monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I enjoy listening to Seth Myers, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah and mostly John Oliver.

najmelliw wrote:

I enjoy listening to Seth Myers, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah and mostly John Oliver.

Says it all, right there, eh?

I enjoy listening to Seth Myers, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah and mostly John Oliver. I daresay my sense of humor is quite alright, thanks!

However, using derogatory terms like 'Obunga' to refer to an African-American president doesn't really tickle my funnybone, you know?

The only thing Donald Trump's mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's cock holster.

...it created a storm of protest from the 'right'...

“Now, folks, if you saw my monologue on Monday, you know that I was a little upset at Donald Trump for insulting a friend of mine,” the host said. “So, at the end of that monologue, I had a few choice insults for the president in return. I don’t regret that."

“When you insult one member of the CBS family, you insult us all,” he said, reeling off a series of scripted jokes and ending on, “In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cock holster.”

...Colbert should be smart enough to know how ridiculously passé it is to use “gay panic” jokes to try and get a rise from audiences. Colbert, of course, has every right to make fun of the president...[but] he may well think twice the next time he or his staff are writing another joke like that one.

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps Germany will volunteer to take them. ( It's easier to preach than to act)

nimh" wrote:

I believe Germany has accepted a well above-average proportional share of asylum-seekers over the past three years.

The rescue ship "Lifeline" is allowed to enter Malta after days of sailing around around. The cities of Berlin and Kiel have agreed to accept the refugees.

The fact that you continue to peddle such disgusting lies is why most people on A2K treat you with contempt and revulsion.

There is one interesting byproduct of the Court’s decision, though. Republican-led states have increasingly set strict requirements for what doctors must tell a woman before they perform an abortion. Those state laws have been challenged but upheld over the question of whether they restrict a woman’s right to abortion.

Now, however, it is possible that those laws could be challenged on a First Amendment basis, arguing that such requirements violate the doctors’ free speech rights. As Eric Citron, a Harvard Law School lecturer who has clerked for two Supreme Court justices, wrote on SCOTUSblog after the ruling:

One interesting dynamic in this case is that many states have laws telling abortion providers what they need to say to women seeking abortions. Those laws have been challenged as undue burdens on the right to obtain an abortion — and, as Breyer points out, have been upheld since Casey. But they haven’t been challenged under the kind of First Amendment theory developed here. In the long run, the ruling here may limit states’ ability to force doctors to provide certain kinds of information.

The law also requires centers that do not have a state medical license to disclose that fact, which the court also ruled was likely a violation of their constitutional protections.