192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Steb
 
  2  
Fri 2 Dec, 2016 09:32 pm
@wmwcjr,
Especially now. I have a great friend who has all but been disowned by his own son because of politics. He doesn't talk politics with his son, but the mere fact that they vote for a different party was enough to cause his son to distance himself from his father. Very sad and unnecessary.
wmwcjr
 
  3  
Fri 2 Dec, 2016 10:17 pm
@Steb,
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I agree with you that it is very sad and unnecessary. I was an anti-Trump voter who didn't support Clinton; so, I cast a protest vote for Evan McMullin. A close friend of mine voted for Trump, but I didn't hold it against him. He's been a very good friend. A friendship is too precious to waste on politics. Those whose fathers are still around (assuming their fathers are not abusive, of course) should appreciate them while they're still alive. There's no guarantee for tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 04:04 am
@glitterbag,
Wow, if two like conservative minds is a bromance then what I see on this site with all you bleeding heart liberals must be a ******* orgy.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  7  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 06:20 am
I'm travelling so intermittent posts for a few days.

This level of personal insult here is increasing. Don't do it. It's a violation of site rules. If someone is behaving in this manner, report it to the moderators and refuse to join in. If he/she refuses to engage in discussion with integrity, put them on ignore and carry on. Trolls push emotional buttons - that's a key behavior/intention which defines tolling. Don't play along. There's a LOT to pay attention to now in politics and in media. Focus on the real stuff, not the noise.
blatham
 
  3  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 06:25 am
More re DeVos. And if you didn't see this coming, you haven't been following this family.
Quote:
The billionaire philanthropist whom Donald Trump has tapped to lead the Education Department once compared her work in education reform to a biblical battleground where she wants to "advance God's Kingdom."

Trump’s pick, Betsy DeVos, a national leader of the school choice movement, has pursued that work in large part by spending millions to promote the use of taxpayer dollars on private and religious schools.

Her comments came during a 2001 meeting of “The Gathering,” an annual conference of some of the country’s wealthiest Christians. DeVos and her husband, Dick, were interviewed a year after voters rejected a Michigan ballot initiative to change the state’s constitution to allow public money to be spent on private and religious schools, which the DeVoses had backed.
If it's not phonics, it's Satan
layman
 
  0  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 06:53 am
@blatham,
So, your link says, among other things:

Quote:
“Dick and Betsy are not radical fundamentalist, 'in the hills' kind of people,” said Rev. Robert A. Sirico, head of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, who described himself as a close friend. “They’re not the kind of people who want to force their beliefs down anybody’s throat."
The DeVos family are billionaires, but in the interview, Betsy DeVos said that rather than just give money to boost Christian schools, she’s fighting to change the whole system because there “aren’t enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education.

At one point in their interview, the Devoses are asked directly if they want to "destroy our public schools."

"No, we are for good education, and for having every child have an opportunity for good education," Betsy DeVos says.

“We both believe that competition and choices make everyone better and that ultimately if the system that prevails in the United States today had more competition — there were more choices for people to make freely — that all of the schools would become better as a result."


You say: ".. And if you didn't see this coming, you haven't been following this family."

This interview was fro 15 years ago, so I guess it's a little late to see anything "coming." You probably saw it "coming" in 1990, I guess.

But what I want to know is just what is supposedly "coming," and whether there is some reason to object to whatever "it" is.

Do you want to eliminate all choice and insist that every student MUST be educated in an environment where any and all expressions of religious sentiments are strictly banned? Do you want to control ALL education, public and private, to ensure that your atheistic theology is adhered to everywhere?


0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 06:59 am
@giujohn,
This is accurate. I'm definitely not saying all of this is going to work, but Donald Trump is absolutely no Republican and he's not capitulating to the crude unprecedented bullying by the MSM.

I'm not sure the MSM realizes how hated they are--and that Trump's war with them makes him appealing, despite his many flaws.
layman
 
  0  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 07:03 am
@blatham,
If we wanted to build a road going from Town A to Town B, but to do so would entail improving access to a rural church, should we refrain from building it because it would be using "public funds?"

If we use public funds to improve transportation for all, but which would also possibly confer some incidental benefit on a church, then it would be a bad thing for transportation?

If we use public funds to improve education for all, but which would also possibly confer some incidental benefit on a church, then it would be a bad thing for education?

One way to avoid such questions would be to just prohibit all churches everywhere. Maybe THAT'S the ticket, eh!?
0 Replies
 
Frugal1
 
  -1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 07:06 am
BTW, who is monitoring the democrats?

It appears that a Muzzie who once called Hitler "a great man" will be the head of the Democrat Party.
layman
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 07:18 am
@Frugal1,
Frugal1 wrote:

BTW, who is monitoring the democrats?

It appears that a Muzzie who once called Hitler "a great man" will be the head of the Democrat Party.


Surely CNN has attacked that appointment with a zealous fervor, eh Frug? If they haven't yet (I don't know) then they certainly will.
blatham
 
  3  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 07:27 am
This guys words are not to be trusted. But it's possible what he says is true or close to it. So it will be interesting to see what the Trump crowd decide to say in response.
Quote:
MANILA — President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines said on Saturday that President-elect Donald J. Trump had endorsed his brutal antidrug campaign, telling Mr. Duterte that the Philippines was conducting it “the right way.”

Mr. Duterte, who spoke with Mr. Trump by telephone on Friday, said Mr. Trump was “quite sensitive” to “our worry about drugs.”

“He wishes me well, too, in my campaign, and he said that, well, we are
doing it as a sovereign nation, the right way,” Mr. Duterte said.
due process is such a nuisance
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 07:46 am
Quote:
Trump Backers Go to Court to Block Vote Recounts in 3 States
NY Times

I confess I don't understand the strategy here. Re Stein, there's no political analyst I read who believes Stein's move will alter any result. So what she's up to looks just weird.

But why is the right advancing such a robust legal attempt to stop the recounts? That's just as weird. One would think that verification of results would be desirable, not just in terms of solidifying Trump's victory in the EC but as a verification that the US's electoral system is not badly corrupted. The complaint forwarded - unnecessary expense - is valid but it rings rather hollow given the lack of concern re NC or the lack of it eight years ago when Franken was held back for months.

Anyone have a good idea on this?
Frugal1
 
  -1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 08:03 am
@layman,
Quote:
Surely CNN has attacked that appointment with a zealous fervor, eh Frug? If they haven't yet (I don't know) then they certainly will.


You would think CNN, MSN, and the like would be all over this story.

I wonder why they are ignoring it, isn't a Muzzie who once called Hitler "a great man" becoming the head of the new Democrat Party news-worthy?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 08:04 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
But why is the right advancing such a robust legal attempt to stop the recounts? Anyone have a good idea on this?


You didn't give a link to the article you purport to be citing, but I presume it's the one I am quoting from below. Did you actually read it?

Quote:
Bill Schuette, Michigan’s attorney general, filed a separate lawsuit in a bid to halt the recount, saying that it put the state’s voters at risk of “paying millions and potentially losing their voice in the Electoral College in the process.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/trump-recounts-wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania.html

Michigan took forever to count it's votes the first time. A second count would likely cause the State to miss the deadline for submitting its electoral votes.
blatham
 
  2  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 08:26 am
If you read anything today, read this Margaret Sullivan piece.
Quote:
The post-truth world of the Trump administration is scarier than you think
...On live radio Wednesday morning, Scottie Nell Hughes sounded breezy as she drove a stake into the heart of knowable reality:

“There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore, of facts,” she declared on “The Diane Rehm Show” on Wednesday.

Hughes, a frequent surrogate for President-elect Donald Trump and a paid commentator for CNN during the campaign, kept on defending that assertion at length, though not with much clarity of expression. Rehm had pressed her about Trump’s recent evidence-free assertion on Twitter that he, not Hillary Clinton, would have won the popular vote if millions of immigrants had not voted illegally.

...What matters now, Hughes argued, is not whether his fraud claim is true. No, what matters is who believes it.

“Mr. Trump’s tweet, amongst a certain crowd, a large — a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some — in his — amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. Those that do not like Mr. Trump, they say that those are lies, and there’s no facts to back it up.” What matters now, Hughes argued, is not whether his fraud claim is true. No, what matters is who believes it.

“Mr. Trump’s tweet, amongst a certain crowd, a large — a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some — in his — amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. Those that do not like Mr. Trump, they say that those are lies, and there’s no facts to back it up.”
Trump people go full Derrida
Frugal1
 
  0  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 08:37 am
Margaret Sullivan lives in a bubble, her opinion has no impact on real America.
revelette2
 
  3  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 08:43 am
@Frugal1,
Who are you to speak for "real America?" I am not even sure who she is, I might have read some of her work and didn't remark her name, but really, Yall's win has gone to your heads.
revelette2
 
  3  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 08:49 am
@layman,
Did you actually read it? There are three different lawsuits. One from Trump's backers which comprises three states and one from the Michigan Attorney General in Michigan. And apparently one from Trump himself filed Friday. I guess these people do not want to make sure the process is fair, typical.

The NYT link
layman
 
  0  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 09:04 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Did you actually read it? There are three different lawsuits. One from Trump's backers which comprises three states and one from the Michigan Attorney General in Michigan.

The NYT link



I see, so Hillary is trying to make sure that votes from all threes states never make it to the electoral college, eh? Would that make her the winner?
revelette2
 
  3  
Sat 3 Dec, 2016 09:24 am
@layman,
Actually you can thank Jill Stein. The Hillary campaign went along to make sure the process is carried out the way it is intended; they actually don't expect much from it and neither do I. Do you think every recount in history risked the electoral votes? Recounts are part of the election process.
 

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 1.22 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 07:46:52