192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Thu 25 May, 2017 05:41 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Anyhow, while it is good for us to have them as allies, it is very good for them to have us as an ally.


some of us don't agree wholeheartedly
layman
 
  -3  
Thu 25 May, 2017 05:43 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

roger wrote:
Anyhow, while it is good for us to have them as allies, it is very good for them to have us as an ally.


some of us don't agree wholeheartedly


What's to disagree with there?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing with you, just asking for elaboration. I think we should dump most of the Eurotrash as "allies," too, and call them what they are: Enemies of a free state.
Sturgis
 
  4  
Thu 25 May, 2017 05:48 pm
@layman,
Eurotrash?

Don't suppose you'd care to expand upon that, would you?
layman
 
  -3  
Thu 25 May, 2017 05:49 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:

Eurotrash?

Don't suppose you'd care to expand upon that, would you?


No need for "expansion." That pretty much says it all, eh?
layman
 
  -2  
Thu 25 May, 2017 05:54 pm
@layman,
But, just for you, I'll post this. Basically just a cheese-eater from Europe.

Quote:
Eurotrash:

A human sub-phylum characterized by its apparent affluence, worldliness, social affectation and addiction to fashion. Males are characterized by a semi-slovenly appearance (including half-shaven faces), greasy hair, rib-hugging shirts, tight jeans and loafers worn without socks. Women are easily distinguished by anorexia, over-bleached hair, gaudy jewelry, plastic surgery (particularly breast-enlargement) and their attachment to the male species. Both sexes greet each other with “air kisses,” immediately speak of their last trip (often Paris, Rome, Majorca), spend hours at “see-and-be-seen” restaurants and exhibit a world-weariness and pained sense of irony.


This one aint quite as elaborate, but...

Quote:
Fashionable Europeans, traveling or living abroad, of a type regarded variously as pretentious, shallow, irresponsible, parasitic, etc.


https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/eurotrash
McGentrix
 
  -2  
Thu 25 May, 2017 06:06 pm
@layman,
Sounds about right.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Thu 25 May, 2017 06:07 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

roger wrote:
Anyhow, while it is good for us to have them as allies, it is very good for them to have us as an ally.


some of us don't agree wholeheartedly


Why wouldn't you agree? How is the US not a very good ally to the countries mentioned?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Thu 25 May, 2017 06:27 pm
Hannity has gone on holiday. It may be a holiday or it may be like the holiday that O'Reilly announced (and never returned from). We'll have to wait and see but there's a fair chance he's gone too.
layman
 
  -2  
Thu 25 May, 2017 06:37 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Hannity has gone on holiday. It may be a holiday or it may be like the holiday that O'Reilly announced (and never returned from)....there's a fair chance he's gone too.


Won't be the first time you've looked foolish, eh, Blabby?

Quote:
"Like the rest of the country, Sean Hannity is taking a vacation for Memorial Day weekend and will be back on Tuesday," the 21st Century Fox-owned network said in a statement Friday. "Those who suggest otherwise are going to look foolish."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Thu 25 May, 2017 06:38 pm
Montana's Sinclair TV station so far refusing to air the audio file of the assault on the Guardian reporter by the GOP candidate and has not covered the Fox reporters' eye-witness statement.

As I said, pay attention to Sinclair. HP
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Thu 25 May, 2017 06:50 pm
Yeah, but who's to say that THIS aint fake news, eh?

Quote:
Poll: Majority of Americans Think Mainstream Media Publishes 'Fake News'

Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the mainstream press is full of fake news, according to the latest Harvard-Harris poll.

65 percent of voters believe there is a significant amount of fake news in the mainstream media, and the sentiment is held by a majority of voters across the ideological spectrum.

80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats reflected this distrust of the media.


I mean, like, who the hell is "Harvard-Harris," anyway? Who would want to believe them?

Can I get an "amen," cheese-eaters?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:06 pm
Here's one hell of a WTF?! legal argument from the Trump administration.

In the Appeals Court case which was just decided (10-3) to uphold the lower court's decision to block Trump's travel ban from majority Muslim nations, this is an argument advanced by the WH
Quote:
The administration had argued that consideration of campaign rhetoric would chill political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Get that? If a court considers what a candidate says (and says even multiple times) during his campaign, then this acts as a chill on free speech.

So, for example, if a candidate says, multiple times, that the negro and the Jew are terrible, evil, degraded people and that none should be allowed to enter the country (or, perhaps, to vote) then no court can justifiably consider those statements in any relevant future case because that candidates right to speak freely is jeopardized.

And how much of a step is it to then hold that reporters quoting or archiving such statements of a candidate and publishing them are also jeopardizing that candidates right to speak freely?
Quote:
That was not a problem, Judge Gregory said.

“To the extent that our review chills campaign promises to condemn and exclude entire religious groups, we think that a welcome restraint,” he wrote.
NYT
Just how fucked up is the modern right in the US? Really fucked up.

layman
 
  -1  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:10 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
The court’s vote was 10 to 3. The court divided along ideological lines, with the three Republican appointees in dissent.


10 democrats to 3 republicans, eh? Hard to explain why "the majority" ruled as it did, doncha think?

The majority opinion said:

Quote:
Although the Supreme Court has certainly encouraged deference in our review of immigration matters that implicate national security interests,” he wrote, “it has not countenanced judicial abdication, especially where constitutional rights, values, and principles are at stake.”


Since foreigners don't have, and have never had, "constitutional rights," the emphasis here has to be on "values and principles." In this case, cheese-eater "values and principles."

These cheese-eating judicial activists actually think they are justified in substituting their subjective "values and principles" for the law, as written, eh?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:13 pm
Winner of this week's Dangnabbit, I Guess That Just Slipped My Mind award
Quote:
When Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, sought the top-secret security clearance that would give him access to some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets, he was required to disclose all encounters with foreign government officials over the last seven years.

But Mr. Kushner did not mention dozens of contacts with foreign leaders or officials in recent months. They include a December meeting with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, and one with the head of a Russian state-owned bank, Vnesheconombank, arranged at Mr. Kislyak’s behest.
NYT
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:17 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
If you had any doubts about what a complete embarrassment Trump is for the US, watch this video of him during the NATO conference. This video is going to go around the world and validate everyone's notions of what an incredibly graceless creep this guy is.

Trump is just fine. That he makes liberals whine only proves that even more.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:19 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:
What Trump doesn't understand is that other member countries of NATO don't have nearly enough money to contribute as much as we do. We can't kick Iceland, Greece, Belgium etc. out of NATO just because they don't pay as much rent. Their emotional, political and strategic alliance with us is the most important part. Not how many war machines they can afford!

Ummm.... No one asked them to spend as much as we do.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:20 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
A fundamental principle of neoconservative ideology, for example, is that the US must challenge any nation or entity which might rise up to contest US hegemony (and that's an idea held more broadly than merely the neoconservatives).

Oh nonsense. We have no hegemony to begin with.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:30 pm
@blatham,
You predictably omitted this part, eh, Blabby?

Quote:
Jamie Gorelick, Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, said that the questionnaire was submitted prematurely on Jan. 18, and that the next day, Mr. Kushner’s office told the F.B.I. that he would provide supplemental information.

In a statement, Ms. Gorelick said that after learning of the error, Mr. Kushner told the F.B.I.: “During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect. I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity. … I would be happy to provide additional information about these contacts.”
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:32 pm
@ossobucotemp,
ossobucotemp wrote:
You are so correct.

How is a rant based on a delusion in any way correct?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Thu 25 May, 2017 07:36 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Get that? If a court considers what a candidate says (and says even multiple times) during his campaign, then this acts as a chill on free speech.

So, for example, if a candidate says, multiple times, that the negro and the Jew are terrible, evil, degraded people and that none should be allowed to enter the country (or, perhaps, to vote) then no court can justifiably consider those statements in any relevant future case because that candidates right to speak freely is jeopardized.

And how much of a step is it to then hold that reporters quoting or archiving such statements of a candidate and publishing them are also jeopardizing that candidates right to speak freely?

The silly leftist delusion that "a campaign statement about alleged motive" outweighs the factual question of "what does an executive order actually do" is not going to survive contact with the Supreme Court.

What's really funny is, this was supposed to only be a temporary measure until stricter vetting standards could be come up with. But since the Democrats have delayed it and demonized Trump so much about it, when Trump finally wins this is going to be a political trophy that he will almost certainly leave enacted permanently.


blatham wrote:
Just how fucked up is the modern right in the US? Really fucked up.

When Republicans bother liberals, that means those Republicans are doing what is right for America.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.36 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 08:31:40