192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
blatham
 
  4  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 01:22 pm
@Olivier5,
That's very kind, Olivier. Unfortunately, I was born without any ambition whatsoever. Other than stuff with girls.

The video is really very good. It catches the speech patterns just right not to mention the boastful ridiculosities. Thank you!

ps... I'm a Melissa McCarthy fan of some magnitude. Here's an out-take where she just runs wild https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh7Cz7ttlrw It is not suitable for work.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 01:39 pm
@blatham,
That attack would be against Muslims. I will not stand by and let Trump destroy our freedoms.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 01:45 pm
And for the latest in our incredibly famous series "Humans Doing Something Worthwhile" Let's work this one up, boys
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 01:51 pm
@blatham,
53% disapprove of Trump. That must surely injure his narcissistic thin skin.
Good; one of the worst in American history after innaugeration.
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 01:58 pm
@revelette1,
This bodes a bit better for Murrica in a few months when Pence takes over.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:01 pm
Quote:
Ryan LizzaVerified account
‏@RyanLizza
Trump effect: asked several times on @FaceTheNation Mike Pence refused to say that the United States is morally superior to Russia.

Think about this one. Suddenly, in only a few short weeks or months, the highest levels of the GOP find it convenient to completely reverse the fundamental premise, previously held and adamantly insisted upon, of America's unique moral exceptionalism. And this in regard to Russia and its purposeful assassination of political opponents!

And most if not all of our right wing contributors here will jump with gusto on this train going over a very ugly cliff.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
My only disagreement, ci, is your use of the phrase "one of the worst"
ossobucotemp
 
  5  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:04 pm
@blatham,
I know, they got lost on North Bowling Green Way in West Los Angeles. That street can be hard to navigate since it's so near to Sunset Boulevard.
blatham
 
  4  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:14 pm
@ossobucotemp,
I will NOT allow this horrible historic-level massacre of so many - this Bowlacaust - to be trivialized!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:19 pm
@blatham,
You're right; I did a quick search, and Trump wasn't even listed.
I arrived at my conclusion from Trump's ignorance on our Constitution on the freedom of religion, and his statements and history of bigotry. He is also known as a pathological liar. A quick Politifact check supports my accusation.
He even paid his own legal fees from the Trump Foundation.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:20 pm
@Olivier5,
That video is Huge, Huge, never before and I'm saving it!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:26 pm
I find the recent action by the Ninth Circuit of the Federal Appeals court granting a stay in the exectution of President Trump's recent Executive Order regarding immigration from seven specifiec Islamic Nations to be both interestring and a bit bewildering. One of my brothers is a Partner at a fairly prominent Washington Law firm (Jones Day), and they play a prtipheral role in some of these matters . I put two questiuons to him: (1) What is the legal requirement or standard for the iussuance of such a stay by the Ninth Circuit? and (2) What is the likelihood that the Ninth Circuit could prevail in permenently stopping the execution of the President's order. His answers; (1) The stay requires two things; first the likelihood of :irreparable harm toi the plantiff (someone whose entry was refused) ; and, second, a prima facie likelihood of prevailing on the alleged constitutional issue. He said the likelihood of irreperable harm standard is easily met in such a case, but the likelihood of prevailing on the constitutional issues is zero: this is merely a delaying tactic on the part of a friendly judge who knows better and the stay will be lifted within a week or so, after the "additional information" requested by the court is provided.

The legality of the President's action has already been certified by the Justice Department, and there is no doubt about the President's Constitutional authority to limit immigration from any source if he demms it in the national interest. Indeed in the last days of his presidency Obama issued an Executive Order banning immigration status for Cuban refugees who reach U.S. trerritory by boat - and did so at the explicit request of the Cuban government (In effect we are acting as supplemental border guards preventing the escape of Cubans from the impoverished Castro anthill). Oddly the Ninth Circuit didn't act on that one.

All this is a vivid illustration of the cognative dissonance that increasingly prevails in the country and particularly among the progressives who lost the recent election and are now trying to nullify its effects.


blatham
 
  4  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:41 pm
This seems to be kind of weird. Well, it is actually very weird indeed. But we understand what's going on here, I expect. Pardon the length of this paste but Pence said it again today and we ought to grasp the continuity of the thing:
Quote:
July 15, 2016: “Donald Trump is going to provide the kind of broad-shouldered American leadership on the world stage that I think will make the world a more stable place.”

July 17, 2016: “One of the reasons why I said yes in a heartbeat to run with this man, is because he embodies American strength, and I know that he will provide that kind of broad-shouldered American strength on the global stage as well.”

July 29, 2016: “To be around Donald Trump is to be around a man with broad shoulders …”

August 14, 2016 “He’s a man with broad shoulders, he’s got a clear vision, he’s strong.”

August 14, 2016: “I think you’re going to be ready, Chris, for a vision, but also for real specifics about how new leadership in the White House, a change of direction in the White House and the kind of broad-shouldered leadership that Donald Trump will bring is going to make our country more safe.”

August 28, 2016: “As I am traveling all over the country, people are coming up to me. They are responding to Donald Trump’s broad-shouldered, plainspoken leadership that we can make America great again, we can be strong on the world stage, we can have an economy that works for every American.”

August 31, 2016: “I think it shows the kind of broad-shouldered leader he is. He’s willing to sit down with whom he may have strong differences of opinion to look for things we can work on together and begin the process of discussions.”

September 23, 2016: “Well, I said today at — at the church gathering where we were before, this is a broad-shouldered leader, but he’s also a man that’s impatient with failure.”

Sept 26, 2016: “Look, Donald Trump’s got broad shoulders. He’s able to make his case and make a point.”

October 4, 2016: “We have got to lean into this with strong, broad-shouldered, American leadership.”

December 4, 2016: “— with broad shoulders, who’s going to advance America’s interest. But he’s also going to be engaging the world on behalf of America.”

December 4, 2016: “And I think the American people want — are encouraged, rather, George, to see that President-elect Trump is — is taking calls from the world, speaking to the world. They know he’s going to be out there advancing America’s interests first with that broad-shouldered leadership that’s characterized his entire life.”
NYMag

Do you find yourself a tad bemused that a commendation and metric for foreign policy chops is the distance between an individuals two arm pits?

http://www168.lunapic.com/do-not-link-here-use-hosting-instead/148508133442220?9985300131
HELL YEAH! I'M VOTING FOR THAT GUY!

I don't think for a second that Pence is suppressing homo-erotic tendencies. This is Pence making an address to the most reductive and primitive of human responses - appeal to the father figure to protect you.

This is a recurring feature on the right, particularly, whether here or in Iran or Russia or Israel, etc. It is a fundamental that underlies the authoritarian mindset. Consumers of the notion gobble it up and promoters of notion gain the means to control through peddling it.
layman
 
  -2  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:50 pm
@georgeob1,
Yeah, George, it's really kinda sick that one judge, who is not privy to all the classified intelligence information and who, needless to say, was not elected President, thinks it's his role to make U.S. Immigration policy.

Quote:
Judge Robart, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, declared in his ruling on Friday that “there’s no support” for the administration’s argument that “we have to protect the U.S. from individuals” from the affected countries."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/us/politics/visa-ban-trump-judge-james-robart.html?_r=0

He's decided that the American people don't need protection. Well, now, aint that special?
blatham
 
  4  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:55 pm
@georgeob1,
Trump may prevail in this. That's a probability acknowledged by various voices on the left (who have a grasp of the legal issues) though not all. But any insistence that the matter is black and white is hardly supported by judicial findings to this point. And there are utterly valid moral (and other) reasons to fight this one tooth and nail in any case.

You continue to make the assertion or implication (your final graph) that opponents to the president and his policies must now set aside their values and act submissively to a lunatic who got himself elected by a minority of citizens. That's not going to happen.
hightor
 
  6  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 02:57 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The Constitution is not supposed to mean whatever judges appointed by Democrats say it means.

Yes, I recall those words from the document: "All decisions must be arrived at by a Republican majority on the court; Democratic opinions will be overturned."

Quote:
It has its own established meaning, and judges are supposed to adhere to what it actually means.


That's nonsense. It's not revealed scripture; it's a political document. If it had its own "established meaning" we wouldn't get 5-4 decisions. We wouldn't even need a court, we'd simply go with the "established meaning". The only way a 200 year old set of legal guidelines can continue to have relevance is if the document's interpretation reflects our society's evolution.

The fact that we have had a conservative majority on the court for some time only reflects the fact that conservatives have been in office when there were vacancies to fill. It doesn't enshrine "originalism" or "strict constructionalism" as a guiding judicial principle. The court's current reigning philosophy is the result of political activity. The unprecedented refusal to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland proves that the constitution has no "established meaning". At least not one that conservatives feel any need to honor.
giujohn
 
  -2  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 03:01 pm
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:

What the constitution CLEARLY says is that the 2nd amendment refers to arms for militias, not a general right. That you think differently is of no bearing. It' an opinion, not a fact, and is subject to change, as SCOTUS did when they reinterpreted it, going against 200 years of judicial OPINION in Heller, which is also OPINION, NOT FACT, made by conservative activist judges and is dependent on the makeup of the court.


You have absolutely no clue as to the usage or meaning of 18th century terminology. You certainly don't understand the framers intent. You obviously have never read the Federalist Papers.

Yet you propose to lecture others who are clearly more informed that you. You, who are patently and woefully ill-informed.

So let me ask you...Why in a catalog of individual rights that is the first ten amendments written by men who were Very wary of a central government who just went through an ARMED rebellion, why oh why would they give the right to keep and bear arms to only to a government entity??

Critical thinking does not seem to be your forte.

As a practical exercise tell us what the term regulated as used in the 2nd amendment means in 18th century speak.
[/quote
Cat got your tongue? Ya, I thought so...Read a book once in a while.
blatham
 
  4  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 03:03 pm
@blatham,
I should have added an important aspect in my post above where I said:
Quote:
This is Pence making an address to the most reductive and primitive of human responses - appeal to the father figure to protect you.

The other aspect here is the appeal to the equally reductive and primitive response of fearfulness that this father figure can and will punish you or even kill you if you do not do what he says.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 03:22 pm
Quote:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!

As I've pointed out before, those with authoritarian/autocratic/totalitarian urges will move to attack civic institutions which will or might stand in the way of the control and domination they seek. It will be a free and active press, it will be unions, it will be protest movements, it will be legal structures and it will often be religious organizations. They will bully and threaten such entities. They will encourage their supporters to do this as well.

This is all quite predictable and it is ramping up now. It's a near certainty these people are going to provoke constitutional crises, more than one. What we don't know is whether the civic institutional structures of the US will be able to cope. It is utter foolishness to imagine, axiomatically, that they will.
hightor
 
  5  
Sun 5 Feb, 2017 03:24 pm
@giujohn,
Quote:
So let me ask you...Why in a catalog of individual rights that is the first ten amendments written by men who were Very wary of a central government who just went through an ARMED rebellion, why oh why would they give the right to keep and bear arms to only to a government entity??

Because by having organized citizen militias they wouldn't need to keep a standing army. Too bad the concept was seen to be unworkable by 1812.
 

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 0.42 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 11:48:27