192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
blatham
 
  3  
Mon 4 Sep, 2017 05:46 pm
Bannon/Breitbart want Roy Moore as the Alabama senate candidate. McConnell wants Strange. Bannon wants to hurt McConnell.
Quote:
Conservatives led by Breitbart News are waging an all-out campaign to stop a candidate backed by Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell in the Alabama Senate special election — putting growing pressure on the president to step away from his endorsement.

With just over three weeks until the runoff, far-right forces are starting to close ranks around former state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, an evangelical bomb-thrower who famously defied a federal order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from a state building.
Politico

Further weirdnesses -
Quote:
Bannon has appealed to powerful conservatives to get behind Moore. He recently addressed the Conservative Action Project, a gathering that included former Attorney General Ed Meese, former American Spectator publisher Alfred Regnery, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Last week, he reiterated the case for Moore on a conference call hosted by Judicial Watch, a conservative non-profit group.

Those three are a rogues' gallery. CAP is an offshoot of the Council for National Policy which is social conservatism central command. Their motto is "Too Much ******* Going On".
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Mon 4 Sep, 2017 06:15 pm
@Lash,
I don't even know what that means.

And how the hell would I get your IP address??
Setanta
 
  5  
Mon 4 Sep, 2017 08:24 pm
I think we should hale President Plump into court, and try him for high hilarity and misanthropy, with Judge Judy to preside.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  4  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 12:57 am
@roger,
roger wrote:
I think Clinton would have been horrible. Worse than Trump? I can't answer that one.

She would have grabbed pussies, lick Putin's ass and call Nazis "good people", I tell you!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  7  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 10:08 am
@Sturgis,
Quote:
but, she would have had her own blunders as she is as equally pig-headed and self serving much of the time as he is.


I can't believe that anyone actually thinks this is true. I've seen very little evidence that Hillary has EVER engaged in behavior even remotely as pig-headed and self-serving as Trump does on a weekly basis.

Cycloptichorn
snood
 
  8  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 10:18 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
but, she would have had her own blunders as she is as equally pig-headed and self serving much of the time as he is.


I can't believe that anyone actually thinks this is true. I've seen very little evidence that Hillary has EVER engaged in behavior even remotely as pig-headed and self-serving as Trump does on a weekly basis.

Cycloptichorn

You say you can't believe anyone sees Clinton as comparably as bad or worse than Trimp. The thing is, it really has never seemed like people's negative ideas about Clinton align with the truth about the woman. Just as people seem to be very disposed to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when his performance and behavior merit condemnation.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  4  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 11:15 am
@maporsche,
I looked it up.

Quote:
Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents),[1] or doxxing,[2][3] is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information (especially personally identifiable information) about an individual or organization.[3][4][5][6][7]

The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites (like Facebook), hacking, and social engineering. It is closely related to internet vigilantism and hacktivism.

Doxing may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, extortion, coercion, harassment, online shaming, and vigilante justice.[8][9]


Wikipedia

I guess I learned a new word I'll never use in my life.
revelette1
 
  3  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 11:24 am

Quote:
DACA is not unconstitutional

The Trump administration's case against the DACA program is nonsense.

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it will end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allows approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to live and work openly without fear of deportation. The White House also plans to delay the end of DACA for six months.

In a telling sign of how the administration wants to justify this decision, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced DACA’s fate at a news briefing Tuesday morning, referring to the program as an “unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.”

Many members of President Donald Trump’s inner circle believe that DACA is unconstitutional. The Department of Homeland Security has also cited the possibility that an anti-immigrant judge in Texas may order an immediate end to the DACA program as justification for winding it down more gradually.

The legal case against DACA, however, is nonsense. If Trump believes that the program is bad policy, then he should make that case to the American people. But he should not be allowed to claim a legal justification for a political decision.

The DACA program was created by the Obama administration through a 2012 executive action — that is, the executive branch relied on a combination of its own authority and the powers delegated to it by Congress in order to form DACA. Indeed, the case for or against DACA isn’t really a constitutional case at all. It is a question of whether federal laws enacted by Congress permitted the Obama administration to act as it did.

As Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, “when the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Should a presidential action be held unconstitutional under these circumstances, “it usually means that the Federal Government as an undivided whole lacks power” to act as the president wishes to act.


TP
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 12:24 pm
@revelette1,
Does it really matter if it's not constitutional?

It was created by Executive fiat, not the legislature and now a new Executive can use his pen and do away with it.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 12:30 pm
@revelette1,
You might if someone doxxes you.

By all signs you are a decent person, but abusive tactics can be used on anyone for any reason.

Maporche, I believe, was being disingenuous when he professed ignorance, and maybe he was just kidding, but if he did somehow find Lash's IP Adress (I've no idea whatsoever as to how anyone does) then he should be banned permanently from A2K.

If he was kidding (which I tend to believe is the case) he should refrain from doing so again. It's not funny at all.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 01:11 pm
http://nypost.com/2017/09/04/proof-that-investigating-trump-is-starting-to-backfire-for-democrats/
maporsche
 
  7  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 01:32 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Maporche, I believe, was being disingenuous when he professed ignorance, and maybe he was just kidding, but if he did somehow find Lash's IP Adress (I've no idea whatsoever as to how anyone does) then he should be banned permanently from A2K.

If he was kidding (which I tend to believe is the case) he should refrain from doing so again. It's not funny at all.


No, I truthfully had no idea what doxxing meant.

I have no ability (or inclination) to get Lash's IP address.

She said on the eclipse thread that she was in the path of totality and in a southern state. I took a stab in the dark that it was NC (the other possibility is SC). Maybe I was right. Maybe I wasn't. Here's the link (https://able2know.org/topic/405129-5#post-6489234)

I thought it was funny....even more-so now.
Setanta
 
  2  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 01:38 pm
@maporsche,
Yeah, I think it's funny too--like Trump . . . he's such a buffoon, he's too incompetent to do any real harm.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 02:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
John Crudele wrote:
Clinton’s emails, which were stolen by the Russians, have never been found.

This is the first I've heard that Clinton's private server was successfully hacked. Given the the author's breezy tone and the newspapers he writes for, I'll only believe this story when I see corroborating evidence from an independent source. Back when Bill Kristol had a column in the NY Times he was always writing articles that hinted at looming disaster for Democrats. One I remember from '08 was that Mayor Bloomberg would soon announce his candidacy and this spelled the end for Obama. These sorts of columns are primarily written to buck up one side and demoralize the other. They are about as significant as "push polling".
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  5  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 03:14 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I would probably say something like "hacked" into my computer...but, it really doesn't matter. As far as whether it matters whether Obama's 2012 action was constitutional or not, it matters in this case because Sessions and Trump are using it to justify sending millions (thereabouts)dreamers who grew up here and consider themselves Americans back to Mexico. Talk about an expressive waste on the government not to mention getting rid of a lot of labor. Why not make some kind of program where they can become citizens if they were brought here when they were babies? I don't see what it hurts.

I'll be honest, I don't know why a lot of conservatives just won't settle down and worry about things that really matter in our lives. Instead it seems as though all they want to do is make everything worse except for themselves and people who look like them.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  7  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 05:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Haha, that piece is hilariously wrong in a variety of ways

But it's been making the rounds on a lot of right-wing sites so I'm not surprised to see it here

Cycloptichorn
Debra Law
 
  4  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 05:16 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
A brief aside. If Hillary would keep herself out of the news, I doubt anyone would be talking about her.
Could have been briefer. You could have just written, "I fart on Hillary".

As to the suggestion in that aside, you're lying or you're stupid. I'm going with the first option. Trump's sociopathic output on Hillary has been on-going since the inauguration.


Why the personal attack on Lash? didn't you recently ask the members not to engage in personal attacks on this thread?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 05:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It's interesting what you and Maporche find amusing.
blatham
 
  6  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 06:14 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
Why the personal attack on Lash? didn't you recently ask the members not to engage in personal attacks on this thread?
You make a fair criticism. On the other hand, though, I think she's lying. I don't think she's so stupid as to make that statement and actually believe it. Of course, I could be wrong, thus the use of the conjunction "or".
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  6  
Tue 5 Sep, 2017 07:26 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It's interesting what you and Maporche find amusing.


And it's amusing what you think is interesting.
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 0.5 seconds on 07/17/2024 at 10:14:12