192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 05:38 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

Who would have thought that Hillary was for a bill that protected the American flag... You the man Layman... what a freaking hypocrite these lefties are.


How exactly?
layman
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 06:13 pm
Quote:
LOS ANGELES — Here in Los Angeles, where nearly half of the city’s residents are Latino, Mayor Eric Garcetti has vowed to do everything he can to fight widespread deportations of illegal immigrants.

In New York, with a large and diverse Latino population, Mayor Bill de Blasio has pledged not to cooperate with immigration agents. And Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago has declared that it “will always be a sanctuary city.”

Across the nation, officials in sanctuary cities are gearing up to oppose President-elect Donald J. Trump if he follows through on a campaign promise to deport millions of illegal immigrants. They are promising to maintain their policies of limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agents.

“These local politicians take it upon themselves to allow people who have been here for a long time to stay here and receive services,” Mr. Stein said. “The Trump administration is basically saying, ‘If you want to accommodate, don’t expect the rest of us to pay for your services.’”

Some believe Mr. Trump could go further than simply pulling federal funding, perhaps fighting such policies in court or even prosecuting city leaders.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/cities-vow-to-fight-trump-on-immigration-even-if-they-lose-millions.html

Lock em up!
layman
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 06:22 pm
"LOS ANGELES — Here in Los Angeles, where nearly half of the city’s residents are Latino, Mayor Eric Garcetti has vowed to do everything he can to fight widespread deportations of illegal immigrants."

No need for the Mexicans to attempt a military invasion to take back California, they'll soon have it conquered by means of infiltration alone.

This is the explicit strategy of ISIS, et al, too, as they admit. Ya don't have to bleed em if ya can outbreed em. They are winning, BIGTIME, on this score in Europe.
layman
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 06:42 pm
Quote:
Islam is the fastest growing religion all over the world, due primarily to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims. Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman—well above replacement level (2.1). It is often reported from most recent various sources in 2010, including the German domestic intelligence service, that Salafism is the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world.

According to the Pew Research Center, the Muslim population in Europe (excluding Turkey) was about 30 million in 1990, 44 million in 2010 and is expected to increase to 58 million by 2030...There were approximately 19 million Muslims in the European Union in 2010. Muslim women today have an average of 2.2 children compared to an estimated average of 1.5 children for non-Muslim women in Europe


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth

0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 07:08 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

giujohn wrote:

Who would have thought that Hillary was for a bill that protected the American flag... You the man Layman... what a freaking hypocrite these lefties are.


How exactly?


I thought it was obvious... for the condemnation Trump is getting that Hillary didn't.
giujohn
 
  -2  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 07:12 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:



Lock em up!


Nah... cigarette and a blindfold.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 08:36 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

giujohn wrote:

Who would have thought that Hillary was for a bill that protected the American flag... You the man Layman... what a freaking hypocrite these lefties are.


How exactly?


I thought it was obvious... for the condemnation Trump is getting that Hillary didn't.


You mean in 2005 when she did this?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 08:45 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
Ya don't have to bleed em if ya can outbreed em.


sounds like people talking about Catholics in Quebec when I was a kid
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  4  
Tue 29 Nov, 2016 09:49 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

giujohn wrote:

Who would have thought that Hillary was for a bill that protected the American flag... You the man Layman... what a freaking hypocrite these lefties are.


How exactly?


I thought it was obvious... for the condemnation Trump is getting that Hillary didn't.


Hey giujohn, there is this cool function on the Google machine where you can search for articles and whatnot from back in time!!!

I've taken the 12 seconds you could have and found several articles just from the first page that criticize Clinton for the bill she cosponsored with Republicans.

Senator Clinton and Liberals Split Over Flag Desecration
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html

Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html

Hillary, Flag-Burning, and a Mini-Rant
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/5/169786/-

Star-Spangled Pandering
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html

Hillary's pathetic ploy
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/12/Opinion/Hillary_s_pathetic_pl.shtml



Here's the discusson on A2K in 2005...you can see that most all the 'liberals' are supportive of the right to burn the flag.
http://able2know.org/topic/54175-1
giujohn
 
  -2  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 12:00 am
@maporsche,
Well first of all I do have this Google machine you speak of but you see the problem is for instance in order to read that New York Times story I'm going to have to subscribe to that rag.. And that I will not do. Also, I believe the strongest word used against Hillary was pander or pathetic... not even close to the vitriol visited upon Donald Trump. So my comment stands.
layman
 
  1  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 12:57 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

I believe the strongest word used against Hillary was pander or pathetic... not even close to the vitriol visited upon Donald Trump. So my comment stands.


What!? They didn't claim that Hillary was a totalitarian fascist who was bent on destroying the constitution? Who knew?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 03:36 am
Either Clinton or Trump or anyone else, any policy/plan to punish citizens for "desecrating" a flag is a pander to nationalist sentiments. True in North Korea, true in America. And this sort of sentiment (and calls for such punitive actions) is mainly a feature of the right. It's a matter of pride on the right to hold and voice such sentiments.

In the SC finding that protected flag burning under the first amendment, Scalia sided with the free speech argument. He recognized he had to as a matter of ideological/jurispredential consistency. But what he said later was interesting
Quote:
“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag,” Scalia said. “But I am not
king.”
I wanna punch hippies SO bad
And as noted above, this idiotic tweet from Trump ranks as one of the minor idiocies.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 04:05 am
Quote:
Romney gushes over Trump after posh dinner

Mitt Romney showered Donald Trump with uncharacteristic praise on Tuesday night, minutes after polishing off a dinner of frog legs, scallops and lamb chops with the president-elect at the tony Jean-Georges restaurant in Trump International Hotel in New York.

"I had a wonderful evening with President-elect Trump," Romney, who is under consideration to be Trump's secretary of state, told reporters.
Now go shine my shoes and lick my daughter's toes and I'll think about it
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 05:06 am
We know that this new administration is going to go full bore on ridding America of Medicare. In the piece following, Josh gets everything right:
1) Trump did not campaign on this policy, in fact he said the opposite
Quote:
“People have been paying in for years. They’re gonna cut Social Security. They’re gonna cut Medicare. They’re gonna cut Medicaid,” [Trump] told Fox News in April 2015, referring to the other candidates in the GOP presidential primary. “I’m the one saying that’s saying I’m not gonna do that!”
der linkens ein
2) Ryan and the Koch crowd have been waiting like forever to rid America of social programs because communists!
Quote:
More seriously, this gives you a map into the essentials of this debate and how Medicare will survive if it does. Many Republicans can see the political danger of touching Medicare. No one campaigned on this in 2016. Support for phasing out Medicare and replacing it with private insurance and vouchers is minimal outside libertarians and conservative ideologues. That's why word play about 'reform' and averting 'bankruptcy' and 'saving Medicare' are the catch phrases. If anyone said, 'We have an idea to have seniors get private insurance instead of Medicare and a check from the government to pay part of the cost' they'd be laughed out of whatever room they were in. What's most salient is that it is toxic within the coalition around which Donald Trump has at least temporarily remade the GOP.

Paul Ryan and his backers in the Koch donor network want to do this badly. People like Mike Pence and Tom Price and a lot of hardcore conservatives in the House GOP caucus want to do this badly. It's an historic culmination of decades policy dreams and preparation. But I doubt very much Trump and Ryan will be able to achieve this if they have to do it with no Democratic votes.

This is what short-circuited President Bush's attempt to partially phase out Social Security in 2005. Republicans were willing but wary. They wanted President Bush to bring along some number of Democrats and move public opinion in his favor. As Democrats coalesced around an all but unanimous refusal to support or even negotiate over any phaseout plan, the effort collapsed. The key was depriving would-be privatizers of the cover of 'bipartisanship' and anonymity in the legislative crowd.
der linkens zwei
Dems are, it seems, planning to use the Price nomination to make clear to citizens just what is coming down the pike. Most don't know and they are not going to like it if awareness is raised and if perception begins to match reality. So the Dems damn well better find ways to get around the propaganda campaign that's coming with its weasel language like "reform" or "improve" or "save from bankruptcy"
IngridTR
 
  -3  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 05:33 am
@blatham,
I'm really sorry for his family that suffers now a lot. I'm not sure they deserve all these dirty attention and all these sh*t around them...
blatham
 
  3  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 05:42 am
@IngridTR,
Not sure what you mean. Trump's family? And what do you mean by the **** around them?

And let me ask another question. How do you feel about the way western media describes Putin?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 06:58 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Quote:
“Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

Right on! I'd even go so far as to say, absofuckinglutely!! Though mandated sacrifice of the perpetrators first-born male child would perhaps be more traditional and appropriate.

The thing is, unlike a billionaire paying no income taxes for a decade or so, flag burning isn't smart. The flag burner doesn't get richer and more powerful at the expense of everyone else in the nation, so it's dumb.

And the other thing is that an incoming president can lie through his teeth often multiple times in a single day and that's just free speech, first amendment stuff so that's what makes America strong and vibrant as a democracy. While on the other hand, burning or pooping on the flag - which is a SACRED SYMBOL - can only work towards the destruction of the nation and its values. Duh. What could be more obvious to any thinking person?

1. If Trump didn't pay taxes, it's because he didn't owe taxes. When is the last time you made a voluntary contribution to your government? Wanting to close loopholes in no way means that someone would not utilize them as long as they exist.
2. Give specific examples of lies by Trump (being wrong isn't a lie) and then demonstrate that Clinton didn't lie much.
3. As someone who voted for Trump, I have to say that this tweet is absolutely stupid. It's like he never spent ten minutes in his life thinking about the Constitution. The 1st Amendment specifically guarantees the right to free speech. Furthermore, of all speech, the two types that should receive the most emphatic protection are (a) political speech and (b) speech that most people find repugnant. Flag burning is both of these. Freedom of speech doesn't just refer to discussions about the weather and it doesn't mean, "I should have the right to say what I think because I'm right." When they come to take away our speech, they will start with the speech that most people find repugnant, like flag burning, so it should be very zealously protected. The best remedy for bad ideas is better ideas, not censorship.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 10:33 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

We know that this new administration is going to go full bore on ridding America of Medicare. In the piece following, Josh gets everything right:
1) Trump did not campaign on this policy, in fact he said the opposite

If this is representative of your supposed 'thoughtful analysis' of events, then you have been wasting your time.

There are indeed serious financial problems out there for the United States and even more for Europe and other developed countries with comprehensive welfare systems. The long term financial fesability of these systems is based on the assumptions of long term population and economic growth. These prerequisites have long been absent in Europe with its sclerotic economic growth and impending popuulation declines. Their reckonings are fast approaching. The situation is a good deal less severe in the United States due to higher long-term economic and population growth rates, However it is degrading fairly fast.

The historical record is fairly clear that governments generally delay dealing with such problems until it is too late to fix them. It takes crisis and urgent necessity to make governments face them. It is quite clear that Trump has put a clear focus on restoring our traditional growth rates. Moreover despite all the hype he remains welcome to legal immigration. Indeed given the numbers seeking U.S, residence. we can readily afford to be selective.

The elephant in the room here is the mindless expansion of both social programs and ill-conceiverd regulations that inhibit economic growth that have occurred under the current Administration. That is the real threat to MEDICARE. Indeed the many contradictions in Obamacare and its unfolding financial collapse is ample proof that our earnest progressives can't think their way through the operational details of the pie in the sky systems they force on us.

I also note in a recent report that Carrier Inc. has announced its intent to keep its manufacturing establishment in the U.S. and has cancelled its well advanced plan to transfer it to Mexico, following some dialogue with the Trump Team. The details aren't known yet, but the precedent here is likely to foretell future trends, among American firms.

There is indeed something refreshing in the actions Trump initiates, compared to the unworkable programs and empty rhetoric and scolding we routinely get from our current lightweight President and his progressive mentors..
layman
 
  1  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 11:15 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

There is indeed something refreshing in the actions Trump initiates, compared to the unworkable programs and empty rhetoric and scolding we routinely get from our current lightweight President and his progressive mentors..


Excellent post throughout, George, including everything I didn't quote in this one. Your analysis is worthy of consideration by ANY reasonable person, of any political persuasion. Unfortunately, I don't expect it to be considered at all by the ideological leftists who let dogma, not reason, dictate their conclusions.
giujohn
 
  0  
Wed 30 Nov, 2016 11:33 am
@layman,
DITTO
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 3.94 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 08:52:13