monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Meaningful issues in the 2017 election in something like order of importance:

The peace and safety of the world (Putin had told his military that if Hildabeast won the election, they were basically at war) while Justin Raimondo at antiwar dot com had endorsed Trump due to Trump's long-time adversity to frivolous use of the US military.

The collapse of the Wall St./London banking and monetary system. Donald Trump was the only person in the picture with both the guts and the resources to take on the bankers. Bankers in fact fear DT enough to have had 54 private jets parked at an offshore resort for a stop-Trump-at-any-cost meeting:
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=54+private+jets+georgia+resort+trump&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Immigration (Hilda, George, and Bork Obunga want a total end to borders and mass importation of what they view as democrat voting blocks, the cost ot the nation be damned).

Gangsterism ( Clinton Foundation, pay2play, Clinton body count, murders, rape allegations... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3426438/posts?page=25#25 )

Treaties and trade deals, returning meaningful industry to the United States.

Racism/victimology ( Soros/BLM, orchestrated riots...)

All of those issues (other issues in the election are relatively minor) strongly mitigated in favor of Donald Trump and against the Hildabeast.

Americans are used to gangsterism and racism; what NOBODY is used to or has ever seen before is nuclear or thermonuclear war and hydrogen bombs going off, that would be a new experience for everybody. Hilda had stated that her first priority on taking office would be to kill Bashir Al Assad and that would have started WW-III.

The ONLY rational reason there was for voting for the Hildeabeast would have been that you are worried about dying of cancer, old age or some other mundane cause, and wasnted to go out in a blaze of glory in some sort of a nuclear holocaust in which the whole human race goes out at the same time.

We had a God-given shot at electing a president who would put Wall St. into an absolute zero-leverage situation and we took it; had we blown that chance and particularly if we had blown it for any sort of an assinine reason, it will not recur in the lifetime of anybody alive today.

But the main question is all the asshole snowflakes crying because they've just been saved from a nuclear war and holocaust. That is just ******* hard for rational/normal people to understand...

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So you are against the Constitution?

No. It is only the Democrats who are against the Constitution.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Or is there anything in the Constitution which says that Trump is above it?

Only the Democrats believe that they are above the Constitution.

1 Reply

U.S. detains and nearly deports French Jewish historian

Quote:

It remains unclear what about Rousso was identified as suspect by immigration authorities.

Egypt — from which Rousso and his family were exiled in 1956, after a slew of anti-Semitic measures imposed by the Nasser regime, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz — was not among the seven nations in the travel ban, which, in any case, had been suspended by the time he arrived in the United States.

Furthermore, France is a beneficiary of the U.S. visa waiver program, which permits French citizens to enter the United States without a visa. All that is required is an online ESTA application before departure.

For Marouf, Rousso’s ordeal was indicative of a strict new U.S. border control regime: “It seems like there’s much more rigidity and rigor in enforcing these immigration requirements and technicalities of every visa,” she told the Eagle.

Rousso’s scholarship focuses on the memory of the Vichy regime, the darkest chapter in modern French history, when the government of unoccupied France openly collaborated with Nazi Germany in World War II. Vichy authorities are particularly infamous for assisting the Germans in rounding up and deporting tens of thousands of Jews from France during the Holocaust, a horrible truth that Rousso once called “the past that does not pass.”

He spoke Friday on a similar subject in College Station, in a lecture titled “Writing on the Dark Side of the Recent Past.”

Fellow historians took to social media after news of Rousso's unpleasant experience, many pointing out what they considered the uncomfortable irony of the arbitrary detention of a Holocaust historian.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at New York University, said on Twitter, “His work on cost of forgetting past (Vichy) so relevant.”

“Thank you so much for your reactions,” Rousso posted Saturday evening on Twitter in response. “My situation was nothing compared to some of the people I saw who couldn't be defended as I was.”

“It is now necessary to deal with the utmost arbitrariness and incompetence on the other side of the Atlantic,” Rousso wrote Sunday in the French edition of the Huffington Post. “What I know, in loving this country forever, is that the United States is no longer quite the United States.”

(bolded, couldn't be more true.) (the whole piece is at the source)

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're blind. Trump wanted to ban all Muslims from entering this country. A judge in Washington overturned it. Trump doesn't understand our Constitution. Evidently, you don't either.
Trump even criticized that judge which proves Trump doesn't understand our form of government. Trump thinks he was elected as our king.
Boy. You guys sure are ignorant.

Lyndon Johnson who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a Democrat.

Quote:
Resources

The historic law that promoted equality for all Americans.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
July 2, 1964
Document Number: PL 88-352
88th Congress, H. R. 7152

Johnson may have signed it but he wasn't responsible for pushing it through...

Time magazine largely credited Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) for pushing the sweeping legislation through, putting him on the cover after final passage.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Trump is going to build a wall on our southern border that is estimated to cost $21 billion dollars and billions more to maintain it. A wall that can be penetrated.

That's a waste in every sense of the word. We need to upgrade our infrastructure, our schools, and our hospitals. We need to stop increasing our national debt on stupid ideas such as walls.

The savings experienced by a drastic reduction of illegal immigration crime and drugs will more than compensate for the initial cost of the wall in the long run.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It is only the Democrats who are against the Constitution

The closest "counter constitutionl" activitiy includes a massive attempt by theis preident to dismantle the first amendment by talking up his bullshit about the press being the enemy of the people.

I think hes scared n doesnt know how to handle it .

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
It is only the Democrats who are against the Constitution
The closest "counter constitutionl" activitiy includes a massive attempt by theis preident to dismantle the first amendment by talking up his bullshit about the press being the enemy of the people.

I think hes scared n doesnt know how to handle it .

Detail for us exactly how Trump is dismantling the the First Amendment. Explain exactly how he is restricting the presses 1st Amendment guarantee.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

The savings experienced by a drastic reduction of illegal immigration crime and drugs will more than compensate for the initial cost of the wall in the long run.

Well that's lucky for us then because we're going to have to come up with a lot of money to make up for the shock our economy will get from the cost of deporting so many low wage workers:

Quote:

The American Action Forum last year estimated that expelling all unauthorized immigrants, and keeping them out, would cost $400 billion to $600 billion, and reduce the gross domestic product by $1 trillion.

Mr. Trump describes immigrants as rapist-murderer-terrorists, but what they really are is a pillar of the American economy, producing a net benefit of about $50 billion since 1990. Farms and restaurants, hotels, manufacturers, retail businesses — all sectors of the economy benefit directly or indirectly from immigrant labor.

As for taxes, unauthorized immigrants pay them, and if they work off the books, they pay into the system without taking out. They don’t collect Social Security and don’t qualify for food stamps or other benefit programs. They pay sales and property taxes, and since they are generally younger and healthier than the native-born population, they strengthen the safety net. The Social Security Administration estimates that unauthorized immigrations pay about $13 billion a year into Social Security and get only about $1 billion back.

It’s ridiculous to have to explain this to the president, but: If you take a population of 11 million people out of the country, or force them deeper underground, the economy will not be healthier. If you have to find foster parents for millions of abandoned American children of deported immigrants, society will not be stronger. Shrink our immigrant-rich economic sectors, send all that entrepreneurial energy to Canada and Mexico — America will not be better off.

Pull immigrants and refugees out of the declining Rust and Bible Belt cities and towns that they have been repopulating and revitalizing. Bleed the immigrant populations of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Who benefits? Not America.

NYT

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
It is only the Democrats who are against the Constitution
The closest "counter constitutionl" activitiy includes a massive attempt by theis preident to dismantle the first amendment by talking up his bullshit about the press being the enemy of the people.

I think hes scared n doesnt know how to handle it .

Strictly speaking Trump hasn't assaulted the freedom of the press in any meaningful way. Indeed most of the media are broadcasting some fairly vitriolic attacks on him and doing so with impunity .... and the applause of their many claques. . He has however directly challenged their integrity - something that Presidents before him, from Andrew Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt did as well. Trump is responding to words with words - something that sounds like a free dialogue (or a shouting match) to me.

Many of our media personalities have become rather full of thenselves and the unique role they assume for themselves as the presumed exclusive arbitor between the people and the government. In fact, as Trump has demonstrated, they have no constituted monopoly control of such communications. They are instead private commercial operations, and, as in many other areas, our free society and economy are steadily offering us new alternatives - and Trump has used them effectively.

I often wish Trump wasn't such a vulgarian and lousy orator. However he does make his points effectively, and has attracted a still growing (in my perception) segment of our population. (One can even detect that out here in San Francisco, the citadel of of sappy groupthink and correctitude. Increasingly I encounter people, who previously never expressed anything but the worst liberal cant, suddenly acknowledging the incompetence of our state government and the fallability of their formerly beloved progressive establishment.) In all of this I see a significant element of H.C. Andersen's story about the Emperor's new clothes.

I got a strong impression of this yesterday watching the TV reports of the final selection of a new DNC chsairman. Suddenly all the marginal contenders dropped out; a deal was struck .and the too radical Keith Ellison took second place to Perez, who promptly made him deputy. All of this in a striking demonstration of a complete lack of situational or self awareness by a Democrat establishment, now locked within its cocoon and detached from the reality that has overcome it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Perhaps what you say i correct ala the history of challenging the press. (Id characterize it more as the history of the presidential/press relationship has been more to keep each other "honest" often by chiding).
This is the first president in my life , whose actually called the press "The enemy of the people". Even Nixon's Veep, who called the press the "nattering nabob of negativism"
, and then he lies about his own words that have appeared on tv.
Does he expect people to believe what hes said over what the news hqs recorded him saying??
"Being played" does come to mind.

We see this issue from our respective poles of reality. I dont Trust Trump at all. Nor do I buy oralloys spume about "Who loves the Constitution"

Hes a single- issue person who likes to expand his gun hard-on to include the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Liking and respwcting the Constitution must, by its very being, is to accomodate and respect polar opposite views in one or several issues

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Hardly. The Left's attempts to violate our Constitutional rights are all very well documented.

Show us those documents.

Among his other false "evidence", he provided a link to a page in the federal register (final rules published by SSA to comply with a bill signed into law by President Bush) and falsely alleged it was Obama's "horrendous executive order" designed to take away his guns. Oralloy repeatedly lied about his allegedly well-documented evidence.

It is hard to believe that anyone with a functioning brain cannot understand the true nature of the "evidence" he is offering to prove his allegation. Therefore, the only logical explanations are 1) he is a dumb as a box of rocks, lacks rudimentary understanding, lacks the ability to accumulate knowledge, and lacks the ability to engage in critical thinking skills, or 2) he is a willful liar and trollish spreader of intentional falsehoods.

I placed him on ignore. I won't waste time on trolls or people who display impenetrable ignorance.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

At what point does the media cross from news to propaganda though? Everyone know that every story has different ways it can be reported. You can put a bias towards one side or the other and slant the news a certain way.

I agree that calling the media "The enemy of the people" is over the top, but when you look deeper the bias is so obvious that you have to begin wondering why the media is doing what it is doing.

News shouldn't be a popularity contest or have "artistic" license, it's the news. Opinion pieces are fine and everyone can read it and know it's an opinion. Hell, Foxnews made its fortune on people's opinions. But, opinion CANNOT be the news and I think that has been lost in recent times.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

the haters are hateful people .... and hypocrites too.

The irony is just dripping. I may need rubber boots.

McG: I have never accosted any person and demanded to know if he was in my country illegally. Nor have I taken a gun and shot someone dead because I was overcome with irrational hate and xenophobia. Shove your rubber-booted criticism up your own behind.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman, I would be more sympathetic to your argument if I saw any particular fidelity of the Pregressives to the Constitution which they so vociferously (and with such little evidence) claim Trump is assaulting.

The now departed Obama and the still present (and ever shrill) Elizabeth Warren, both are working to create a heavily regulated bureaucratic state in which a progressive elite will regulate every aspect of our lives in the name of liberating us from our darker natures (or whatever they find unfashionable at the moment). All of this is very well illustrated by the contemporary European Union, where the sparks of nationalist resistance arising in the UK, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and even Italy, have their roots in many of the same issues Trump is advancing. I find it surprising that more commentators don't detect the similarities and common roots in a political movement thast is detectable across the western world.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Banning all Muslims from entering our country, and calling Mexicans "criminals and rapists" goes beyond bigotry and decency.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Where you can find bias are on the editorial pages of most newspapers. Also, I would also venture to say that most lean towards liberalism. That's because liberalism promotes equality.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Hes a single- issue person who likes to expand his gun hard-on to include the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Liking and respecting the Constitution must, by its very being, is to accomodate and respect polar opposite views in one or several issues

I can understand your revulsion about the largely superficial aspects of Trump. However he is far from a single issue President. Indeed he has advocated rather sweeping reforms of national policy to focus more on the actual creation of economic opportunity and success than on the creation of government operated programs that, more often than not stifle those things.

Progressive governments (such as that of the City of Chicago) fret about the need for gun control while ignoring the widespread use of guns already illegally (under present, unenforced law) in the hands of criminals who are killing the innocent on an almost daily basis there. Trump has called out the absurdity of such contradictions and the Progressives can't stand him for it.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

The irony is just dripping. I may need rubber boots.

McG: I have never accosted any person and demanded to know if he was in my country illegally. Nor have I taken a gun and shot someone dead because I was overcome with irrational hate and xenophobia. Shove your rubber-booted criticism up your own behind.

The contrast between McGentrix' lighthearted irony and Debra's shrill, indignant anger could not be more stark and amusing.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Yes, I agree that Trump is not a one issue president. He doesn't know our Constitution, and his first EO was to ban all Muslims from entering the US. It's a good thing a federal judge in Washington overturned his bigoted EO. He also showed his bigotry by calling Mexicans "criminals and rapists." He also has a history of bigotry by not renting to blacks. He also has a history of being a misogynist; bragging that he can grab any woman by the crotch, because he's so famous.
Check out Politifact on "Trump lies." He lies over 70% of the time.

Shame on you!

4 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

(...) working to create a heavily regulated bureaucratic state in which a progressive elite will regulate every aspect of our lives in the name of liberating us from our darker natures(...) All of this is very well illustrated by the contemporary European Union(...)

There's some truth in what you say. There are a lot of frustrated people who feel alienated or disenfranchised by the political "establishment". But to what extent were these people's expectations even realistic? What were their underlying frustrations? In the USA, people bitch about all the great jobs that don't exist here anymore and blame the government for not addressing their problems, but on the other hand, lots of these same people bitch all the time about taxes and the GOP successfully turned that into a potent issue. But having cut all these taxes, while running a few debt-financed wars on the side, the government doesn't have the money to pay for programs which might address the plight of laid-off workers in dying industries, such as educational opportunities and serious retraining in line with a well thought out industrial policy. So we see the poor getting welfare and the out of work getting some unemployment checks — these payoffs just serve to keep people "alive and consuming". They do nothing more constructive than that.

So the question concerns the consequences down the line after you "dismantle the administrative state" (Bannon's phrase) We're told there will be freedom and prosperity. But it's difficult to see how the income disparity can do anything but rise. We could have vast numbers of unhealthy people who can't afford medical care. Without regulation we could have increased air and water pollution, further exacerbating the health of the population. Sure, people will be "free" to buy 64 oz slurpees and no one will be looking over their shoulder and telling them that "trans fats are bad for you". I'm not sure the results would be that positive. Honestly, I think people really do need to be guarded against the worst excesses of our nature but by the time this is widely realized it will be too late.

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know