US Politics Thread 2016-2020 [Archive] - Page 13

Bilge_Rat

06-01-17, 04:47 PM

not really political, but too precious not to share...

Hollywood suffers melt down over Paris Climate Accord

President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord has sparked widespread hysteria in juice bars and luxury spas across Hollywood.

As a candidate, Trump vowed to “cancel” the Paris climate deal – slamming what he called “draconian climate rules.”

“The Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States,” the president told a gathering Thursday in the Rose Garden.

House Speaker Paul Ryan praised the president’s decision and thanked him for “withdrawing from this bad deal.”

“The Paris climate agreement was simply a raw deal for America,” Ryan said. “Signed by President Obama without Senate ratification, it would have driven up the cost of energy, hitting middle-class and low-income Americans the hardest.”

But some of Hollywood’s most esteemed scientists fear the president’s decision will put the nation on a slippery slope to the hothouse – an apocalyptic future with homeless Eskimos and polar bears unable to put their Coca-Colas on ice.

“If this is true he will have the death of whole nations on his hands,” warned scientist/actor Mark Ruffalo. “People will be looking to the USA for retribution for what they loose.”

I wonder which nation will be the first to spontaneously combust – Iceland? Liechtenstein?

Beauty and the Beast star Josh Gad took a break from playing make-believe to ponder our fate.

“Our children & our grandchildren have all just been handed a dark future because of a man who tweets at 3:00 AM & doesn’t ‘trust’ science,” Gad tweeted.

Cher, who apparently has some sort of graduate level degree in climatology, posted a bizarre rant, suggesting the nation has been “held hostage by Insane DICTATOR.”

Don Cheadle, known for his esteemed role as a Juicy Burger’s employee in the 1985 film “Moving Violations,” decided to bring Trump’s little boy into the debate.

“If you care about your kids maybe reconsider your #ParisAgreement decision. Barron will thank you when he sees you, whenever that is,” Cheadle tweeted.

Leonardo DeCaprio, who became a famous Hollywood star because of an iceberg, was devastated by the news.

“Today, our planet suffered,” he declared on Twitter.

Do you feel his pain, America? I suspect he will evacuate to some far-flung, exotic island in a private jet to mend his wounded psyche.

I’m old school. Back when I was growing up we did not have climate change or global warming. We had something called weather. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter. It’s an inconvenient truth, but it needed to be said.

And many of us appreciate President Trump putting America first – instead of a bunch of godless European vegetarians who don’t put ice in their soft drinks.

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” the president said in the Rose Garden.

So, let’s celebrate, America! I’m marking the occasion by firing up the grill, smoking a pork butt, cranking up the air-conditioning and driving around the neighborhood in a gas-guzzling SUV. And later tonight, I’ll remove an ice tray from my freezer to watch the ice cubes melt.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/01/hollywood-suffers-melt-down-over-paris-climate-accord.html

Von Due

06-01-17, 06:21 PM

not really political, but too precious not to share...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/01/hollywood-suffers-melt-down-over-paris-climate-accord.html

Problems occur when people base their political and environmental views on pieces like that that could just as well have appeared on The Onion if the Onion was denying any climate changes, or Weekly World News.

August

06-01-17, 06:51 PM

Problems occur when people base their political and environmental views on pieces like that that could just as well have appeared on The Onion if the Onion was denying any climate changes, or Weekly World News.

True but I don't see where climate change has been denied here, just that the Paris agreement, which would never have been ratified by Congress anyways, was a raw deal for Americans and that the president has said he'd be open to negotiating an improved version of it.

If you want some real fake news try this!:

ISIS condemns Kathy Griffin for cultural appropriation

RAQQA, Syria — The self-proclaimed Islamic State has issued a statement condemning self-proclaimed comedian Kathy Griffin, accusing her of “cultural appropriation” after she posed for a photograph with a mock severed head of President Donald Trump.

The group, which has been protective of its brand ever since taking over vast swaths of Iraq and Syria and establishing itself as the premier beheading agency in the Middle East, said it was deeply disturbed by Griffin’s “ignorant and offensive” use of a “sacred Islamic State tradition.”
“This is just another example of a privileged white woman culturally appropriating the proud custom of a marginalized people. Beheadings are our thing, not your thing,” said the statement, which was released on Telegram.

:03:

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/06/kathy-griffin-donald-trump-beheading/#ixzz4inWWOsvo

Von Due

06-01-17, 07:28 PM

Well, the thing is, your Pres has repeatedly said he doesn't believe in scientists telling him that climate change is man made and real.

Fox News is a bastion of CC deniers. That "opinionist" wrote:
"I’m old school. Back when I was growing up we did not have climate change or global warming. We had something called weather. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter. It’s an inconvenient truth, but it needed to be said".
It is one of the many unhinged arguements that have been in the standard arsenal of arguements from CC deniers. I don't see this opinionist being much different from the regular, ill informed CC denier.

u crank

06-01-17, 07:31 PM

ISIS condemns Kathy Griffin for cultural appropriation

RAQQA, Syria — The self-proclaimed Islamic State has issued a statement condemning self-proclaimed comedian Kathy Griffin, accusing her of “cultural appropriation” after she posed for a photograph with a mock severed head of President Donald Trump.

The group, which has been protective of its brand ever since taking over vast swaths of Iraq and Syria and establishing itself as the premier beheading agency in the Middle East, said it was deeply disturbed by Griffin’s “ignorant and offensive” use of a “sacred Islamic State tradition.”
“This is just another example of a privileged white woman culturally appropriating the proud custom of a marginalized people. Beheadings are our thing, not your thing,” said the statement, which was released on Telegram.
:har:

That's it August...I'm having another drink.

:()1:

em2nought

06-01-17, 08:18 PM

Set my AC to "turbo" to celebrate! :up:

Bilge_Rat

06-01-17, 08:51 PM

True but I don't see where climate change has been denied here, just that the Paris agreement, which would never have been ratified by Congress anyways, was a raw deal for Americans and that the president has said he'd be open to negotiating an improved version of it.

exactly, Paris accord was a bad deal, period. :up:

MaDef

06-01-17, 09:18 PM

exactly, Paris accord was a bad deal, period. :up:Yep, all that cap and trade does is shift the numbers from one place to another on whatever pretty graphs they come up with, it won't actually do anything to slow down the rate of greenhouse gases released.

August

06-01-17, 09:43 PM

Well, the thing is, your Pres has repeatedly said he doesn't believe in scientists telling him that climate change is man made and real.

Yeah he's made some controversial tweets and comments over the years but he's also called climate change a big problem with catastrophic consequences for the planet and donated money to climate change groups. Of course that doesn't fit the narrative so it's never mentioned but it sounds to me like we don't really know what he thinks about the subject. Could that possibly be by design?

It is one of the many unhinged arguements that have been in the standard arsenal of arguements from CC deniers. I don't see this opinionist being much different from the regular, ill informed CC denier.

You know if Global Warming believers weren't so eager to silence anyone who doesn't spout their party line by calling them names like "CC Deniers", attempting to get them fired from their jobs and otherwise trying to destroy their lives then maybe they would get the respect that they think their theories deserve. Right now their fascist like tactics just raise doubt that their theories can stand without them.

Thing is the earths climate is always changing. It changed before man climbed down from the trees and it'll keep changing long after we're gone. Is it really Climate Change Denial when one agrees that the climate is indeed changing but isn't sure what percentage of it is caused by humans?

I've seen too many expensive government boondoggles in my short life to just blindly support things like carbon taxes and emissions agreements negotiated by jet setting elites who by their wealth and power are immune to the consequences and in many cases stand to profit by them. So if I have to be either totally supportive of the Green agenda or totally against it, with no room for degrees of opinions in between then i'll have to stand against it.

em2nought

06-01-17, 10:14 PM

Nippelspanner

06-01-17, 11:15 PM

Yeah he's made some controversial tweets and comments over the years but he's also called climate change a big problem with catastrophic consequences for the planet and donated money to climate change groups. Of course that doesn't fit the narrative so it's never mentioned but it sounds to me like we don't really know what he thinks about the subject. Could that possibly be by design?
He donated what, $5,000? Once? As we can see this was a smart investment, as the usual people fall for it and go "Trump ain't that bad, he donated!" Ugh...

About 'some controversial tweets':

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/uDFmIDPzCo4znxgzKlT0_jgv4CqHkarUrQ005ED_HbclD4Ex32 hmOHsAn95kbFc_WZMiOQ1BMlRj4Fu-vDLyOgnT3syuxfWFY8KxoEWpqd9gxcPzZnQUM8q76jkJzs7IQU Nr_cUt

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/HH9eGt0eVAZ8BGEvspdw5BFiB4KryCYU6ErBiJILkGAqg5FJsT 9i4tKvM0zt57CqtRQts-QyJ-WM76fEOxAxRa0UEMzwVF1gHpq6j9v6fhp5KRW3jDGcLLK6_0yG _QGji4W4tMAW

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/BjIm7iSrVRDX6kHicE_stfvuvM96M-DvKfTaJTUuWHSKua8j8CJNujTzJt_Tp83mkIOPPYKvetUTRssi zqhqUQrLL3EKMq8xIVgHKdpdz2uEZvy9lH_Lj3VcLdTVP9akBj hXQbTv

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p9DXwHFI676hMupGxoc5hArGbmo1BX4QLT2vN2cmfhaMEkhUq-t-V1iJG443JSCNPbRGljf6Zz6ZfhRDUKjcIaqO5_VjOWC8dXAjGQ fO4Z7MqvUV03FYA17jrAPCNcDrnUt_KFGw

"Clean, beautiful and healthy air" - let's fire up the coal industry people!

More: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/

You know if Global Warming believers weren't so eager to silence anyone who doesn't spout their party line by calling them names like "CC Deniers"
> Implying global warming is a matter of beliefs...

Also, nice double standards, as usual:
"Don't call us deniers, you believers!!"

:haha:

...attempting to get them fired from their jobs and otherwise trying to destroy their lives then maybe they would get the respect that they think their theories deserve. Right now their fascist like tactics just raise doubt that their theories can stand without them.Aaaaand here we go again - completely unable to differentiate, classic August. "They".
Yes, because everyone who ""believes"" in climate change wants to destroy the lives of those that don't.
As your brother in mind said:

"Nailed it!". :/\\!!

Thing is the earths climate is always changing. It changed before man climbed down from the trees and it'll keep changing long after we're gone. Is it really Climate Change Denial when one agrees that the climate is indeed changing but isn't sure what percentage of it is caused by humans?

We do know! :shifty:
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
(Sorry, is NASA just "fake news" and liberal propaganda as well now? I lost track...)

I've seen too many expensive government boondoggles in my short life to just blindly support things like carbon taxes and emissions agreements negotiated by jet setting elites who by their wealth and power are immune to the consequences and in many cases stand to profit by them.
Haha, right. You've seen too many expensive government boondoggles, so it's time to support a guy that is the epicenter of lying, deceiving and getting rich by making others poor - because you do not blindly support... :hmmm:

Mr Quatro

06-01-17, 11:16 PM

I think Trump nailed it when he said, "No" to the world:

https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/world.html

The terms 'world' and 'earth' have completely different meanings. Our Lord certainly made the distinction between 'world' and 'earth' when he said, "I have overcome the world" in John 16:33. It would be meaningless if he had said, "I have overcome the earth."

When you see the term "world" in scripture, it very rarely refers to the "earth." The "earth" (land, region, territory, country) is usually translated from Greek word #1093, ge. But "world" does not usually refer to any physical land, it mostly refers to the ungodly.

The world wants the USA to pay for them to play catch up with us ... when in reality they should clean up their act and their air and show us how they did it and then sell the plan to us.

Show us your clean air China and we will show you our money. :yep:

Nippelspanner

06-01-17, 11:18 PM

The world wants the USA to pay for them to play catch up with us ... when in reality they should clean up their act and their air and show us how they did it and then sell the plan to us.

:k_confused:

Mr Quatro

06-01-17, 11:20 PM

:k_confused:

Yes, I noticed that particular trait in you a lot.

Nippelspanner

06-01-17, 11:24 PM

Well, words fail me when I read something like above.
And honestly, I don't think I can be blamed for it.
I thought about investing the time to tell you what's wrong about it, but I could also try to ask the sun not to shine...
Fortunately, sometimes an emoji says more than enough.

Dowly

06-02-17, 01:10 AM

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson

To those "on the fence" about climate change, I heartily recommend to watch Potholer54's series on it.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Skybird

06-02-17, 02:32 AM

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
While I see what he wanted to aim at, this statement, set up in this wording, is wrong, is misled. Science creates no truths, but theories. And no matter how well-founded in evidence and empirical data a theory is - it never reaches a probability of 100%. Only if you have a theoretically unlimited ammounts of retests done - which is impossible to achieve - you could claim that it is a truth (has a 100% likelihood to state an existing, undeniable fact).

True would be a statement like The good thing about math is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. Whether or not 2+2 is 4, is no question of believing this or that - you can prove it.

One thing about scientific theory building is best said in radical constructivism, in the words of the famous Paul watzlawick: "Die Wirklichkeit wird von uns weniger ge-funden, als vielmehr von uns er-funden." (We do not so much discover reality - we invent/create/construct it). A theory is all that science produces - no absolute truths. No final, last, absolute realities. Still, if the theory is so far well-founded in emircal evidence and restest and offers solid explanatory potential, it is not justified trying to ridicule or minimise it by formulating like you can often hear from religious zealots who say somethign like "But evolution is only a theory!" Everything science says, is theory. And still it can be a million times better founded in empiry and argument than just claiming some esoteric hear-say.

-----

Trump cannot differ between climate and weather. The first is longlasting by trends and hyper-regional, the latter is short lasting and local. Idiot.

However, the climate change research is seriously haunted by flaws, thinking commands, corruption and wealth redistrubutuon efforts as well. Unfortunately the whole academic world is heavily infested with corruption and manipulated "studies". This is especially true in fields of power-political and sociological relevance. Global wealth-redistribution, education, psychology, and gender-joking are such areas.

Point is: I take it for granted that our climate is getting warmer. And still I do not care for this Paris freak show. We adapt, or we don't. Thats what it is about. 2.0 or 1.5 or 1.673 degrees as a limit - I laugh about this approach.

Trump'S No may or may not have consequences. As I already indicated, climate is nothing that lasts short, but is a long-lasting thing, and it changes slowly only, is hard to be influenced in the one or the other direction on the temperature scale. If Trump is gone one day, the US will or will not stick to his policy to refuse Paris agreements. If the US gets rid of Trump in 8 or 4 years (or 3 or 2 or 1 years, for that matter), and the next government does not follow in his climate policy trail, then Trumps No will have meant nothing and will not leave a foot trace in the histoy of climate change. If the Us however follows this rejection of climate protection policies for decades to come, then it will leave a signature in climate history, obviously.

I do not think that the No will stand for much longer than just Trump'S reign. The world, trade partners will let the US feel its disgust - in trade and financial investments withdrawn. Its not as if the US economy is as autark and independent as Trump seems to think it is(which means nothing else than that other competitors offer products that world market asks more for than for American products - become competitive again, America - fairness or unfairness have nothing to do with it all).

And if you look at European poltics and recent German foreign diplomacy and state visits, you can see that the rest of the world will not just leave to itself the vacuum left by the US, but will fill it up with candidates ready to take over where America left: India, and China.

Nippelspanner

06-02-17, 02:49 AM

^ So there is no global warming. Says Trump, and China. All made up.
99,9 percent of evidence is not the truth. :hmmm:
China said there is no global warming?
I doubt that...considering that they are aboard and just criticized Trumps latest stunt. I mean, if even China points out what a bad idea that is... it should really ring a bell. But it doesn't, as we can see.

Make America great again durr! :doh:

Catfish

06-02-17, 02:50 AM

lol not again, sorry for deleting.
Trump said that CHina made up the hoax of a global warming. I am sure that China did not invent this as a hoax, of course. Because Beijing, but not only.
No i meant China can say what it wants, and sign treaties, but does not act accordingly.

edit: i see it a bit more relaxed than a year ago. The witdrawal will last for four years. Thinking globally and acting locally also has its merits.

Von Due

06-02-17, 03:04 AM

While I see what he wanted to aim at, this statement, set up in this wording, is wrong, is misled. Science creates no truths, but theories. And no matter how well-founded in evidence and empirical data a theory is - it never reaches a probability of 100%. Only if you have a theoretically unlimited ammounts of retests done - which is impossible to achieve - you could claim that it is a truth (has a 100% likelihood to state an existing, undeniable fact).

True would be a statement like The good thing about math is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. Whether or not 2+2 is 4, is no question of believing this or that - you can prove it.

That can not be said too often, unfortunately. The idea of 100% truth violates the scientific method. Still, this idea that science is about absolutes is strong among many on both sides of the aisle. Another thing that is equally important is how science uses words like "proof" and "evidence". The meanings of those words are very different from "proof" in mathematics or "evidence" in a criminal case, just like the word "if" in mathematical proofs has a different meaning than in every day speech.

As for CC denial, it has multiple sources:
Convenience (it would cost us too much if it is real)
Deceit (out of own interests. I can't keep at what I'm doing if it is real so I'll say to you it isn't real)
The drive to position oneself against the political opposition (man made climate change is fake because Stalin)
Distrust in media that disagrees with one's own views (it was in the WP therefor conspiracy vs Breibart says it's fake so it's fake)
Religion (it is a sin not to show god we are thankful by spending and using all the things right now. Science and climate change is of the devil and in any case, god will give us a new earth once we have spent this one. Equally scary are the ones who see pollution as a holy duty to call for armageddon and a life in heaven) [I can assure you, these people are around]

Throw all of this into your blender and you have one hell of a potpourri.

vienna

06-02-17, 03:10 AM

An interesting aspect of the Trump argument is his continuing reference to the coal industry. Coal has been faltering for quite some time now and the fault doesn't lay with a Paris Accord or global warming 'fanatics', it lays with the fact coal is steadily becoming an obsolete energy source as a simple result of changing technology. It has become increasingly apparent other forms of energy, many of them renewable, are more economically attractive than coal; it is similar to what has happened to other "old" or "fading" technologies. It is a bit akin to the light bulb: first there was the incandescent bulb, relatively short lived and energy inefficient, costly; then there was the fluorescent light, a bit more longer in life span, a bit more energy efficient, but still, overall, costly; now there is the LED, very long-lived, by multiples of time over incandescent and/or fluorescent, highly energy efficient, by multiples of reduced consumption over incandescent and/or fluorescent, and, because of long-life and energy savings, very much more economical than incandescent and/or fluorescent. Look at all the businesses and local and state governments that have converted from incandescent and/or fluorescent to LED and are reaping savings. The City of Los Angeles has been completing the conversion of all its street lighting to LED and the current and projected savings has been highly impressive; as an added measure to cut costs, the City has also been adding solar panels to the light poles to further reduce the need to draw on power company resources (a particular irony since the City actually owns the local power company). All in all, improving an advancing technology, like the LED, is making some areas of lighting obsolete, for economic reasons, not environmental...

...and what has this got to do with coal? Coal, like incandescent and/or fluorescent lighting, has become an increasingly less desired energy source: it is dirty, requires the need and cost to be mined and processed, requires the need and cost to be transported, requires the need and cost to be stored in a safe manner and in such a way as to not impinge on the lives of those near the storage place, and the need and cost to consume the coal in a safe and clean manner; all in all, coal is a fairly costly and rather troublesome commodity. In comparison, alternative, clean energy sources, particularly renewable sources, are usually almost always built and located in the areas they will serve, obviating the costs of transportation and commodity storage and, since they are more "local", they are not subject to whatever may be the influences on prices of a far away source. There also tends to be less of a negative reaction to being near a, 'solar farm' than being near a coal mine or coal processing or storage locale...

Using the coal industry as a metric in the argument against the Paris Accord and 'preserving' coal jobs is like using the light bulb as an argument to preserve the very few incandescent and/or fluorescent lighting factories still in existence; both are fading, not by jobs going overseas or perceived unfair competition, but, rather by the inexorable fact technology is leaving them behind, much in the same ways CRTs, fax machines, manual typewriters, and a slew of other once familiar and now faded or extinct aspects have met their fate. Coal jobs will continue to disappear as new energy technologies improves and entrenches itself in everyday life. My grandparents continued to use a wood-burning stove and oven for a very long time after gas and electric stoves came on the market, but even they, set in their ways, came around to the fact time and technology wait for no one. The coal industry may seem to have gotten a temporary boost by the pullout from the Paris Accord, but what is going to happen when the domestic market continues to shrink at an increasing rate, and overseas demand decreases as those nations who either have their own coal sources and don't need US coal or are continuing to develop renewable, clean energy sources have no need for US coal? What will happen to all those coal industry jobs? Will the US government have to spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize and support a failing industry, much like the USSR and Red China have done in the past in order to artificially maintain obsolete jobs, or will the smart coal worker need to wake up and realize, if they really want good jobs, they should learn how to work in the newer energy technologies? Will it be socialistic artificial governmental prop-ups or will it be free-market adapt or perish self-determination?...

<O>

Dowly

06-02-17, 03:53 AM

@Skybird: He doesn't speak of any of that in the quote, but simply states that science/scientific method in general is there no matter what you believe.

We could debate semantics all day long, but I rather not as we both know how science works.

vienna

06-02-17, 04:08 AM

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/67051660.jpg

http://www.mrdrybones.com/blog/D17424_1.gif

<O>

Dowly

06-02-17, 04:21 AM

When in doubt, burn the heretic.

Nippelspanner

06-02-17, 04:23 AM

When in doubt, burn the heretic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

vienna

06-02-17, 06:00 AM

Where did you get that footage of a Trump rally?...

<O>

Nippelspanner

06-02-17, 06:03 AM

Where did you get that footage of a Trump rally?...

<O>
:har:

Bilge_Rat

06-02-17, 07:34 AM

when it comes to climate change, people don't seem to realise that CO2 emissions have been falling in both the USA and the EU. The big polluters are now China and India:

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/rrapier/files/2016/06/CO2-for-Forbes.jpg?width=960

For the most recent 10-year period, U.S. emissions declined by 622 million tons. This represents a 10% decline in carbon dioxide emissions over that time period. Once more, the UK was in 2nd place for this time period with a decline of 139 million tons (down 24% over the decade). China led all countries with an increase of 3.1 billion tons, which represented a 51% increase in China's carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade. India was again in 2nd place with a gain of 1.0 billion tons, but its growth rate for emissions was higher at 83% for the decade.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/06/19/the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-lowering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#3657d3645f48

That is why the Paris accord was such a bad deal.

1. The USA had the highest target for CO2 reduction (26-28 %), but China and India were allowed to increase their CO2 level until 2030!

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india.html

2. The economic cost to the USA could be enormous:

According to one report commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation with support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, “the Paris climate accord could cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040…”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/paris-can-waitit-was-a-bad-deal

3. even with all that, the overall climate effect would be marginal:

One might argue that this is a matter of life or death, so the sacrifice is justified if it saves humanity. Here’s where the deal really falls apart. According to another study, the Paris deal would shave about 0.2 degrees off warming by 2100. You heard me right. Assuming everything works perfectly according to plan, we could plausibly be trading 6.5 million jobs for a 0.2-degree payoff.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/paris-can-waitit-was-a-bad-deal

so the U.S. had the highest targets to meet even though it is no longer the biggest polluter, the biggest polluters could keep increasing their emissions for another 13 years and the accord would have next to no effect on global temperature. The Paris accord is just another bad deal negotiated by Obama.

vienna

06-02-17, 04:30 PM

A question Trump asked in his Paris Accord pullout speech:

"At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us, as a country?"

Here's and accurate response:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/george-takei-donald-trump-reply_us_5930b936e4b0c242ca228e1f?ncid=edlinkushpm g00000313

"Make America Great Again?" Trump's only major accomplishment is to make America the laughing stock of the world. We join Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries not joining in the Accord. What an achievement: lumping the US together with a totalitarian dictatorship (a form of government seemingly close to Trump's heart) and a banana republic (a status Trump also seems determined to inflict on the citizens of the US).

This is what happens when you let the clowns run the circus...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/02/trump-world-laughing-at-us-paris-climate-deal

Trump is so pathetic, even the city he used as a political synonym for his "argument" rebuffed his claims to represent its citizens:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/pittsburgh-mayor-tweets-support-for-paris-agreement-despite-trump-comments.html

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/06/02/trump-you-don-know-pittsburgh-like-know-pittsburgh/wtcdQFdB87ckjoVL6MXQOM/story.html

Of course, in the Bizarro world of Trumpland, where "yes" means "no", both mean "maybe" and reality is mutably subjective to the whims of The Great Orange Leader, the perceptions of the citizens of Pittsburgh don't really exist:

“President Trump’s speech today was the culmination of a long-standing campaign promise,” a White House spokesperson said. “The people of Pittsburgh, like other hardworking American families across the country, are the people he is fighting for and who know that in this administration America comes first.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2017/06/01/Donald-Trump-White-House-why-pittsburgh-not-paris-climate-agreement/stories/201706010234

Trump and his oblivious cohorts are even planning to hold a "victory" rally around his Pittsburgh claim:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/02/trump-climate-change-rally-pittsburgh-not-paris-239071

The fact Trump is not holding the rally in Pittsburgh is not escaping the attention of the city's citizens and their ire:

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/02/trump-scared-pittsburgh-holding-pittsburgh-paris-rally-d-c.html

This is a statement from the Mayor of Pittsburgh in response to Trump's claims:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/as-the-mayor-of-pittsburgh-trumps-decision-is-disastrous-for-my-city_us_5931a1cce4b075bff0f3055d

The whole situation is a classic Trump screw-up or as it is often known in the vernacular, a major "SNAFU"; all that's left is for Trump to start tweeting in contradiction to what he and his minions have been dishing out. The Clown-In-Chief just can't seem to avoid giving himself pies in the face...

<O>

Skybird

06-02-17, 07:36 PM

Honestyl said, I think this all is a lot of hot air - pardon the pun - over nothing.

The relevance of the goals in this treaty is being taken far too seriously. Trump leaving it, gets therefore overestimated as well. Many Us companies are cities are ahead of Trump already anyway, and will not jump off the ecology trains they already embarked on - no matter what Trumps says.

What you should think of the Paris treaty gets illustrated by the fact that there are no sanctions in this treaty, and that the Us will, have legally left the treaty not before or exatcly around - when the next presidnet in 2020 will have gotten elected.

"But its about the climate, stupid!", I hear them yelling, and so everybody goes hysterical.

Paris, and Trumps decision, historically will be remembered as relatively unimportant events. So move on everybody, nothing to see here.

Personally I am far more worried about the release of the immense methanhydrate reservoirs into the atmosphere, from the permafrost areas in Russia and the deep seas. And these will not care for 1.5°C goals and huge conferences, I am certain. Compared to that, those CO2 emissions everbyody is getting hyped over to allow policy makers more regulations to command and order the people around, are probabaly almost irrelevant.

Skybird

06-02-17, 07:50 PM

Superb reading:

LINK: Who killed the liberal world order? (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/05/03/who-killed-the-liberal-world-order/)

Mirrors my thoughts on Obama and the Western universalism almost perfectly.

For German readers, a translation in the FAZ: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/trumps-praesidentschaft/obamas-verantwortung-fuer-trump-wer-hat-die-liberale-weltordnung-zerstoert-15043940.html

eddie

06-02-17, 08:12 PM

I love the headline in this German paper!:haha::haha:

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/german-newspaper-headline-denounces-trumps-paris-accord-pullout-earth-trump-****/

Dowly

06-05-17, 04:15 AM

when it comes to climate change, people don't seem to realise that CO2 emissions have been falling in both the USA and the EU. The big polluters are now China and India:
Yes, but to compare industrialized countries to those that are still industrializing is a bit misleading. The US and the EU are in a position to be able to try cut their net emissions, China and India are not, they concentrate on cutting their emission intensity instead. One also must take in consideration that both China and India have 1+ billion people, so comparing net emissions is, again, a bit misleading.

Per capita emissions are still way higher in the US than in China or India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

1. The USA had the highest target for CO2 reduction (26-28 %), but China and India were allowed to increase their CO2 level until 2030!

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/india.html
Yes, they are allowed to do so, and this is again because they are going through heavy industrialization. But both countries are already taking steps to mitigate their emissions by using more and more zero-emission power. Especially India is beginning to use more and more solar power, because it has become cheaper than coal power. China is expected to peak its emissions before their 2030 target and they are building more and more renewable power sources , so they are definitely not just running wild even if allowed to.

2. The economic cost to the USA could be enormous:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/paris-can-waitit-was-a-bad-deal
That is based on the NERA study, which has been widely criticized since it was released and is now wildy out-of-date.

EDIT: Earlier link was criticizing an earlier report from NERA, my mistake. Here's a new one: https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/1/15727398/donald-trump-paris-climate-change-agreement-us-pulls-out-million-jobs

3. even with all that, the overall climate effect would be marginal:
The Daily Beast misleads with its quote. The study says that:
Assuming the proposed cuts (2015 INDCs) are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century[..]The 2015 INDCs are not planned to remain the same for the whole century, but are adjusted periodically if the country so chooses.

The study: https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015%20Energy%20%26%20Climate%20Outlook.pdf

EDIT: Also,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scez5dqtAc

ikalugin

06-05-17, 05:29 AM

If the goal is to cut overall global emisions it may be prudent for the developed states to increase their emissions via re-industrialisation. This reindustrialisation would mean that less is produced in the developing states which, coupled with the higher specific emisions (per unit of goods manufactured) would lead to the lower overall global emisions.

August

06-05-17, 07:24 AM

those that are still industrializing

Given the sheer amount of Chinese made products on our store shelves I have a difficult time seeing them as a country that is still industrializing. Especially when they have resources to devote to military build ups.

vienna

06-05-17, 11:07 AM

Support For Donald Trump's Impeachment Is Now Higher Than His Approval Rating

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-support-odds-removal-approval-rating-white-house-620913

Seems like Trump can't even make himself 'great' again'...

It could be interesting to see what the polls look like Friday morning...

<O>

Dowly

06-05-17, 11:08 AM

Given the sheer amount of Chinese made products on our store shelves I have a difficult time seeing them as a country that is still industrializing. Especially when they have resources to devote to military build ups.I don't make the criteria for what is and isn't a industrialized country. :O:

In other news, Trump continues to make friends.

Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his "no reason to be alarmed" statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871725780535062528

And what the mayor said:
Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed. One of the things the police, all of us need to do is make sure we're as safe as we possibly can be.

August

06-05-17, 11:19 AM

I don't make the criteria for what is and isn't a industrialized country. :O:

Well neither do I but be that as it may giving them a pass on a decade of pollution when they are already the biggest polluters doesn't seem all that good of a deal for us.

In other news, Trump continues to make friends.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871725780535062528

And what the mayor said:

Seems to me like Trump pretty much nailed the gist of it. Because we know that if US had just experienced two terror attacks in as many weeks he'd be excoriated for saying there is nothing to be alarmed about.

vienna

06-05-17, 11:34 AM

Trump, as usual, either intentionally, which I don't suspect, or in an ignorant and seriously misinformed knee-jerk, which is vastly more likely, has got it all wrong, a highly common condition for himself:

The London mayor did use those words in a morning-after news conference about the van and stabbing rampage. But in no way, shape or form did Khan say them about the terrorist attack.

When Khan said there was "no reason to be alarmed," he was talking about the increased police presence around the city that residents and tourists would notice.

Khan condemned the attacks at London Bridge and Borough Market.

Donald Trump's tweet misleads about London mayor's reaction to bridge, stabbing attacks:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/04/donald-trump/donald-trumps-tweet-misleads-about-london-mayors-r/

I guess when you're a president (or one of his acolytes) who is grasping at straws to save his political skin, distortion of facts for political gain, even in the midst of a national and international tragedy, is not unexpected...

<O>

Mr Quatro

06-05-17, 03:39 PM

I wonder if Mr Khan being a good Muslim has anything to do with Trump's thinking?

Platapus

06-05-17, 03:41 PM

Trump is not a person who is overly concerned with facts.

vienna

06-05-17, 04:25 PM

^^Nominee for Understatement Of The Year...

<O>

August

06-05-17, 09:17 PM

Interesting article. Our internal divisions may be our societies down fall.

After London Bridge, The World Is Sick Of Politicians Downplaying Terrorism

Our political leaders are basically telling us that this kind of terrorism, random and deadly, is the price we have to pay for their policies of multiculturalism and political correctness.

By Megan G. Oprea (http://thefederalist.com/author/m-g-oprea/) June 5, 2017

As if on cue, in the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London political leaders are trotting out the usual treacly lines that have become so rote. But the words they pretend will provide comfort to anyone but the most naïve are borderline worthless. Worse, they’re an insult to the families who have had to experience the shocking pain of the sudden loss of a family member or friend at the hands of a terrorist.

Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, called Saturday’s attack “deliberate and cowardly,” and asked “all Londoners to remain calm and vigilant today and in the days ahead.” Most notably, he said: “You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world.”
What a thing to say at a time like this. Shouldn’t Britons be alarmed? Isn’t Saturday’s attack in London, coming as it did on the heels of the Manchester bombing, deeply disturbing? Why isn’t Khan more concerned about the threats that are so obviously at the doorstep, or better put, in Britain’s streets? Does anyone really take comfort from being told about swift police response times after yet another terrorist attack?
Our Politicians Can’t Handle the Truth

The sad truth, and getting sadder with every attack, is that the political class has little interest in doing what would really be necessary to combat Islamist terrorism, let alone talk about it. They don’t want to talk about how Britain’s lax immigration policies over decades led to hundreds of thousands of immigrants entering the country with varying degrees of willingness to assimilate and adopt Western values. They don’t want to openly criticize the blatant problems with the multiculturalism the UK has pursued for years and the obvious impact it has had on the immigrant population.

Oh no. This would cost them too much. It would shatter the façade of political correctness that’s been constructed over our “civilized” western world, and destroy the illusion, so vital to the political class, that Western values are universal.

The politicians are only willing to give speeches about how united we are and how terrorists cannot tear us apart. But the truth—so clear and obvious—is that with every attack the West becomes more and more divided. We are not united, not by a long shot. Before the bodies of the poor souls who were killed Saturday by radical Islamists were even identified, the Left and Right were at one another’s throats. On that score, the terrorists emerge victorious every time.

Yes, there are beautiful and touching scenes of strangers helping one another, opening their homes, offering free rides. This is a reminder of the goodness that still exists as part of our shared humanity. But such gestures don’t, ultimately, unite us. Neither do candlelight vigils and marches through the streets of Paris—or tearful pop concerts in Manchester.

There’s little to no tolerance in polite society for the kind of honesty for which many in the West are hungry. The Washington Post ran a headline Sunday that read, “World Leaders Call For Unity After London Attack. Trump tweets the complete opposite.” The article chastises President Trump for not joining in the fake condolences and platitudes of the political elite, and praises those elites for their messages of hope. But what, exactly, are they saying we should be hopeful for?

Trump, who is often wrong, was correct in tweeting Sunday that, “We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people.” A growing number of those people are scared, and sick of turning on the news to hear of yet another heartbreaking attack then hearing the same meaningless bromides from their leaders.

They want a leader who doesn’t just try to inure them to this kind of random violence but stands up and says that we’re not going to take it, that this isn’t an acceptable status quo. Whether Trump is that leader is highly debatable, but at least he’s making a nod toward it.

But whenever political leaders do dare to talk candidly about some of these problems, there’s intense push back and outrage. Take Trump’s travel ban. Like it or hate it, the ban was aimed at curbing immigration from countries that are de facto failed states. These are places where a terrorist could easily go unnoticed by whatever remnant of a security service remains and fly to the United States undetected. When Trump unveiled his travel ban earlier this year, America practically devoured itself with protests at airports, counter-protests, and a wave of lawsuits. The reaction robbed us of any real chance of having a conversation about the ways in which we might need to reconsider our immigration policies for the sake of national security.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/05/london-bridge-world-sick-politicians-downplaying-terrorism/

vienna

06-06-17, 01:58 AM

Meh, just another attempt to needlessly smear the Mayor of London by those who are trying to do damage control for the weak, pathetic Trump. As has been endlessly pointed out by those who actually heard, saw, or read the actual statement by the Mayor, he explicitly and literally told Londoners there was "no reason to be alarmed" by the increased police and/or military presence and activity in and round London, a sort of "Keep Calm And Carry On"; in no way did the Mayor's comments try to minimize or deflect concerns about terrorism...

So, which is the better situation:

1) A civic leader who does his job and seeks to reassure and pull together his city's populace, or

2) A severely weakened national 'leader' who, in his flailing attempts to justify his own failings, seeks to take a great human tragedy and turn it into political fodder for his own narrow, political and personal agenda?

Trump is rapidly becoming the first marginalized president in US history: the number of voters and citizens who are turning away from him and his administration in ever-growing numbers, now well over half of the voters; members of the Congress, of both parties, are now acting in such a way as if Trump doesn't even figure into the equations; members of his own party, if not in open rebellion, are now, increasingly, speaking and acting as if Trump doesn't even matter anymore and are just marking time until he's gone; within his own, self-selected, Cabinet and senior administration, many of them are openly contradicting Trump or acting as if what he says is of no import; the only people who do seem to care about Trump, and they are a steadily dwindling number, are the sycophants and lemmings who will follow him over he edge...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e5/78/b6/e578b6ef7764e368351b7bf4564b0575.jpg

Let them follow him into the abyss: then, perhaps, sensible adults can again assume control and sanity can be restored...

<O>

Bilge_Rat

06-06-17, 01:37 PM

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu17060220170603115605.jpg

Bilge_Rat

06-06-17, 01:40 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/01/17/20170122_grief.jpg

vienna

06-06-17, 01:56 PM

http://www.celebitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trump-Sheen-_edited-1.jpg

"...there's no success like failure
And that failure's no success at all"

Bob Dylan
Love Minus Zero / No Limit, 1965

<O>

Bilge_Rat

06-06-17, 02:32 PM

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mle170601c20170531103601.jpg

Bilge_Rat

06-06-17, 02:40 PM

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mle170408cd20170407071049.jpg

Skybird

06-06-17, 02:41 PM

Interesting article. Our internal divisions may be our societies down fall.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/05/london-bridge-world-sick-politicians-downplaying-terrorism/
For once we agree, you and me. I tried to bring home this message since quite some time. Flowers and teddybears, candles and confessions of how sad one feels, are cheap, free of effort, and mean nothing. And certainly they are not an expression of will and a display of strength. Its whistling a tune while walking in the dark forest, cluelessness in the face of being challenged, and all too often: egocentric self-display. Despicable.

I don't like crowds. And I don't like paroles appealing to the masses.

Show me people who have lost patience, who refuse to just sit down and weep and cry, who express anger and determination, and have a certain kind of toughness in their eyes, a certain expression one cannot imagine that it could exist before one has never seen it with one's own eyes in somebody else's eyes. Maybe you know what I mean. I have seen it in some foreign countries and places. But almost never is it to be seen in countries like our homes. We are too civilised.

Question is whether what we call "being civilised", indeed is what it means to be "civilised." To me, it just means to be indifferent until self-denial, nevertheless claiming the morally higher ground.

eddie

06-06-17, 02:42 PM

That's the best you got Bilge_Rat, BS about the Paris Accords! :haha::haha::haha::har::har:

Bilge_Rat

06-06-17, 03:46 PM

nope, got some more:

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg060617dAPC20170604024521.jpg

Bilge_Rat

06-06-17, 03:47 PM

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mle170603c20170602081337.jpg

Nippelspanner

06-06-17, 03:48 PM

nope, got some more:

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg060617dAPC20170604024521.jpg
Oh gawd. Thank you! This post!

Trumpkins in a nut shell! :doh:

Rockstar

06-06-17, 03:58 PM

...Show me people who have lost patience, who refuse to just sit down and weep and cry, who express anger and determination, and have a certain kind of toughness in their eyes, a certain expression one cannot imagine that it could exist before one has never seen it with one's own eyes in

Jim brought those brrave people we seek to our attention in another topic. ;)

A few links that outline some of the heroicsa:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40149836

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-bridge-attack-stories-of-heroism-emerge-after-night-of-horror_uk_59340a32e4b02478cb9c6e0e

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-bridge-attack-acts-of-kindness_uk_5933c22de4b0c242ca24c50e

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3718284/london-bridge-attack-hero-gerard-vowles-guilt-woman-stabbed/

~SALUTE~

Bilge_Rat

06-06-17, 04:13 PM

Oh gawd. Thank you! This post!

Trumpkins in a nut shell! :doh:

exactly what do you mean?

Resorting to personal attacks again?

over a CARTOON!?!?!

Are you completely off your rocker?

Nippelspanner

06-06-17, 04:26 PM

exactly what do you mean?

Resorting to personal attacks again?

over a CARTOON!?!?!

Are you completely off your rocker?
Hit a nerve? :D
Explain to me how this is a personal attack, and I may or may not explain what exactly I meant - although I have the strong feeling I would not need to explain this to those more center, left... or reasonable conservative.

Probably fake news. Move along.

Skybird

06-06-17, 04:30 PM

Jim brought those brrave people we seek to our attention in another topic. ;)

Yes indeed. But that were reactions to the clear and present danger right before their eyes. Not an attitude born from reflecting over the incidents of the past years and decades. It was action without thinking. Will these same people indeed vote for stopping being politically correct regarding Islam? We don't know. I only want to illustrate that I am about something different than what they did. So wanted the author of the article that August linked. Of course I see things different when it comes to Trump'S person, than she does. Becasue I do not buy his posing. But her remarks on how it has become a habit to just silently accept terrorism as something we have no right to confront, because of precious animosities by some and political correctness of others - thats is something I also have said repeatedly by now, and linked to in one or two other, different articles.

vienna

06-07-17, 12:50 PM

Yeah, Trump really 'gets things done':

Trevor Noah: Donald Trump’s ‘Accomplishments’ Are Actually Phony --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trevor-noah-trump-phony-accomplishments_us_5937a942e4b01fc18d3ebe2a

<O>

kraznyi_oktjabr

06-07-17, 01:07 PM

I’ve spoken to contacts in the defense business and on the Hill, and all of them say the same thing: There is no $110 billion deal. Instead, there are a bunch of letters of interest or intent, but not contracts. Many are offers that the defense industry thinks the Saudis will be interested in someday. So far nothing has been notified to the Senate for review. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arms sales wing of the Pentagon, calls them “intended sales.” None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration.

None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/06/05/the-110-billion-arms-deal-to-saudi-arabia-is-fake-news/

and National Public Radio isn't any more co-operative...

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/06/531787079/trump-administration-may-have-inflated-details-of-saudi-arms-deal

What a great deal maker!

vienna

06-07-17, 01:21 PM

How can you tell Trump is lying? His lips are moving:

Remember the Carrier Jobs Trump 'Saved'? Company Announces 600 Layoffs Before Christmas

http://www.newsweek.com/carrier-company-where-trump-rescued-800-jobs-now-announces-600-layoffs-ahead-614352

Carrier Sends Jobs to Mexico, Workers Say Trump ‘Misled’ Them

http://www.thedailybeast.com/carrier-sends-jobs-to-mexico-workers-say-trump-misled-them

Really, Trump should seek a sponsorship from Bandini; he produces almost as much of their product as they do...

<O>

August

06-07-17, 01:59 PM

Looks like the Democrats aren't going to get the smoking gun they crave from Comey. His opening statement was posted today: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

Add to that the Intel chiefs denial they were pressured in any way: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/07/intel_officials_no_pressure_felt_to_alter_russia_p robe_134125.html

Looks like the Dems have failed again. :haha:

Bilge_Rat

06-07-17, 02:14 PM

August beat me to the punch.

Comey confirms that he told POTUS 3 times he was not being personally investigated.

On the Flynn thing, I'm sure some will try to twist it into something nefarious, but it is not even close to "obstruction of justice".

Democrats hoping for a quick impeachment will be disappointed. :ping:

Nippelspanner

06-07-17, 02:22 PM

Democrats hoping for a quick impeachment will be disappointed. :ping:
Why are you implying that only democrats are hoping for an impeachment?
There are Republicans that don't mistake politics for a silly meaningless team sport to vent some steam, some people still realize that this is actually important and hope for an impeachment/getting rid of him no matter how regardless of political position.

Rockstar

06-07-17, 03:21 PM

Nippelspanner

06-07-17, 03:31 PM

It takes more than hope because you don't like the guy (or gal) to impeach a sitting president.
Yes, yes it does.
Did I ever say or imply otherwise?
No, no I did not.

Still, millions of Americans realize(d) that he is bad for the country, and the world, so they do indeed hope to find something serious while digging.
What is wrong with that? As long as Trump is clean, he's got nothing to be afraid of.
I mean, sure ""Republicans"" didn't do so in case of Hillary, did they?
Diiid theeey? :03:

So, your point being?

Contrary to popular belief it actually takes discernible evidence to do that and by the looks of things there never has been, not even close.
Mh, "popular belief".
Now if that isn't begging for:

[citation needed]

Otherwise it's moot, like usual.

Oh before I forget:
http://i.imgur.com/JDkjluJ.png

http://i.imgur.com/lGdPQgj.png

Mh, but why would you say such things? :hmmm:

AVGWarhawk

06-07-17, 03:35 PM

Still, millions of Americans realize(d) that he is bad for the country, and the world,

What has Trump done specifically since taking office that indicates he is bad for the country and world?

https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/j/k/0/j/k/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349. 1jkv48.png/1496786923500.jpg

Bilge_Rat

06-07-17, 03:40 PM

Why are you implying that only democrats are hoping for an impeachment?
There are Republicans that don't mistake politics for a silly meaningless team sport to vent some steam, some people still realize that this is actually important and hope for an impeachment/getting rid of him no matter how regardless of political position.

I am sure there are, but as Obama used to say "elections have consequences".

Trump won the 2016 election fair and square and under the U.S. Constitution will be POTUS until january 20th, 2021.

Under the U.S. Constitution, as it should be in any democracy, impeachment is an extraordinary remedy to be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. It is not there just so that the losing Party in the election gets to overturn democratic election results. That would be a horrible precedent which would lead to turning the USA into a "Banana Republic". The U.S.A has survived the Civil War, it can certainly survive Trump. :ping:

I don't agree with everything Trump does, but I also don't agree that he is the Train wreck some on the left make him out to be. At the end of the day, however, none of that matters, voters will decide whether to re-elect him in 2020 or not.

Dowly

06-07-17, 03:44 PM

Looks like the Democrats aren't going to get the smoking gun they crave from Comey. His opening statement was posted today: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

What smoking gun? That Comey wrote memos and that Trump asked him to drop the Flynn investigation? Or am I missing something?

Add to that the Intel chiefs denial they were pressured in any way: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/07/intel_officials_no_pressure_felt_to_alter_russia_p robe_134125.htmlThe very first sentence of that article:

Two of the nation’s top intelligence officials refused to answer questions Wednesday about whether President Trump asked them to interfere in or push back on current Russian investigations, but said that they had felt no pressure to do so at any point.That they had 'felt no pressure to do so' doesn't mean they had not been asked to do so.
And as the article says, they both said they were willing to answer questions related to the topic in a closed hearing, i.e. they've more to tell than they want to say in a public hearing.

Bilge_Rat

06-07-17, 03:52 PM

That they had 'felt no pressure to do so' doesn't mean they had not been asked to do so.

True, but to impeach the President, which is the only way any of this could hurt POTUS, you need actual open testimony from Coats, Rogers, et al.

In two hearings now, they have said they will not comment. Talking heads can interpret that as they wish, but it gets you no closer to an impeachment, especially when you add:

Coats:

“My response to that was in my time of service, which is in interacting with the president of the United States or anybody in his administration, I have never been pressured, I have never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation,” Coats said, recounting his reaction to a request for comment from the Post.

Rogers:

Rogers says he's never been directed to do anything "illegal" or "immoral." The NSA chief declined to “talk about theoreticals” or address private conversations he may have had with the president. “But I will make the following comment,” he said. “In the three-plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believed to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate, and to the best of my recollection during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/07/trump-russia-capitol-hill-testimony-hearings-239242

Nippelspanner

06-07-17, 04:08 PM

I am sure there are, but as Obama used to say "elections have consequences".

Trump won the 2016 election fair and square and under the U.S. Constitution will be POTUS until january 20th, 2021.

Under the U.S. Constitution, as it should be in any democracy, impeachment is an extraordinary remedy to be reserved for extraordinary circumstances. It is not there just so that the losing Party in the election gets to overturn democratic election results. That would be a horrible precedent which would lead to turning the USA into a "Banana Republic". The U.S.A has survived the Civil War, it can certainly survive Trump. :ping:
Again. I agree, fully. Never said or implied otherwise, so I don't see why it is being brought up, really.

Bilge_Rat

06-07-17, 04:15 PM

Again. I agree, fully. Never said or implied otherwise, so I don't see why it is being brought up, really.

impeachment?

It has more to do with throwing a monkey wrench in the GOP agenda I would say. Typical Washington Circus.

You can't really blame the Democrats though, it is really payback for what the GOP did to Obama. i.e.:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174391&highlight=impeach+obama

..which is payback for what the democrats did to Bush:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

...which is payback for what the GOP did to Clinton:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

etc., etc.,...:/\\!!

Nippelspanner

06-07-17, 04:31 PM

impeachment?

It has more to do with throwing a monkey wrench in the GOP agenda I would say. Typical Washington Circus.

You can't really blame the Democrats though, it is really payback for what the GOP did to Obama. i.e.:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=174391&highlight=impeach+obama
No, acting as if I, or anybody else here, just wants Trump to go because of a general disappointment regarding the election results.
Not the case, but pro-Trump people often try to imply this, probably to render it unreasonable and dismiss any suspicion, investigation or uncomfortable questions conveniently - because core-beliefs and who knows what one may find?

It isn't unreasonable, and if there's suspicion, there need to be investigations. Naturally, it is difficult to investigate a swamp like this. We're talking power-play and games of the highest order here.

We'll see.

Rockstar

06-08-17, 07:54 AM

No, acting as if I, or anybody else here, just wants Trump to go because of a general disappointment regarding the election results.
Not the case, but pro-Trump people often try to imply this, probably to render it unreasonable and dismiss any suspicion, investigation or uncomfortable questions conveniently - because core-beliefs and who knows what one may find?

It isn't unreasonable, and if there's suspicion, there need to be investigations. Naturally, it is difficult to investigate a swamp like this. We're talking power-play and games of the highest order here.

We'll see.

Just wanting Trump to go means to impeach a sitting president. But there has to be evidence of an impeachable offense for that to happen. And so far after having read more than the headlines there is never been one shred of evidence to support impeachmemt. In fact all I've read is creative writing, hearsay, baseless accusations and and political grandstanding. So I hope you could see why it might seem to some, that others want him to go because they are just gossiping old women that got there panties in a wad over the election results.

If Im wrong please present evidence for impeachment just one reputable source will do. Try Maxine Waters website since she been most vocal about it she might have what you're looking for.

Up next Comey testimoney which I got a feeling is going to be anticlimactic. But Im sure the media especially the major news papers will make something out of nothing to support your 'suspicions' and call for impeachmemt and eagerly piss away my tax dollars on more investigations!

Rockstar

06-08-17, 09:16 AM

Any bets nothing conclusive will be found and this 'investigation' will turn into nothing more than political grand standing which will only leave the the country further divided along the party line?

Dowly

06-08-17, 09:20 AM

Any bets this will be merged to the US politics thread?

Nippelspanner

06-08-17, 09:25 AM

Just wanting Trump to go means to impeach a sitting president. But there has to be evidence of an impeachable offense for that to happen.
At this point I wonder if you actually care to read my posts, or if you blindly hit reply... :hmmm:

Buddahaid

06-08-17, 09:27 AM

...and eagerly piss away my tax dollars on more investigations!

Kenneth Starr anyone?

August

06-08-17, 09:30 AM

Good he can merge this too:

Dershowitz: Comey's statement fails to deliver the smoking gun Democrats craved

Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/07/dershowitz-comeys-statement-fails-to-deliver-smoking-gun-democrats-craved.html

Rockstar

06-08-17, 09:54 AM

Opening comments by Comey seemed to serve his own ego and to get back at Trump's administration trash talking him. Nothing wrong with it really.

Rockstar

06-08-17, 02:25 PM

RISCH: Okay. So again, so the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?

COMEY: In the main, it was not true. And again, all of you know this. Maybe the American people don't. The challenge, and I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on,

Oh how true buts it's so fun to watch the herd get their panties in a wad Lol

Nippelspanner

06-08-17, 02:38 PM

it's so fun to watch the herd get their panties in a wad LolWhere? I mean... are you hallucinating? :hmmm:

Rockin Robbins

06-08-17, 03:01 PM

Just wanting Trump to go means to impeach a sitting president. But there has to be evidence of an impeachable offense for that to happen. And so far after having read more than the headlines there is never been one shred of evidence to support impeachmemt. In fact all I've read is creative writing, hearsay, baseless accusations and and political grandstanding. So I hope you could see why it might seem to some, that others want him to go because they are just gossiping old women that got there panties in a wad over the election results.

If Im wrong please present evidence for impeachment just one reputable source will do. Try Maxine Waters website since she been most vocal about it she might have what you're looking for.

Up next Comey testimoney which I got a feeling is going to be anticlimactic. But Im sure the media especially the major news papers will make something out of nothing to support your 'suspicions' and call for impeachmemt and eagerly piss away my tax dollars on more investigations!
Ain't it interesting that Obama ran the White House as a Motel 6, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom for favors over an 8 year period and now a supposed conversation to Comey is somehow impeachable influence peddling? I'm really amazed that Democrats would open a door that might possibly lead to their own comeuppance.

eddie

06-08-17, 03:36 PM

Platapus

06-08-17, 03:37 PM

Just like when some people were calling for the impeachment of Bush Jr and Obama, impeaching Trump requires a distinct charge of a federal law being broken, evidence (actual evidence) and a house willing to levy articles of impeachment.

Being a scumbag, idiot, useless, insane, ineffective, or just plain ugly are not impeachable offenses.

Trump has to break a law to be impeached. Which means that if someone wants Trump to be impeached, they have to be able to cite the specific federal law or laws that Trump broke and, of course, have evidence.

Evidence, not emotions.

It ain't easy to impeach a president and that is just the way it needs to be.

The time to not have Trump president was back in November.

mapuc

06-08-17, 03:55 PM

I followed the former FBI-directors hearing on a Danish news channel.

As a person who is not so much into American laws and politics it was hard to get a picture of all he said to the committee.

It didn't make it any better listerning to the Danish expert right after-They are everyone against trump, so I couldn't really get a neutral comments

Markus

Mr Quatro

06-08-17, 06:56 PM

Blue collar or white collar?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-comey-testimony-lost-worker-productivity-3-billion/

By most all early accounts, the televised hearing of former FBI Director James Comey drew blockbuster audiences during the workday on Thursday. How much did that lost or delayed work subtract from the nation's economic output? A very, very rough estimate: $3.3 billion.

Méo

06-08-17, 07:48 PM

Being a scumbag, idiot, useless, insane, ineffective, or just plain ugly are not impeachable offenses.

What are you insinuating? :stare:

:har:

Rockstar

06-08-17, 09:55 PM

What are you insinuating? :stare:

:har:

:03:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA

vienna

06-09-17, 12:48 AM

Interesting aspects to the statement read by Trump's personal attorney:

1) Trump is "vindicated" because Comey has now publicly stated he told Trump three times Trump was not a subject of the Russian influence/interference probe, however...

2) Comey's testimony is unreliable because he lies... :hmmm:

Perplexing...

...given how Senate investigatory panel members, from both parties, lauded and praised Comey for his career-long reputation and his record of being forthright...

...I guess the only person who doesn't share that view is the guy in the Oval Office wildly flailing to save what's left of his failure of a presidency... :hmmm:

Boils down to this; who do you trust more to tell the truth: a career law enforcement and justice official with as near to an impeccable record as you could find; or, someone with a long, long track record of lying, double-dealing, and crass disregard for facts if they do not suit his purpose...

Let's expand a bit: what would you think of someone whose reputation is so bad, at least four prominent law firms refused to represent him, not only because of the nature of his case, but because he has a very long record and reputation of not honoring his debts?...

Of note is something that seemed to slide by in Comey's testimony: all of Comey's memos and any other documentation regarding his interactions with Trump are now in the hands of the Special Counsel (Prosecutor) and are now within the purview of his investigations:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/james-comey-robert-mueller-trump-case-file-239319

So, I guess, if Trump were to ask if he is the target of a criminal investigation now, the answer would be...Yes...

An interesting analysis of the Trump camp's reactions to Comey's testimony:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-five-lines-of-defense-against-comeyand-why-they-failed/529743/

<O>

vienna

06-09-17, 01:07 AM

This was something I noticed when Trump's attorney was reading his statement, but I wanted to see if any of the press caught this glaring lie er.. , um... 'misstatement":

In his effort to undercut former FBI director James Comey’s Senate testimony Thursday, President Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, appears to have misstated the sequence of two crucial events in the ongoing probe of the administration: Trump’s now infamous tweet implying he may have tapes of his conversations with Comey, and a New York Times article disclosing the existence of Comey’s memos about his meetings with the president.

Trump’s lawyer cites a questionable timeline in disputing Comey --

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-lawyer-cites-questionable-timeline-disputing-comey-211953908.html

I guess Trump can use this snafu as a reason not to pay this lawyer's bill, too... :haha:

<O>

Dowly

06-09-17, 03:56 AM

I think someone finally took Trump's phone away, he hasn't tweeted since Wednesday. :)

EDIT: Oops, spoke too soon. :haha:

Rockstar

06-09-17, 06:08 AM

Wow you found the missing pieces and cracked the case Sherlock.

According to Alan Dershowitz you're the problem, you're the one destroying this country from within. And ya know what? I think he's right. Working for Putin aren't ya. Lol

Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.

Yet virtually every Democratic pundit, in their haste to “get” President Trump, has willfully ignored these realities. In doing so they have endangered our civil liberties and constitutional rights.

Dowly

06-09-17, 06:35 AM

Who the hell are you talking to?

AVGWarhawk

06-09-17, 10:48 AM

I think someone finally took Trump's phone away, he hasn't tweeted since Wednesday. :)

EDIT: Oops, spoke too soon. :haha:

Required a recharge. He is back.

Rockin Robbins

06-09-17, 12:21 PM

Aint it interesting that Reagen rented out the Lincoln bedroom too, and that his stupid head of the Dept of the Interior had a New Years Eve party in the Custis-Lee Mansion, Oh yeah, Republicans are all about honor and respect!:har::har:
Who did Reagan put in the Lincoln bedroom? Lawmakers like Obama? If so he also would be much more guilty of overstepping his bounds than Trump. Saying "I hope the investigation can be dropped" isn't saying "close the investigation no matter what the facts are." The President has even that authority you know, but that isn't what he said. It was sympathetic conversation "Comey's a nice guy, you know that. I hope he can be cleared. It would be a shame if he did anything wrong."

Trump had exactly that conversation in the public arena before, so his Comey conversation is in agreement with his state of mind hating to see a good man go down. Comey, by the way, agreed with Trump. Comey, by the way did not register a complaint as he was legally required to do if he thought the President was committing any kind of offense during the conversation.

So Trump is completely vindicated in this one, 100% clear of the plot to impeach on that. Get used to it. There's more of that to come and more corrections from the news media who release the damning evidence before it isn't found. News reporting is as dead as Latin. It just doesn't exist any longer.

Rockin Robbins

06-09-17, 12:29 PM

Aint it interesting that Reagen rented out the Lincoln bedroom too, and that his stupid head of the Dept of the Interior had a New Years Eve party in the Custis-Lee Mansion, Oh yeah, Republicans are all about honor and respect!:har::har:
Wrong on both counts

Republicans are not all about honor and respect. Evil is an equal opportunity employer.

And according to the Washington Post, the Lincoln Bedroom started being used for contribution extraction by Bill Clinton (no surprise there), who established the precedent after Reagan's presidency. Sorry you strike out there:
Evan S. Dobelle, who was President Jimmy Carter's finance chairman in 1980 and now is president of Trinity College in Connecticut, said: "The world has changed in the sense that people on both sides of the aisle have been caught up in a situation that I'm unaccustomed to and not used to. I can't suggest whether it's ethical, moral or legal. All I'm saying is that we didn't do it and we could have. . . . Carter set a tone that you wouldn't even consider it."

When the office of former president George Bush released a list of the 284 overnight guests during his four years in office that included only a few major contributors, his spokesman Jim McGrath issued a statement that said: "President Bush asked me to reiterate that there was never any solicitation, either direct or indirect, made of the Bushes' guests to make political contributions. Furthermore, no staff or political committee member ever suggested that the Bushes invite someone to stay in the White House based on past or future fund-raising activities."

A spokeswoman for the Reagan office in Los Angeles said contributors were not invited to stay overnight at the White House during the Reagan presidency. "Family members stayed at the White House and a handful of longtime personal friends," said Joanne Drake, chief of staff for Reagan's office and a former member of the advance staff in the Reagan White House. "Use of the Lincoln Bedroom was never made available to anyone on the basis of past or future contributions. It simply wasn't done."By the way the Lincoln Bedroom is part of the guest suite at the White House and its use for purposes not involving contribution extraction can be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.

vienna

06-09-17, 02:45 PM

Wow you found the missing pieces and cracked the case Sherlock.

According to Alan Dershowitz you're the problem, you're the one destroying this country from within. And ya know what? I think he's right. Working for Putin aren't ya. Lol

In case anyone wanted know where this came from (always handy when trying to make a point), here is a link to the source:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/08/dershowitz-comey-confirms-that-im-right-and-all-democratic-commentators-are-wrong.html

Yes, the President has a right to direct the FBI and/or the Justice Department as he wishes, but, as with any right, it is not absolute. The President cannot exert his right in an effort to obstruct a lawful investigation of potentially criminal actions, particularly if those actions are, so to speak, "close to home". This is true no matter what level of authority: a mayor cannot order a chief-of-police to stop a criminal corruption investigation into his administration; he may have the right to do so, being the chief's 'boss', but the law prohibits obstruction of justice and the law supersedes whatever putative rights the mayor may have, particularly if the mayor is acting in a manner so as to evade possible prosecution as either an actor in the original crime or as an accessory after the fact. As with many other rights, its not that you have them, its how and why you choose to exercise them, and exerting a right to conceal, abet, or obstruct is still a crime no matter what the reason. Nixon had the right to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973, but his reasons for doing so led to a House Committee recommending impeachment charges of obstruction of justice against Nixon. The "why" of Nixon's actions mattered as much, if not more, than the "what" of his actions ...

A right is a right until it becomes a crime...

<O>

Platapus

06-09-17, 03:22 PM

Just like with the handling of classified information, the President has considerable (but not unlimited) authority over federal investigations. However, he can't make these types of decisions casually and undocumented.

The President has, under the Clemency Powers, the right to grant special amnesty for any person who is accused, or may be accused of violating specific types of federal laws. More specifically against "crimes against the United States" (not all federal crimes are crimes against the United States which is why Clemency Power is not unlimited). But that granting of Amnesty is an official act that requires documentation and publication into the official records.

BTW: Technically, granting a special Amnesty Order does not actually stop the investigation it just means that the United States will not prosecute. So the investigation might as well stop. It is one of those de facto vs de jour things.

This is the same type of issue we had with Trump handing classified information. As President he has Original Classification Authority and can make a decision to release any US controlled information to any person.. but he can't do it casually. It has to be an official act backed up with documentation and publication in the appropriate records.

Other than using his Clemency Powers, can the president order someone else to drop an already existing federal investigation?

In true American Jurisdictional manner the answer is a simple Yes, no, and perhaps maybe.

The answer is Yes...

Unless the investigation is about the President, then the answer is no....

Unless the investigation might be about the President, than the answer is maybe.

Ordinarily, the answer would be yes, unless the investigation involved the President him or herself, then the answer would no or maybe. The SCotUS has not ruled on this specifically.

It would depend on whether the president was guilty of obstructing justice. What's that mean?

Well 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 states in its entirety

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. The underlined word "corruptly" is one of the key issues.

The president can, in effect "obstruct justice" by just using his powers of office to call for either a stoppage of a federal investigation or simply by using his powers of clemency issue a special amnesty order.

But he can't do this "corruptly". Proving corruptness means proving intent and that is not always easy. However, if it can be proved that the president attempted to stop a federal investigation that could have reasonably resulted in an article of impeachment against the president, that would be pretty good evidence of corruptness in this context.

In the current case, the defense will attempt to demonstrate that since the President was not the focus of the investigation that there can not be any corruptness on the part of the president. The prosecution will argue that the president had a vested interest in this investigation being stopped and ultimately someone will have to decide.

The National Review published a pretty good article on this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447801/president-trump-prosecutorial-discretion-obstruction-justice-fbi-director-james-comey-criminal-justice-system

Bottom line?

This ain't over. As a matter of fact, the Fat Lady has not even arrived at the opera house yet.

ikalugin

06-09-17, 04:07 PM

but he can't do it casually.
Can't or shouldn't?

vienna

06-09-17, 04:44 PM

Both...

<O>

Platapus

06-09-17, 05:19 PM

Can't or shouldn't?

Can't but he probably has minions to handle the paperwork. :salute:

Platapus

06-09-17, 06:52 PM

In the year 2017

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimage s%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcS_ZeL5RSoz4xt_Uwfo9Ij9kKbEHSPy tFs7N0KdEdx8LV07Z4E1Sw&sp=9927ab4c3d951746a3c5cfc959f8feef&anticache=524820

Actually, I would rather have George Bush back in office now. And that's saying a lot considering how I felt about the Bush administration.

vienna

06-09-17, 08:50 PM

You know, I agree with you; at least with Dubbya, you knew you weren't having to deal with a bat guano loon...

...and I bet, somewhere, Dick Nixon is cackling with glee...

http://images1.ocweekly.com/imager/u/745xauto/7642889/lede-1.jpg

<O>

vienna

06-12-17, 04:16 PM

It pretty much official -- the White House is now a bad SNL comedy sketch:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-cabinet-meeting_us_593ebc52e4b0c5a35ca1acbe?ncid=edlinkush pmg00000313

It looks like the Oval Office is now occupied by General Bullmoose (or Bull-Something):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aWwanf82N0

This is the sort of thing some one would expect of a petty dictator of some third world banana republic...

<O>

u crank

06-12-17, 05:38 PM

Hmmm. :hmmm:

I watch the linked video but could not find this part....

President Donald Trump invited his top employees to shower him with compliments on Monday.

Is this what they mean by 'fake news'?

August

06-12-17, 06:32 PM

Hmmm. :hmmm:

I watch the linked video but could not find this part....

Is this what they mean by 'fake news'?

Apparently the Dems latest meme is that Trumps cabinet could not possibly support his agenda so it all must be as scripted as a CNN covered anti-isis protest.

eddie

06-12-17, 08:26 PM

Hmmm. :hmmm:

I watch the linked video but could not find this part....

Is this what they mean by 'fake news'?

Video link here, best comedy show I have seen in a while,lol Half of them can't even remember their lines!

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/trump-makes-bizarre-claims-at-press-event-as-cabinet-members-take-turns-praising-him.html

Catfish

06-13-17, 02:02 AM

Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

^ do you think the Donald was circling the table with a baseball bat during this.. event? :hmmm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgH9nf8ebg4

vienna

06-13-17, 02:40 AM

Another article on the Trump "Love-In":

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/us/politics/trump-boasts-of-record-setting-pace-of-activity.html?_r=0

I also found it amusing Trump was unaware of where Mike Pence, the Vice-President of the US, the person a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency, was sitting: Pence was directly across the table from Trump...

Trump's claim of being the 'most productive' President ever (absent FDR, as Trump "modestly" noted) has also drawn a lot of WTH reaction. Here's a couple of articles on the matter...

First, an article from a well-known Far-Right GOP leaning DC newspaper that appears to be the source for Trump's newest puffery:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/10/president-trump-has-signed-more-bills-into-law-tha/

Now, an article from a news-source, though admittedly not in Trump's corner, still exercised the time-honored skill of doing actual research:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/06/12/trump-says-hes-done-more-by-this-point-than-anybody-since-fdr-sort-of/?utm_term=.645058e64ce6

Somehow, Trump and his 'cheerleaders' haven't seemed to grasp the fact just passing a piece of legislation in the House of Representatives doesn't make it a fully passed bill into law, it must also pass the Senate; the fact legislation must pass both the houses of Congress is a basic truth known by every grade school student who has been through a basic civics class, or has even watched the Schoolhouse Rock episode "I'm Just A Bill". Either Trump and his minions are, indeed, not "Smarter Than A 5th Grader", or Trump and his minions have so low an opinion of the intelligence of his base as to think they just won't know the truth. Either Trump is a lot dumber than thought or he's banking on his perception his base is really dumb; not flattering or reassuring, either way...

Being a baseball fan, I was amused by the baseball analogy at the end of the article...

Of course, if a president wanted to, he could sign any number of executive orders that had little to no effect or that were thrown out by the courts. (On Monday, for example, an appeals court upheld a block on Trump’s immigration ban.) Executive orders can affect the implementation of legislation and the organization of government, but are necessarily limited in the effect they can have. But they can also be largely rhetorical, political demonstrations meant to rally a base.

Put another way, if you simply want a number that you can use to argue how much you’ve gotten done, executive orders would be an effective way to do that. It’s a bit like a baseball player arguing that the real metric isn’t hits, it’s hits plus swings.

And so, on Trump’s unusual combined metric — bills passed plus executive orders — he has been the most productive president since Roosevelt, edging out Jimmy Carter.

Lots of swings.

Maybe Trump should be walked intentionally...

...right out of the Oval Office...

https://media.giphy.com/media/DDkPeOPMxxuMw/giphy.gif

<O>

August

06-13-17, 07:01 AM

Video link here, best comedy show I have seen in a while,lol Half of them can't even remember their lines!

Maybe because it wasn't really scripted?

Mr Quatro

06-13-17, 04:28 PM

It looks like most of your missed the reason for the meeting of staff kissing butt so to speak.

Priebus must have put it together in order to see who goes and who stays.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/11/donald-trump-reince-priebus-deadline-239411

Trump gives Priebus until July 4th to clean up White House
The president has threatened to oust his chief of staff if major changes are not made, but many are skeptical he’ll follow through.

August

06-13-17, 05:30 PM

It looks like most of your missed the reason for the meeting of staff kissing butt so to speak.

Priebus must have put it together in order to see who goes and who stays.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/11/donald-trump-reince-priebus-deadline-239411

And maybe your story is just another load of democrat, seeing as it relies on yet more anonymous sources.

vienna

06-13-17, 06:04 PM

Better and more reliable than the well-known steaming pile of Trump... :haha:

<O>

eddie

06-13-17, 10:25 PM

Doubt they could find anyone to take their place if he gives them the boot,lol

em2nought

06-14-17, 12:43 AM

vienna

06-14-17, 01:10 AM

Doubt they could find anyone to take their place if he gives them the boot,lol

Probably not; Trump has only been in office 144 days and already his administration is the most shambolic mess in US history. Ever since the beginning of the Trump Administration, it has been plagued with senior officials forced to resign, others abandoning bids for nomination to various posts due to various conflicts of interest or holes in their backgrounds, and potential nominees outright refusing to even be considered for offered positions. I don't recall any other administration, of either party, ever having such an ordeal in filling, and/or keeping filled, White House-appointed positions. Normally, a new administration has the problem of too many highly-qualified office-seekers; this one can't seem to attract the "best and the brightest" (a probable indicator of their brightness). Even a sizable number of lower level Trump staff have lost their jobs due to failure to pass background security checks: many were even caught lying on their security questionnaires...

The most glaring turn-down Trump got was when highly respected ex-Seal Vice Adm. Robert Harward declined an offer to fill fired Mike Flynn's post of National Security Adviser; Harward was so dismayed by the shambles in the White House, he was quoted as referring to the situation as "a s**t sandwich":

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trumps-pick-to-replace-flynn-turns-down-job.html

I heard a report/discussion on an in-depth news radio program where various experts, of both parties, discussed the staffing problems in the Trump administration. One of the GOP speakers probably said it best: the perception is Trump and his circle are crazy, and no one sensible wants to work for crazy...

<O>

Nippelspanner

06-14-17, 06:58 AM

As this spectacle unfolds the people that voted Trump into office are probably out doubling down on buying firearms and ammunition. If the guy that won the office isn't given the chance to govern, there are other ways to go about things. What's been going on is just confirming their beliefs about the vast swamp that is the District of Columbia, and about their opponents. :03:

While this post only confirms my beliefs about lunatic trumpkins, living in some kind of alternate reality.
But that kinda explains the alternate facts at least.

Catfish

06-14-17, 07:10 AM

Must. not. write. here.

Rockstar

06-14-17, 11:12 AM

Vienna you still alive? Just wondering.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/james-t-hodgkinson/congressional-baseball-shooter-729035

Nippelspanner

06-14-17, 11:14 AM

Vienna you still alive? Just wondering.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/james-t-hodgkinson/congressional-baseball-shooter-729035
What a... (I cannot say what I really think here.)

Rockstar

06-14-17, 11:23 AM

Sheesh Nipplespanner he could have been there playing baseball you know. Just wondering if he was ok. What the heck were you thinkng, please explain.

Nippelspanner

06-14-17, 11:28 AM

Sheesh Nipplespanner he could have been there playing baseball you know. Just wondering if he was ok. What the heck were you thinkng, please explain.
What...?

eddie

06-14-17, 01:30 PM

Sheesh Nipplespanner he could have been there playing baseball you know. Just wondering if he was ok. What the heck were you thinkng, please explain.

Yeah, right.

Platapus

06-14-17, 01:53 PM

As this spectacle unfolds the people that voted Trump into office are probably out doubling down on buying firearms and ammunition.....

Independent of the administration, Americans continue to buy guns and ammo. It is one of our more political secure industries.

A democrat is in office -- Gotta buy guns and ammo
A republican is in office -- Gotta buy guns and ammo

I saw a butterfly the other day -- Gotta buy guns and ammo
Having Fish Sticks for dinner -- Gotta buy guns and ammo

It's an American thing. :03:

I have been thinking of greatly expanding my personal arsenal. That new Ruger Mk IV is looking like a sweet shoot. :up:

Paper targets tremble at the mention of my name!!!:shucks:

Mr Quatro

06-14-17, 01:57 PM

Must. not. write. here.

Resist ... we must keep on resisting :up:

em2nought

06-14-17, 02:59 PM

Independent of the administration, Americans continue to buy guns and ammo. It is one of our more political secure industries.

Even Bernie Sanders fanboys apparently. If he had survived I wonder if he could have blamed the mainstream media and fake news as part of his defense?

Onkel Neal

06-14-17, 03:11 PM

I'm going to give this thread a time out. Let's find something we enjoy and can be positive about for a while, ok?

Mr Quatro

06-17-17, 04:43 PM

I have reasons to believe that the POTUS is going to take a nose dive, either bow out like Nixon or be ushered out by his own mistakes. VP Pence could be the GOP candidate in 2020 due to already being the POTUS in office.

I took too long for a poll ... here's the seed thoughts for the poll:

Will Trump make it to the 2020 election cycle?

Trump will always be Trump ... He will still be POTUS

Trump is going to throw in the towel with so many arrows in him he will become too weary to continue on

Trump will have to be removed from office by a majority of his peers and that won't happen

Trump will be ushered out of office by lawyer’s with the majority on their side

Gargamel

06-17-17, 04:58 PM

I have reasons to believe that the POTUS is going to take a nose dive, either bow out like Nixon or be ushered out by his own mistakes. VP Pence could be the GOP candidate in 2020 due to already being the POTUS in office.

Limit your comments and let your vote count ... Poll only open for one week to avoid flaming each other.

This is like predicting the sun will rise again tomorrow.

I'll be surprised if he makes the year.

Catfish

06-17-17, 05:58 PM

I think it's: "Trump makes it to the 2020 election cycle"

Not because i am biased towards him, but there is still no real evidence that he perpetrated any crime. Simple as that.

:arrgh!: Or i could say he will be president because otherwise 20 million right-wingers will grab their weapons and cause a civil war. If you read certain media outlets you can well get this impression. Have to abstain to lurk there for a few days once more i think.

Mr Quatro

06-17-17, 06:11 PM

:arrgh!: Or i could say he will be president because otherwise 20 million right-wingers will grab their weapons and cause a civil war. If you read certain media outlets you can well get this impression. Have to abstain to lurk there for a few days once more i think.

True, Trump has supporters that would be up in arms if forced out by Congress ... that's why, even with his ego, he might take the exit all by himself due to blackmail of even more revelations or even his billions could be in jeopardy if he lingers too long.

Crazy election, crazy wind down, just plain crazy for everyone ... I'll be glad when it's all over.

Platapus

06-17-17, 06:45 PM

MaDef

06-17-17, 07:24 PM

It must be hell living inside your heads ever since Trump took office.:Kaleun_Salute:

vienna

06-17-17, 08:21 PM

I think there is a chance he will resign. I don't think he ever really wanted to win. If he does leave, he will want to leave on his terms. He may declare that while he is the best president in our history, the fact that everyone is against him (courts, press, congress, the people) that he feels that he really can't get anything done and that we don't deserve as awesome a president as he clearly is.

Then he can do what he wanted to do all along -- start another career as a political commentary celebrity safely blaming who ever is on office. I predict that his next reality TV show will be entitled "see, I told you so!"

I pretty much agree with you. I think he'll resign amid much huffery and puffery, declare he's actually "wiinning" and go on to make beaucoup bucks on the speaking/TV circuit and write (or have some one write for him) book(s) about his tortured life...

The really odd thing is, he's really done all this damage to himself, needlessly. His obsession with his being investigated for collusion is baffling since he was never accused of collusion by any credible entities, certainly not by the Justice Dept.; the only people actually being investigated are those members of his campaign who had contact with Russian operatives; he could have (and should have) just let the investigation(s) play out and let his suspect cronies take their lumps. Instead, he decided it was a better tactic to try and derail the investigations; this has now led him to needlessly put himself in the position of actually being investigated for obstruction. If he'd just shut up about matter, he would not be in the bind he's created...

I think if anything is going to do him in, it won't be collusion, it will be his finances and the specter of conflict of interest. After he announced his candidacy last year, the subsequent months saw the publication of several articles in reputable and respected periodicals detailing the extent of his financial 'empire'. Among the details was the fact Trump could no longer obtain loans from any major US banks due to his very poor credit and payment history, highlighted by a number of bankruptcies to avoid payment of debts. Since he could no longer get the very large loans he needed to back his projects, he sought financing from foreign banks; the one big bank that bit was Deutsche Bank, but even they were leery of Trump. According to the articles, big money depositors of the bank quietly stepped in to offer references and vouch for Trump and helped him secure the loans. The parties who stepped in were Russian oligarchs and their connections were with the Russian VEB Bank. The potential connections with Russian money interests and Trump's holdings could set up a very sticky ethics and conflict situation for Trump. He might be faced with having to either shed completely some of his 'tainted' assets, preserving, for the moment, his tenure in office, or face what would be certainly a very hard legal battle and a public relations disaster. I think, faced with the actual possibility of having to whittle down his 'empire', he will resign...

So, in the end, his connections with Russia might well make him leave office, but it won't be because of collusion...

<O>

August

06-17-17, 08:37 PM

I think he'll not only make it through his first term but he'll get reelected for another.

Reece

06-17-17, 08:40 PM

My thoughts exactly!:yep:

Platapus

06-17-17, 08:45 PM

Ultimately, it will be up to the Democrats. If they put up, again, someone unelectable, Trump may very well be re-elected.

2020 is very lose-able. We can only hope they learned their lesson.

vienna

06-17-17, 11:58 PM

Well, the DEMs actually did run a winning candidate, at least in the terms of the popular vote; Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes, winning the popular vote by a good majority, and 54% of the voters voted for a candidate other than Trump; Trump was never the US voters' choice. Clinton, flaws and all, was actually 'electable', mainly because, for the majority of the actual voters, she was the lesser of two evils. Trump won office not by direct election, but, rather, by the arcane 'handicapping' system that is the Electoral College. Where Clinton and the DEMs failed was in not working the "game" of the Electoral College as effectively as the GOP...

Trump was never the popular People's Choice and has seen his popularity slide to dismal depths near or below the dismal level when he took office; that is an absolute fact. If the trend continues, and it shows no immediate prospect of change, if Trump manages to cling to office til 2020, the DEMs stand a better than good chance of regaining the Oval Office, dependent of who they run. I don't think they will forget the lesson about the gaming of the Electoral College, much as the GOP learned a valuable lesson when, in 2012, Obama raked in far more Electoral votes than the GOP anticipated (actually more than Trump managed to pull in 2016)...

The 2018 mid-terms are a toss-up: the GOP has been doing the right thing by pretty much trying to carry on with business without being sucked into the Trump sideshow. As long as they continue to strive to conduct their business as if Trump is not the albatross he is, the GOP can, at least, curry favor with the voters who are seeking remedies to more personal, pressing issues they face. The Senate should be secure since none of the GOP members has really done anything to cause real concern and the Senate is seen as the 'grown-ups' of Congress; the House is another issue; given that a sizable number of the GOP House members have more or less signed on to some of the highly questionable Trump causes and that a few have even gone out of their way to seemingly abet Trump, there is a perception the GOP leadership of the House has lost control of even their own members; the faith the voters have in the House has never, regardless of whoever were the majority party, in the past couple of decades or so, been very high and it is falling; unless they right ship and try to regain a semblance of order and unity, 2018 could be a very interesting election...

<O>

sh3rules

06-18-17, 12:54 AM

I'd be surprised if Trump doesn't self-destruct before 2020.

Skybird

06-18-17, 05:14 AM

America has equipped its presidency with almost untouchability. More difficult than in most other Western countries to get a pest out of state leadership or to cancel immunity. Candidates deserving that there have been several ones in history, but how often has it actually succeeded? ;) On the other hand, nobody tries as hard as Trump to get kicked. So never say never... No, America will need to live on with this shame. And rightly so. You allowed it - you suffer from the fallout.

Jimbuna

06-18-17, 06:26 AM

Just an advisory: If and when the US Politics thread is reopened, this thread will be merged to that.

u crank

06-18-17, 08:01 AM

Ultimately, it will be up to the Democrats. If they put up, again, someone unelectable, Trump may very well be re-elected.

2020 is very lose-able. We can only hope they learned their lesson.

I agree. I think Clinton was a flawed candidate right out of the gate. The email scandal alone should have disqualified her.

Also, I'm just thinking... If a candidate is not smart enough to win an election that they should have won...would you want that person to be President? :hmmm:

Platapus

06-18-17, 11:09 AM

Trump was never the US voters' choice.

I would disagree.

The intent of the electoral college is for the winning candidate to get the majority of the votes in the majority of the states. This is different than a simple majority of the population. It is more a representative majority over the set of states.

Yes, Clinton got more of the population's votes, but they were concentrated in a fewer number of states. The methodology of how we elect our president is, as always, a compromise between the desires of the largest population states (who would would favour a simple majority) and the smaller population states (who would favour a more representative majority).

This is, of course, compounded by the states deciding (and it is the individual state's decision) to have an "all or nothing" electoral vote tally. We don't need to get rid of the electoral college, we need to fix it so it records a more representative tally of the votes.

So Trump winning the majority of the votes in the majority of the states would indicate that he was the choice of the voters as represented by the individual states.

Skybird

06-18-17, 11:38 AM

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams

Politics: the art of using euphemisms, lies, emotionalism and fear-mongering to dupe average people into accepting--or even demanding--their own enslavement. - Larken Rose

Voting is not a right. It is a method used to determine which politician was most able to brainwash you. - Dennis Adonis

The only people truly bound by campaign promises are the voters who believe them. - Christopher Hitchens

STEED

06-18-17, 02:23 PM

Age may get the better of him. :hmmm:

Bubblehead1980

06-18-17, 09:07 PM

vienna

06-19-17, 02:30 AM

This Friday, 23 June, should be interesting: since Trump made that Tweet suggesting the possible existence of recording of his meetings with Comey, calls for either Trump to produce any such recordings or admit there are no such recordings or recording system(s) led to Congress issuing an ultimatum for the production of the recordings by Friday, 23 June. I guess we will either see recordings to either substantiate Trump or Comey, or, much more likely, we will see, again, Trump is lying to and/or misleading Congress, and, more importantly, the US public...

I wonder who he will try to blame this time? Maybe Obama; maybe Hilary; maybe the DEMs, the "Deep State", the media; maybe the dog ate the tapes, if they existed at all. Certainly he won't blame the one person responsible who seems to get him in all these dilemmas, the one who shoots off his mouth (well, thumbs...Tweets, you know) and who seems to be jamming Trump's foot into his mouth up to the knees: Donald J. Trump...

<O>

Catfish

06-19-17, 02:44 AM

Absolutely will make it and win in 2020 "big league" because the so called "deplorables" will ensure it barring illegals are not permitted to vote, left is working on that. Amazes me the hysteria some people are in over this man because he does not play by the rules of DC and actually wants to help the people. Obama was far more dangerous to the country and the world. Personally, I've enjoyed the turmoil his election has caused, our nation needed it and continues to do so.

Accusing "the Left" is so hip these days. "The Left" seems to encompass all level-headed people of common sense lately, according to the far right media. What do you mean with "... barring illegals are not permittted to vote, left is working on that"? I'd sure think it is Trump?
Trump "help the people"? Yes, the rich ones, and in a very short-sighted way maybe, and then working for a year until all collapses.

And how was Obama "dangerous" in any way? I keep hearing this all the time from the right, from "traitor" to worse. WTH is wrong with you people?

em2nought

06-19-17, 04:29 AM

WTH is wrong with you people?

It's pretty simple, we refuse to go gentle into that good night. :03: Scorched earth policy. :up:

Catfish

06-19-17, 05:19 AM

nah it was only meant because some call Obama "dangerous" and a "traitor", if not worse. I would like to know the reason, if there is any.

vienna

06-19-17, 06:12 AM

An couple of interesting views of the Trump problem:

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/06/opposition-with-and-without-impeachment.html#more

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/06/naive-stupid-evil-trump.html

The seemingly never ceasing progression of missteps (trying to be kind, here) by Trump brought to mind a line I'd heard a long time ago and that I used to have pinned to the wall of one of my work sites; it comes from the TV series Have Gun - Will Travel and is spoken by the lead character, Paladin:

...if men have a common factor, it seems to me it's their ability to err. If a man's mistakes determine what he was, then what he does about those mistakes should determine what he is.

In Trump's case, what he is, is dismally apparent...

<O>

Catfish

06-19-17, 08:01 AM

The real threatening thing for me is not Trump, but that so much people obviously agree with him. From condemning the press of producing "fake news" to Trump's "alternate realities", to interference with law and investigations, to insulting people of other races as rapists, to ignoring science, to blatant lies like about H. Clinton, to whatnot. And the people like it and believe that! Of course everybody likes clowns, but come on!

It seems he is so ahead with all his insults, lies and acting like a steamroller, that neither the media nor justice can keep up at all. Before they can even say something, the next idiocy has happened. And Breitbart et al praise all he says and does.

I'd really like to know what would had happened, had Obama done anything of it. :hmmm:
What exactly did Trump do up to now, to help the middle class and common people? I can only see tax dodging for the rich, and evading all that might smell of reason.

Schroeder

06-19-17, 08:11 AM

In Trump's case, what he is, is dismally apparent...

So you think he's one hell of a Covfefe?:O:

Catfish

06-19-17, 08:25 AM

So you think he's one hell of a Covfefe?:O:

:haha::up:
We have a definition for "vfefe":
http://www.definedmeaning.com/numerology-meaning-of/vfefe/vfefe-stands-for-vfefe-means

So we now only need to find out what the "co" stands for. Commanding officer? :hmmm:

Bilge_Rat

06-19-17, 09:20 AM

Trump will run in 2020.

It is just too hard to remove a sitting President, no matter what the Democrats may wish for.

Whether he gets re-elected is another story...

Bubblehead1980

06-19-17, 10:29 AM

Accusing "the Left" is so hip these days. "The Left" seems to encompass all level-headed people of common sense lately, according to the far right media. What do you mean with "... barring illegals are not permittted to vote, left is working on that"? I'd sure think it is Trump?
Trump "help the people"? Yes, the rich ones, and in a very short-sighted way maybe, and then working for a year until all collapses.

And how was Obama "dangerous" in any way? I keep hearing this all the time from the right, from "traitor" to worse. WTH is wrong with you people?

Read Obama's book "Dreams From My Father", reveals his true feelings about many things, especially about race, which were reflected in many of his actions and words as President.I read this book during 2008 election and it completely turned me away from him.Sadly, I was not shocked when much of his actions and real attitude was displayed during his tenure, thanks to reading his own words. Really was the last time he was completely honest in a public forum as he was a broke young attorney and had no clue he'd ever be president. Newt Gingrich was correct when he said obama has an "anti colonial" mindset, he sees the US as a colonial power, one that has been too powerful and too much influence in the world. Obama's half arsed, ****less attempt at curbing Iran's nuclear program, and giving them millions of dollars lol, because he really does not mind if Iran has a nuke, at his core he believes it'll help curb US power and influence.

obama is a a marxist at heart, a globalist(which has marxist roots) , but not above compromising any "values" to make money, like most people, especially politicians. This explains his foreign policy, his idiotic domestic policies, immigration policies, race baiting etc. Glenn Beck apologized because he was forced to, but when he said obama has a deep seated disdain for white people, white culture etc, he was not wrong. No fan of Glenn Beck, but he was correct.

Trump is pushing for an America First policy, which sadly is such a novelty after years of global oriented policies. Trump is standing up for the people. I can not recall last time a President actually listened and didnt just pay lip service with emotional platitudes.The man is trying to do away with the monstrosity known as obamacare.Trump is trying to actually stop the flood of illegal immigrants and dangerous "refugees" from middle east, before we end up like France or UK. Trump is pushing for tax cuts for everyone, for cutting wasteful spending. Trump is a modern day Andrew Jackson is many ways, fighting a corrupt system backed by powerful interests.

Mr Quatro

06-19-17, 10:38 AM

In Trump's case, what he is, is dismally apparent...

<O>

I always go by the thought process, "Thou shalt not judge" means good or bad, but even my heart is weary of what I have seen Trump become in the last six (6) months.

The tweets speak for themselves

Firing the FBI director and then inviting the Russian's to come visit the White House the very next day.

Saying that he admires Putin

Announcing that he is against NATO ... I wonder who else is against NATO?

The budget giving big companies over 20% tax breaks on profit saying that it will increase production and provide more jobs.

Promising a health care bill and plan that is better than Obamacare, which almost anything would be better than 6,000 more IRS agents checking your reported income, but not Trumps health care bill that is reported to save $150 million at the expense of women's health care and mental health care.

Being an acknowledged friend of the radio news commentator that denies that Sandy Hook elementary shootings really happened.

I have to escape my first love for Trump was simply to replace the thoughts of Hillary Clinton becoming the POTUS. Now I will start hoping the GOP can find a winner in VP Pence.

It has never happened and probably never will, but wouldn't it be odd if somehow Trump makes it through all of this gauntlet of nay's and boo's to the election cycle and VP Pence runs against Trump with the GOP's blessing's.

Now that would be one crazy race for the White House, uh?

I hope August and Reece and Bilge Rat will change, but not to see it my new way, but see through a man that has more than one face.

Don't we all, but Trump is really weak and in denial that he is wrong or that he has ever even been wrong :yep:

Sailor Steve

06-19-17, 10:48 AM

Obama was far more dangerous to the country and the world.
Wasn't Obama going to declare martial law and appoint himself dictator? Whatever came of that?

mapuc

06-19-17, 11:07 AM

Wasn't Obama going to declare martial law and appoint himself dictator? Whatever came of that?

... and so was Bush Sr and Jr and the President before them

Markus

Mr Quatro

06-19-17, 11:21 AM

This thread is about will Trump make it to the 2020 election cycle ... :o

Catfish

06-19-17, 11:26 AM

Every ever so small quote from the book Obama wrote ("Dreams From My Father") is so much more intelligent and thoughtful than everything i heard Trump say packed together.
To insult or trying to slur Obama for his own thoughts about afro-american roots and for what he thinks of colonialism, is nothing short of racist. He is so obvioulsy and blatant right about what he writes that it hurts. And the right let loose after this election does not even consider itself to be racist, this is ridiculous. In the long run only education helps, something the far right seems to be lacking big time.

"Obama a marxist at heart"
"Trump is standing up for the people"
"Trump is pushing for tax cuts for everyone"
"The man is trying to do away with the monstrosity known as obamacare"
"[Giving Iran] ...millions of dollars lol, because he really does not mind if Iran has a nuke, at his core he believes it'll help curb US power and influence"

I never have read so much bovine scatology in a few lines, apart maybe in that certain hidden other US right wing forum.

And Obama has an anti-colonial mindset? awwww i'm shocked, i tell you! F'n yes, and rightly so! What do you think your grandfathers did to the africans? Thank god those times are over for a hundred years, racism obviously isn't. So you are still a colonial supporter or what? UnbeF'nlievable!!

On topic:
As i wrote i fear he will be president at least for four years, as someone else here wrote idiocy alone is not a crime, so just maybe there is no impeachmant. On the other hand there is a german proverb saying "Dummheit schuetzt vor Strafe nicht."

vienna

06-19-17, 02:49 PM

:haha::up:
We have a definition for "vfefe":
http://www.definedmeaning.com/numerology-meaning-of/vfefe/vfefe-stands-for-vfefe-means

So we now only need to find out what the "co" stands for. Commanding officer? :hmmm:

Just another reason to question the validity of numerology... :har:

<O>

vienna

06-19-17, 03:50 PM

Was Obama worse than Trump? It seems at least one GOP member is not shy about making his opinions heard:

Jason Chaffetz Slams Donald Trump And Jeff Sessions As He Leaves Congress --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jason-chaffetz-slams-trump_us_59475dc5e4b01eab7a2eacc0

<O>

u crank

06-19-17, 04:04 PM

Was Obama worse than Trump? It seems at least one GOP member is not shy about making his opinions heard:

I'm confused. Who should be insulted here? :D

Jimbuna

06-19-17, 04:27 PM

On topic:
As i wrote i fear he will be president at least for four years, as someone else here wrote idiocy alone is not a crime, so just maybe there is no impeachmant. On the other hand there is a german proverb saying "Dummheit schuetzt vor Strafe nicht."

Stupidity does not protect against punishment.

Rockstar

06-19-17, 07:44 PM

Wasn't Obama going to declare martial law and appoint himself dictator? Whatever came of that?

He did, Trump is his puppet .

Sailor Steve

06-19-17, 11:11 PM

This thread is about will Trump make it to the 2020 election cycle ... :o
Yes it is. Believe it or not, that was my point.

vienna

06-19-17, 11:43 PM

Stupidity does not protect against punishment.

However, that apparently hasn't kept some in the GOP from floating the idea as a "defense":

Republicans’ emerging Trump defense: A naif in the Oval Office --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emerging-trump-defense-a-naif-in-the-oval-office/2017/06/08/51abdd9c-4c71-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.28b4eed77a15

(Note: the above story is from 8 June,2017)

What Trump Doesn’t Know Will Hurt Us:
The GOP excuse about Trump’s ignorance will lead America to disaster. --

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/06/the_dangerous_gop_excuse_about_trump_s_inexperienc e_in_the_comey_affair.html

<O>

Catfish

06-20-17, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
Wasn't Obama going to declare martial law and appoint himself dictator? Whatever came of that?

He did, Trump is his puppet .

@Rockstar i was astonished that you were joking.
Were you?

It took me two days to find you might take this for real? Obama against Trump? "Deep state"? A "left" conspiracy?

Deep state was originally a definition formed to describe a right-wing alliance between secret services and the military industrial complex, now the right media have turned it around and accuses "the left" for being exactly that :hmmm:

My take is that Trump damages himself without needing any exterior help. If there exists any "alliance" against Trump i would call that reason and common sense, no need for an allegedly arranged illegal alliance or other conspiracy theories. The general media are not automatically "left" just because they criticize Trump, it is plain neutral observation. The real left is much more direct and insulting. That the right now considers mainstream as "left" speaks volumes of what a shift has happened.
And the right yes-media, well no comment needed. I remember exactly how they called the other 51 percent snowflakes, traitors and "butthurt". They missed no low in their glee.

Still, if Trump does not commit a crime there can be no legal reason to force him out of office. And then he of course should stay. He is the elected president, and I still see no evidence among all those accusations, regardless of what one thinks of him. Other presidents have survived other media storms, but they were probably not so thin-skinned.

Rockstar

06-20-17, 09:01 AM

On my god. To think not too long ago we would have had a good laugh at such a comment.

We've entered the era of the tinfoil hat

https://allthingsvice.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tin_foil_hat.gif

Catfish

06-20-17, 09:32 AM

On my god. To think not too long ago we would have had a good laugh at such a comment. ...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/07/deep-state-breitbart-fantasy-increasingly-nervous-cia-officials-tell-business-insider/

So? :hmmm:

Rockstar

06-20-17, 09:54 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/07/deep-state-breitbart-fantasy-increasingly-nervous-cia-officials-tell-business-insider/

So? :hmmm:

Hey if you're into that kinda stuff then breitbart is for you.

Mr Quatro

06-20-17, 10:22 AM

Yes it is. Believe it or not, that was my point.

I believe you ... at least you ran him off :yep:

Onkel Neal

06-20-17, 02:21 PM

On my god. To think not too long ago we would have had a good laugh at such a comment.

We've entered the era of the tinfoil hat

https://allthingsvice.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tin_foil_hat.gif

If you disagree or have an alternate opinion, lay it out clearly. Don't make veiled personal attacks.

Rockstar

06-20-17, 06:58 PM

Sorry Catfish, sorry Neal, sorry all. :oops:

Sailor Steve

06-20-17, 07:20 PM

I believe you ... at least you ran him off :yep:
Probably not. He's usually a hit-and-run poster.

Subnuts

06-20-17, 08:52 PM

em2nought

06-20-17, 10:18 PM

You better hope so. :03:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QEE141IC4Q8/hqdefault.jpg

Skybird

06-21-17, 03:51 AM

Trump has good chances to make it to 2020 - not because he is so brilliant, but because the Democrats are unable to offer a reasonable political alternative. This - GERMAN - opion piece

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/donald-trump-blamiert-sich-im-weissen-haus-trotzdem-koennen-us-demokraten-nicht-punkten-a-1153220.html

argues that in all the by-elections they have had in Kansas, Montana, South Carolina and Georgia, the Democrats failed to gain a Congress seat, although in these places their chances should have been better than in many others, with Republicans sometimes having given trump only the edge over Clinton.

When you lose one by election after the other, and always blame Trump for evertyhing and do not get yor own homework done, then this is a bit too small an offer as if you can present yourself as an altenrtaive. In Georgia during the by-election there were more Repulbicans going to the voting than during the presidential election.

From the perspective of the outsider and foreigner, I must say: the Democrats are invisible, and when we take note of them, then it is speculation about a planned third ego show by Hillary Clinton.

Its not about Trump being so strong and potent. He is a fool. Its about the others' weakness. And as long as Democrats do not realise that and draw consequences, they have no chance.

Its a bit like with Macronman flying in France. Everybody in Germany is cheering him (I wonder why, he will mean us nothign but costs and more costs), and talks about the majority he has in parliament. But the French hardly are as passionate for him, indeed seem to not trust him too much, they were indeed only about preventing LePen and the other established parties. If you count the backgroudn data, you see that of the French citizens who were allowed to vote, 75% did not vote for him. Macronman's camp represents just around one quarter of the electorate. He is strong only not by own strength, but because the established parties blew it in recent years and decades.

Catfish

06-21-17, 04:09 AM

Trump has good chances to make it to 2020 - not because he is so brilliant, but because the Democrats are unable to offer a reasonable political alternative. [...]

For once (or twice) i agree with you, and it seems to be an international problem, also in Germany. "Alternativlos" ("without alternative"), because no one else gets his own homework done, and the the party is only successful because the voters want to prevent worse.
Then there is of course the new hate in the media, but maybe the people will at some point recognize that those sites have their own political agenda, and will turn away from them (wishful thinking, i know. But seeing that one is being manipulated and instrumentalized, may eventually wake the fury in some).

(@Skybird sorry for the rant in this other post, i just can't hear it anymore. And i had just read some Fox News and was really getting mad. Ja, das wars ;) )

Skybird

06-21-17, 04:22 AM

Fertig. ;)

We must disagree on those things.

ikalugin

06-21-17, 04:25 AM

For once (or twice) i agree with you, and it seems to be an international problem, also in Germany.
Yea, we also get it.

em2nought

06-21-17, 05:56 PM

I feel so bad for Germany, come on it's not too late yet. Cast off your Islamic & EU yoke. Sing along, you know you want to, hell even I want to. :up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JDkdc246QQ

Catfish

06-22-17, 04:11 AM

^ As usual, the YT comments are hilarious:

"And thus, with their feet, the young men launched an absolute blitzkrieg against the people trying to sleep in the room below"

vienna

06-22-17, 04:55 AM

That's why they lost the war, you know...

...all that standing about and singing...

<O>

em2nought

06-22-17, 10:56 AM

^ As usual, the YT comments are hilarious:

"And thus, with their feet, the young men launched an absolute blitzkrieg against the people trying to sleep in the room below"

That made me chuckle. :haha:

Mr Quatro

06-22-17, 11:03 AM

Politics aside...
I'd say his chances of making it to November 9, 2020 are about as good as any other obese 71-year old who has the eating habits of a teenager, has a sketchy physician, has an incredibly stressful job which he cannot escape from, thinks that exercise is harmful, and uses spray-on tans on a daily basis.

Taft made it to 72, so anything is possible. :03:

You might be right on the health issue, but wouldn't it make more sense for Trump to drop out of the 2020 race for POTUS due to health and let VP Pence give it a try against a (as yet undisclosed) democrat running for the same office.

I think Biden is surely thinking that he might be a candidate too.

We haven't forgotten you Subnuts did you get that job at Wall-mart yet?

Bilge_Rat

06-22-17, 12:12 PM

when McCain ran in 2008, he was 72.

One of the recurring attack lines was that he might die in office.

How is he doing now?

Platapus

06-22-17, 03:04 PM

when McCain ran in 2008, he was 72.

One of the recurring attack lines was that he might die in office.

How is he doing now?

He is doing fine, but then he does not have the stress of being PotUS. And hopefully won't ever have to experience that stress.

Mr Quatro

06-22-17, 04:07 PM

He is doing fine, but then he does not have the stress of being PotUS. And hopefully won't ever have to experience that stress.

McCain has the stress of pointing out Trump's mistakes. Have you seen some of his shrugs when asked questions?

Trump still has some unanswered financial income questions to answer to and I bet they won't satisfy the nay sayers ... :o

vienna

06-22-17, 07:29 PM

Once, the GOP pointed with pride, as one of their own, to "Honest Abe"...

...wonder if they are as proud of "Dishonest Donald"?...

In One Rally, 12 Inaccurate Claims From Trump --

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/politics/factcheck-donald-trump-iowa-rally.html

I thought a big reason for voting for Trump was to keep someone like "Lying Hillary" out of the White House...

<O>

August

06-22-17, 08:23 PM

This is pretty much how I see it.

Some people hate Trump. More people hate liberals.

By Rick Moran (http://www.americanthinker.com/author/rick_moran/)

For Republicans, winning never gets monotonous.
The Karen Handel victory in the Georgia 6th District special election repeats a pattern depressingly familiar to the left. There have been four special congressional elections since the hated Trump took office, and Democrats have lost all four. In each contest, the left predicted victory – largely based on what they perceived was hatred of President Trump by ordinary Americans, which would generate "enthusiasm" for the Democrat candidate and drive people in overwhelming numbers to the polls.

Each of the four Democrat candidates was well financed and received strong support from the national party. Each Democratic candidate's campaign was augmented by hundreds or thousands of activist volunteer Democrats. And each and every race was seen as a referendum on Donald Trump – not his policies as much as the man himself. He is Hitler and Howdy Doody all rolled into one, a traitorous SOB (although most liberals only hint that Trump has committed treason), a threat to the rule of law, and a joke as a president.
And each and every time, liberals have been shocked to discover that ordinary people don't view the president that way.

In Georgia's 6th, reality once again intruded on liberals' fantasies. They once again failed to grasp that some people may hate President Trump. But more people hate them. And unless they can grasp that fundamental point, 2018 will turn into another GOP victory.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/some_people_hate_trump_more_people_hate_liberals.h tml

vienna

06-22-17, 08:49 PM

The biggest problem with that sort of "reasoning" is the liberals aren't in the White House, they don't control either of the Houses of Congress, and what they do does not readily affect the lives of all of the US population. Instead of vainly pointing fingers at others, the GOP would do better to take care of their own shortcomings and failures, particularly the enormous one in the Oval Office. Basically, it boils down to: don't tell us how bad the others outside are, tell us how you're going to fix the mess you created. We can deal with the liberals when they are in power...

As far as winning goes, the margins were far narrower than seen in prior elections and indicates an erosion of support in the GOP base. This erosion is troubling because it shows no sign of reversal; if the GOP faces even more Trump-caused failures and debacles, the trend could, and most likely, will get worse. Also, it should be pointed out that not only did the DEMs spend whopping amounts of money in the special election, so did, if not more so, did the GOP, not only expending monies but also putting several out-of-district GOP notables on the campaign phone lines or on the stump. In the 2018 mid-terms, where all 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats are up for election, the ability to throw so much effort and manpower to all the campaigns with the effectiveness seen in the concentrated efforts in the special elections will be impossible...

Then there is the growing GOP suburbs problem:

The GOP’s Suburban Nightmare --

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/handel-republicans-suburban-nightmare-215289

Karen Handel’s Georgia special-election victory Tuesday enabled the GOP to kick the can down the road, but not for long. The same Atlanta suburbs that once produced Republicans like Newt Gingrich voted for Clinton in November. They followed up a few months later by nearly sending a 30-year-old, first-time Democratic candidate to Congress. Republicans may be gloating now, but it’s an ominous sign for the 2018 midterm elections, when control of the House is likely to hinge on roughly two or three dozen suburban districts currently held by the GOP.

Here is an interesting analysis of the Trump woes:

You’d Be Scared if You Were Donald Trump, Too --

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/22/youd-be-scared-if-you-were-donald-trump-too/amp/

<O>

Platapus

06-23-17, 12:59 PM

Time to buy one of these for the summer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/06/22/TELEMMGLPICT000132623630-large_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqLT5pBWSsLGPxt0sLVhJA_v8odW omH_sW148OH27esrI.jpeg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/22/shocked-trump-swimsuit-will-make-body-great/

Be the envy of everyone on the beach this season.

mapuc

06-23-17, 02:33 PM

August

06-23-17, 02:39 PM

1. Trump is President until 2020
Or
2. He wins the election in 2020 and stay until 2024.
or
3. He resign before 2020 because:
3a-His own choice
3b-Forced to it

One of these points would be correct.

Markus

That is very close Markus. The only thing wrong is about Trump being forced to resign. Nobody can force him to do that. He can be removed from office by being impeached but that more like being fired than quitting.

He could also loose the Republican primary to another challenger. Without his parties nomination if he wanted to run for reelection he'd have to do it as an independent.

August

06-23-17, 03:18 PM

Very interesting:

https://www.scribd.com/document/351805646/The-Profiling-Project-Seth-Rich-Report#from_embed

The Profiling Project: Seth Rich Homicide - Initial Findings – June 20, 2017
To Reach The Profiling Project
: ProfilingProjectVA@gmail.com

For Media:
media@thepublicityagency.com

Who The Profiling Project is:
– An all-volunteer group of current and former George Washington University forensic psychology graduate students and instructors.

Why we came together:
– To aid the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police (MPD) utilizing forensic psychology skills and tools in hopes of providing at least one actionable item to MPD

What we found
– After a three-month review and investigation into the death of Seth Rich, The Profiling Project notes the following:
1. Seth’s death does not appear to be a random homicide
2. Seth’s death does not appear to be a robbery gone bad
3. Seth death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer
4. There may be additional video surveillance of the crime and crime scene
5. The resolution of prosecuting the individual(s) responsible appears to be hindered both actively and passively
6. Seth’s killer(s) most likely remains free within the community

mapuc

06-23-17, 03:56 PM

That is very close Markus. The only thing wrong is about Trump being forced to resign. Nobody can force him to do that. He can be removed from office by being impeached but that more like being fired than quitting.

He could also loose the Republican primary to another challenger. Without his parties nomination if he wanted to run for reelection he'd have to do it as an independent.

There was a good reason to why I only wrote "forced to" While writing my comments I suddenly couldn't remember some of the words I needed-such as Impeach(ed). And that is a kind forced to=not by his own choice-I could of course be wrong.

Markus

vienna

06-23-17, 05:11 PM

No one can force a President to resign if he doesn't want to; however, past history has shown a President, Nixon, had only two alternatives; either remain and go through the impeachment process, which had already begun, and by which Nixon was going to be convicted and removed from office, or resign. Nixon choose resignation, so he was, in effect, 'forced', since there were no other viable options available. You may not want to call it forced, but there really is no other reasonable description...

Incidentally, the Nixon Presidential Library, until fairly recently, did not acknowledge the resignation of Nixon nor the Watergate sandal that ousted him. In the Library's exhibit of the chronological history of Nixon's life and political career, the exhibit basically used to get to the point of the resignation and just commented Nixon 'left' office on 9 Aug 1974; no why or how; Nixon just 'left'. The exhibit then when on to describe Nixon's life as a private citizen. In recent years, pressured by historians and others, the Library has finally changed the exhibit to better reflect what actually occurred leading up to Nixon's resignation...

<O>

Platapus

06-23-17, 05:22 PM

Technically, no one can be forced to resign from their job... but people are forced to resign from their jobs all the time.

Usually it is in the form of either resign tomorrow morning or we will fire you tomorrow afternoon. Or better either resign tomorrow morning or we will press charges tomorrow afternoon.

Technically not forcing someone to resign.:03:

u crank

06-23-17, 05:48 PM

To me this whole rush to oust Trump is like a dog chasing it's tail. What do you do when you catch it? If Trump goes, however he goes....next up to bat.. Michael Richard Pence. Unlike Trump, this guy is a conservative Republican that the GOP would love. No drama, no tweeting and very little baggage (from a GOP point of view.) Pence would almost certainly be able to enlist a lot of Republican people who refused to work for Trump and he should be able to close ranks within the party. He would have his detractors but no where near as bad as Trump. Although I think the chances of Trump being removed from office are low, I can't help but wonder how many GOP members are secretly hoping for this to happen. :hmmm:

Mr Quatro

06-23-17, 06:18 PM

You forget the freight train of people that Trump has placed in position in his cabinet, in the White House, and in the administration that are being closely investigated for any involvement in the Russian's interference in the 2016 National election.

I'm not saying they are guilty, but if proven to be guilty of sharing data and information with Russia in order to win the election ... then it has to lead back to Trump was behind telling them how to shoot the eight ball.

Sure it will be hard to prove and even harder to get a GOP led Congress and US Senate to impeach him, but not impossible. Look at the health care reform bill with three GOP Senators in disagreement.

The Russian equation of Trumps problems in keeping the WH is nothing compared with his investments and who's really behind all of the Trump empire dealings. If they can prove any irregularities in his finances ... it would snow ball his decision to step down, but not without a deal being made to protect those that know the truth from any prosecution riding themselves out of the WH with Trump.

Least we should forget Robert Mueller hasn't finished his investigation yet either. Robert Mueller has actually stated just two weeks ago, "We are just getting started". What does that mean? Plus Mueller is a GOP person for way back, but that won't keep him from finding out the truth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html

Mueller is interviewing senior intelligence officials as the Russia probe ... Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say ... in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on

One thing in all of this is the GOP led Congress and US Senate, but all of that could change in 2018. I hope not ... I am a Republican, perhaps not a party man, but I believe they have the best track for our nations interest. :up:

Mr Quatro

06-23-17, 06:21 PM

em2nought

06-24-17, 02:37 AM

Seems a whole lot of useless people can be so very wrong, and somebody seems to keep on surviving. This video still makes me so happy. :D What is this music by the way? I know I should know, but I don't. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ46I3kMOr0

vienna

06-24-17, 03:39 AM

This is a great find August ... thank you. :up:
Can you imagine what this news would've done to Hillary winning the popular vote if it had of came out earlier. People that thought this was true were in many of my emails during the election cycle.

So, basically Profiling Project (PP) could be right or they could be wrong: exactly 50-50. Nor does the report in any way definitively support any 'conspiracy' or 'hit' claims, just 'it could be'...

Some things presented as fact very often have to be taken with several grains of salt; in this case, the report itself provides the seasoning:

PP was given no special access to any materials, evidence or persons and due to case sensitivity, conducted only informal, limited interviews. The bulk of our report is based on statistics, prior research and Logos.

So, the report is based on an only slightly better than cursory access to less data and evidence than in the possession of the actual law enforcement investigators. Somehow, I'm inclined to put rather more credence in the LEOs...

...then there is the question of who is/are the Profiling Project; PP is funded by Jack Burkman, a GOP lobbyist and Internet radio talk-show host, and is Far-Right Conservative; how far Right is he?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Burkman

Besides being very conservative, Burkman seems to at very much at ease with duplicitous base-covering; from the Wikipedia article:

In June 2016, Burkman held an event called "Lobbyist for Trump" and invited all major lobbyists of Washington, D.C. to help raise money for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

In July 2016, Burkman helped fundraising for Free the Delegates, an anti-Trump effort to change the delegate rules for the 2016 Republican National Convention.

Seemingly, Burkman has no real loyalties or feels the need to be consistent in his viewpoint; maybe being in a lobbyist, being one of the "swamp" gators, being essentially a 'hired gun' for the highest bidder, little more than a self-serving effort at the "truth" could be expected...

It should also be noted Burkman attempted to involve himself and his lobbying firm with the Rich family in the guise of "helping" them in the aftermath of Seth's murder, but his actions of the family's behalf became so troublesome and blatantly political, they distanced themselves from Burkman and his activities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich

This is a link to a Newsweek article of 20 June 2017 updating the Rich case:

http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-report-profiling-project-627634

Of note is this quote from the article citing the Profiling Project on the subject of conspiracy and/or assassination theories regarding the Rich case:

As for the conspiracy theories, the Profiling Project says those are unfounded, given that Rich did not die immediately at the scene: “A professional killer, whose sole job would have been to terminate Seth, did not accomplish their mission prior to escaping.”

“If this were a professional hit person, they failed,” says Doherty, the team member. “Nothing we’ve seen supports [the theory of] an assassin.”

The truth is out there if one wishes to seek it out rather than be spoon-fed...

In this whole matter, my heart goes out to the parents of Seth Rich. In order to try to attain some level of space in which to properly grieve, the Washington Post published their plea to stop all the senseless speculations:

[I]We’re Seth Rich’s parents. Stop politicizing our son’s murder. --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

From their plea:

We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth’s memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare. We ask those purveying falsehoods to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.

Truer words ne'er spoken...

<O>

Skybird

06-24-17, 06:00 AM

Winning again in 2020 has its own problems for Donald "The long nose" Trump. How to pass the door to the WH a second time with a nose as long as his?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

em2nought

06-24-17, 06:37 AM

It came to me just now, Peter and the Wolf. lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsWdUaHsHM

vienna

06-24-17, 06:44 AM

Trump has had an epiphany about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and has taken swift action in dealing with the party responsible for the interference -- Obama:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/trump-acknowledges-russia-interfered-in-the-presidential

Never mind that Obama was bending over backwards to try to not interfere, rightly or wrongly, in the election himself, and that Obama's efforts, or lack thereof, allowed Trump to get the Electoral win:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d55e7b8e9611

Somehow, Trump just can't bring himself to actually blame the real person responsible, Vladimir Putin. Maybe that's because Trump owes him so much. Well, at least, Putin seems to be making out okay:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trump-putin-russia/531420/

I thought Trump was going to make America great again; seems he's failed in that, too, but, then, that's kinda hard to do when your trying to cover Putin's ass...

<O>

u crank

06-24-17, 08:05 AM

Trump has had an epiphany about Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election and has taken swift action in dealing with the party responsible for the interference -- Obama:

Never mind that Obama was bending over backwards to try to not interfere, rightly or wrongly, in the election himself, and that Obama's efforts, or lack thereof, allowed Trump to get the Electoral win:

Somehow, Trump just can't bring himself to actually blame the real person responsible, Vladimir Putin. Maybe that's because Trump owes him so much. Well, at least, Putin seems to be making out okay:

Apparently there is plenty of blame to go around.

Also from The Atlantic...

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/obama-response-russia-election-interference/531486/

As the multi-pronged attack on the election unfolded, the Obama administration’s response was slow and deliberative to the point of paralysis. There was a lag between when the Russians did something, and when it was reported to the administration.

And, of course, there’s us in the media, who helped the Russians weaponize the hacked emails, while simultaneously being unable to fully make sense of the scale of what the Russians were doing, suspicious as we were of the Clinton camp leaking us stories about Putin going after Hillary.

All that because of a 25-page intelligence report. It’s not hard to imagine what things would have looked like had it been released not in January, but in September. It would have been far more effective than Obama’s telling Putin on the sidelines of another G-20 summit that month to “cut it out.” Putin knows when you mean it, and when you don’t.

u crank

06-24-17, 08:12 AM

Rockstar

06-24-17, 10:14 AM

Guess its time for the Democratic party to shift gears. Apparently nobody (me included) really gave a crap about the Trump/Russia drama and saw it for it what it was. Orchestrated to give the party a leg up during recent special elections. As you'll note too in todays media the big investigation to get Trump is slowly fading away. Well almost there does seem to be atleast one or two still going on about it.

Lets see if they change gears too and start going on about how terrible economy is under Trump. Then we'll know just how "independent" they have claimed to be :)

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia

Mr Quatro

06-24-17, 10:50 AM

I have come to the conclusion that you comprehend better than I do vienna :yep:

I am more flesh than you ... I wanted August find to be what I (and many of my email friends thought) so therefore I read between the lines and it was true that someone knocked another enemy of the Clinton camp off. :o

I will not spar with you unless your wrong of course :O:

Rockstar

06-24-17, 04:06 PM

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/cnn-deletes-retracts-story-linking-trump-and-russia-20170624.html?mobi=true

On Thursday evening, CNN investigative reporter Thomas Frank published a potentially explosive report involving an investigation of a Russian investment fund with potential ties to several associates of President Donald Trump.

Wow wish I could have read that one.

But by Friday night, the story was removed from CNN’s website and all links were scrubbed from the network’s social media accounts.

I'm sure the it was something to remember though. Imaginative unfounded accusations and true crime drama. Lol

vienna

06-24-17, 04:19 PM

The possibility of my being wrong still exists; in fact, if you ask any of my ex's, they would swear I am continually wrong... :haha:

All I was trying to do is point out there is much more to any issue beyond the headline or the sound bite or the shouted rhetoric, and, if a person is going to make an informed decision, information is the key. I am always skeptical of loud absolutes, such as you hear and see in today's media, of all types and positions. Volume does not always equal veracity and very often a quiet look behind the "facts" gives the whole picture. When the Great And Mighty Oz is shouting at you, take time to look behind the curtain; when something is presented as being all dressed up in "fact", take a closer look: you may find an unclothed 'emperor'...

There is on more thing I had wanted to point out about the Seth Rich situation. The very name of the Profiling Project seems to bring to mind the efforts of various other entities known for seeking to right injustices: the Southern Poverty Law Center, sometimes referred to as The Southern Law Project that seeks to correct social and legal injustices; the various Justice Project organizations across the US who seek to give a voice to the wrongly convicted; and, any number of other academic- or religious-based entities seeking to correct social and legal issues. By giving the name "Profiling Project" to the group cited in the previous posts, an attempt is being made to falsely either affiliate PP with other projects or organizations or to give the patina of being of the same moral stature of those other groups; using the word "Profiling" also seems to be an effort to further associate the group, in the public mind, with the sort of detailed expertise and experience depicted on TV programs such as Criminal Minds. Again, the truth is far from the presented image...

The other projects and organization cited above have been in existence for many, many years, in some cases, decades. They have established track records and are highly experienced and very often have some of the top experts in their field as contributors and/or volunteers in the group's efforts. Those projects are very often respected and highly regarded by a wide cross-section, sometimes by the very entities they work to correct...

The Profiling Project is not such a group. They are not a long-established, highly regarded, organization. Burkman, the GOP lobbyist, created the Project out of whole cloth just for the purpose of "legitimizing" his whacked-out theories and advancing whatever is his true agenda. Until the tragic murder of Seth Rich, the was no Profiling Project: the entire 'track record' of PP is just this one case; they have no other history. PP is a creation of Burkman who has financed PP and who has used his lobbying firm to mount a public relations effort to give PP an undeserved legitimacy. PP is little more than some college forensics students paid to produce the results Burkman desires for his needs. PP is nothing more than a sideshow in the snake oil business that is Burkman and his company...

<O>

Bleiente

06-24-17, 04:32 PM

Mein Rat - Kaliber 0.5 auf 1500-2000m.
Dabei sofort die Verbrecher-Familie durch Bundesbehörden festnehmen lassen.

Trump ist ein Schwerverbrecher.

--------------------------------------------------------------

My advice - caliber 0.5 on 1500-2000m.
Immediately the criminal family will be arrested by federal authorities.

Trump is a serious criminal.

August

06-24-17, 04:52 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Y0BB8BI.gif

Bleiente

06-24-17, 05:14 PM

Ich würde mich ja geschlagen geben und vorerst Ruhe geben, wenn diese Bande von Schwerverbrechern Namens Trump als auch seine Ausgeburten verhaftet, abgestraft und festgesetzt wurden.

JIMBUNA EDIT: Kindly add an English translation after your message so others can understand what you are posting. This is a predominantly English written thread after all.

em2nought

06-24-17, 07:20 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Y0BB8BI.gif
Bahahaha, except the Media is never that "innocent". lol :up:

August

06-24-17, 07:26 PM

I like this guys writing style... :)

Potemkin Progressivism

By Roger Kimball (https://amgreatness.com/author/roger-kimball/)| June 22, 2017

...there are grounds for thinking that the hysteria on the Left is just so much infantile caterwauling: they did not get the all-day sucker they were promised so they are going to sit down in the middle of the floor and wail and wail and wail. Litigate, too, no doubt, but even that will be conducted in tantrum tones. I think that conclusion is mostly right. And I believe that Trump would be well advised to leave the Democrats in their bawl room, their boudoir (French for “room for pouting in”) while he gets on with the business of running, and improving, the country, which, by the way, he is doing very well.
Still, it is worth noting that the deceiving nature of appearances cuts many ways and is often difficult to parse accurately. For the most part, the actions of the Potemkin progressives are just exhibitions of temperament, whining, childish static that cannot be reasoned with, only pampered and put to bed for a nice long nap.
The tantrum-like behavior is not quite irrational, however. The Democrats really are on an historic losing streak. In 2008, they came to town on a tsunami of hope-’n-change euphoria. But the wrecking ball that was Barack Obama soon brought that illusion crashing down. Now they are like some threatened animal that, largely defenseless, has developed the ability to appear threatening by puffing itself up, changing color, emitting startling sounds, bristling quills, and the like. Zoologists call this activity “deimatic behavior,” after a Greek verb meaning “to frighten.”
Deimatic behavior is all show and no spear: that is, the animal might look or sound or smell threatening, but it is all bluff. Really, it is just a tasty moth, frog, California Democrat, or whatever.
But sometimes the appearance is not deceiving. The animal really does taste bad, is poisonous, or can fight back effectively. Those cases zoologists call aposematic behavior: a warning signal accompanied by retaliatory potential. As one article on the subject explains, “Non-bluffing (aposematic) displays occur in mammals which possess powerful defenses such as spines or stink glands, and which habitually warn off potential predators rather than attempting escape by running.”
This describes some meaningful proportion of the anti-Trump menagerie. And this means that the chief task for those interested in preserving a system in which the results of open, democratic elections are respected will be in effectively discriminating between the harmless, though pathetic, hysteria of the anti-Trump babies and the more toxic exfoliations of their menacing brothers and sisters. The latter will often dress and act the same as the former, but one group is content to shout and cry and whine while the other side is out there bashing people over the head with bicycle locks, smashing up property, abusing the legal system to destroy its political enemies, or gunning down Republican Congressmen while they practice baseball. Distinguishing between the two groups is an element of connoisseurship that it behooves those of us who care for the future of the republic to master.

https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/22/potemkin-progressivism/

Buddahaid

06-24-17, 07:31 PM

What a load of crap that was.

Onkel Neal

06-24-17, 07:56 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Y0BB8BI.gif

:haha::haha::haha::haha:

Mr Quatro

06-24-17, 07:57 PM

I like this guys writing style... :)

Name one person that Trump listen's to ... no one has been able to stop Trump from his tweeting damage control habits ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1yfX6VnrSU

Buddahaid

06-24-17, 09:22 PM

Bahahaha, except the Media is never that "innocent". lol :up:

That must be a shortened version. It doesn't show the bike rider speeding off and taking no responsibility for his action. So yeah, it fits.

August

06-25-17, 07:09 AM

That must be a shortened version. It doesn't show the bike rider speeding off and taking no responsibility for his action. So yeah, it fits.

Only if you want to blame Trump for the liberals over reaction and deliberate distortions that caused the accident in the first place but that I guess is just par for the course.

Cybermat47

06-25-17, 09:14 AM

August, I can definitely agree that the far left are their own worst enemy. It's pathetic how childish they are.

August

06-25-17, 12:21 PM

August, I can definitely agree that the far left are their own worst enemy. It's pathetic how childish they are.

Yeah they've created a sort of boy cried wolf effect that will continue to hurt them at the polls I think. Any valid points they may make are buried by hysterical ranting that makes people ignore what they have to say.

Buddahaid

06-25-17, 01:03 PM

I can agree with that and it applies to the far right as well. What I don't like is being lumped in with it when I'm not like that.

Platapus

06-25-17, 01:26 PM

It is amusing, in a kinda pathetic way, to hear either side trying to claim a moral advantage over the other side.

August

06-25-17, 07:31 PM

Glad to see congress is starting to shine a light on these cockroaches.

Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators (http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/)

By Paul Sperry (http://nypost.com/author/paul-sperry/)

June 24, 2017 | 2:24pm

A secretive Washington firm that commissioned the dubious intelligence dossier on Donald Trump (http://nypost.com/2017/01/10/intel-chiefs-told-trump-that-russia-has-dirt-on-him-report/) is stonewalling congressional investigators trying to learn more about its connections to the Democratic Party.
The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.

What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as a “research and strategic intelligence firm” founded by “three former Wall Street Journal investigative reporters.” But congressional sources say it’s actually an opposition-research group for Democrats, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda.

“These weren’t mercenaries or hired guns,” a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. “These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary’s chances of winning the White House.”
Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And in 2015, Democrat ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/

Gerald

06-26-17, 10:26 AM

The US Supreme Court has partially lifted an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban.
America's highest court also granted an emergency request from the White House allowing part of the refugee ban to go into effect.
The justices said they would consider in October whether Mr Trump's policy should be upheld or struck down.
The order seeks to place a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40409490http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/search.php?do=getnew

Mr Quatro

06-26-17, 11:16 PM

Doesn't look good for Trump's campaign promise to replace the Obamacare health care plan. A late night news show said that in one elderly care home 65% of the patients would have to find a new place to live. That is unacceptable to me.

Two of the Senators ran for the GOP nomination against Trump in 2016 ... Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/trumpcare-may-be-headed-for-another-defeat

With 10 senators saying they have reservations or outright oppose the bill, as of Sunday afternoon, it was already looking as if McConnell would need a legislative miracle to fulfill the G.O.P.’s seven-year quest to repeal Obamacare—and that was before the Congressional Budget Office released its report on the impact of the bill, which the federal scorekeeper estimated would increase the ranks of the uninsured by 22 million.

August

06-27-17, 07:59 AM

Looks like the FBI may have targeted Michael Flynn because they wanted revenge:

Flynn Backed Agent Charging FBI Sex Bias

Sara A. Carter (http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/authors/sara_a_carter) & John Solomon (http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/authors/undefined), Circa News June 27, 2017

There is evidence of bad blood simmering for a long time between FBI top brass and Michael Flynn. Two years before the bureau launched a criminal probe against the former Trump national security adviser, Flynn backed a decorated counterterrorism agent in her case accusing now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.

From Circa News:
The FBI sought to block Flynn's support for the agent, asking a federal administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos obtained by Circa show. Two years later, the FBI opened its inquiry of Flynn.
The EEOC case, which is still pending, was serious enough to require McCabe to submit to a sworn statement to investigators, the documents show.
The deputy director's testimony provided some of the strongest evidence in the case of possible retaliation, because he admitted the FBI opened an internal investigation into Gritz's personal conduct after learning the agent “had filed or intended to file” a sex discrimination complaint against her supervisors.

McCabe eventually became the bureau's No. 2 executive and emerged as a central player in the FBI's Russia election tampering investigation, putting him in a position to impact the criminal inquiry against Flynn.

Three FBI employees told Circa they personally witnessed McCabe make disparaging remarks about Flynn before and during the time the retired Army general emerged as a figure in the Russia case.
http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/links/2017/06/27/flynn_backed_agent_charging_fbi_sex_bias_103604.ht ml

Mr Quatro

06-27-17, 08:53 AM

August

06-27-17, 11:27 AM

Rockstar

06-27-17, 01:33 PM

Was Flynn the target of political payback?

http://circa.com/politics/accountability/did-the-fbi-retaliate-against-michael-flynn-by-launching-russia-probe

vienna

06-27-17, 04:14 PM

President Obama made Flynn the Director of the DIA in 2012 and he's a retired US Army General. How much more vetting would have been reasonable?

Well, let's see...

Flynn was appointed by Obama, so I would guess if I were to be the person considering hiring him, I would want to find out why, specifically, he was and if Flynn had any lingering loyalties or connections to Obama or Obama associates and do a thorough vetting of my own...

Obama fired Flynn, so I would guess if I were to be the person considering hiring him, I would want to find out why and do a thorough vetting of my own...

Obama warned against hiring of Flynn, so I would guess if I were to be the person considering hiring him, I would want to find out why and do a thorough vetting of my own...

If I were to be the person considering hiring him and wanted to appoint him to highly sensitive position affecting national security, I would guess I would exercise the due diligence expected of a President and insist on a new and thorough vetting of Flynn...

...but, then, again, that would only be what a competent, intelligent, responsible person would do...

As far as his being a retired US Army general is concerned, all I can offer as an argument against depending on a title as a reference on suitability is a name: retired Gen. David Petraeus...

...also appointed by Obama (as CIA Director), was found to have been illegally discussing highly-sensitive national security data with a mistress, and later resigned in scandal...

The number of stars on a shoulder or collar is not to be considered a Yelp rating...

<O>

vienna

06-27-17, 04:29 PM

i use to hear the word vetted a lot in other administrations ... What happened to the vetting process in Trump administration?

The missing clues were not missing in Michael Flynn's case ... Perhaps Flynn was a double, double agent working for Trump and Russia, but reporting directly to Trump with no tapes and only a "he said" for proof?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetting

PS I'm starting to use wikipedia more and more something I never use to do, but it's so much easier ... :yep:

Its good to seek out further data on issues and Wikipedia is a good start. Wikipedia is not 100% accurate all the time (what is?), so it is a good idea to further research anything you don't understand or that appears questionable. I would also suggest a couple of other means to suss out the gist from the gibberish. When you read an article online, note if there are embedded links in the text to the sources used to compose the article; often you can get a clearer picture of the issue and, sometimes, you may find what is quoted in the article may not be the full context. If you see an article making a lot of claims, or strongly arguing claims, without links or references, ask yourself why and do a check on the claims. If a person or entity is cited and you don't know or have little knowledge of them, take the time to do a bit of research to find out the who, what, where, when and why. There are a lot of people or entities, of all stripes and at all levels of the spectrum, who depend on people not asking questions and/or blindly accepting arguments and the only way to prevent being taken in is to arm yourself with as much independent information as possible. It may taken a bit of extra time and effort, but knowing is better than being manipulated...

<O>

Platapus

06-28-17, 03:05 PM

The number of stars on a shoulder or collar is not to be considered a Yelp rating...

Fair warning. I am so stealing this. :up::up::up:

August

06-28-17, 04:14 PM

Fair warning. I am so stealing this. :up::up::up:

Oh that's just so funny.

FWIW a yelp rating is far easier to get than stars on ones shoulders, even just one star, let alone the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star (x3), Ranger qualification or Master Parachutist wings. All those things took actual character and dedication to the country, not some stupid made up internet rating that means nothing.

vienna

06-28-17, 06:25 PM

Fair warning. I am so stealing this. :up::up::up:

Its yours; use it well and wisely... :03:

<O>

Mr Quatro

06-29-17, 12:12 AM

Oh that's just so funny.

FWIW a yelp rating is far easier to get than stars on ones shoulders, even just one star, let alone the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star (x3), Ranger qualification or Master Parachutist wings. All those things took actual character and dedication to the country, not some stupid made up internet rating that means nothing.

All of those medals in the service of our country and yet he still lied knowing full well that he had received funds from the Russian government and failed to report it, plus lying to the VP was a big no no.

Fear of getting caught makes men and my ex-wife lie :haha:

vienna

06-29-17, 01:24 AM

All of those medals in the service of our country and yet he still lied knowing full well that he had received funds from the Russian government and failed to report it, plus lying to the VP was a big no no.
...

Yep, having three stars didn't prevent Flynn from being a lying sleaze and being a disgrace to his rank and the service. You also forgot to add knowingly lying to Congress under oath and possible collusion and influence peddling...

...and David Petraeus had four stars, one more than Flynn, and that did prevent him from disclosing and discussing highly sensitive classified information with his mistress, in direct violation of Federal National Security laws...

...and, truth be told, both of them, and some other senior officers implicated or accused in illegal activities of all sorts, have themselves actually traded on the 'goodwill' afforded them by their rank; if they had been grunts or non-coms, the book would have been thrown hard and heavy at them and they would not have been allowed to get by with little more than hand-slaps; they haven't suffered any diminished rank and they get to keep their pensions and the various other perks that come with those stars...

The number of stars they have denotes what they are, not who they are. Quantity is not always the arbiter of quality and sleaze is always sleaze no matter the rank...

Fear of getting caught makes men and my ex-wife lie :haha:

I think I may have been married once to one of her sisters or cousins... :hmmm: :haha:

Trump and his TrumpCare (sounds a bit like a band name) appears to be heading towards another public relations disaster that may have implications for the GOP members who are supporting the current ObamaCare repeal bill and, if he lasts that long, a possible (but improbable) Trump re-election bid:

Veterans need Medicaid too — and are speaking out against GOP health care bill --

https://www.yahoo.com/news/veterans-need-medicaid-speaking-gop-health-care-bill-005909615.html

I'm expecting the kicking of puppies and kittens and the evictions of poor little old ladies to be next on the GOP Far Right agenda... :03:

<O>