monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

A lawyer for first lady Melania Trump argued in a lawsuit filed Monday that an article falsely alleging she once worked for an escort service hurt her chance to establish “multimillion dollar business relationships” during the years in which she would be “one of the most photographed women in the world.”

The suit, filed Monday in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan against Mail Media, the owner of the Daily Mail, said the article published by the Daily Mail and its online division last August caused Trump’s brand, Melania, to lose “significant value” as well as “major business opportunities that were otherwise available to her.” The suit noted that the article had damaged Trump’s “unique, once in a lifetime opportunity” to “launch a broad-based commercial brand.”

...“There has never been a first lady of the United States who insinuated that she intended to make a lot of money because of the ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity of being first lady,” said [Richard] Painter [a White House ethics counsel under President George W. Bush]

I will give you one point. The second amendment was never about hunting... It was always about self defense, whether from hostile Nations, domestic tyrants, or everyday criminals.

Today, in the vote on DeVos, we'll discover whether more than two GOP Senators have the personal integrity and any real interest at all in placing American educational quality above partisan fealty. I'm not confident they'll pass this test. The political and intellectual corruption is just too deep.

Hard to tell what may be your motives, but it often appears that this is an important source of personal satisfaction or validation for you ...

The Democrats in the Senate are playing a delaying game with respect to most Trump appointments...

No, I'm merely observing the obvious fact that the Democrats in the Senate are doing exactly what their Leader Chuck Schumer said they would do, and what such minorities often do in these circumstances. It's true the Republicans will need Jeff Sessions's vote today, but the delays so far were quite independent of that- merely an unexpected fotuitous result for the GOP.

And what are you parroting?

Ideally, yes. However it isn't the most important thing relative to these appointments: these forms are merely shopping lists for fault finding by the opposition, and so far mothing material has come out of them. It has been a useful vehicle to Democrats for expression of their outrage and surprise at loosing the election, but not much else.

What difference does it make? None of the other amendments mention a militia either.

History quickly confounded Francis Fukuyama's boastful claim of its demise in the early 1990s, and the game continues to change.

I note with interest how you never answered my questions regarding the Bill of Rights or the Second Amendment or for instance the definition of the words well regulated.

So does that mean that only people who are well-educated should be allowed to keep and read books?

Quote:

Probably the terrorist and whomever helped them in any way.

So, an anti-abortionist blows up another medical facility and its staff or another white supremacist goes on a killing spree of Muslims or Sikhs with turbans or blacks or someone with the wrong skin and ethnicity and blame is properly attributed only to the individual committing the act and his/her direct associates. Is that your answer? No fault or blame to be directed at those cultural institutions and politicians that have refused to deal with such entities, or to even admit they are real and that they constitute terrorism?

If an individual, relatively recently arrived from a majority Muslim country, who holds a hidden hatred of the US and an agenda to hurt Americans (or Brits or Dutch etc) commits such an act, then fault will fall to whichever agency failed to detect the fellow's history and motivations (understanding that this can be exceedingly difficult as it is in determining dangerous individuals such as the American kids who go into schools and murder children).

And if another attempt succeeds, there's no valid reason to imagine that there'd be a third or fourth, etc. Your chances of being killed by a terrorist are so exceedingly small that they are essentially non-existent.

The danger to you and to your liberties arise out of a police-state type of response internally and out of a furtherance of politicians or other powerful cultural voices promoting a language of religious war that will facilitate extremist Muslim recruiting and terrorist activity.

The statistical probability of death or serious injury from an Islamist terrorist attack is a good deal higher than that posed by environmental toxins which we spend billions each year treating and removing.