monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@oristarA,

That's 90% correct. All the fake news would indeed make huge headlines out of false claims. Bannon can't "admit" to something he didn't personally do, to begin with, and, more importantly, there's no "treason" involved anyway.

Fox, on the other hand, has covered this story in depth in a fair, honest way.

1 Reply

@Brand X,

Brand X wrote:

Bannon, from a low down dirty scum bag to darling of the left overnight.

He's still scum, yo.

He's not a 'darling of the left.' I don't know why people are saying this. Everyone on the left hates his guts.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

I'd like to see these two guys armed with 2x4's and locked in mortal combat at the end of a steel pier.

Yeah, me too! Aint no question who would win that one, eh?

0 Replies

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSqp0SNVAAAAFrW.jpg

3 Replies

@oristarA,

Not shocking at all, not many believed that Trump believed he would win. Then the evidence appeared when there was no coherent team to begin the administration.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

This guy aint even got enough sense to avoid making up contradictory ****, eh? On the one hand he claims (without citing any sources whatsoever) that Trump planned, from the outset, to lose the election.

Next thing you know, he's sayin Trump refused to contribute to his own campaign (another lie, it's well-documented that he contributed about $75 million) but that he would contribute $50 million IF it would guarantee him a win.

If he didn't want to win, and planned to lose, then why would he pay $50 million to win, ya might ask (if ya wasn't no chump, I mean).

0 Replies

@Brand X,

Who's claiming Bannon is a darling?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

0 Replies

@Brand X,

Brand X wrote:

Bannon,

He's still scum, yo.

that view hasn't changed

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

An admitted alt-right scum whom Trump couldn't praise enough at one time, until of course Bannon started taking credit for Trump's win.

At the end of the day (though there was other factors), what cost Hillary the election was herself, she simply was lackluster through the whole thing, so were her supporters and voters. She should have been hitting those swing states hard despite her woes at the end of it. I hate to say it, but perhaps she simply got tired of it and thought she could simply skate through the ending. She probably thought, surely, the alternative is just unthinkable.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Fox, on the other hand, has covered this story in depth in a fair, honest way.

I'm not surprised to hear that.

I've only listened to my usual PBS and BBC, but I tuned that story out because it's not very interesting, so I can't say how fair they were about it.

The way I see it, if the author lied about the quotes, then both Trump and Bannon have a grievance against him. If the quotes are true, then maybe Trump and Bannon need to work out their differences of opinion over a couple beers. Well, I guess Trump doesn't drink, but something like that. Either way though, I can't see how the matter has any national importance whatsoever.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Who's claiming Bannon is a darling?

I think he's all right.

Good move on snagging 1% of all profits on Seinfeld reruns.

0 Replies

I hope I never hear of the right talking about 'states rights' again. It is just inconsistently used for conveniences sake.

Sessions ending federal policy that let legal pot flourish (AP)

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Jeff Sessions has rescinded an Obama-era policy that paved the way for legalized marijuana to flourish in states across the country, creating new confusion about enforcement and use just three days after a new legalization law went into effect in California.

President Donald Trump’s top law enforcement official announced the change Thursday. Instead of the previous lenient-federal-enforcement policy, Sessions’ new stance will instead let federal prosecutors where marijuana is legal decide how aggressively to enforce longstanding federal law prohibiting it.

Sessions’ plan drew immediate strong objection from Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, one of eight states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use.

Gardner said in a tweet that the Justice Department “has trampled on the will of the voters” in Colorado and other states. He said the action would contradict what Sessions had told him before the attorney general was confirmed and that he was prepared “to take all steps necessary” to fight the step including holding up the confirmation of Justice Department nominees.

For the record, I am by no means a pot smoker, nor do I think it is as harmless as portrayed. However, that is just my opinion and not important to the point.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

I hope I never hear of the right talking about 'states rights' again. It is just inconsistently used for conveniences sake.

Say what? Did you even read the article you cited? It says:

Quote:

Threats of a federal crackdown have united liberals who object to the human costs of a war on pot with conservatives who see it as a states’ rights issue.

Where's the "convenient inconsistency?"

In your head, where what you think should be true or want to be true IS true, that where?

1 Reply

@layman,

Yes I read it, and unlike you, I actually understood it. Something you 'consistently' have a problem with.

Sessions is as "right" on the political spectrum as you can get. He is the one who is going to force states to go with a ban on pot despite it being legal in some states.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Yes I read it, and unlike you, I actually understood it. Something you 'consistently' have a problem with.

Sessions is as "right" on the political spectrum as you can get. He is the one who is going to force states to go with a ban on pot despite it being legal in some states.

1. Sessions is Jeff Sessions. He aint "the right."

2. Sessions doesn't write the laws, he merely enforces them. It is congress, not Sessions, who wrote the federal laws criminalizing pot.

3. States are free to make anything they want legal, or not (even murder). So are the feds. Neither one can tell the other what to do, in that respect, although by virtue of the "supremacy clause" the feds prevail in the case of a conflict. He is not "forcing" states to "ban" pot.

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

Quote:

It sure gets personal around here.

Politics, religion and a few other topics tend to do that. Most folks not only don't want to admit they're wrong, they seem constitutionally incapable of admitting it.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Yes I read it, and unlike you, I actually understood it. Something you 'consistently' have a problem with.

I don't recall him misunderstanding anything. Of course everybody's human, so we all misunderstand things from time to time. But I would have noticed if he misunderstood things all the time.

Perhaps you have him confused with a certain overly-pompous liberal who posts in this thread, one who almost never attempts to think for himself, but who always encounters disaster when he does attempt it?

0 Replies

@layman,

You always nick pick a useless point, turning the debate inside out.

The effect of not going with Obama's more hands off states who have made pot legal, will be a ban on pot against the will of the voters who have voted to make it legal; thus going against the often used phrase used by republicans of "states rights."

I think it should be legal federally simply because the whole war on drugs has been one big failure and too expensive to boot.

2 Replies

@Brand X,

Bollocks. It's good to see scum falling out with itself, nobody's taking sides over here. A curse on both their houses.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know