit-for-tat battle, instead calling for a united focus on the people who need help as she posted a collage of images showing her aiding residents. In one photograph she is up to her waste in water.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/mayor.jpg)
Carmen Yulín Cruz ✔ @CarmenYulinCruz
The goal is one: saving lives. This is the time to show our "true colors". We cannot be distracted by anything else.
7:25 AM - Sep 30, 2017
"I have only one goal, and it is saving lives," Ms Cruz, mayor of Puerto Rico's largest city, said in an interview with Bloomberg. "I will say whatever needs to be said or done to be able to do that. There should be no distractions. There's no time for anything else."
In an interview on MSNBC, she said: “I was asking for help. I wasn’t saying anything nasty about the president.”
What does it take Trump supporters to see him for what he is?
A con man, a fraud and a mean asshole.
-
The past week showed Trump is struggling to be the president he promised (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-past-week-showed-how-much-trump-is-struggling-to-be-the-president-he-promised/2017/09/30/3da5217e-a5cb-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.97117fd6e4f4)
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_480w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/09/30/National-Politics/Images/Botsford170929Trump20560.JPG?uuid=4aO-uKVREee1c47IbN_h7Q)
President Trump talks with reporters Friday as he leaves the White House
for his private golf club. (at tax payer expense)
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump pitched himself as a dealmaker who would look out for the country’s “forgotten people,” “drain the swamp,” unite the country, “immediately repeal and replace Obamacare,” surround himself with “only with the best and most serious people,” and, of course, “win so much.”
But this past week made clear that Trump is falling far short of fulfilling those promises.
He launched a divisive debate with racial undertones about whether professional athletes should stand for the national anthem, lashed out at Puerto Rico’s officials for begging his administration for more help after a devastating hurricane and backed a tax plan that analysts say would greatly benefit the wealthy.
Meanwhile, his chosen candidate in the Alabama Senate race lost big to an insurgent challenger, the latest attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act failed, and his health and human services secretary resigned after using taxpayer dollars to pay for several expensive chartered flights, another major departure from the president’s top staff in the first eight months of his administration.
“He campaigned on the basis of large promises which were, in many cases, disconnected from any concrete program for achieving them,” said William A. Galston, a top policy adviser to President Bill Clinton and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “He entered office having issued a bunch of promissory notes but not having thought through how to redeem them, and that’s a very difficult way to begin an administration.”
Trump’s problems this week mirror those that have dogged his presidency since the first day, but they are becoming more troublesome for the president and his party as they come under increasing pressure to deliver on at least part their agenda.
Welcome to this weeks episode of The President Donald Trump White House Reality Show™.
Tune in next week when even more news will be released about Russia's interference in our election and Donny trades more barbs with North Korea and the GOP tries to tell the middle class that Trump's tax reform will save them money and isn't really all about tax breaks for the 1%....
-
Normally, I couldn't care less what Kim Kardashian has to say about anything, but at least she gets it...Puerto Rico needs help, not a Twitter war that people without power and internet can enjoy.
Trump tweeted:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
To the people of Puerto Rico:
Do not believe the #FakeNews!#PRStrong🇵🇷
2:53 PM - Sep 30, 2017
And Kim landed a really nice punch with:
Kim Kardashian West ✔ @KimKardashian
They don’t have power to watch the news!!! Please stop tweeting & golfing while people are dying! Please step up & help! https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/914216744385904640 …
4:07 PM - Sep 30, 2017
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/875432723837362176/j5NOs7Dj_400x400.jpg)
Booyah Donny, you just got bitchslapped on Twitter!
-
Jeff, you finally posted something nice in this thread 😉
-
Worth a look!
President Trump calls San Juan mayor a 'nasty' woman in 'Saturday Night Live' season premiere (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/trump-calls-san-juan-mayor-nasty-woman-snl-premiere-article-1.3533452)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3533450.1506832086!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/snl1n-1-web.jpg)
Saturday Night Live's President Trumps hangs up on San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz during her plea for help. (NBC)
(VIDEO Link 5:38) (https://youtu.be/qzD_U_bQzq4)
If only Puerto Rico had invested in FEMA Prime.
That’s the heartless advice President Trump gave San Juan mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz as she pleaded for help in the season premiere of “Saturday Night Live.” “You should have paid your bills. FEMA takes a few days unless you join FEMA Prime,” Alec Baldwin said as the commander-in-chief.
Sporting the President’s traditional golf uniform during the cold open, Baldwin kicked off the 43rd season by strolling into the Oval Office after a weekend trip to his New Jersey golf club. He said he sacrificed the ninth hole to talk to Cruz, assuming she would compliment him on the “great job” he’s doing in Puerto Rico. The satire mirrored Cruz’s tragic but real plea for more federal disaster relief after the behemoth Hurricane Maria ravaged the island, knocking out power and depleting fresh water and food supplies.
Earlier on Saturday, President Trump lambasted the San Juan mayor for complaining about the lagging U.S. recovery response in her city.
“I’m begging you. Puerto Rico needs your help,” the show’s Cruz cried.
She reminded Baldwin’s Trump that Puerto Rico is U.S. territory, which prompted the President to hang up the phone and blast the mayor as “nasty.”
-
No, Carol Ann! We cannot read Cat in the Hat today! Dr. Seuss was a racist. Are you a racist, Carol Ann?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/29/librarian-rejects-melania-trump-s-dr-seuss-books-calls-them-racist-propaganda.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/29/librarian-rejects-melania-trump-s-dr-seuss-books-calls-them-racist-propaganda.html)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/ec371ad74498166d3853bf71e81510c0220393a8/c=54-0-4650-3456&r=x408&c=540x405/local/-/media/2016/03/02/IAGroup/IowaCity/635925223490055676-read-america-1.jpg)
LMAO !
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/09/29/irony-of-the-year-librarian-who-claimed-that-the-cat-in-the-hat-was-racist-photographed-dressed-like-the-cat-and-celebrating-the-book-twice/
-
Once again, if Trump tweets and actions are "the best recruiting tool for ISIS," why is this happening in the oh, so liberal, oh, so inclusive, oh, so tolerant Canada?
"Five hurt as Edmonton attacks spark terror investigation"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/americas/edmonton-vehicle-attacks-investigation/index.html
-
"No shots were fired", said police.
"This was a lone wolf incident", they added.
Suspect in custody.
A rather excellent result, here in the "oh so liberal, oh so tolerant, oh so inclusive Canada."
Read again, Slobodan, the part about "no shots were fired".
Also, no asshole tweets ensued.
-
... Read again, Slobodan, the part about "no shots were fired"...
That is supposed to mean something? The cop is lucky that he survived stabbing, for which no shots were needed. Also, the crowd he drove into with his van was lucky that nobody was killed, just wounded.
Besides, none of that has anything to do with the point I raised: why?
-
"No shots were fired", said police.
"This was a lone wolf incident", they added.
Typical weasel talk reporting.
"No shots fired" instead of stating the known facts about a deranged man who struck a police officer with a car before stabbing him and later plowed a truck into pedestrians on a busy street, injuring at least four people. The suspect is a male Somali national and refugee who was previously known to Edmonton police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Police have arrested the suspect before for several offenses, including participation in a terrorist act and the commission of an offense for a terrorist group, said Chief Rod Knecht of the Edmonton Police Service. The suspect was investigated in 2015 after police received a complaint he was "espousing extremist ideology," said RCMP Deputy Criminal Operations Officer Marlin Degrand, but there was insufficient evidence to pursue terrorism charges.
Then Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says: "We know that Canada's strength comes from our diversity".
-
Then Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says: "We know that Canada's strength comes from our diversity".
I never realized how racist Canada was before they started letting in terrorists.
-
So hypocritical European countries who criticized Trump's travel ban are now banning religious and cultural clothing of Muslims under the guise of civil order and defending against terrorism. While in America, anyone can wear whatever they want.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/01/laws-to-force-acceptance-and-respect-of-austrian-values-take-effect/
-
Austria should just give it more time.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/giVIlIFtgUYJMeE1jdhJ0bVEXotufJY8tYEF1JSH-YgJsNWNXV6H8cyBU2wlw7uCzKcJJ6pN9e7CyN1AMJtDcVBS9TSjDP2pwYc6XpfMQ646=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu)
-
While in America, anyone can wear whatever they want.
Yeah, just don't kneel when you are wearing a football uniform...Freedom of Speech only goes so far, right?
-
Yeah, just don't kneel when you are wearing a football uniform...Freedom of Speech only goes so far, right?
Liberals are the first ones to try shut up anyone speaking who don't espouse their liberal views. In any case, free speech is a two-way street. You have a right to say what you want and I have a right to disagree. Free speech is on both sides.
Also, free speech is not constitutionally protected in private places or at work. It's only protected in public. Football players have to follow the rules of the NFL and the contracts they sign. Even if there were no rules and they can do what they want, they are certainly allowed to do that. But fans who find that disrespectful can espouse their free speech by refusing to buy tickets and watch the games on TV. I suspect that the team managers had a heart to heart talk with the players reminding them that their salaries depend on profits. Salaries can be lowered if profits go down. Today, Sunday, was a big day for football. I didn't watch. But I'm curious what happened around the country during the anthems?
-
Austria should just give it more time.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/giVIlIFtgUYJMeE1jdhJ0bVEXotufJY8tYEF1JSH-YgJsNWNXV6H8cyBU2wlw7uCzKcJJ6pN9e7CyN1AMJtDcVBS9TSjDP2pwYc6XpfMQ646=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu)
Hmmm. Maybe the travel ban is bad idea. Give me some time to re-think it. :)
-
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man...
7:30 AM - 1 Oct 2017
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
...Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done!
7:31 AM - 1 Oct 2017
Trump Says Tillerson Is 'Wasting His Time' On Talks With North Korea (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/01/554927089/trump-says-tillerson-is-wasting-his-time-on-talks-with-north-korea)
The rhetoric between the U.S. and North Korea cooled for a day — and just a day only, it appears.
Roughly 24 hours after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters the U.S. has been engaged in diplomatic talks with Pyongyang, President Trump took to Twitter on Sunday to deride the effort — as well as Kim Jong Un.
"I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man," Trump tweeted, apparently using his preferred nickname to demean the North Korean dictator. "Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done!"
"Being nice to Rocket Man hasn't worked in 25 years, why would it work now?" Trump added several hours later. "Clinton failed, Bush failed, and Obama failed. I won't fail."
Uh...ok...then why bother even having a Secretary of State if you are going to tell him to save his time and stand down...Daddy's gonna take fix it–as only Daddy can
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/secondary/North-Korea-Kim-Jong-un-Donald-Trump-1031049.jpg)
Jeeesh...they're starting to look alike...
-
I didn't watch. But I'm curious what happened around the country during the anthems?
NFL players continue protest in defiance of US President Donald Trump (http://www.bbc.com/sport/american-football/41461684)
NFL players continued their anthem protests in defiance of US President Donald Trump in Sunday's matches.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/800/cpsprodpb/D281/production/_98098835_sf_reuters.jpg)
About half of the San Francisco 49ers knelt for the anthem before their match at Arizona with their team-mates standing just behind with a hand on their colleagues' shoulders.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/624/cpsprodpb/69DB/production/_98099072_newton_getty.jpg)
The Carolina Panthers' Cam Newton celebrated his touchdown against New England Patriots with a raised fist.
However, there were markedly fewer protests than last weekend.
Several games - such as the Dallas Cowboys' home game with the Los Angeles Rams - appeared to go ahead without any protest.
In the day's first game at Wembley, three Miami Dolphins - Julius Thomas, Michael Thomas and Kenny Stills - kneeled during the American anthem with the opposing New Orleans Saints squad opting to do so beforehand, but then standing while the anthem was played.
However, there were markedly fewer protests than last weekend.
Several games - such as the Dallas Cowboys' home game with the Los Angeles Rams - appeared to go ahead without any protest.
--snip--
And Kaepernick's former team - playing for the first time since Trump's initial condemnation of the protest - made the most co-ordinated gesture.
"For more than a year, members of our team have protested the oppression and social injustices still present in our society," read a statement (https://twitter.com/49ers/status/914581093080227840) from the 49ers' players, coaches, ownership and staff.
"While some may not have taken a knee or raised a fist, we have all shared the desire to influence positive change. Today, our team chose to publicly display our unity in a new way."
The statement added: "We use our platform as members of an NFL team, and our right to freedom of expression, to speak up for those whose voice is not heard."
So, we still have Free Speech here in America...
-
Trump's Puerto Rico response tests the limits of his fondness for grudges (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/01/trump-puerto-rico-grudges-twitter-243347)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/-trump90.jpeg)
To longtime Trump watchers, President Donald Trump’s personal reaction to criticism from San Juan
Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz was par for the course.
The president has been criticized for personally attacking the mayor of San Juan amid a growing
humanitarian crisis, but it's in line with how he's always responded to critics.
President Donald Trump may not have a cohesive foreign policy doctrine or any clear ideological underpinning for his domestic agenda.
But he has a firm personal outlook on life that has driven him as a businessman, a candidate and now as president — one he outlined succinctly at an early campaign stop in Dubuque, Iowa, last year. “When people treat me unfairly,” he warned, “I don’t let them forget it.”
Until this weekend, when Trump spent two days engaging in a personal feud with the mayor of San Juan, Trump’s “grudge presidency” had not been tested by a humanitarian crisis in which lives were being lost in real time — and where there was no natural constituency for his explosion of grievances.
“We have done a great job with the almost impossible situation in Puerto Rico,” the president tweeted Sunday morning from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. “Outside of the Fake News or politically motivated ingrates, people are now starting to recognize the amazing work that has been done by FEMA and our great Military.”
The message followed a series of tweets on Saturday lashing out at Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, accusing her of “such poor leadership ability” in not getting people on the ground to help. It was a direct response to her emotional news conference Friday night, in which she begged the president for more help. “We are dying here,” Cruz said, slamming down two thick binders of documentation that San Juan had provided to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to obtain help.
In another world, Cruz’s frustration with the layers of bureaucracy standing between her wiped-out city and food and water delivery might have been in line with Trump’s own interest in cutting regulations and red tape. The props she used were similar to charts Trump has wielded at news conferences to demonstrate how obtuse the country’s permitting and regulatory process can be. But Cruz’s plea was interpreted by Trump as a personal insult.
“I am asking the president of the United States to make sure somebody is in charge, that is up to the task of saving lives,” she said. “If anybody out there is listening to us, we are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency.”
On Twitter, Trump noted that Cruz had been “very complimentary” to him in the past. “They want everything to be done for them,” he complained, “when it should be a community effort.”
To longtime Trump watchers, Trump’s personal reaction to Cruz was par for the course. Last weekend, he revoked an invitation for NBA star Stephen Curry to visit the White House with his team after Curry slighted him by saying he did not want the team to make the trip.
From the perch of the presidency, he has gone after morning show hosts such as Mika Brzezinski; lawmakers from his own party, such as Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain; and members of his own Cabinet — most notably, Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He has even taken on the NFL.
Trump's criticism of Cruz was in line with how he has reacted for years to individuals who have criticized him personally.
This is not the sort of behavior the President of the United States should engage in...which leads to this...
Trump's whiplash weekend heightens questions over leadership (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/politics/donald-trump-price-hurricane-golf-weekend/index.html)
(CNN)In the span of seventy-two hours, President Donald Trump has fumed and fired a health chief with a penchant for taxpayer-funded private jets, bragged about a recovery process in Puerto Rico that bears little resemblance to reality on the ground, lashed the mayor of the island's capital city for questioning the federal response, and viewed a golf tournament from the "commissioner's suite" at a country club that costs $500,000 to join.
The whiplash weekend just past the eight-month mark of Trump's presidency reflects an administration still dictated by the personal whims of the President, who aides and friends describe as continually agitated by a series of unfulfilled campaign promises and convinced the counsel from his hired hands has steered him woefully off course.
As Trump settled into another weekend at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, the questions about his competence (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/politics/bob-corker-trump-criticism/index.html) as leader grew louder (http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/30/us/puerto-rico-responds-to-trump-tweets/index.html). Widespread suffering on Puerto Rico has been unmatched by the rhetoric coming from the White House, where the recovery effort is described in far rosier terms.
Questions about Trump's leadership are not new, but the unmet needs of Puerto Rico — the majority of the island is without power, while drinking water and fuel remain scarce — have placed his shirking of presidential norms into sharper relief than ever. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/politics/trump-tweets-puerto-rico/index.html).
-
Trump's firing of the Republican alligator Secretary Price is in accordance with his draining the swamp mandate. And he didn't waste any time doing it. It shows he isn't going to play favorites and he's holding his own people's feet to the fire. That's refreshing and is appreciated by non-supporters as well as supporters. If anyone else had taken advantage of their position, the word is out to straighten out or you'll be thrown out.
-
So hypocritical European countries who criticized Trump's travel ban are now banning religious and cultural clothing of Muslims under the guise of civil order and defending against terrorism. While in America, anyone can wear whatever they want.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/01/laws-to-force-acceptance-and-respect-of-austrian-values-take-effect/
So what, we still let them in ;)
And we don't force our citizens to stand with their hand on their heart at the beginning of sports matches. To each their own.
-
If anyone else had taken advantage of their position, the word is out to straighten out or you'll be thrown out.
Trump should look in the mirror...
Donald Trump vowed to 'drain the swamp' – yet he uses Air Force One like an Uber (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-distractor-in-chief-distractions-tom-price-private-charter-jared-kushner-emails-a7974621.html)
(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.3533950.1501886884!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg)
Donald Trump waves as he walks down the steps of Air Force One
...Trump hadn’t exactly set a good example himself, using Air Force One like a flying car service to get him to Mar-a-Lago and other choice properties he owns at weekends. Air Force One is not Uber, though. Just taking that thing out of the hangar once probably cost more than all of Price’s little tripettes combined...
Well, it costs about $200,000 an hour to fly Air Force One, the plane president typically travels on when flying. There's also the cost of flying the presidential limousine or SUV to Trump's destination ahead of time so he can be whisked away when he lands. So, Trump is filling his part of the swamp as fast as he's trying to pump other parts out...(if, that is, you believe he's trying to drain the swamp rather than simply repopulate it with his friends and supporters)
-
Once again, if Trump tweets and actions are "the best recruiting tool for ISIS," why is this happening in the oh, so liberal, oh, so inclusive, oh, so tolerant Canada?
Once again, why is this happening in the USA?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooter/index.html
Cheers,
Bart
-
Once again, why is this happening in the USA?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooter/index.html
Cheers,
Bart
almost every day...
-
I haven't read any details about the Las Vegas shooting, but 50 dead and 200 wounded seems like a lot. Did he use an automatic fire weapon?
As for Slobadan's question about how something could happen "oh so liberal" Canada, I presume that's because the Edmonton perpetrator was non-white and non-Christian, since that is usually what gets his particular goat. So let me ask, is the US going to round up all the weapons sitting in the homes of deranged white people living in small town Nevada?
Or introduce some form of gun control?
Of course not, why should a free society prevent the buying of automatic weapons by brain-damaged wackos.
No need to answer, they are rhetorical questions.
-
Besides, none of that has anything to do with the point I raised: why?
Your point, Slobodan, was vague. What was your point exactly? It appeared to offer little but ignorant criticism of Canada's immigration policy.
MY point was "no shots fired". Simple as that. If you don't (won't) get it, then I'm not surprised.
Meanwhile ...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/las-vegas-shooting-1.4316121
-
Once again, if Trump tweets and actions are "the best recruiting tool for ISIS," why is this happening in the oh, so liberal, oh, so inclusive, oh, so tolerant Canada?
"Five hurt as Edmonton attacks spark terror investigation"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/01/americas/edmonton-vehicle-attacks-investigation/index.html
I prefer five hurt (two killed) by a knife over fifty killed by a machine gun due to conservative - trigger happy - intolerant - white supremacist - gun lobbyists.
I don't need to ask why this is happening, I know ;)
-
Interesting podcast about the changes in Washington D.C. lobbying in the Trump administration: http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2017/09/28/554238302/fresh-air-for-sept-28-2017-lobbying-in-trump-s-washington (http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2017/09/28/554238302/fresh-air-for-sept-28-2017-lobbying-in-trump-s-washington).
Aside from the individual instances of what I consider to be repugnant behaviour, but which may be completely normal in that world for all I know, it's the stories of confusion and leadership vacuum that disturb. We don't seem to be seeing much evidence of sober reflection.
-
So, Trump goes down to Puerto Rico to what, help the people or try to help his public image?
Paper towels? Really? Paper towels?
In Bizarre Moment, Trump Throws Paper Towels At Puerto Rico Hurricane Victims (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/10/03/trump-throws-paper-towels-puerto-rico-hurricane-victims.html)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/trump-paper-towels-701x478.jpg)
Trump passed out food to hurricane victims in Texas and Florida, but Puerto Ricans got the President
throwing rolls of paper towels into the crowd.
Trump is doing everything imaginable to show that he doesn’t care and doesn’t want to be there. While the President tried to make a grand gesture out pretending to give a damn about hurricane victims in red states, he isn’t trying to hide his contempt in Puerto Rico.
Beneath the surface, Trump’s behavior suggests a much deeper issue. Donald Trump thinks that he is only the president of the places who voted for him. Trump doesn’t understand that he is supposed to behave like a president for all Americans. If Puerto Rico had voted for him in 2016, they would have all the disaster relief they wanted already, and the President would be promising to do everything in his power for the island.
But since the island is 99% Hispanic and not politically friendly territory, Trump is treating them with contempt.
Donald Trump seems to hate the people of Puerto Rico, and one gets the sense that the vast majority of residents feel the same way about Trump.
Somebody should tell Trump to "hand out" something useful like food or water...
-
Americans trust media more, and they trust Donald Trump less, new poll finds (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-trust-media-more-and-they-trust-donald-trump-less-new-poll-finds-2017-10-03)
As the public starts to trust media more, Trump’s approval ratings dip
(http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2017/10/03/Photos/ZH/MW-FV553_trump__20171003141801_ZH.jpg?uuid=310878e6-a867-11e7-9d97-9c8e992d421e)
President Donald Trump can’t stop talking about “fake news,” but the majority of Americans would not use that term to describe
the mainstream media’s output.
There’s been a spike in trust of the media, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released Tuesday.
The poll, which surveyed 14,300 people in September, found that 48% of Americans have either a “great deal” or “some confidence” in the press, up from 39% last November.
In November 2016, 51% of Americans said they had “hardly any” confidence in the press. That number has since dipped to 45%.
Of the most trusted news sources among Americans, British outlets have topped the list of late. The most trusted news source in the U.S. is the Economist — a venerable weekly magazine published in the U.K., according to a survey conducted by the University of Missouri’s Reynolds Journalism Institute (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-most-and-the-least-trusted-news-sources-in-the-us-2017-08-03). The Wall Street Journal, owned by News Corp. NWSA, +0.68% , the parent of MarketWatch, was ranked No. 8 among trusted news sources in the U.S.
And as American’s confidence in the media rises, their confidence in President Donald Trump falls.
In January, when Trump took office, 52% of Americans had a “great deal” or “some” confidence in the president. That number dipped to 51% by May. In September, it dropped to 48%. In contrast, former President Barack Obama left office with 57% of Americans expressing confidence in his administration.
And if there’s one person who really has no confidence in the press, it’s Trump himself. Trump, who popularized the term “fake news,” has repeatedly slammed news agencies such as MSNBC and CNN.
The more Trump claims #FAKE NEWS, the more he sounds like The Boy Who Cried Wolf (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjc5-Cov9XWAhWG1IMKHUUyBooQFgguMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf&usg=AOvVaw0S9N_x0CtxZwC1XJN2Oe8-) and to be honest, the more Trump claims fake news, the harder the journalists work and the better we are for it.
Besides, who really believes Trump? Clearly not this country nor the rest of the world...maybe a few Trump supporters believe he's working for the forgotten people...but it's pretty clear he only remembers them when he stands up in a rally–and even then the odds are they don't believe him–they may cheat for the crap he says, but I doubt they actually believe what he says.
-
So what, we still let them in ;)
And we don't force our citizens to stand with their hand on their heart at the beginning of sports matches. To each their own.
No one forces anyone to stand. If they choose to not stand, that's their freedom of speech. But others who also have freedom of speech. They can speak their minds if they find that action disrespectful to the flag and country. Both sides can do what they want. That's different than forcing people to remove their religious garb as happens in Europe. In that case, someone's right of free speech is being taken away.
-
Trump should look in the mirror...
Donald Trump vowed to 'drain the swamp' – yet he uses Air Force One like an Uber (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-distractor-in-chief-distractions-tom-price-private-charter-jared-kushner-emails-a7974621.html)
(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.3533950.1501886884!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg)
Donald Trump waves as he walks down the steps of Air Force One
Well, it costs about $200,000 an hour to fly Air Force One, the plane president typically travels on when flying. There's also the cost of flying the presidential limousine or SUV to Trump's destination ahead of time so he can be whisked away when he lands. So, Trump is filling his part of the swamp as fast as he's trying to pump other parts out...(if, that is, you believe he's trying to drain the swamp rather than simply repopulate it with his friends and supporters)
I never complained when Obama and hi family flew 6000 miles to his home state of Hawaii. A lot further than Mar-a-lago. Presidents need rest and recreation and take the White House with them in any case. We recognize that and support the cost to do these things because they're necessary. I would say the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense also need US planes to take them around as they need the security and ability to keep in constant communications with Washington DC. the president and the military due to their positions. The Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Secretary of the Interior, not so much. Unless it's a special situation, they can take commercial flights and sit squashed like the rest of us.
-
So, Trump goes down to Puerto Rico to what, help the people or try to help his public image?
Paper towels? Really? Paper towels?
In Bizarre Moment, Trump Throws Paper Towels At Puerto Rico Hurricane Victims (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/10/03/trump-throws-paper-towels-puerto-rico-hurricane-victims.html)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/trump-paper-towels-701x478.jpg)
Trump passed out food to hurricane victims in Texas and Florida, but Puerto Ricans got the President
throwing rolls of paper towels into the crowd.
Somebody should tell Trump to "hand out" something useful like food or water...
Well, he could be throwing toilet paper. :)
-
Interesting article how Reagan, Carter, Sen Ted Kennedy , Nixon, Obama, Bush and others "colluded" with foreign governments to tip the scales during presidential elections. If Trump colluded too, he's in good company.
https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2017/09/21/allegations-of-foreign-election-tampering-have-always-rung-hollow-n2384153
-
So, Trump goes down to Puerto Rico to what, help the people or try to help his public image?
Paper towels? Really? Paper towels?
In Bizarre Moment, Trump Throws Paper Towels At Puerto Rico Hurricane Victims (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/10/03/trump-throws-paper-towels-puerto-rico-hurricane-victims.html)
(http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/trump-paper-towels-701x478.jpg)
Trump passed out food to hurricane victims in Texas and Florida, but Puerto Ricans got the President
throwing rolls of paper towels into the crowd.
Somebody should tell Trump to "hand out" something useful like food or water...
A bizarre moment? That's way past bizarre. The President of the USA threw paper towels at people who were victims of a hurricane. Wow. Just wow.
-
Well, he could be throwing toilet paper. :)
I don't understand your remark, Alan. Do you think this is funny?
-
I never complained when Obama and hi family flew 6000 miles to his home state of Hawaii.
Well, I'm complain about how much money Trump is spending...he fly Air Force One to New Jersey...
And Trump is on line to spend more money in his first year than Obama did in his entire 8 years...
Trump on pace to surpass 8 years of Obama's travel spending in 1 year (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/politics/donald-trump-obama-travel-costs/index.html)
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump's travel to his private club in Florida has cost over an estimated $20 million in his first 80 days as president, putting the president on pace in his first year of office to surpass former President Barack Obama's spending on travel for his entire eight years.
The outsized spending on travel stands in stark relief to Trump's calls for belt tightening across the federal government and the fact that he regularly criticized Obama for costing the American taxpayer money every time he took a trip.
Given variations in each trip, estimating the security costs around a presidential trip is difficult. But a 2016 Government Accountability Office report about a four-day trip Obama took to Florida in 2013 -- one similar to Trump's trips -- found the total cost to the Secret Service and Coast Guard was $3.6 million.
To date, Trump has spent six weekends -- and a total of 21 days -- at Mar-A-Lago, his private Palm Beach club. The total estimated costs for those trips are around $21.6 million.
Obama, by contrast, spent just under $97 million on travel in his eight years as president, according to documents reviewed by Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog. These trips included personal trips - including ski trips to Aspen and the Obama's annual family vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts -- and work trips, like a visit to Everglades National Park on Earth Day in 2015.
Trump's frequent weekend travel makes it all but certain the 45th President will surpass Obama's spending in his first term, likely within months.
Particularly hypocritical since Trump used to love tweeting about Obama's travel...
(https://i1.wp.com/www.celebrityxo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fat-shaming-Trump-gets-fat-shamed.jpg?fit=640%2C390)
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
When will Obama next go on vacation if he wins the election? The day after.
9:05 AM - Sep 12, 2012
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
"Don't take vacations. What's the point? If you're not enjoying your work, you're in the wrong job." -- Think Like A Billionaire
2:28 PM - Nov 19, 2012
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.Worse than Carter
7:03 PM - Oct 13, 2014
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
We pay for Obama's travel so he can fundraise millions so Democrats can run on lies. Then we pay for his golf.
2:35 PM - Oct 14, 2014
-
Donald Trump Boasts Puerto Rico Should Be 'Proud' More Haven't Died Like in 'a Real Catastrophe Like Katrina' (https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-boasts-puerto-rico-191805794.html)
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/KDSxTTRJ.YHHouficNKy2A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/people_218/b939535f987d22b5ceccc7356f31d519)
Donald Trump Boasts Puerto Rico Should Be 'Proud' More Haven't Died Like in 'a Real Catastrophe Like Katrina'
President Donald Trump compared the death count following 2005’s devastating Hurricane Katrina to the crisis in Puerto Rico during his visit to the island on Tuesday, noting that officials should be “proud” that not as many citizens have been killed.
“Every death is horrible, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina, and you look at the tremendous — hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that died, and you look at what happened here with really a storm that was just totally overpowering, nobody’s ever seen anything like this,” said Trump, before asking officials at a meeting with local and federal leadership how many have died since Hurricane Maria made landfall on Sept. 20, leaving millions without homes and electricity.
Trump was seemingly pleased to hear the natural disaster has claimed only 16 lives “versus in the thousands” lost during Katrina, praising the leaders, “you can be proud.”
“You can be very proud of all of your people, all of our people working together, ” he said.
Yes, he did say Every death is horrible, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina, and you look at the tremendous — hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that died, and you look at what happened here with really a storm that was just totally overpowering, nobody’s ever seen anything like this,
And twitter didn't react too well (or reacted well depending on whose side you are on)
Joe Scarborough ✔ @JoeNBC
A real catastrophe like...the Trump presidency.
1:02 PM - Oct 3, 2017
Clint Watts ✔ @selectedwisdom
Again, not a single situation where #Trump makes things better instead of worse https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/915270385918193664 …
1:01 PM - Oct 3, 2017
Jill E Bond @JillEBond
Trump finally quits golfing long enough to go to PR only to congratulate himself & tell them they shld be "very proud" of their death count.
12:42 PM - Oct 3, 2017
President ManBaby @ManBabyAmerica
Trump talking about the death count in Puerto Rico is sickening
11:10 AM - Oct 3, 2017
Lucy Lubin @Soylattelucy
I feel disgusted watching trump in Puerto Rico. He’s talking budget again. And comparing Maria 2 Katrina. He is disgusting. #trumppuertorico
11:11 AM - Oct 3, 2017
Touré ✔ @Toure
It has been 0 (zero) days since Trump embarrassed America.
1:49 PM - Oct 3, 2017
-
Puerto Rico: Trump appears to complain about cost of relief effort (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/03/puerto-rico-donald-trump-visit-hurricane-maria)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/baa11b80e7c7192704e254e708e328d0ff1b049e/0_0_2400_1440/master/2400.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=157418f4cf86c7cec7397ac8c9ac0a47)
Donald Trump sits between Puerto Rico’s Governor Ricardo Rosselló and first lady Melania Trump,
as he receives a briefing on hurricane damage at an air base in Carolina, Puerto Rico.
Donald Trump has heaped praise on his administration’s response to Hurricane Maria, said Puerto Rico’s leaders should be “very proud” of the low official death toll – and appeared to complain at the cost of the recovery effort.
The US president’s remarks came on his first visit to the US territory since it was pummeled by a category 4 hurricane nearly two weeks ago, amid continuing criticism that his government has failed to adequately respond to the crisis.
The island’s 3.4 million residents – particularly those in the more isolated parts – are still largely without electricity, communications and access to clean drinking water and food.
But Trump told reporters: “It’s now acknowledged what a great job we’ve done.”
Speaking at a briefing shortly after his arrival, Trump told local officials: “I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you’ve thrown our budget a little out of whack.
“But that’s fine because we’ve saved a lot of lives.”
--snip--
At the briefing with cabinet members, local politicians and other emergency responders, Trump singled out Rosselló for “giving us the highest praise”.
But the US president also faced his most prominent local critic, San Juan’s mayor, Carmen Yulín Cruz, who he attacked at the weekend as a “politically motivated ingrate” after she made an impassioned plea for more help from the federal government.
The two politicians shook hands and exchanged pleasantries at the airport hangar before the briefing, but Cruz later described the meeting as a “public relations situation” that did not deal with the island’s problems.
“We tend to judge human crises by the number of people who die instantly,” she told CNN. “So of course when you say Katrina there were thousands, that doesn’t convey the message that people are dying on a continuum because they don’t have dialysis, they don’t have healthcare, they’re drinking out of creeks.”
Cruz said that a second meeting with White House staff was more productive than the gathering hosted by the president. “Sometimes his style of communication gets in the way,” she said.
In Washington, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said: “I don’t remember the president telling Texas that they threw our budget out of whack after [Hurricane] Harvey. Or Florida after Irma.”
“Yes, we’re spending money in Puerto Rico. We’re spending money to turn the power back on. To give people drinking water. And to keep life support machines working in the hospitals.”
Oxfam America also made a rare criticism of the US government on Tuesday over its response to the catastrophe.
“We’re hearing excuses and criticism from the administration instead of a cohesive and compassionate response,” said Oxfam America’s president, Abby Maxman, in a statement (https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/statement-by-oxfam-america-president-abby-maxman-regarding-puerto-rico-hurricane-response/). “The US has more than enough resources to mobilize an emergency response but has failed to do so in a swift and robust manner.”
Wow, it's very unusual to get called on the carpet by https://www.oxfamamerica.org Read the letter...it's pretty scathing.
“Oxfam has monitored the response in Puerto Rico closely, and we are outraged at the slow and inadequate response the US Government has mounted in Puerto Rico. Clean water, food, fuel, electricity, and health care are in desperately short supply and quickly dwindling, and we’re hearing excuses and criticism from the administration instead of a cohesive and compassionate response. The US has more than enough resources to mobilize an emergency response but has failed to do so in a swift and robust manner. Oxfam rarely responds to humanitarian emergencies in the US and other wealthy countries, but as the situation in Puerto Rico worsens and the federal government’s response continues to falter, Oxfam has decided to step in to lend our expertise in dealing with some of the world’s most catastrophic disasters.”
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c8/13/1e/c8131edb53988f02a78343cb985a81f4--classic-cartoons-cartoon-characters.jpg)
RUSSIA!
'Both sides are preparing for a possible showdown': Mueller is delving into Trump's pardon power (http://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-trump-russia-pardon-power-2017-10)
The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is probing the limits of Trump's pardon power.
There are several unanswered constitutional questions regarding Trump's pardon powers Mueller's team is reportedly looking into, all of which have little precedent.
"I suspect that both sides are preparing for a possible showdown on these issues," said one legal expert.
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team is looking into whether there are any limits on President Donald Trump's pardon powers as the FBI investigates Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
Bloomberg reported (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-03/mueller-tasks-adviser-with-getting-ahead-of-pre-emptive-pardons) on Tuesday that Michael Dreeben, a seasoned prosecutor working with Mueller, is delving into past presidential pardons as the special counsel lays out a legal strategy, to ensure that Mueller's case has a solid foundation and can stand up to possible appeals, the report said.
Trump's pardon power (http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-arpaio-pardon-mueller-russia-trump-obstruction-of-justice-2017-8) — and its possible limits — became a subject of interest after The Washington Post reported in July that the president asked his advisers if he could pardon aides, family members, and possibly himself as the Russia investigation picked up steam.
Constitutionally, the president's pardon powers are very broad as they relate to federal crimes, which Trump pointed out in July.
"While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us.FAKE NEWS," Trump tweeted at the time.
So far, established constitutional limits on the president's pardon power prevent it from affecting impeachment proceedings and bar it from being applicable to state crimes.
But longtime federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote Tuesday that it doesn't mean no other constitutional limits exist; merely that they have not yet been tested. Those possible limits are likely the questions Dreeben is looking into.
-
Well, I'm complain about how much money Trump is spending...he fly Air Force One to New Jersey...
And Trump is on line to spend more money in his first year than Obama did in his entire 8 years...
...
Particularly hypocritical since Trump used to love tweeting about Obama's travel...
Well, he's welcome to stay with me and my wife in New Jersey for a weekend. We'll throw in a free Continental breakfast. That should save the taxpayers some money. Maybe I can get the Secret Service to cut the grass.
-
Well, he's welcome to stay with me and my wife in New Jersey for a weekend. We'll throw in a free Continental breakfast. That should save the taxpayers some money. Maybe I can get the Secret Service to cut the grass.
Maybe he can help out and bring you some toilet paper.
-
Maybe he can help out and bring you some toilet paper.
:) :) :)
-
No one forces anyone to stand. If they choose to not stand, that's their freedom of speech. But others who also have freedom of speech. They can speak their minds if they find that action disrespectful to the flag and country. Both sides can do what they want. That's different than forcing people to remove their religious garb as happens in Europe. In that case, someone's right of free speech is being taken away.
Nobody is forced to remove their religious garb, only nobody is allowed to cover their face completely, religious garb or otherwise.
If you're so hung up on free speech why isn't someone allowed to walk naked in the streets in the US, that's free speech too :P
-
Nobody is forced to remove their religious garb, only nobody is allowed to cover their face completely, religious garb or otherwise.
If you're so hung up on free speech why isn't someone allowed to walk naked in the streets in the US, that's free speech too :P
Actually, they are. Check the Times Square in NY any day. I was once in Washington DC, middle of the day, around the obelisk, filled with tourists, when a young couple casually strolled by, the girl with beautiful bare breasts.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/25/1408936267339_wps_2_CONTAINS_NUDITY_Internati.jpg)
-
Actually, they are. Check the Times Square in NY any day. I was once in Washington DC, middle of the day, around the obelisk, filled with tourists, when a young couple casually strolled by, the girl with beautiful bare breasts.
Slobodan, as a former European I had expected you to know the difference between topless and naked. :P
-
Pieter, as a current European, i am sure you know that women in Europe these days can not walk around even fully dressed, in winter attire, without being groped and assaulted en masse in public places, let alone topless :P
-
In Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, even some politicians are not afraid to show their bare chests.
-
Pieter, as a current European, i am sure you know that women in Europe these days can not walk around even fully dressed, in winter attire, without being groped and assaulted en masse in public places, let alone topless :P
I know the one incident you're referring to, but in the end I'm sure most women prefer the treatment they got there vs. being shot like in Las Vegas ;)
It's clear you haven't visited us for a long time, come see our beaches in summer. Female attire there would be judged "scandalous" and "unfit to be seen by children" in prude US and they would probably be arrested. So much for "free speech" on the other side of the scale.
-
Pieter, as a current European, i am sure you know that women in Europe these days can not walk around even fully dressed, in winter attire, without being groped and assaulted en masse in public places, let alone topless :P
Slobodan, I can only assume that you've been watching FoxNews too much:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w
and a followup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpU0NxPhA78
And to get back on topic:
Hmm, I Wonder Why Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump Moved Their Personal Emails to the Trump Org
https://gizmodo.com/hmm-i-wonder-why-jared-kushner-and-ivanka-trump-moved-1819127734
QUOTE "As criticism was mounting on President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner—as well as several other White House officials including his wife, Ivanka Trump—for using personal email addresses in the course of their official duties, the couple was busy moving the emails to a Trump Org. server.
According to USA Today, Kushner and Trump “re-routed their personal email accounts to computers run by the Trump Organization” sometime between September 26-27th. Mere days later on September 28th, the Senate Intelligence Committee delivered Kushner a letter demanding he fully disclose any emails in the account related to ongoing investigation of alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Per USA Today:
The internet domain Kushner used for his personal emails was first registered in December. In March, mail exchange records for Kushner and Trump’s family email domain, ijkfamily.com, directed messages to an email system run by Microsoft. The registration was updated at the end of September. Now it points to two mail servers used by the Trump Organization.
According to Ars Technica, University of Pennsylvania computer science expert Matt Blaze confirmed there was no possibility the Trump Org. was simply providing a DNS server to ijkfamily.com to offset hackers"
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. And here's the ArsTechnica article referred to in the above article:
After Kushner’s private e-mail became known, it moved to Trump Org servers
In late September, it changed from outlook.com to mailhost01.trumporg.com.
QUOTE "Days after recent revelations that Jared Kushner, a presidential advisor and the president's son-in-law, had set up a personal e-mail account to conduct White House business, someone with access to that domain (ijkamily.com) changed the domain’s mail exchange (MX) records so that they now point to a Trump Organization server.
The move, which was first reported by USA Today on Tuesday, provides clear evidence that there is not quite as much separation between the Trump Organization and the Trump White House as previously indicated.
The MX records show that they were changed from Microsoft to the Trump Organization shortly after public scrutiny of Kushner’s e-mail account intensified. A domain’s MX records specify which mail servers are allowed to send and receive email for that domain."
IMHO, it may turn out to be something relatively innocent, but it's not helping the situation. It also puts the (lack of) separation between personal business and Government back in the spotlights. It could also handle a crowbar to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation to delve deeper into the Trump organization.
-
... come see our beaches in summer...
I've never seen bare breasts in any European downtown, however. I did see some nudity in public parks, sunbathing, in Stockholm and Munich, for instance.
-
Nope, Bart, I do not watch TV, and that linked video is not what I was talking about. Pieter got it, I think.
-
Nobody is forced to remove their religious garb, only nobody is allowed to cover their face completely, religious garb or otherwise.
If you're so hung up on free speech why isn't someone allowed to walk naked in the streets in the US, that's free speech too :P
Did you ever see some of those women without their facial and body garb? Be thankful they cover up. :)
-
Did you ever see some of those women without their facial and body garb? Be thankful they cover up. :)
Just when I think we've reached bottom, the bar is lowered just a little more.
-
Just when I think we've reached bottom, the bar is lowered just a little more.
Lighten up, Bob, don't take this all so serious. :)
-
Pieter got it, I think.
Yup, I think Trump might have been there at that moment as well. I think he shares a hobby with the offenders you're talking about ;)
-
It's not always nice what is under the garb
Good one. :)
-
Puerto Rico Issues Travel Ban on Malignant Narcissists (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/puerto-rico-issues-travel-ban-on-malignant-narcissists)
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59d4eadcc8b6b02501fe6d6b/master/w_649,c_limit/Borowitz-Trump-Puerto-Rico.jpg)
SAN JUAN (The Borowitz Report)—Calling the move an “urgent response to recent unfortunate events,” Puerto Rico has issued a sweeping travel ban on malignant narcissists, effective immediately.
Starting on Wednesday, Customs and Border Protection officials at Puerto Rico’s ports of entry will be equipped with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–V) issued by the American Psychiatric Association, and will be instructed to look for symptoms of malignant narcissism in those attempting to enter.
“If port officials encounter a visitor who has a pompous and arrogant demeanor, needs the constant admiration of others, and is unwilling to empathize with others’ feelings, wishes, or needs, that visitor will be denied entry,” a Puerto Rican government statement read.
Puerto Rico took the forceful action after an incident on Tuesday, in which a man with narcissistic-personality disorder gained entry to the island and inexplicably hurled projectiles at unwitting Puerto Ricans.
“We had to do something,” one government official said. “Enough is enough.”
Puerto Rico’s ban on malignant narcissists drew widespread praise from people around the world, with many Americans calling for a similar ban in the mainland United States.
If only....if only!
-
Racism & misogyny suggest that the fun here is over.
Topic Locked
Readers may note that I have locked two topics here today.
Some may think that my fingers have become too itchy.
PM me with cogent observations & arguments should you feel the need.