192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
layman
 
  -4  
Tue 25 Jul, 2017 11:19 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
What Hi, there, seems to be oblivious to is just how extremely partisan he is, all while making pretenses to be relatively objective and impartial.

Hi wrote:
I mentioned a long time ago that I wish there were more scholarly articles posted by Trump supporters instead of the incessant fake news stories and ugly Hillary photos....I tried to point out the odd behavior of Trump supporters in light of all the revelations of long-denied meetings between the Trump campaign committee and various Russian agents.


What "fake news?"

What "ALL long-denied meetings?" There are none, that I'm aware of. Of course you might well believe otherwise if you didn't take the time to "fact check" the incessant "implied libel" of the MSN.

Speaking of implied libel (about which I recently posted an excerpt from an article by a UCLA law professor) that's just one of many "scholarly articles" I've posted about various legal issues and other matters.

I also routinely post legit news stories. It's just that they're not ones Blather would choose to exclusively report on and emphasize, so that alone probably makes them all "fake news" to a disguised zealot like Hi.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Tue 25 Jul, 2017 11:23 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Ya know, Blather, it's kinda ridiculous for you to run around bitching about "trolls" when all you do in troll 24/7. What's up with that?


You probably realize this, but the convoluted and self-absorbed post you are responding to is blatham's way of declaring that he has put folks like you (and probably me for that matter) on Ignore. Who cares? And besides, eventually he'll peek...they all peek. Smile

I will say though that I much prefer CI's practice of announcing his act of Ignoring someone with a curt "That's it. You are now on Ignore." I always get a kick out it as it reminds me of the "Soup Nazi" character from the "Seinfeld" TV series. The only thing humorous in blatham's announcement is his attempt to compare himself to Christopher Hitchens... which in turn reminds me of Lloyd Bentsen's scolding of Dan Quayle and the gall he demonstrated in merely referencing JFK.

(BTW - Is CI back in A2K? Does anyone know of his current status?)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Tue 25 Jul, 2017 11:27 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

I think I might like this Mussolini guy. He looks like George C. Scott, who ROCKS!


Pretty sure he and the Missus, Collen Dewhurst (She with the truck driver's voice), were big time cheese-eaters, despite his great performance in "Patton".
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Tue 25 Jul, 2017 11:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The only thing humorous in blatham's announcement is his attempt to compare himself to Christopher Hitchens... which in turn reminds me of Lloyd Bentsen's scolding of Dan Quayle and the gall he demonstrated in merely referencing JFK.

(BTW - Is CI back in A2K? Does anyone know of his current status?)


Hahahaha, good catch, Finn. Here it is:



I seen CI post in other threads in the last few days, but he seems to have abandoned his presence in this thread--a wise decision, actually.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Tue 25 Jul, 2017 11:54 pm
Ya know, Plato done said, a long-ass time back, that any person who wanted to be president was inherently unqualified for the job.

Trump may be a narcissistic egomaniac, but most presidents are. A study (which I have posted before) of the most narcissistic presidents was published by Pew, and 6 of the 7 worst were Democrats. As I recall, LBJ led the field, and Clinton, Obama, JFK, and FDR were all in there. Nixon was behind them all.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 12:46 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I object to you including my quote in this list Finn. It has absolutely nothing to do with Laymen being a Trump supporter.


You could have fooled me, but if you say so, I won't argue with you about it.


I won't argue with the fool either, but I will correct him. It has EVERYTHING to do with me being a trump supporter, or, more generally, me NOT being a lame-ass cheese-eater.

The first encounter I had with Ma that I recall was in a thread where he was defending the wack-ass muslim who ran down 8-10 people at OSU a while back. As you might expect, we didn't exactly "hit it off" so good, eh?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 03:25 am
Why do all the cheese-eaters here hate me, I wonder? After studying on that question, here's what I figure.

1. In part because I'm a wise-ass who has little respect for cheese-eaters, and they don't like being dissed. They think they are ENTITLED to respect, with no need to earn it. I don't.

2. But primarily it's because I don't agree with their bullshit. The left HATES anyone who disagrees with them. They would have no problem with me if I was one of them and was talking to their opponents.

3. But I don't think even that fully explains it. They hate me even more because I don't just sit around mindlessly praising Trump or calling cheese-eaters names. I bring up facts that they want to ignore. When they attempt to summarily dismiss those facts by way of some sophistic tactic which often does the trick for them (such as condemning me for being racist, homophobic, islamophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, immoral, stupid, a disgusting liar, etc.) I don't just go away, as many do. The facts don't get ignored and swept under the rug. Instead I defend the facts and my positions. They HATE that.

As Jack Nicholson said in Cuckoo's Nest: "Doc, that Nurse Rachett, she don't like playing with a square deck, know what I'm sayin?"
layman
 
  -4  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 03:45 am
About time, eh?:

Quote:
Sessions to announce investigations into intelligence leaks

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will soon announce several criminal leak investigations, Fox News has learned.

A U.S. official familiar with the discussions said Tuesday that the planned announcement surrounding stepped-up efforts on leak investigations has “been in the works for some time and will most likely happen sometime in the next week.”


I hear tell that, in tribute to Nixon, these task forces will be called "the plumbers."

I guess the "U.S. official" behind this leak aint heard that it aint just the intelligence agencies that are gunna get plugged:

Quote:
Anthony Scaramucci, Trump's new communications director, said Tuesday that he was prepared to "fire everybody" to stop unauthorized information coming from the press office.

Speaking to reporters, Scaramucci said that he was "not doing an investigation. I'm just going to get the leaking to stop." He stressed that he had "the authority from the president to do that."

"You're either going to stop leaking or you're going to get fired," Scaramucci said.

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  9  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 04:56 am
@layman,
Don't delude yourself. I doubt that anyone hates you; they simply find your posting style abusive and your appropriation of a stereotypical "black street" persona tiresome. Hey, everyone has his own ideas about what constitutes effective communication — don't be surprised, though, if you lose part of your audience by habitual name-calling. Your opening statement is a good example. If I'm going to address a crowd where a significant number of people are Jewish, I wouldn't expect to have a positive response by opening up with, "Why do all you kikes hate me?"
Quote:
Instead I defend the facts and my positions.

Having seen you in action, I notice that your counter-arguments are often weak but you compensate for this either by nit-picking — "you spelled obfuscate wrong, cheese-eater" — or by shifting the subject, the infamous "what about?" tactic. And there's always the lapse into the street character who can get away with anything because it ain't really layman,eh? Fine tactics in some situations but not guaranteed to be effective all the time.

So yeah, many of us have you on "ignore". And yeah, we'll check out one of your posts from time to time and invariably see the wisdom of our decision. An uncluttered page makes for a more enjoyable A2K experience. But don't kid yourself. No one is consumed with undying hatred for you because you think you're clever and delight in provocation. You occasionally exhibit exceptionally bad taste but we all find your racist, homophobic, islamophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, immoral, stupid, and disgusting comments endearing. Believe me.

We love you, layman. Don't ever change.
revelette1
 
  3  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 07:18 am
Quote:
Why is Trump going after Sessions on Twitter?

President Trump sure seems mad at Attorney General Jeff Sessions, huh?
He sure does. This is what he tweeted Monday:

So why aren't the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 24, 2017

Then this is what he tweeted Tuesday morning:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign - "quietly working to boost Clinton." So where is the investigation A.G
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

To put an even finer point on it, newly installed White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci told radio host Hugh Hewitt that Mr. Trump wants Sessions to go during an interview Tuesday morning.

When asked by Hewitt if Mr. Trump wants Sessions "gone," Scaramucci replied, "If there's this level of tension in the relationship, that's public then you're probably right."

Mr. Trump reiterated that he was "very disappointed" in Sessions during a Tuesday press conference with Prime Minister Saad Hariri of Lebanon.He also said he wanted Sessions to be "much tougher" on leaks from the intelligence community, and "time will tell" if he remains Attorney General.

Needless to say, it's is extremely unusual for a president to publicly attack his attorney general. And it is not normal for a president to seemingly call for the investigation and prosecution of his opponent.

But Trump called for Hillary Clinton's imprisonment during the campaign, right?

Right. We all remember those "lock her up!" chants from his rallies. And during the second presidential debate in October, after Clinton said that it's "just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of law and order in this country," Trump replied, "Yeah, because you'd be in jail."

However, Mr. Trump sang a different tune once he was actually elected president. He told The New York Times last November that "not looking" to push for any prosecution of Clinton, saying it would be "very, very divisive for the country."

"My inclination would be for whatever power I have on the matter is to say let's go forward," Mr. Trump said then, adding that he did not "want to hurt the Clintons."

So by not pursuing any investigation into Clinton, Sessions was doing what the president wanted?

It would seem that way.

Then why would Mr. Trump change his mind now?

This is a matter of some speculation, and theories abound. Some TV commenters friendly to Mr. Trump, particularly Fox News' Sean Hannity, have been calling for Clinton's prosecution for month. It's possible Mr. Trump has just changed his mind on the issue, or is just "thinking aloud," as White House aide Kellyanne Conway told Breitbart on Tuesday.

Kellyanne Conway on Trump’s tweets about prosecuting Hillary: “He didn’t change his mind, he’s wondering out loud”
— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering)

Then again, there are other issues to consider.

Like what?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, for one. Mueller is subordinate to the Justice Department, meaning he could be fired. But Sessions recused himself from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election that Mueller is now heading, meaning that Session can't fire Mueller.

But a new Attorney General could?

Yes. Mr. Trump has made it clear how unhappy he is with Mueller's investigation, which has a broad mandate to look into and prosecute crimes. That means the investigation could go beyond the Russia matter and into business deals that Mr. Trump made as a private citizen.

Wouldn't a new Attorney General need to be confirmed by the Senate?

Eventually, yes. But Mr. Trump could appoint one while the Senate is in recess later this month, meaning a confirmation could be put off until January. That means Mr. Trump would be able to install someone willing and able to fire Mueller and worry about keeping the new Attorney General next year.

Why doesn't he just fire Sessions, then?

There are big political risks to firing Sessions. For one thing, Sessions is well-liked by Republican lawmakers, particularly in the Senate. Some Senate Republicans have already stepped up to defend Sessions, in fact. Plus, Sessions is respected by ideological conservatives you would think Mr. Trump wants to keep happy. And it would be seen as a profound act of disloyalty to Sessions, a noted immigration hawk who was the first Senator to endorse Mr. Trump during the Republican primaries.

Also, while Mr. Trump is famous for his "you're fired!" catchphrase, Mr. Trump has been deeply hesitant to fire anyone in his administration. He seems to prefer it when they just quit their jobs, as now-former Press Secretary Sean Spicer did last week.

Mr. Trump, however, left the door open to firing Sessions in a Tuesday interview with the Wall Street Journal. "It's not like a great loyal thing about the endorsement," Mr. Trump told the paper. "I'm very disappointed in Jeff Sessions.

Does Sessions show any signs of quitting?

Not yet. According to CBS News' Paula Reid, he's just going about his business as if everything was normal.

Could Mr. Trump still fire Sessions?

Clearly he wants to, at least on some level. But given the risks, and Mr. Trump's hesitancy to fire anyone, it's pretty clear at this point he'd prefer if he just leaves on his own. That scenario, in theory, would also allow Mr. Trump to pass some level of blame for Mueller's firing onto someone else, namely the new Attorney General.

If Mueller is fired, what happens?

Depends. It might be the moment Mr. Trump's base, and Republican lawmakers en masse, turn on him. But they stuck with him, more or less, when former FBI Director James Comey was fired, and they might stick with him through this.

In any event, given that Republicans control both houses of Congress, the chance that Mr. Trump is impeached before next year's midterms is close to zero. Firing Sessions and/or Mueller would likely do great damage to his already testy relationship with Republican lawmakers, but there's not much evidence that Mr. Trump cares all that much about that relationship to begin with.


CBSNEWS
blatham
 
  7  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 08:48 am
This morning's delicious helping of dogshit. Dig in, boys.
Quote:
“With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office,”
(Trump, yesterday)
blatham
 
  7  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 08:55 am
The nutritional benefits of a dogshit diet can be seen not only in lustrous skin and hair but also in whiz-bang brain function:
Quote:
Roughly half of voters who said they voted for Donald Trump last November, 49 percent, believe Trump won the popular vote, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll. That's compared to 40 percent who say Democrat Hillary Clinton won.
Politico
layman
 
  -4  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 08:58 am
@blatham,
In a new poll I conducted today, 100% of cheese-eaters said that the popular vote should decide the presidency and that the constitution should be abolished.

Meanwhile, 100% of California cheese-eaters said that it's president, after they secede, should be decided by the citizens of Mexico, who they will annex themselves to.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  6  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 10:10 am
@blatham,
Did you notice the sly mention of Mt. Rushmore? That was the joke going around prior to inauguration, we figured Trump would prioritize spending to create one more visage on Mt. Rushmore, and he might consider replacing Lincoln with his image because that spot has the most flattering light.

He's only been in office about 6 months and his main mission is to obliterate any trace of former administrations and rebrand every thing as his own. It's going to be interesting. Arlington National Cemetery may become Trump's Repose Ranch (sounds classier), it's a wealth of new and exciting Trumpertunity.
Baldimo
 
  -4  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 10:33 am
@old europe,
Quote:
I understand you want this to be a story about personal responsibility, about how this mom was irresponsible and now her daughter is dead because of that. And that you resent the mere idea of single payer health care and taxes and socialism.

It's only a question of why it becomes the US govt's responsibility to provide health insurance because her daughter died. I don't resent the idea of taxes and I understand that some of them are required for our modern day society to function properly. I don't think single payer will function in the US as well as it does in other much smaller countries across the pond. It needs to stay there where it is actually wanted.

Quote:
However, I've got to ask you: do you actually think there's no problem with ERs discharging someone without providing treatment for a life-threatening, easily treatable condition?

I do indeed think there is a problem with that, and there is also recourse for such things, it's called a Malpractice suit against the hospital. It still isn't' a good enough reason to push for single payer health insurance for the whole entire country. Did I mention that my home state of CO tried in the last election and it was very soundly beat by 70% of the voting public voting against it, this is also a state that went for Obama twice and Hillary in the last election.

Quote:
It's my understanding that this is one of the big arguments made in favor of a free market health care system: nobody would ever go without emergency care. Whether they can afford health insurance or not, whether health insurance companies refused to accept them due to pre-existing conditions or not, whether they've been kicked off a plan or their life time payouts have reached their limit or premiums have increased to a point where they no longer can afford to pay them - nobody will be allowed to just die in the streets. ERs will always provide care.

This doesn't sound like a case of not being able to pay, it sounds like a case of the hospital screwed up and should pay the price in court. Medical screw-ups are going to continue as long as we rely on doctors, they are only human.

Quote:
If that doesn't hold true, and if ERs discharge people with acute life threatening conditions due to cost - do you not see that as a problem?

Of course I see it as a problem, but you have to prove it was due to lack of insurance. It sounds like the blame falls at the feet of the hospital and the mother is just trying to get a political agenda passed and she's using her daughters death as the way to get it done.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  6  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 10:44 am
A Trump Tower of Absolute Folly

Quote:
Donald Trump’s campaign against his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in which he is seemingly attempting to insult and humiliate and tweet-shame Sessions into resignation, is an insanely stupid exercise. It is a multitiered tower of political idiocy, a sublime monument to the moronic, a gaudy, gleaming, Ozymandian folly that leaves many of the president’s prior efforts in its shade.


NYT
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 10:59 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Don't delude yourself. I doubt that anyone hates you;


Hate requires a lot of effort, it means the person your hate is directed at has some significance. Layman has none. Having said that I despise the creepy little nomark, he's homophobic, racist, transphobic, misogynistic and a supine lickspittle to boot. There's absolutely nothing to like.
Baldimo
 
  -4  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 11:19 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
No, because you just found out in oralloy's post why she didn't know she still had insurance, and besides the issue is the fact that she thought she didn't have insurance and therefore got the treatment someone who really doesn't have insurance gets, which in this hospital was death. A

We will have to agree to disagree with why she received the type of treatment she did, I think it was malpractice and had nothing to do with insurance. Did this 22 year old not have an exit interview where they explain that she has coverage until the end of the month?

Quote:
and you're OK with that.

A cheap emotional plea based on something I didn't say?

Quote:
You pull this crap all the time.

What, question people's motives? Don't I have that right and don't you do everyone else do the same thing to those they disagree with?

Quote:
When Jill Stein said she would pay for a recount in three states which allowed candidates or citizens to do that, you put up post after post demanding to know where the EXTRA money left over from the recount was supposedly going-this was before various courts even said that the recount would proceed or how much it would cost. And you went ahead and posted that phony "issue" several times more during the conversation. As it turned out, none of the three states actually went ahead and had a real vote-by-vote recount, despite getting paid money.

Jill didn't pay for ****, she got money from a bunch of socialist suckers like yourself to question an election she took last place in. So what happened to all that money she collected and that wasn't used? Did she give it back to the people who donated to the cause or did she keep it for her next run for office?

Quote:
Your strategy in debate seems to be to pick a side issue that you think you might be strong on, and harp on that over and over in an attempt to sidetrack the issue.

If you are dealing with Jill still, let me break it down. I didn't trust a person who came in last place in the election to question the election results. Sure she had the right to do it, but that doesn't mean she should have done it. I wouldn't have cared if Hillary had done the same thing, she actually was in 2nd place and had some skin in the game, Jill had none.

Quote:
Fact is, the woman was in the hospital, and because she didn't know she even had insurance she ended up being denied life-saving treatment that she would have gotten if she had insurance. That's the state of medical treatment in America, despite laws which supposedly prevent hospitals from turning away sick patients.

Sounds like a lawsuit to me, not a reason to force he rest of the nation onto single payer. This is malpractice and something that won't go away just because we have single payer health insurance. Would single payer prevent prevent people from being turned away? Sure it would, but we already have laws in place to prevent such things and I don't think this woman died because of lack of healthcare, I think she died because the Dr who treated her at the hospital diagnosed her wrong.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 11:27 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Hate requires a lot of effort, it means the person your hate is directed at has some significance. Layman has none. Having said that I despise the creepy little nomark, he's homophobic, racist, transphobic, misogynistic and a supine lickspittle to boot. There's absolutely nothing to like.

Sounds like hate to me. You love to paint with that "phobic and ist" paint brush don't you. Disagreement is hate: correct?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Wed 26 Jul, 2017 11:38 am
I've been poking around, trying to sort out (for myself) what the Pence/Sessions connection is. In my travels, I've been finding some interesting opinion pieces which include interview snippets which I hadn't come across before.

from one side

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/07/trumps_decision_to_can_chris_christie_led_to_the_s.html

from the other

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-sessions-trump-20170725-story.html

__

Pence often seems to be lead hand when it comes to praising Sessions. Is it a set-up of one/both?

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/mike-pence-praises-jeff-sessions/2017/06/21/id/797437/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mike-pence-tells-jeff-sessions-trump-proud-to-have-you-as-attorney-general/article/2626631

they both often seem to be on the outside, looking in (or trying to)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/16/is-this-criminal-obstruction-of-justice/?utm_term=.46b4d72ec660


___


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-sessions-possible-backfire-1.4221688

Quote:
Potentially complicating matters for Trump is Sessions' popularity among conservatives in his voting base.

Republicans are already giving the attorney general some cover. Senators Lindsey Graham, Rob Portman and Tom Cotton praised Sessions as a solid conservative whose stance on immigration and border control proved popular among hardliners.

In a rare critique of the president, the extreme-right website Breitbart proclaimed in a headline that Trump's attacks on Sessions "endangers" Trump's "immigration agenda" of which Sessions represents "one of the vital pillars."

Either way, Sessions is in an untenable situation as the head of the Justice Department without the confidence of the president. But he has so far indicated he has no intention of resigning.



__

it's interesting that people generally id'd as conservative v Republican are coming out in support of Mr. Sessions

I suspect it's better reading this stuff north of the border than living it.
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 0.46 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 08:02:59