View Full Version : US Politics Thread 2016-2020
Meanwhile in 1958...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs6UcgiDwg0
:haha::haha::haha:
Trumps face made from crying snowflakes
https://i.redd.it/rve73qdk60yx.jpg
https://i.redditmedia.com/PP8jEikyC3VxD3kUlksX-Qi2mIrV-wdwUgNn4ymKaKg.jpg?w=815&
:haha::haha::haha:
...or the soon to be faces of Trump supporters once the indictments come down and they realize they were hoodwinked and betrayed by the person they have bet so heavily upon; given the nature of Trump's picks for his "administration", this the biggest rogues gallery since Nixon in '68 & '72 and has a very high balance of probability of facing the same fates; this is not to exclude an anticipated Impeachment of the Tiny-Handed One...
You know, in many ways, George Orwell was amazingly prescient:
https://img.ifcdn.com/images/763dc4d03ee47d01c8b697ef874c0fcdf3dee9c39fda74f23e 31d16c116d3a94_1.jpg
:haha::haha::haha:
<O>
There's been one or two people who have been quite happy to see Obamacare go, safe in the knowledge that their insurance won't be affected because they're on the ACA, not Obamacare.
Let that sink in...
There's been one or two people who have been quite happy to see Obamacare go, safe in the knowledge that their insurance won't be affected because they're on the ACA, not Obamacare.
Let that sink in...
I'm sure you can find one or two people who think, well just about anything. Nearly everyone knows that (except possibly one or two) so i'm not sure what you mean by saying let that sink in like it's some great revelation.
I'm sure you can find one or two people who think, well just about anything. Nearly everyone knows that (except possibly one or two) so i'm not sure what you mean by saying let that sink in like it's some great revelation.
Well, makes you wonder exactly what these people expected. It was pretty obvious from the get-go that Obamacare/ACA is going to be removed under a Trump government. It's like the people who voted for Brexit and then the next day were googling what that actually meant. :/\\!!
[QUOTE=vienna;2457851]...or the soon to be faces of Trump supporters once the indictments come down and they realize they were hoodwinked and betrayed by the person they have bet so heavily upon; given the nature of Trump's picks for his "administration", this the biggest rogues gallery since Nixon in '68 & '72 and has a very high balance of probability of facing the same fates; this is not to exclude an anticipated Impeachment of the Tiny-Handed One...
You know, in many ways, George Orwell was amazingly prescient:
https://img.ifcdn.com/images/763dc4d03ee47d01c8b697ef874c0fcdf3dee9c39fda74f23e 31d16c116d3a94_1.jpg [qoute]
There for a moment, I thought you were talking about Obama and Hillary,, like your plan ,, like your doctor you can keep them and save 2500 bucks,, if Geico did that they'd be out of business,, Obamacare was nothing more than a ponzie scheme.. And we have never been this close to war with Russia in 60 years what happened to Hillary's great Russian reset ,, Stop Nato's aggression towards Russia.
:haha::haha::haha:
Stop Nato's aggression towards Russia.
Da, Tovarisch!
http://83e2u32cf1b4dlzbl29etyxt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Manchurian-4.jpg
Historically, Estonia was a part of the Russian Empire already!
And we have never been this close to war with Russia in 60 years So, true, so very true. :roll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Pristina_airport
Da, Tovarisch!
http://83e2u32cf1b4dlzbl29etyxt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Manchurian-4.jpg
Historically, Estonia was a part of the Russian Empire already!
So, true, so very true. :roll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Pristina_airport
Got your trillion trillion spf sun tan lotion,, I really don't get how going nuclear with Russia will make the world better,, I wish I was that smart because I really really don't get it.. ??????? What I do know is,,that this is part of a Islamic civil war sunnie against shi_e { do that so no over zealous moderator gigs me for swearing} Saudis against the Iranians and there was Obama burning the candle at both ends and the EU and the globalist new world order bunch siding with the Saudis. Tell me if I missed something..
Tell me if I missed something..
A few full stops, some spacing, punctuation marks.
Anyway, stop flapping, no-one is going to war with anyone. The US won't go to war with Russia, not unless Russia particularly wants a war. You've got 7 days until your God-child comes into power and withdraws from NATO anyway so what are you worried about? :O: It's not as if you're going to be affected by any war in Europe with Trump in charge. :haha:
Save your nukes for your coming war with China instead. :yep:
Mr Quatro
01-13-17, 12:22 PM
According to my calculations Putin only has a 13-14 months left.
Perhaps our back room guys can help Putin out (:hmmm:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin
Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election by a 53% to 30% margin
He was reelected President in 2004 with 72% of the vote.
Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term in 2008.
The 2008 presidential election was won by Dmitry Medvedev, who appointed Putin Prime Minister
In September 2011, after presidential terms were extended from four to six years,Putin announced he would seek a third term as president.
He won the March 2012 presidential election with 64% of the vote, a result which aligned with pre-election polling.
Six year term leaves Putin with very little time left to start a war.
I think he might lose or retire.
One thing's for sure the whole world will be watching him and the brave man that would run against him.
Rockstar
01-13-17, 12:37 PM
Well, makes you wonder exactly what these people expected. It was pretty obvious from the get-go that Obamacare/ACA is going to be removed under a Trump government. It's like the people who voted for Brexit and then the next day were googling what that actually meant. :/\\!!
I think what you meant is. That it's like pushing the ACA through for a vote first so you can read what's in it that you voted for.
A few full stops, some spacing, punctuation marks.
Anyway, stop flapping, no-one is going to war with anyone. The US won't go to war with Russia, not unless Russia particularly wants a war. You've got 7 days until your God-child comes into power and withdraws from NATO anyway so what are you worried about? :O: It's not as if you're going to be affected by any war in Europe with Trump in charge. :haha:
Save your nukes for your coming war with China instead. :yep:
A whole 7 days to lay a scorched earth policy,,, if the left and the globalist can't have control,, burn it to the ground until they can,, let's see how ballsy they are.. I thought Obama was the God-Child he was to lower the Oceans,, clear the air I guess China didn't get the memo,,, and have free health for all ..
A whole 7 days to lay a scorched earth policy,,, if the left and the globalist can't have control,, burn it to the ground until they can.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/424/161/166.jpg
I think what you meant is. That it's like pushing the ACA through for a vote first so you can read what's in it that you voted for.
Well, they got it through while they could. :haha: And yes, it was a bit of a dogs dinner wasn't it? Still, the broad direction of the bill was around in Obamas election campaign, but yes it was rushed...but I think if they had waited until everyone agreed on it they'd have been still waiting until the next century for all Americans to have access to affordable health care. :yeah:
...yes it was rushed...but I think if they had waited until everyone agreed on it they'd have been still waiting until the next century for all Americans to have access to affordable health care. :yeah:
Make no mistake, we're still waiting for that. In spite of it's sales pitch the ACA has not made health care cheaper. Far from it.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1307260/original.jpg
Platapus
01-13-17, 02:47 PM
Make no mistake, we're still waiting for that. In spite of it's sales pitch the ACA has not made health care cheaper. Far from it.
We just got our new premium information from my company, and our premiums went down for both what the company pays and what I pay. It is only one data point, but I doubt our company is the only one.
And what's the big Republican plan, let the insurance companies decide everything? Bring back a bunch of rip-off HMO's. Yeah right, that worked so well last time. They'll rip off seniors on Medicare just to help fund the fricking wall and their big defense spending bills, because the Republican plan about balanced budgets is just bull crap anyway.
And what's the big Republican plan, let the insurance companies decide everything? Bring back a bunch of rip-off HMO's. Yeah right, that worked so well last time. They'll rip off seniors on Medicare just to help fund the fricking wall and their big defense spending bills, because the Republican plan about balanced budgets is just bull crap anyway.
Oh, you're in big trouble now! You've let slip out the Grand GOP Plan! The Trumpites are gonna hunt you down for spilling the beans! Run and save yourself!!... :haha:
<O>
ikalugin
01-13-17, 03:56 PM
A few full stops, some spacing, punctuation marks.
Anyway, stop flapping, no-one is going to war with anyone. The US won't go to war with Russia, not unless Russia particularly wants a war. You've got 7 days until your God-child comes into power and withdraws from NATO anyway so what are you worried about? :O: It's not as if you're going to be affected by any war in Europe with Trump in charge. :haha:
Save your nukes for your coming war with China instead. :yep:
Well, I have been talking about how the big war is comming for years.
According to my calculations Putin only has a 13-14 months left.
Perhaps our back room guys can help Putin out (:hmmm:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin
Six year term leaves Putin with very little time left to start a war.
I think he might lose or retire.
One thing's for sure the whole world will be watching him and the brave man that would run against him.
I think that he would win those elections (if he participates).
Buddahaid
01-13-17, 04:00 PM
I can't wait for next week when all the blame for everything falls on Trump.
ikalugin
01-13-17, 04:01 PM
Inb4 he starts a war with China and Japan.
Make no mistake, we're still waiting for that. In spite of it's sales pitch the ACA has not made health care cheaper. Far from it.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1307260/original.jpg
Pretty, pretty picture...
...and, as usual, not the whole picture. For one very important thing, insurance premiums have been and are affected by more the just the ACA: rising payouts by insurers for increased pharma costs (a huge portion of insurer costs), rising payouts for rising medical professional fees, rising hospitalization costs, etc. To attribute any increase to the ACA solely is highly deceptive and, well, rather untrue...
...and now the truth, with a health dose of facts: insurance premiums may have gone up, but at a rate lower than the increases before the ACA. In the first six years of the Bush Administration, premiums rose by 72%; in the first six years of the Obama Administration, premiums rose by 28%. Unless you can find some evidence of some sort of action taken by the GOP Congress members (who have made made an art of doing, basically, nothing except gripe about Obama), the only influencing difference is the ACA. the ACA may have not been the sole reason for the slowdown, but it is a major reason. Prices are always going up; by how much is really most important. Here is a FactCheck.Org analysis of the GOP claims about the ACA:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/
One other thing to consider: given the trends and rate of increases before the "braking effect" of the ACA, what would be the current state of insurance premiums without the ACA? Would it be better or worse than the current state?...
<O>
Inb4 he starts a war with China and Japan.
Japan?
Naah, Japan is so 1941.
Rockstar
01-13-17, 06:17 PM
Premiums dramatically on the rise just before the enactment of ACA? Gee imagine that. IMO its like when states instituted their official lotteries. First they outlawed gambling, cracked down even on illegal nickel dime operations and proactively enforced these new rules making it impossible to enjoy such vice. Unless of course you buy a state's official lottery ticket.
at least nobody's forcing me to buy a lottery ticket.
Japan?
Naah, Japan is so 1941.
Well, the GOP conservatives are rather well known for trying to turn back the clock...
...besides, it a safer bet to take on an opponent you know you can beat...
<O>
Premiums dramatically on the rise just before the enactment of ACA? Gee imagine that. IMO its like when states instituted their official lotteries. First they outlawed gambling, cracked down even on illegal nickel dime operations and proactively enforced these new rules making it impossible to enjoy such vice. Unless of course you buy a state's official lottery ticket.
at least nobody's forcing me to buy a lottery ticket.
They knew they couldn't sell complete nationalization of the healthcare industry so they created a unbalanced hybrid system that will eventually fail on it's own, but only after it's become so entrenched that it requires something to replace it.
Had the Democrats won last November that replacement would have been a single payer system and the insurance premiums we now pay would have been replaced by taxes.
Now I have no faith in the Trumps or the Republicans ability to fix it either but at least it's architects have been deposed for now.
Personally I don't think Putin, Trump or other politicians from the West will start a war against other countries in the West/NATO or countries that is or have military agreement with some of these countries.
If there is going to happen it will happen either by mistake(very unlikely)
or a third world country attack another country
Example: Syria attack Israel and are supportet by Iran and other Islamic countries. USA goes in and help Israel. Syria ask Russia for help....
And many more likely scenarios.
I could be wrong as I use to be.
Markus
Rockstar
01-13-17, 07:49 PM
Pretty, pretty picture...
...and, as usual, not the whole picture. For one very important thing, insurance premiums have been and are affected by more the just the ACA: rising payouts by insurers for increased pharma costs (a huge portion of insurer costs), rising payouts for rising medical professional fees, rising hospitalization costs, etc. To attribute any increase to the ACA solely is highly deceptive and, well, rather untrue...
...and now the truth, with a health dose of facts: insurance premiums may have gone up, but at a rate lower than the increases before the ACA. In the first six years of the Bush Administration, premiums rose by 72%; in the first six years of the Obama Administration, premiums rose by 28%. Unless you can find some evidence of some sort of action taken by the GOP Congress members (who have made made an art of doing, basically, nothing except gripe about Obama), the only influencing difference is the ACA. the ACA may have not been the sole reason for the slowdown, but it is a major reason. Prices are always going up; by how much is really most important. Here is a FactCheck.Org analysis of the GOP claims about the ACA:
One other thing to consider: given the trends and rate of increases before the "braking effect" of the ACA, what would be the current state of insurance premiums without the ACA? Would it be better or worse than the current state?...
<O>
Whats the point of using Presidential administrations as bench marks in your arguement? The President in this country has absolutely no authority to increase or decrease health care premiums. This term "braking effect" of the ACA, is that yours or Fact Check? I ask because this idea that the ACA was instrumental in curbing health care costs is contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office attributed the decline in health care spending too. According to their 'facts' it was economic slowdown, not the ACA that brought costs down.
“… very few of the ACA’s provisions had been implemented in any substantial way, making it difficult to attribute much of the slowdown to the effects of specific provisions of that law.”
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50252-Effects_of_ACA_Repeal.pdf
Anyway, feel free to check these facts those facts and their facts . And please let us all know when you get the multitude of facts sorted and tell us which facts are the only facts we should listen too.
I mean really you should follow your own advice before you begin chastising anyone with a thought contrary to your facts. In fact I'm willing to bet a good many of the people who take this sort of tripe sophistry as actual reasoning are the same people who neither saw, heard nor read the report. They probably just wait around for the talk show host, blogger, hatchet job factcheck website to tell them what to think and say and how to vote; it must be nice in that little world, not having to use whatever brainpower they might have; they must laugh at all us silly, stupid folk who actually do the "homework" and try to separate out the dross so we might actually find the truth and make informed decisions; Oh, silly us, for thinking democracy and the fate of our nation deserves at least some effort from its citizens...
Mr Quatro
01-13-17, 08:20 PM
Here's a but check ... but Trump is just removing the word Obama from the word ACA.
Affordable health care was never really affordable anyway ... the real problem is hiring 6,000 IRS agents to see if your telling the truth on what level your health care cost should be.
They have double minded thoughts on that level of income tracking :yep:
Buddahaid
01-13-17, 08:36 PM
...at least nobody's forcing me to buy a lottery ticket.
I am. BUY a lottery ticket NOW!
http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ec0899986/images/LUCHA_LIBRE_story_website_0011-1.jpg
Platapus
01-13-17, 10:31 PM
I can't wait for next week when all the blame for everything falls on Trump.
Don't worry, the GOP will be blaming Obama for the next four years
Whats the point of using Presidential administrations as bench marks in your arguement? ...
So, I guess we can be assured that Trump, the GOP, and all of their 'unbiased media' will not be continually blaming Obama in the coming years for what ever shortcomings or inabilities they have in trying to deal with or correct problems? That I've got to see...
Additionally, I did not make the "bench marks" comparison; the comparison comes from the FactCheck.org site, which I linked in my post as a source of my statement(s), something a very high percentage of those who make some of the most scurrilous posts, on both sides of an issue, here do not, although I have very often made the effort to source their statements and have very often found the source to be, indeed, some partisan "hatchet job" website rather than some verifiable source. Perhaps this is why, in those posts, links or cites are not given...
...The President in this country has absolutely no authority to increase or decrease health care premiums. This term "braking effect" of the ACA, is that yours or Fact Check? I ask because this idea that the ACA was instrumental in curbing health care costs is contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office attributed the decline in health care spending too. According to their 'facts' it was economic slowdown, not the ACA that brought costs down. ...
Never said the President had or has "authority to increase or decrease health care premiums". But actions taken during their administrations do have effects on things like premiums...
Yes, the "braking effect" term is mine alone; I, unlike many others, do own up to my errors; I had intended to use single quotes ('braking effect') but inadvertently used double quotes; too bad for me there is no 'auto-correct' for punctuation...
The "idea that the ACA was instrumental in curbing health care costs is contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office attributed the decline in health care spending too.": the idea the ACA aided in reducing health care cost is not contrary to the CBO reports findings. The report, in several different places, makes it clear the CBO could not adequately or definitively gauge the effect of the ACA on healthcare costs. The CBO report doesn't actually say, and certainly not explicitly, the ACA has no effect on healthcare costs. Therefore, it is neither contrary to the report nor does the report wholly support any claim the ACA, alone, is responsible for the slowdown in healthcare premiums nor does the CBO report support claims the ACA alone is the cause for healthcare issues; it is merely a factor in the equations...
My initial response was a reaction to the posting of a single graphic, with no accompanying link, and this statement:
Make no mistake, we're still waiting for that. In spite of it's sales pitch the ACA has not made health care cheaper. Far from it.
It was this sort of broad, undefined, 'take-it-as-truth' sort of posting that caused me to respond: " In spite of it's sales pitch the ACA has not made health care cheaper. Far from it." ...
I searched for, and found, with very little difficulty, the source document and also some other usages of the graphic, which led me to FactCheck.org and this opening statement caught my eye and interest:
Republicans say the average family health insurance premium has increased by $4,154 under President Obama. That’s right — and it’s a much slower rate of growth than under President George W. Bush. In fact, employer-sponsored premiums have been growing at moderate rates for the past few years.
[I]This is a prime example of what we call a “true, but” claim: an assertion that’s technically correct, but changes in meaning or significance once it’s put in context or fully explained.[Italics mine, again, lest somebody take umbrage]...
You see, when you look up facts, to be really as impartial and informed as possible, you also need to be willing to look at all aspects of an issue, not just find the one 'fact' that supports your issue and call it a day. This was something I learned from participating in competitive debate tournaments, where the debaters had to alternate between 'pro' and 'con' on an issue every other round; you had to know all the facts for each side in order to make an argument each round. There have been many times I wondered about something posted in these forums and have done research to find out what the varying arguments supporting or decrying the issue(s) really are; there have been times when the research results in an accumulation of facts that do, indeed, support the post, even if I may not necessarily agree the outcome, but, facts in context facts are to be acknowledged and respected and I do not respond to those posts in those cases; I leave that to those who may have some emotional attachment with their particular viewpoint. However, when I feel something is being bent, omitted, or glossed over, and research shows that to be the case, I often can not resist the urge to try to give a more rounded view of an issue...
Anyway, feel free to check these facts those facts and their facts . And please let us all know when you get the multitude of facts sorted and tell us which facts are the only facts we should listen too.
I never tell anyone which facts to listen to since I would never want someone to do so to me. Believe what you will in what you want to believe; I'll just be sitting over here trying to separate the grist from the gibberish. And, as you can see, I do "feel free to check these facts those facts and their facts"; I do so all the time and I enjoy it...
I mean really you should follow your own advice before you begin chastising anyone with a thought contrary to your facts. In fact I'm willing to bet a good many of the people who take this sort of tripe sophistry as actual reasoning are the same people who neither saw, heard nor read the report. They probably just wait around for the talk show host, blogger, hatchet job factcheck website to tell them what to think and say and how to vote; it must be nice in that little world, not having to use whatever brainpower they might have; they must laugh at all us silly, stupid folk who actually do the "homework" and try to separate out the dross so we might actually find the truth and make informed decisions; Oh, silly us, for thinking democracy and the fate of our nation deserves at least some effort from its citizens...
I don't 'chastise' contrary thought; just sloppy thought presented as fact. And I stand by the statement you misquoted (without double quotes!! :o :D) and still say if an issue is important, an effort to learn as much about it as possible is equally, if not more important...
So, yes, I did actually read the full report, you linked and some addendums, prior to your posting and found, as I have indicated, the report neither affirms nor denies the ACA impact, so I opted to leave out reference to it as the report is non-definitive on the issue. I actually did my homework and, if someone had actually did theirs and also read the full report they would have found likewise...
<O>
Don't worry, the GOP will be blaming Obama for the next four years
Hell, very often, they're still blaming Clinton...
...and Roosevelt... :haha:
<O>
Platapus
01-14-17, 07:18 AM
Hell, very often, they're still blaming Clinton...
...and Roosevelt... :haha:
<O>
Well it is always the other guy's fault, never our guy. :03:
Skybird
01-14-17, 08:12 AM
The description of a mental asylum that is one of the reasons why Trump now is there.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/overwrought-political-correctness-helped-trump-win-a-1125725.html
Much of what the article describes in examples, to me as a former ex-psychologist describes thin-skinned, psychotic narcissism of the likes that Trump displays on apparently every opportunity he can manage. Narcissism at the one end of the spectrum has created or brought to power narcissism at the other end of the spectrum. Both cannot like each other, but both owe so much to each other.
I stick to it, Trump's era will be most entertaining.
And a political disaster.
That his tendency for nepotism and corrupt family business now can no longer be seriously rejected, does not make it any better. On TV they said it is against American laws established after Kennedy that he sells his empire not to foreign actors, but to his own family. The position he appointed his son in law to as influential chief advisor also is dubious, to put it very mildly, and again they said he violates laws there.
Seems America managed to get its own Erdoghan, eh?
ikalugin
01-14-17, 08:47 AM
Noone wanted a war - it was inevitable.
Rockstar
01-14-17, 10:01 AM
In last season's sitcom the plot was to delegitimize the presidency because of issues with a birth certificate. This seasons show its because Putin personally rigged the election. I must admit these are very good sitcoms, very entertaining and I do laugh. But that's not the real problem, the real problem is the fanboys that don't see it for what it is.
Rockstar
01-14-17, 10:07 AM
No I dont think we have our own Erdogan, just because a talkinghead said its illegal doesnt make what someone does illegal. If he wants to appoint a family member as an advisor and its done so within the scope of the law thats perfectly fine.
Onkel Neal
01-14-17, 10:58 AM
In last season's sitcom the plot was to delegitimize the presidency because of issues with a birth certificate. This seasons show its because Putin personally rigged the election. I must admit these are very good sitcoms, very entertaining and I do laugh. But that's not the real problem, the real problem is the fanboys that don't see it for what it is.
Winner!
Skybird
01-14-17, 11:12 AM
No I dont think we have our own Erdogan, just because a talkinghead said its illegal doesnt make what someone does illegal. If he wants to appoint a family member as an advisor and its done so within the scope of the law thats perfectly fine.
And that is where the doubt is. The legality of apponting his son in law as advsior is in question. The illegality of just handing over his business not to neutral third parties, but members of his family and then tell the public: "I trust my sons. We will not talk about the businesses. They will not influence my presidency", is beyond doubt. It is illegal by you own laws, American law experts described on German TV already. There were according scandals in the poast that led to thge fcorming of said laws, the names to be mentioned are Kennedy, and I think Nixon.
And by all sane reason - it should be illegal indeed! Its pure nepotism, plain and simple.
Mr Quatro
01-14-17, 11:12 AM
But that's not the real problem, the real problem is the fanboys that don't see it for what it is.
That's telling it like it is ... if your a fan boy do you know it?
I admit I may have been one at one time or other, but now I feel ashamed and I will only report the truth ... the truth of what my gut feelings are that is :D
Keep up the good work RS :up:
Here's one gut feeling Trump is a con artist and he is not patting Putin on the back he's trying to get into his back pocket. :yep:
ikalugin
01-14-17, 11:35 AM
And that is where the doubt is. The legality of apponting his son in law as advsior is in question. The illegality of just handing over his business not to neutral third parties, but members of his family and then tell the public: "I trust my sons. We will not talk about the businesses. They will not influence my presidency", is beyond doubt. It is illegal by you own laws, American law experts described on German TV already. There were according scandals in the poast that led to thge fcorming of said laws, the names to be mentioned are Kennedy, and I think Nixon.
And by all sane reason - it should be illegal indeed! Its pure nepotism, plain and simple.
You should know the difference between morality and legality of something.
Because (apparently) it is (under the relevant US law) completely legal for him not to only keep the buisness but to keep running it during his presidency.
Rockstar
01-14-17, 11:42 AM
And that is where the doubt is. The legality of apponting his son in law as advsior is in question. The illegality of just handing over his business not to neutral third parties, but members of his family and then tell the public: "I trust my sons. We will not talk about the businesses. They will not influence my presidency", is beyond doubt. It is illegal by you own laws, American law experts described on German TV already. There were according scandals in the poast that led to thge fcorming of said laws, the names to be mentioned are Kennedy, and I think Nixon.
And by all sane reason - it should be illegal indeed! Its pure nepotism, plain and simple.
Our definition of nepotism in this country is usually defined when a family member is shown favoritism and or is unfairly appointed or selected over another more qualified person for a job or position in the company or government.
If Trump can show that his son inlaw is the best person for the job and is appointed within the confines of the law then it is for me a non issue. I trust those people whose job it is to ensure our government functions within the scope of the law will do their job. I also trust the President elect will abide by those laws as well.
Skybird
01-14-17, 12:18 PM
Trust is kind - control is better. Thats the difference between hear-say and hoping for the best, and laws. Thats why courts decide not on the ground of assumptions and beliefs, but laws and evidence. Where they decide on the grounds of the first, we call it arbitrary justice.
Thats what rules are for in general. To let a state of persuasion not even emerge, so that nobody gets the chance to abuse a situation.
Trump opened the door to abuse wide open by giving his business to his family. And as I understand, it is a violation of according laws that you already have in place in the US - right to prevent this.
Or do you think Trump should have the right to follow those laws that opportunistically meet his intentions, and should have the right to violate those laws that he does not like?
A word - especially the word of carricature of a man like Trump - should not be enough to replace laws and legal rules. Because people lie. Everybody lies at times. Everybody.
Take me by my words, Rockstar: Americans will regret it in the future if they let him get away with this. In some years you will learn unpleasant truths about abuse and acts of nepotism. That is as certain as day follows night follows day.
Rockstar
01-14-17, 12:58 PM
Dude there's nothing a little Traffic and my Hindu friend Bubba Kush cant take care of, try some. :up:
Currently on 6 Goldman Sachs appointees, so that whole swamp thing is going well. Good thing that Trump isn't going to say anything that'll...
Was there another loan that Ted Cruz FORGOT to file. Goldman Sachs owns him, he will do anything they demand. Not much of a reformer!
Never mind.
Rockstar
01-14-17, 02:01 PM
If we let Trump get away with what? What exactley has Trump done that would lead me to believe he is getting away with anything? As far as I know he hasnt broken one law regarding his appointments or his business dealings. Though Id wager there is a whole battalion digging deep in his past for it such things. But so far all I hear from are the usual suspects, fanboys and experts on TV and the worldwide web trying to make a buck peddling their brand of facts.
Im certain of one thing, if he or anyone tried to strongarm his way in and set up camp like Erdogan has. We'd have us an old fashioned uprisin'. But as it stands our government is stable, strong, it can and does prevent such from happeneing. Our government might be too at times short sighted, slow and dimwitted but there is not place on this planet Id rather be and defend.
Mr Quatro
01-14-17, 02:28 PM
It doesn't really matter which side won if the other side wants the side that won to go down in flames.:yep:
Now it's Hillary and the DNC against Donald Trump POTUS elect and the GOP, but it could have been the other way around.
Aren't we lucky we don't have to hear about those darn emails anymore?
Eichhörnchen
01-14-17, 02:34 PM
If we let Trump get away with what?
The comb-over
Rockstar
01-14-17, 03:01 PM
I bet thats where he's hiding his tax returns.
Platapus
01-14-17, 03:32 PM
Noone wanted a war - it was inevitable.
As the GOP's messiah Reagan (PBUH) said "People don't start wars, governments do." and "History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."
It is seldom that the people want war, but governments seem eager. Perhaps because it is the people who fight the wars and the governments that profit from it.
Something to remember is that most of the Trump picks are people who are already successful in their own fields. They already have all the money and power they could want. They don't need to get those things from the jobs that they are taking.
This is unlike the professional political class in this country who get their power and money through their government positions usually at the expense of the nation they were elected to represent.
Aktungbby
01-14-17, 04:44 PM
The comb-over
The 'comb-over' I$ a big hit in China: http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161228110527-donald-trump-rooster-exlarge-169.jpg
Catfish
01-14-17, 05:52 PM
The 'comb-over' I$ a big hit in
:hmmm: Choose your side ..
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/Doubletrump_zpsydlbyqeu.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/penaeus/media/Doubletrump_zpsydlbyqeu.jpg.html)
em2nought
01-14-17, 07:07 PM
Something to remember is that most of the Trump picks are people who are already successful in their own fields. They already have all the money and power they could want. They don't need to get those things from the jobs that they are taking.
This is unlike the professional political class in this country who get their power and money through their government positions usually at the expense of the nation they were elected to represent.
O' captain! My captain! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j64SctPKmqk
http://www.readingeagle.com/storyimage/RE/20150811/VOICES/308119998/EP/1/2/EP-308119998.jpg&q=80&MaxW=550&MaxH=400&RCRadius=5
Eichhörnchen
01-14-17, 07:21 PM
:hmmm: Choose your side ..
It's hard to decide, isn't it? And if I were an opponent meeting him and needing to gain an advantage, I would simply pucker up and blow as hard as I could in his face. Soon as he opened his mouth to talk I would just blow as hard as I could on his hairdo. He wouldn't like that.... no he wouldn't
I have a question
It seems like Trump is a very "disliked" President/person
Have there ever been an American President that was so unloved even before this person toke place in the White House ?
Markus
Rockstar
01-14-17, 08:21 PM
Yep, I think its safe to say it was then President elect Barrack Hussein Obama. Many are still hiding in their bunkers getting ready for him to destroy the constitution, proclaim himself dictator for life and send all the white people to the FEMA death camps.
Platapus
01-14-17, 11:44 PM
Yep, I think its safe to say it was then President elect Barrack Hussein Obama. Many are still hiding in their bunkers getting ready for him to destroy the constitution, proclaim himself dictator for life and send all the white people to the FEMA death camps.
My favourite was what was said at a McCain event here in North Virginia. If Obama were to be elected, he would force Republican women to get abortions as part of his plan to populate the nation with Democrats. And the person saying this was serious. :doh:
Sailor Steve
01-15-17, 12:31 AM
Have there ever been an American President that was so unloved even before this person toke place in the White House ?
Abraham Lincoln. Seven States seceded from the country before he took office, without giving him a chance.
em2nought
01-15-17, 12:47 AM
Abraham Lincoln. Seven States seceded from the country before he took office, without giving him a chance.
Modern day Democrats are just weak by comparison, I guess they don't have the gumption to say adios like their predecessors. :03:
https://i.imgflip.com/1egoek.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V8TO6y0IR4
<O>
Yep, I think its safe to say it was then President elect Barrack Hussein Obama. Many are still hiding in their bunkers getting ready for him to destroy the constitution, proclaim himself dictator for life and send all the white people to the FEMA death camps.
You mean to say he still hasn't done this?
Worst President ever!™
You mean to say he still hasn't done this?
Worst President ever!™
He's Chicken,, and Rockstar it's better to have a Bunker and not need it,, than need it and not have it,,,never know when the left will grow a set,,,the founding fathers knew that and, that's why we have the 2nd Amendment and I have more than I can carry,, friends say I should go to the range more,, I tell them I get more stick and trigger time than most,with IL-2 and the tank sims. I did finish up a month long deer hunt,, only saw tail and that was far few in between, any how I got to run around in the woods with guns and ,I did get to fire my muzzle loaders a couple of times, though I spent more time cleaning them than shooting..
https://scontent.fbed1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15965479_1398806090150817_335573955177441072_n.jpg ?oh=f1aa2f33616136f1543363cf70e1bd3b&oe=591CA027
Mr Quatro
01-15-17, 12:59 PM
Abraham Lincoln. Seven States seceded from the country before he took office, without giving him a chance.
Somebody told me that Lincoln wasn't the first republican that he was a whig or something like that and that they adopted him as the first Republican.
Speaking of the Republicans and the Democrats do you see them changing? I sure have ... the DNC has always been for the poor people (at least in Texas and perhaps the whole South) raising taxes and passing welfare reforms and that the Republicans are for the rich lowering the taxes.
I know it's a left and right thing, liberal and not so liberal, but still they seem to be changing.
Catfish
01-15-17, 01:39 PM
O' captain! My captain! http://www.readingeagle.com/storyimage/RE/20150811/VOICES/308119998/EP/1/2/EP-308119998.jpg&q=80&MaxW=550&MaxH=400&RCRadius=5
Resist always. :salute:
Sailor Steve
01-15-17, 02:05 PM
Somebody told me that Lincoln wasn't the first republican that he was a whig or something like that and that they adopted him as the first Republican.
Lincoln was originally a member, and later a leader, of the Whig Party in Illinois. The Whigs had formed in opposition to President Andrew Jackson. They ran several candidates, including a few winners, but fell apart in the 1850s over the issue of slavery in new territories, with members on both sides. After the dissolution of the Whigs some of their former members helped form the Republican Party in 1854, and their first Presidential candidate was John C. Fremont in 1856.
Speaking of the Republicans and the Democrats do you see them changing?
Constantly.
I sure have ... the DNC has always been for the poor people (at least in Texas and perhaps the whole South) raising taxes and passing welfare reforms and that the Republicans are for the rich lowering the taxes.
Not at all. The Democrats were the ones who supported slavery and post-Civil War oppression, and in the 1950s it was the Democrats who opposed integration and civil rights. The Republicans were the party of Abolition, though as with any group not all members felt the same way. The situation as you describe it is a fairly recent development, and it developed slowly over the decades. In the late 1940s President Harry Truman, described by some as an avowed racists, started Federal legislation which would bring equality to the Armed Forces.
In the 1950s Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey supported the first civil rights legislation in Congress, while his fellow senator John F. Kennedy opposed the bill twice before finally voting for it. At the same time Vice President Richard Nixon was one of the bill's backers. Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson opposed all of Truman's civil rights proposals. President Eisenhower defended segregation in the military but supported some civil rights reforms. He supported school integration in Washington, DC. When Southern Democrats refused to obey the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v The Board of Education, Eisenhower who voiced disapproval for the ruling but still sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce it. On the other side, Southern Governors who supported Brown were Democrats.
At this same time conservative writers like William F. Buckley were starting to be heard, and they were more racist than their Republican forebears. Buckley went so far as to defend the rights of Whites to refuse integration as they were "The advanced race."
By 1960 the major candidates for President, Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard M. Nixon, were both moderates on race. When Kennedy was elected he was not much more supportive of civil rights than he was a decade earlier, but he eventually signed new civil rights legislation.
After Kennedy's assassination, the 1964 candidates were incumbent Lyndon Johnson and Republican opponent Barry Goldwater. Johnson was fairly moderate of civil rights, while Goldwater was a firm opponent. Since that time the Republican Party has become more and more racist, with candidates usually being moderate at best, while the Democrats have intentionally aligned themselves toward black voters, proclaiming civil rights policies as part of their Party agenda.
I know, the question was about Party stances on poverty, not race, but it should be fairly obvious that the two are closely aligned in the policies and ideas of both major parties.
Here is a thorough background for the preceding information:
http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=ojur
I know it's a left and right thing, liberal and not so liberal, but still they seem to be changing.
Constantly. In some areas they are the exact opposite of what they were when the parties were formed. They will continue to change, as one party and then the other try to attract certain types of voters. And that's what both parties are really about - getting elected.
After Kennedy's assassination, the 1964 candidates were incumbent Lyndon Johnson and Republican opponent Barry Goldwater. Johnson was fairly moderate of civil rights, while Goldwater was a firm opponent. Since that time the Republican Party has become more and more racist,
How so,, you'd like to think that,,, care to back that up with some proof,,, Yes more southern states have become republican,,, doesn't make them racist,,and yes we had our first Black democrat president if he had been conservative you'd have ran him out on a rail..,, Former speaker of the house Democrat Senator Bryd was a full blown klans man ,,Hillary and then Governor Bill Clinton brought forth Confederate flag day in their home state..Only Democrats believe minorities are to stupid or lazy to get a photo ID to vote ,,,and need all sorts of their help to make it in this country that's pretty racist don't you think ??????? To make it simple if you don't believe in the constitution and the founding documents,,and believe that all men are created equal by their creator ,, then probably you are a racist ,, Me believing in the sovereignty of this nation does not make me a racist. And after all this time,, Steve you never once told me what the end run was to be after all this liberal phooy,, what your uthopia would look like or what it would be based on ,,, .. Almost forgot Democrats are more violent than Republicans we got to see that spectical first hand this last year didn't we and maybe we'll see some more of that liberal democrat violent behavior by the end of the week.
Platapus
01-15-17, 03:43 PM
friends say I should go to the range more,, I tell them I get more stick and trigger time than most,with IL-2 and the tank sims.
You own guns and think that playing video games counts as practice?
... friends say I should go to the range more,, I tell them I get more stick and trigger time than most,with IL-2 and the tank sims.
You own guns and think that playing video games counts as practice?
He can't be serious, can he?
Well... they both have a trigger... :O:
Well... they both have a trigger... :O:
He certainly is very easily.
Platapus
01-15-17, 06:05 PM
He can't be serious, can he?
Perhaps he kicks butt at Call of Duty. That is the same as AIT right?
Onkel Neal
01-15-17, 06:09 PM
... the DNC has always been for the poor people (at least in Texas and perhaps the whole South) raising taxes and passing welfare reforms and that the Republicans are for the rich lowering the taxes.
.
That's false.
Lincoln was originally a member, and later a leader, of the Whig Party in Illinois. The Whigs had formed in opposition to President Andrew Jackson. They ran several candidates, including a few winners, but fell apart in the 1850s over the issue of slavery in new territories, with members on both sides. After the dissolution of the Whigs some of their former members helped form the Republican Party in 1854, and their first Presidential candidate was John C. Fremont in 1856.
Constantly.
Not at all. The Democrats were the ones who supported slavery and post-Civil War oppression, and in the 1950s it was the Democrats who opposed integration and civil rights. The Republicans were the party of Abolition, though as with any group not all members felt the same way. The situation as you describe it is a fairly recent development, and it developed slowly over the decades. In the late 1940s President Harry Truman, described by some as an avowed racists, started Federal legislation which would bring equality to the Armed Forces.
In the 1950s Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey supported the first civil rights legislation in Congress, while his fellow senator John F. Kennedy opposed the bill twice before finally voting for it. At the same time Vice President Richard Nixon was one of the bill's backers. Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson opposed all of Truman's civil rights proposals. President Eisenhower defended segregation in the military but supported some civil rights reforms. He supported school integration in Washington, DC. When Southern Democrats refused to obey the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v The Board of Education, Eisenhower who voiced disapproval for the ruling but still sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce it. On the other side, Southern Governors who supported Brown were Democrats.
At this same time conservative writers like William F. Buckley were starting to be heard, and they were more racist than their Republican forebears. Buckley went so far as to defend the rights of Whites to refuse integration as they were "The advanced race."
By 1960 the major candidates for President, Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard M. Nixon, were both moderates on race. When Kennedy was elected he was not much more supportive of civil rights than he was a decade earlier, but he eventually signed new civil rights legislation.
After Kennedy's assassination, the 1964 candidates were incumbent Lyndon Johnson and Republican opponent Barry Goldwater. Johnson was fairly moderate of civil rights, while Goldwater was a firm opponent. Since that time the Republican Party has become more and more racist, with candidates usually being moderate at best, while the Democrats have intentionally aligned themselves toward black voters, proclaiming civil rights policies as part of their Party agenda.
I know, the question was about Party stances on poverty, not race, but it should be fairly obvious that the two are closely aligned in the policies and ideas of both major parties.
Here is a thorough background for the preceding information:
http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=ojur
Constantly. In some areas they are the exact opposite of what they were when the parties were formed. They will continue to change, as one party and then the other try to attract certain types of voters. And that's what both parties are really about - getting elected.
Excellent post, Steve. As has been noted before, in other threads, the grip of the Democrats on the South pre-Civil Rights was so solid, when Eisenhower, a bona fide national War Hero, ran for President in 1952, he won every single state with the exception of the solid block of the Southern States; the hatred of the South towards the GOP was so great, even the stature and status of Ike could not beak the grip. The grip did break following the coming of Civil Rights and the GOP formulated a plan to capitalize on the disaffection of Southern segregationists with the DEMs; this was called the "Southern Strategy":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Over the course of time, the "Southern Strategy" has come back to snakebite the GOP and, in 2005, the then Chairman of the Republican National Committee addressed, in person, the NAACP, and publicly apologized for the GOP's adoption of the "Southern Strategy"; there is still a strong animus against the GOP by African-Americans and other minorities, costing the GOP a great many votes, as evidenced by the popular vote results in the last Presidential Election...
Well... they both have a trigger... :O:
"This is my weapon, this is my gun..."...
<O>
All this recent politics can't help but remind me of the American Party (of the 1850s), and the nickname that it received, and I wonder perhaps if the collapse of the second party system can be transferred onto the last decade or two and upon what side. Both parties are in pretty poor shape, whoever won this election got themselves eight years of a reprieve, but ultimately something is going to have to give. :hmmm:
I wonder what it would take to shatter the two party system, to break down the Democrats and the Republicans into seperate parties reflecting the splits within them, and indeed how many parties would be needed to accomodate these splits. I'm aware of a two way split in the Dems between the Bernie and Hillary sides, but in the Republicans it seems to be more of a three way split between the Trumpists, Neo-Cons and Tea Party groups.
Either which way, there's going to be a lot of political upheavals ahead, that much is certain.
Sailor Steve
01-16-17, 01:54 AM
How so,, you'd like to think that,,, care to back that up with some proof,,,
Perhaps a better term would have been that the Republican Party has shown a consistently worse record on civil rights. But wait, I said that too. And if you had actually read the article I linked you would have seen the proof.
:Yes more southern states have become republican,,, doesn't make them racist,,and yes we had our first Black democrat president if he had been conservative you'd have ran him out on a rail..,,
I would have? You seem to be a person who only sees what you want to see. If you read these forums you would have might have noticed that I am consistently Independent, falling to the Conservative or Liberal side depending on the individual issue. In those silly tests that determine if you are one or the other, I always land smack dab in the middle. In fact, it's on record here that I'm no fan of Obama, though I don't hate him as some seem to do, and those who can remember will know that I was no fan of Bush, though I didn't hate him as some seemed to. In fact, at the time Obama was elected I said that while I was glad we finally had a black President I wished he was less Liberal.
Former speaker of the house Democrat Senator Bryd was a full blown klans man
And David Duke urged his fellow KKKers to support Trump. That in itself doesn't indict Trump, but the fact that he never disavowed Duke's endorsement does. When the KKK switched parties they were instrumental in recruiting thousands of southern white voters in the GOP. This doesn't mean that all Republicans are racist, or all Democrats, or even a small part of either Party. What it means is that these things go on with both sides, and the Republican Party (not the people) has shown less interest in Civil Rights in recent years. This may be, as one writer suggested, that they became complacent and thought the battle had been won. I'm the first to admit that I don't know.
,,Hillary and then Governor Bill Clinton brought forth Confederate flag day in their home state..
As did South Carolina Governor (and Republican) Nikki Haley. John McCain was against the flag, then changed his public stance in an attempt to win Southern votes. Your point?
Only Democrats believe minorities are to stupid or lazy to get a photo ID to vote ,,,and need all sorts of their help to make it in this country that's pretty racist don't you think ???????
I agree on that one. In fact I've said so in the past.
To make it simple if you don't believe in the constitution and the founding documents,,and believe that all men are created equal by their creator ,, then probably you are a racist ,, Me believing in the sovereignty of this nation does not make me a racist.
I never said you were. That you would equate my comments on the historical stances shown by certain Party leaders as a personal attack, or a general attack on all members of that party or that way of thinking, shows your own narrow-mindedness and a lack of reading and understanding my position on these matters. There aren't too many ardent Democrats on this forum, but I've lost friends on FaceBook from both sides of the political spectrum because of my willingness to challenge both sides equally.
And after all this time,, Steve you never once told me what the end run was to be after all this liberal phooy,, what your uthopia would look like or what it would be based on ,,, ..
How would I know? I'm not a Liberal. I'm also not a lockstep hardcore Conservative either. Both sides have their bad qualities, and both have their good. It's the people who refuse to see the other side's viewpoint and at least attempt to understand it who are, in my estimation, the cause of the problem.
Almost forgot Democrats are more violent than Republicans we got to see that spectical first hand this last year didn't we and maybe we'll see some more of that liberal democrat violent behavior by the end of the week.
Again I agree. I just don't use it to try and prove that "my side is better than yours". There shouldn't be sides, but there are, and it's all the cause of people who are so convinced they're right that they are incapable of discussing the issues like adults, and trying to find workable solutions.
...but the fact that he never disavowed Duke's endorsement does.
I hate to help Yubbas arguments but he most certainly did.
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump issued a crystal clear disavowal Thursday of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke after stumbling last weekend over a question about the hate group leader on CNN."David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now." http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/
Now I understand why the Democrats would ignore this seeing as it goes against their Republicans are Evil narrative but a self described neutral independent like yourself? You must have just missed it amid all the political noise I guess.
Rockstar
01-16-17, 10:16 AM
Welcome to Thunderdome Sailor Steve! :D
http://application.denofgeek.com/pics/film/space.cowboys/08.jpg
:gulp:
Sailor Steve
01-16-17, 12:23 PM
I Now I understand why the Democrats would ignore this seeing as it goes against their Republicans are Evil narrative but a self described neutral independent like yourself? You must have just missed it amid all the political noise I guess.
I did miss it. My apologies.
Mr Quatro
01-16-17, 01:19 PM
I did miss it. My apologies.
Well you did good on the other stuff over in post #319 :up:...
Thank you
You grow when you know :yep:
Welcome to Thunderdome Sailor Steve! :D
http://application.denofgeek.com/pics/film/space.cowboys/08.jpg
:gulp:
TWO PARTIES ENTER, ONE PARTY LEAVES
Catfish
01-16-17, 02:52 PM
TWO PARTIES ENTER, ONE PARTY LEAVES
:haha:
While the two are fighting, maybe i'm allowed to take Mrs Turner out for dinner :D
"Scottish newspaper Sunday Herald (http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/tv_radio/15024376.Damien_Love__39_s_TV_highlights/) shot into the limelight yesterday when its TV preview of Donald Trump's presidential inauguration (http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/DonaldTrump) went viral."
“After a long absence, The Twilight Zone returns with one of the most ambitious, expensive and controversial productions in broadcast history. Sci-fi writers have dabbled often with alternative history stories - among the most common is the ‘What If The Nazis Had Won The Second World War’ setting - but this huge interactive virtual reality project, which will unfold on TV, in the press, and on Twitter over the next four years, sets out to build an ongoing alternative present. The story begins in a nightmarish version of 2017 in which huge sections of the US electorate have somehow been duped into voting to make Donald Trump president. It sounds far-fetched, and it is is, but as it goes on it becomes more and more chillingly plausible. Today's feature-length opener concentrates on the gaudy inauguration of President Trump, and the stirrings of protest and despair surrounding the ceremony, while pundits speculate gravely on what lies ahead. It's a flawed piece, but a disturbing glimpse of the horrors we could stumble into, if we’re not careful.”:haha:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/donald-trump-inauguration-scottish-newspaper-preview-sunday-herald-the-twilight-zone-a7528991.html
I did miss it. My apologies.
It could be there is a confusion about the Trump stance on Duke and the KKK. I did recall Trump did disavow Duke and the KKK, but I never gave it much attention: Trump had to disavow them or commit political suicide; there was no other choice if he wished to remain a viable candidate. What had struck me is the reference in a previous post stating Trump had repeatedly made disavowals prior to the last one. I looked it up and found this:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article63492082.html
So, Trump, indeed, has repeatedly disavowed Duke and the KKK; but the article itself had a link to a FactCheck.org article:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-david-duke-amnesia/
These two articles may explain the confusion: it appears the famous Trump affliction of conveniently "selective memory", seen so often in his life, is being conflated with his disavowals. People seem to have taken his claims of knowing nothing about David Duke at all with an alleged refusal to disavow Duke. Trump did and has disavowed Duke and the KKK: that is very true. Trump has claimed no previous knowledge of Duke: that is false. As FactCheck.org sometimes refers to these sorts of situations, it is a case of "True, but..."...
<O>
Platapus
01-16-17, 05:57 PM
To many people the Democrats and Republicans are cleanly split between liberal and conservatives. In a lot of opinions, the terms are almost interchangeable. But that is not how it was in the past. The problem is trying to characterize a political party in just a few sound bytes.
Up until the 1940's both the Democrats and the Republicans had their conservative and liberal members. They worked to keep each party balanced. It was possible for an election to be between a conservative Democrat and a liberal Republican. As the years went, so did the balance of the party alternate.
In the 1940's there was a serious split in the Democratic party. The conservative Democrats felt that FDR was too liberal and there was much harrumphing. So much harrumphing that FDR decided to push for a conservative running made in Truman in an attempt to keep the conservative Democrats in the party and voting for the Democratic candidates. By the late 1940's, however damage was already done and the more conservative Democrats started moving toward Republican and to a much small extent liberal Republicans were moving to the Democrats.
However, the Republican party still maintained a balance of liberal and conservatives with the number of conservatives growing (to some extent by conservative democrats). In the 1970's and 1980's there was a split in the Republican party. Senior members of the GOP decided to push for a more conservative membership and they slowly succeeded. Many liberal Republicans left for the now liberal Democratic party.
Strategically, I feel this was a mistake. I think the parties would be much more effective and be more representative if the parties maintained their liberal and conservative membership.
The problem with focusing on one or the other is that they tend to move to the extremes. Who are the conservative Democrats who can help pull the party to the middle? Who are the liberal Republicans who can help pull the party to the middle?
They don't exist, or more accurately don't exist in numbers and political power to affect any balancing changes.
Unfortunately, this results in a split not only between Democrats and Republicans but respectively between conservatives and liberals. This does not bode well for cooperation
The double whammy of linking the parties with the ideology emphasize the "Us against Them" attitude which in my opinion will ultimately destroy this country alike a cancer.
I have often thought that the first party to move to the center could dominate the elections. It is important to recognize that
- Liberals love this country and only want the best for the country
- Conservatives love this country and only want the best for the country
- Democrats love this country and only want the best for the country
- Republicans love this country and only want the best for the country
The only differences are in each of their priorities and their methodologies. Believing in one does not make the other wrong... just different.
As an Independent I love this country and only want the best for the country. But I fear that the ideological divide that we have in this country will only get worse.
I did miss it. My apologies.
Nothing to apologize for Steve. The media has done everything they can to make people forget that it ever happened.
But I fear that the ideological divide that we have in this country will only get worse.
That is a beautiful piece, and you'll forgive me for not quoting all of it, but I want to also echo this particular sentence. I think the divide has only accelerated since the financial crash of 2008, and I think is fairly typical of what happens in societies in times of great uncertainty and potential conflict, people tend to see the middle ground as not working and so head out into the fringes where there be dragons (or at the very least, dictators).
This is not just an American problem, it's happening all over the western world at the moment, and quite possibly elsewhere too but I can't say I've noticed it, perhaps it is because the western world is more susceptible to the economic damage caused by the 2008 crisis and the turbulence which followed.
Potentially you could put the tipping point earlier, perhaps in the aftermaths of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, certainly these were the death knell for New Labour and Tony Blair, neither of which has really recovered from the double-punch of the wars and then the financial crisis (Although Blairs successor Gordon Brown picks up most of the flak for the crisis, being both chancellor during the Blair years and then PM when it all fell down).
If you go back to the 1920s you see a lot of unrest in the aftermath of the First World War, Germany nearly fell into civil war, and Britain flirted dangerously with disaster, with at one point even the Royal Navy mutinying. It was around this point that the 'Red Scare' really started up again, and as a push back against that, you can argue that fascism started and fed from that fear as people went away from the middle ground and towards the fringes, and that in itself created a feedback loop as some people went to the opposite fringe because of a rise in the other.
It's worrying, "A House divided on itself cannot stand" as Abe put it, and we're all in a divided house at the moment, I don't think it's been quite this divided since post-WWI.
One aspect of the whole DEM vs GOP, Far Left vs Far Right, etc., that has not been mentioned is the significant rise in Independent voters. I'm not talking about the fringe independents like the Greens and Libertarians and such, I mean fully Independent voters who are increasingly opting out of and party affiliations. As the younger voters come on to the voter rolls, they have been eschewing all political parties and even some of the older voters, like myself, who have become fed up with the inane "our way or the highway" mindset of the current political climate. In California, voters registering as Independent are now the second largest group, behind the DEMs and ahead of the GOP; in fact, both of the traditionally "main" parties in CA have been hemorrhaging voter roll "members" with the GOP losing voters at a rate twice that of the DEMs, and, at the present pace, in the very near future, Independents stand to become the largest registered voter group in CA. Perhaps the Independents have absorbed a great deal of the disaffected former 'liberal GOP' and 'conservative DEMs' looking for a more sensible, 'middle-of-the-road' approach where candidates and issues are evaluated for their merits and not their adherence to petty party dogma. Imagine that: politics for people who can think for themselves and make up their own minds free of outside expectations. You know, it even sounds like, oh, I don't know...like maybe...
...freedom?...
"Our way or the highway"? Guess we'll take the freeway and leave the rest in the dust...
<O>
Catfish
01-17-17, 03:25 AM
Some excellent posts :) And thanks again, Platapus.
^ Vienna i wish people would elect other people only by what they promise and their beforehand published plans what they intend to do. And instantly thrown out when deviating from course.
But even then we will have people for or against abortion, religion, envy, hate and so on.
But e.g. looking at Facebook i see so much nonsense and hate and foolishness that i fear a democratic election based on facts with people having common sense and at least a tiny bit of empathy towards their brethren, will never happen with the current systems, and mindset.
I see this new power constellation from Putin to Trump to LePen, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, England's Brexit and still wonder how this happened. The future cannot depend on single nations each with their own Extrawurst trying to strangle or dominate their neighbours or the world; but if it continues or even falls back as it happened now, it will destroy mankind sooner or later. And if we don't get out of this i think we deserve no better.
ikalugin
01-17-17, 05:10 AM
- Liberals love this country and only want the best for the country
- Conservatives love this country and only want the best for the country
- Democrats love this country and only want the best for the country
- Republicans love this country and only want the best for the countryI don't know how it works in US, but in Russia some parties and movements seem to be openly unpatriotic/anti-russian.
Some excellent posts :) And thanks again, Platapus.
^ Vienna i wish people would elect other people only by what they promise and their beforehand published plans what they intend to do. And instantly thrown out when deviating from course.
But even then we will have people for or against abortion, religion, envy, hate and so on.
But e.g. looking at Facebook i see so much nonsense and hate and foolishness that i fear a democratic election based on facts with people having common sense and at least a tiny bit of empathy towards their brethren, will never happen with the current systems, and mindset.
I see this new power constellation from Putin to Trump to LePen, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, England's Brexit and still wonder how this happened. The future cannot depend on single nations each with their own Extrawurst trying to strangle or dominate their neighbours or the world; but if it continues or even falls back as it happened now, it will destroy mankind sooner or later. And if we don't get out of this i think we deserve no better.
Oh, I do agree there will always be pro and con on any issue; that is very much a given. What is repugnant is the blind adherence to a party's candidate or issues solely because a person "belongs" to a particular party. How many times have we seen, just in these forums, and elsewhere, the expression of sentiments along the lines of and such as 'well, I don't agree with [insert candidate or issue here], but I am a loyal member of my party, so, I'm gonna vote for them/it, anyway'? Now, more than ever, the blacks and whites of issues and candidates, take greater shades of greys. The absolutist lines of party politics are blurred. As Platapus pointed out [aside: no, really, seriously - Platapus for President], there used to Liberal Republicans (Nelson Rockefeller was a favorite of mine) and there used to be Conservative Democrats (e.g., Truman); and there used to be Moderates in both the major parties , or as they were sometimes called, the Middle-Of-The-Roaders. There may not be a lot of self-acknowledged Middle-Of-The-Roaders around anymore, but there is a growing number of self-acknowledged Independents...
I noted in a previous post the curious case of Orange County in California, a long-time highly conservative, very GOP stronghold in the state: for the first time since 1936, a period of 80 years, the county gave the Presidential win to a Democratic candidate, Clinton. At first, I thought well, maybe Clinton won because there was a low voter turnout: the final turnout in Orange was a whopping 80.7%, impressive, given the national turnout total was about 55%. I then checked the registration percentages before the election by party: 41.8% GOP; 31.7% DEM; the rest 26.5% either other parties or Independents, so the GOP still held the lead in registrations. Then I looked at the actual percentage totals for the candidates: 50.9% Clinton; 42.3% Trump; 6.8% other candidates/parties. What is amazing is Trump only managed to get .5% more votes than the total of registered GOP voters. Safely assuming not every single GOP voter cast a ballot for Trump, what this means is not only did Trump lose GOP votes, he also failed to sway any sizable number of Independents; and that's were the crux lies: in Orange, the importance of the Independents, comprising about a quarter of the registered voters, has now become more key to the fates of both the major parties than each parties own membership. Given that nationwide both the major parties have been steadily losing registered voters, not to each others parties, but to the growing number of independents and alternate parties, the overall influence of the majors on the electorate seems to waning. Maybe what were seeing is the emergence of a new, non-party specific middle of the road...
I don't know how it works in US, but in Russia some parties and movements seem to be openly unpatriotic/anti-russian.
Openly unpatriotic to who: the USA or Russia? If your worry is about Russia, no fears: Vlad's boyfriend takes over on Friday... :D
<O>
ikalugin
01-17-17, 08:31 AM
Russian parties and political movements being openly unpatriotic towards Russia (as a country). While there are differnt ways this happens, with ethnic nationalists (who want to separate), islamists (they want a global Khaliphate and fight for ISIS) and hard line communists (who want a global revolution) being the obvious offenders, the worst offenders are actually "liberals". You can read an old interview by one such liberal here:
http://www.compromat.ru/page_25887.htm
And it is fairly representative of them on the whole.
Bilge_Rat
01-17-17, 11:10 AM
It could be there is a confusion about the Trump stance on Duke and the KKK. I did recall Trump did disavow Duke and the KKK, but I never gave it much attention: Trump had to disavow them or commit political suicide; there was no other choice if he wished to remain a viable candidate. What had struck me is the reference in a previous post stating Trump had repeatedly made disavowals prior to the last one. I looked it up and found this:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article63492082.html
So, Trump, indeed, has repeatedly disavowed Duke and the KKK; but the article itself had a link to a FactCheck.org article:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-david-duke-amnesia/
These two articles may explain the confusion: it appears the famous Trump affliction of conveniently "selective memory", seen so often in his life, is being conflated with his disavowals. People seem to have taken his claims of knowing nothing about David Duke at all with an alleged refusal to disavow Duke. Trump did and has disavowed Duke and the KKK: that is very true. Trump has claimed no previous knowledge of Duke: that is false. As FactCheck.org sometimes refers to these sorts of situations, it is a case of "True, but..."...
<O>
well no, the truth is a lot simpler. Democrats want to paint all Republicans as racist. Trump kept getting asked the question do you disavow David Duke and the KKK. The point was not whether Trump disavowed the group or not, it was just to ask the question to plant the idea in a voter's mind that the GOP and the KKK are somehow linked. It is a very underhanded trick.
Everyone in the GoP and the Trump campaign has repeatedly said they do not want the support of the KKK.
Now the one interview where Trump hesitated, he later blamed on a bad earpiece and that he had trouble understanding the question. If you read the transcript, that explanation makes the most sense.
NBC ‘TODAY’ SHOW, Monday, Feb. 29
TRUMP: “I’m sitting in a house in Florida, with a very bad earpiece that they gave me, and you could hardly hear what he was saying. What I heard was ‘various groups.’ And I don’t mind disavowing anybody, and I disavowed David Duke.”
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article63492082.html#storylink=cpy
Of course, Democrats and the partisan media only refer to that one incident as "proof" that Trump is a racist, but at this point, I expect no less from them.
Buddahaid
01-17-17, 11:50 AM
Oh give it a rest.
Rockstar
01-17-17, 11:59 AM
Meh, poor ol' vienna he's just like those he chastises for mindlessly regurgitating biased opinions of others. he's armed with sources of information he regards as fact because thats what the source said it is. But why just blindly take the bait hook line sinker? Because imo these so called facts aren't posted to educate anyone. They simply serve to validate ones own narrow point of view which in turn keeps him coming back to their website for more of their facts.
we all do it
Mr Quatro
01-17-17, 12:25 PM
Oh give it a rest.
Give us a quote man ... I just woke up :D
I think the opinion polls are out of wack again just like they were before the election. Notice they never tell us how many people or who the people were or where they asked the poll questions.
Perhaps it was wall-mart or was it May company or a coffee cafe or people they trust to think what they think or heck perhaps they even just adjust the polls to anything they want them to be.
This man Trump is fixing to be in charge of the biggest most powerful nation in the world in just (72) hours.
I wish we could break that tweeter off and stick up his left arm, but we can't so lets put up with him and give him a chance (at least here on subsim) :yep:
Catfish
01-17-17, 02:07 PM
[...] I wish we could break that tweeter off and stick up his left arm, but we can't so lets put up with him and give him a chance (at least here on subsim) :yep:
:haha:
It is hard, but i agree with you .. i just hope he does not push the button :hmmm:
Sailor Steve
01-17-17, 04:14 PM
Meh, poor ol' vienna...
we all do it
Whether we all do it or not, if you have an objection to one member's take on things, please provide your own evidence to the contrary rather than just say he's doing this or that. Otherwise it's just words.
Also remember that openly insulting other members is not allowed at SubSim.
Rockstar
01-17-17, 04:34 PM
Little ol'meeee? Lol.. There is nothing wrong with sharing information from various points of view. Most can be seen for what is. But I wasn't the one who felt the need to chastise others and mock their level of education because their source of facts didnt agree with his. I was just simply pointing out that he's just like us and his poop stinks just like everyone elses. :)
I will heed your advice.
I blame Oberon he put me up to this you know.
Sailor Steve
01-17-17, 05:28 PM
But I wasn't the one who felt the need to chastise others and mock their level of education because their source of facts didnt agree with his.
Where exactly did he do that?
Aktungbby
01-17-17, 05:50 PM
well no, the truth is a lot simpler. Democrats want to paint all Republicans as racist. Trump kept getting asked the question do you disavow David Duke and the KKK. The point was not whether Trump disavowed the group or not, it was just to ask the question to plant the idea in a voter's mind that the GOP and the KKK are somehow linked. It is a very underhanded trick.
Everyone in the GoP and the Trump campaign has repeatedly said they do not want the support of the KKK.
Now the one interview where Trump hesitated, he later blamed on a bad earpiece and that he had trouble understanding the question. If you read the transcript, that explanation makes the most sense.
Of course, Democrats and the partisan media only refer to that one incident as "proof" that Trump is a racist, but at this point, I expect no less from them. Who needs the Klan when you're (literally) bringing in a clan of your own!???:k_confused: Just to be evenhanded though: “ While shades of nepotism remain a real worry, a handful of moderates and even liberals spoke highly of Mr. Kushner, expressing hope that the president’s closest adviser might serve as a moderating influence.I’ll tell you right off the bat, of all the names I hear of the people going in there, Jared Kushner is a more intelligent and more thoughtful person than an awful lot of them,” says Richard Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush and professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.
Now that's a little too Minnesota Nice! :shucks: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0111/The-surprising-response-to-Trump-son-in-law-s-new-White-House-post (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/0111/The-surprising-response-to-Trump-son-in-law-s-new-White-House-post)
Platapus
01-17-17, 06:52 PM
I think the divide has only accelerated since the financial crash of 2008, and I think is fairly typical of what happens in societies in times of great uncertainty and potential conflict, people tend to see the middle ground as not working and so head out into the fringes where there be dragons (or at the very least, dictators).
I like to attribute it to the advent of the Internet. We have always had extremists in the US. But they tended to be isolated and lonely. Other than the occasional "I would like to subscribe to your newsletter", there were limited venues for finding and communicating with others of the same ilk.
The internet allows extremists to more easily find other extremists. This can quickly lead to confirmation bias as "all my friends on the Internets Tubes agree with me so I can't be all that strange". This can lead to empowering the extremists.
The extremists can limit their social exposure to only those who share their opinions. This can support the feeling of "us against them".
The advantage of the Internet is that it allows easier exchange of information.
The disadvantage of the Internet is that it allows easier exchange of information.
There may not be a solution to this problem.
I like to attribute it to the advent of the Internet. We have always had extremists in the US. But they tended to be isolated and lonely. Other than the occasional "I would like to subscribe to your newsletter", there were limited venues for finding and communicating with others of the same ilk.
The internet allows extremists to more easily find other extremists. This can quickly lead to confirmation bias as "all my friends on the Internets Tubes agree with me so I can't be all that strange". This can lead to empowering the extremists.
The extremists can limit their social exposure to only those who share their opinions. This can support the feeling of "us against them".
The advantage of the Internet is that it allows easier exchange of information.
The disadvantage of the Internet is that it allows easier exchange of information.
There may not be a solution to this problem.
Fully in agreement. It's very much a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff in the online world and it is very easy to get stuck in an echo chamber, because people seem to be becoming less open to differing opinions. Even I'm finding myself getting this way, and I find the world to be a harder place to understand because of it. It is definitely enhancing the feeling of 'Us vs them' be the 'them' Muslims or Democrats or Republicans or Conservatives or Russians or Chinese or Black People or White People.
I also don't see a solution to the problem, but I see it becoming a catastrophic problem for mankind, particularly when unscrupulous people tap into that divide for their own purposes and then have to feed that divide in order to stay in power.
A hard rain is gonna fall I think. :hmmm:
I blame Oberon he put me up to this you know.
You'll be posting gifs next. :nope: :O:
For Trump is an honest man...
Tape shows Trump contradicting himself (again) on Putin meeting:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tape-shows-trump-contradicting-himself-again-on-putin-meeting-213245455.html
One big problem for pathological liars: it gets harder and harder to keep your stories straight...
<O>
Clinton Inc exposed for what it was
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-inc-exposed-for-what-it-was/article/2612026
It was always obvious that the Clinton Foundation was not simply a charity. As Hillary's opponents but also neutral observers discerned, Hillary was a coin-operated policymaker and the Clinton Foundation and CGI were toll collectors for access to her State Department and a future Clinton administration.
It was always obvious to those who weren't too blind to see.
Pots and kettles, glass houses, first to throw stones, etc., etc. ...
Washington Post Details Possible Illegal Payments by Trump Foundation:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/washington-post-details-possible-illegal-payments-by-trump-foundation
Trump pays IRS a penalty for his foundation violating rules with gift to aid Florida attorney general:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-pays-irs-a-penalty-for-his-foundation-violating-rules-with-gift-to-florida-attorney-general/
Donald Trump is going to appoint Pam Bondi, who got an illegal payment from the Trump Foundation, to a White House spot:
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/05/donald-trump-is-going-to-appoint-pam-bondi-who-got-an-illegal-payment-from/
Trump Decries His Foundation's Closure, Overstating Its Giving:
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/27/507143418/trump-decries-his-foundations-closure-overstating-its-giving
John 8:32: "...And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free ..."
Apparently, among other things, Trump is heavily into bondage... :haha:
<O>
Apparently, among other things, Trump is heavily into bondage... :haha:
<O>
Explains the new special relationship between the US and Russia. :03:
Explains the new special relationship between the US and Russia. :03:
Is this all you people have, unsubstantiated rumors, snarky comments and sexual innuendo? :rolleyes:
Is this all you people have, unsubstantiated rumors, snarky comments and sexual innuendo? :rolleyes:
Would you prefer if we grabbed Obama's birth certificate? :hmmm:
Would you prefer if we grabbed Obama's birth certificate? :hmmm:
Maybe you should ask Clinton as it's her people who started the whole scandal.
Besides if Trump starts dropping F-bombs in his Tweets are you going to post those as well or is demeaning women something you're into?
Maybe you should ask Clinton as it's her people who started the whole scandal.
Besides if Trump starts dropping F-bombs in his Tweets are you going to post those as well or is demeaning women something you're into?
I could post them, but it would upset Steve and Jim, so I'll leave that. Demeaning women? Sure, why not, it's the presidential way! :rock:
Mr Quatro
01-18-17, 12:19 PM
Happy days are here :up:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-come-moving-vans-spotted-221627353.html
With just three days to go until President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, movers were spotted Tuesday hauling boxes and furniture off of two big trucks and into the new D.C. digs of Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha Obama.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2210838-report-clinton-foundation-shutters-clinton-global-initiative/
Report: Clinton Foundation Shutters Clinton Global Initiative
The Clinton Foundation has filed a notice with the New York Department of Labor saying that 22 employees with the main office of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) will lose their jobs as a result of the “discontinuation of the [CGI],” essentially marking the end of the organization.
Reason un-given is that no one can benefit anymore from giving to the Clinton's :D
St Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Onkel Neal
01-18-17, 03:21 PM
Happy days are here :up:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/time-come-moving-vans-spotted-221627353.html
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2210838-report-clinton-foundation-shutters-clinton-global-initiative/
Report: Clinton Foundation Shutters Clinton Global Initiative
Reason un-given is that no one can benefit anymore from giving to the Clinton's :D
St Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Man, that speaks volumes about the Clintons. Can't peddle influence without a political office.
Jeff-Groves
01-18-17, 06:21 PM
And people wonder why I don't hang out at SubSim much now days.
em2nought
01-18-17, 07:17 PM
It feels like tamarrow will never come! :03: It's worse than waiting for Christmas as a child(a child who learned how to spell most words even with snow days, and if I was too dumb to spell it I learned where I could find the proper spelling. No teacher firing required.).
Sounds like Bush Sr might be angling for 2017s Deadpool thread... :hmmm:
Bilge_Rat
01-19-17, 01:42 PM
From Rick Perry's confirmation hearing, a lighter moment with Al Franken:
https://youtu.be/FDJmWioKddQ?t=32
Bilge_Rat
01-19-17, 02:20 PM
so Al Franken in 2020?
He was elected in 2008 and mostly kept his head down so people would forget SNL, but with the diminished Dem bench, he has been given a more prominent role in the confirmation hearings and doing a good job:
https://youtu.be/i7H3wkj-fZs?t=350
Meanwhile, we do have an obvious breakout star from these confirmation hearings on the Democratic side: Sen. Al Franken, the only senator who’s repeatedly drawn blood from the nominees.
First came Sessions, whom Franken embarrassed -- by the end of the questioning, it appeared that Sessions had embellished his record of prosecuting civil rights cases. Then he scored a direct hit against the pick for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, who came across as ignorant after Franken asked her about the proficiency-versus-growth debate among education wonks. He asked her what metric should be used to judge test scores: proficiency, which correlates with how much a student knows about a subject given certain baselines, or growth, which correlates with how much a student has improved.
Befuddled by the question, DeVos confused proficiency with growth. Franken corrected her. DeVos immediately looked like someone with a shaky grasp of the issues she’s supposed to adjudicate. Franken looked tough, savvy and knowledgeable – the kind of Democrat who can make his Republican opponents look dumb.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-al-franken-is-the-ideal-democrat-for-the-age-of-trump/
Obama better hurry up if he will implement martial law before Trump is taking the oath and thereby staying in the White House.
Read a comment yesterday, where someone claimed Obama would do this, so if the persons fear that this will happen, Obama better hurry up.
I understand that a President can use some decree 51.
From what I understand, a President that use this decree has to defend his or her move in front of either the Senat, Congress or House of representatives
Of course Obama is not going to do such a thing.
Tomorrow Trump is taking the oath and give his speech.
Markus
I understand that a President can use some decree 51.
The National and Commercial Space Program? :hmmm:
Could use an orbital bombardment I guess. :hmmm:
Unless of course you're talking about this:
The Military Governor or his deputy may issue written directives to take all or some of the following actions or measures, and may refer violations to military courts:
a. Impose restrictions on the freedom of persons in terms of holding meetings, residence, transport, movements, and detaining suspects or people threatening public security and order on a temporary basis, authorizing the conducting of investigations related to both persons and places at any time, and requesting any person to perform any task.
b. Monitor all types of letters, phone calls, newspapers, bulletins, books, drawings, publications, broadcasts, and all forms of expression, propaganda, and advertisements prior to publication. It is required to seize, confiscate, discard, cancel their concession and close their printers’ shops.
c. Specify the times during which public places are opened and closed.
d. Withdraw licenses for keeping arms, ammunitions, explosive materials and other types of explosives, withdraw their delivery orders and seize such materials and close arms stores.
e. Evacuate or isolate some areas, organize transportation vehicles, restrict and limit transportation between different areas.
f. Seize any movable property or real estate, impose temporary guarding on companies and firms, and postpone due debts and liabilities incurred on the seized portion of the property or real estate.
g. Specify punishments imposed on violations of these orders provided that the punishments are not more than imprisonment for three years and a fine of S£3000 or either punishment. In the event that the order does not specify the punishment for violation of such rules, the perpetrator of the violation should be punished by imprisonment for a period of not more than 6 months and a fine of S£500 or by either punishment.
However, all the above mentioned punishments should not be incompatible with the stronger punishments indicated within other laws.
Which is actually from Syria.
Besides, Obama is a Star Wars fan, it would be Order 66, not 51. :nope:
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/791/424/84b.jpg
Oh, found it now, National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Decree, aka HSPD 51.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidenti al_Directive
A catastrophic emergency...well...
http://www.tulsatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BarackObamaKing.jpg
ALL HAIL KAISER OBAMA!! :yeah:
Oh, found it now, National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Decree, aka HSPD 51.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidenti al_Directive
A catastrophic emergency...well...
http://www.tulsatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/BarackObamaKing.jpg
ALL HAIL KAISER OBAMA!! :yeah:
I made some comment to this person's posting. In my first comment I wrote It ain't that easy for him to do such a thing.
Then someone wrote that he could do so. So I made a search and found the same wiki-page as you did and some article.
I don't know whether a President has to defend his or her step I presume that he or she has to. To declare Martial Law is not just some small step and when it's really no reason to make such a move I guess a President would have very difficult to defend this move.
(I tried to find the answer to my question)
Markus
Onkel Neal
01-19-17, 09:52 PM
Well, so long Obama, enjoy retirement!:Kaleun_Applaud:
Tomorrow should be the start of interesting times. I hope none of the people attending the Presidential inauguration are injured or killed by rioting extremists.
Should be interesting, certainly.
Wonder if we'll see scenes like this:
http://i.imgur.com/tnv2oz4.jpg
http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20090120/inauguration_3_crop.jpg
I mean, those million bikers are going to have to park somewhere, aren't they? :hmmm:
Jimbuna
01-20-17, 06:49 AM
Today is the dawn of a new era and hopefully a positive one for the people of the USA.
ikalugin
01-20-17, 07:12 AM
MAGA!
Meanwhile more memes:
http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/russia-vladimir-putin-cartoon-1200x628.jpg
Should be interesting, certainly.
Wonder if we'll see scenes like this:
Shaping up that way although the expected rain may dampen the enthusiasm a bit.
Shaping up that way although the expected rain may dampen the enthusiasm a bit.
Does seem so:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2oAaafWIAUz3sY.jpg
Indeed, welcome President Yubba Trump.
Does seem so:
Well that depends on exactly when each picture was taken. Am I looking at an image from 8:30am?
AVGWarhawk
01-20-17, 12:31 PM
Let the games begin!!! :o
Commander and Tweet!
Um, did anyone tell Trump he actually won? His speech was just a rehash of the other speeches he gave on the campaign trail, nothing really new or compelling. I'd read and heard he was writing his own speech rather than use speechwriters, but this sounded like he gave the occasion very little, if any, thought or preparation...
<O>
Onkel Neal
01-20-17, 12:58 PM
I don't think Trump was ever going to be good for memorable oration.
USA is going to protectionism. Welcome to the medieval. :haha:
This day the world will be change to worse. It goes dark.
Sorry disturbing the party.
Onkel Neal
01-20-17, 01:08 PM
It's ok, we'll survive.
Onkel Neal
01-20-17, 01:09 PM
Um, did anyone tell Trump he actually won? His speech was just a rehash of the other speeches he gave on the campaign trail, nothing really new or compelling. I'd read and heard he was writing his own speech rather than use speechwriters, but this sounded like he gave the occasion very little, if any, thought or preparation...
<O>
What he says doesn't matter, it's what he does that counts
Aktungbby
01-20-17, 01:10 PM
I don't think Trump was ever going to be good for memorable oration. What he says doesn't matter, it's what he does that counts
:sign_yeah:Let's hope he's not good for 'memorable' anything in the coming four years ...:damn: I'll settle for 'no hits' 'no runs' and emphatically 'no errors' with regard to Putin, N. Korea, & ISIS. :k_confused:
At least all the 'America First' stuff from the 1930s will be useful again for people who've held onto it. :hmmm: They say that if you wait long enough anything comes back into style.
I don't think Trump was ever going to be good for memorable oration.
That was always a given; eloquence is not his strong suit. But there were a couple of times during the campaign when he seemed to allow someone to help him with his speeches and the result was, if not spectacular or quotable, at least serviceable and gave a linearity and cohesion to his normally rambling style. He could have used an assist at least for such a widely viewed occasion; it will be interesting to see what those in other countries think of his spiel...
<O>
BTW, for those looking for possible omens or signs, note was made of Trump taking his oath on two Bibles stacked together. The only other President to take his oath on two stacked Bibles: Richard M. Nixon. Double Bibles couldn't prevent what happened to him...
<O>
it will be interesting to see what those in other countries think of his spiel...
<O>
"Trump gives me outbreaks of sweat", his German translator says. "He is so contradictory that people think the translator talks rubbish."
:yep::yep::yep:
Rockstar
01-20-17, 01:27 PM
I really do hope we call our troops home and withdraw from NATO and Europe.
What comes next if Trump says the US did not protect the borders of other countries? What does Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Taiwan, Korea and many others think when they look over their border? 70 years the world was dominated by the US. And now - make what you want? We've got 2 Mio Refugees in 2015. I hope not the US get their 200 Mio in 2017 :(
Catfish
01-20-17, 01:53 PM
I really do hope we call our troops home and withdraw from NATO and Europe.
Yes, please do.
Also, India was probably astonished you could get rid of England just by voting.
^ When it comes to South Korea I can say what my subsim friends have told before.
US military is not in SK to help or protect SK against NK, but to prevent SK to overrun NK. So if USA should leave SK, it would mean SK would overrun NK.
Europe-Many expert say Russia would be defeated if they attacked on of the former WP member, If this was with USA or without USA in their mind I don't know.
End of military thoughts
I hope Trump will give the Americans new hope for the Future and I hope that American citizens, in some years from now can look back and say-Hey Trump is doing a great job as our President.
Hopefully it will not be years of despair.
Markus
Quote:
"Trump gives me outbreaks of sweat", his German translator says. "He is so contradictory that people think the translator talks rubbish."
:yep::yep::yep:
...and given the results of the popular vote last November, a majority of the US electorate thought Trump talked rubbish in plain English...
The translation issue has always interested me; I've known a lot of people from other countries and have often been surprised at some of the ways they have misconstrued speeches and statements made by our leaders and politicians. One young lady from China once explained to me how some of the translators in the media in China, seeking to make their translations relatable to their audiences, will throw in distinctly Chinese colloquialisms as part of a translation; she said the results can often be vastly different from the original meaning(s)...
This all reminds me of a scene from Woody Allen's film "Bananas":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lQFIZw9qog
<O>
I really do hope we call our troops home and withdraw from NATO and Europe.
Indeed, then when China nukes you we won't get the fallout. :yep:
nikimcbee
01-20-17, 02:31 PM
I really do hope we call our troops home and withdraw from NATO and Europe.
The NATO treaty could use some updating.
Rockin Robbins
01-20-17, 02:31 PM
...and given the results of the popular vote last November, a majority of the US electorate thought Trump talked rubbish in plain English...
<O>
Actually if you take the votes in 49 states, letting the Socialist Republic of California slide into the ocean, Trump won the popular vote by 4 million. To have let California alone overturn the wishes of the other 49 states would have been the height of tyranny, but of course the left wing will say ANYTHING to justify their lunacy.
Of course, they will all get to vote on whether "progressives" (we need to redefine the term to mean something good, not bad) decide to be useful or irrelevant to the future. I was afraid Trump might have lost sight of the most important thing he can accomplish, but his remarks yesterday morning tell me that his eye is squarely on the ball.
Get yourself an electoral map, divided by county, not state. Look for those counties that voted majority Democrat (well, Hillary if you don't believe she represented the best of what the Democratic Party has to offer). Almost all the sources of Democratic electoral votes came from the rotten, poverty and crime ridden inner cities Democrats have controlled with an iron hand since the 1930s. They buy those votes cheaply, with just enough free stuff to keep their voters alive until their next vote. Those areas are full of despair, predatory behavior, poverty, drugs, gangs and lack of opportunity.
Trump has a clear road to changing all that. He can approach companies with hundreds of billions of dollars stranded in a progressively unfriendly world and our highest corporate taxes in the world give him the leverage to induce them to come back when and where Trump chooses.
If he entices a hundred companies to come back home, relocate to the blighted inner cities under an agreement that in exchange for lower taxes and forgiving penalties, they would have to agree to stay in their new locations for 30 years and hire a certain high number of workers who live there now.
Instead of miserly handouts, these people would have great jobs and opportunity. They would all have health insurance coverage. They would be out from under the stupid government hoops they've jumped through for 70 years to get barely enough to survive.
If this succeeds, where do Democratic votes come from then? There just wouldn't be any. So what do the Democrats do? Do they fight prosperity? They probably will, and lose. And they lose relevancy in the American political system for a half century afterwards.
Or do they have the sense of President Clinton and sign on, sharing the credit? But remember, the precedent is already set. When Newt Gingrich balanced the budget and created the surplus that is the enduring legacy of President Clinton, Clinton stabbed him in the back. That being the precedent, who could blame Republicans for forcing the Democrats to go along and then knifing them when the plan succeeds? It would be justice.
But it would be bad for the country. Two healthy parties are absolutely necessary for at least one of them to be in the best interest of the country. With nobody to keep them in their place the most ruthless always rise to the top. In such a scenario there are no good guys anywhere alive.
If Trump is thinking straight, Democrats are at his mercy. If we have learned anything in the past eighteen months, it should be never to underestimate Donald Trump. He is not a cartoon villian. He just plays one on TV.
Platapus
01-20-17, 02:33 PM
I often wonder what former presidents do on the morning of 21 January.
It has got to be quite the sudden change. The former president was still "on duty" the morning of 20 Jan and got the same briefings and perhaps had to go to the same meetings.
But all that changes the morning of 21 Jan. I bet it is quite the stressful change. On one hand, I believe that there has to be a sense of relief with outgoing presidents. It is, after all, a stressful and thankless job, but on the other hand to switch intellectual gears that quickly. That's gotta be rough.
In some ways, it may be similar to combat troops coming home. I am sure there is a period of adjustment that might not be that easy.
I would imagine the first thing would be that the former president can take a nice long poop in the morning with out having to read or talk to anyone. :D
nikimcbee
01-20-17, 02:39 PM
I often wonder what former presidents do on the morning of 21 January.
It has got to be quite the sudden change. The former president was still "on duty" the morning of 20 Jan and got the same briefings and perhaps had to go to the same meetings.
But all that changes the morning of 21 Jan. I bet it is quite the stressful change. On one hand, I believe that there has to be a sense of relief with outgoing presidents. It is, after all, a stressful and thankless job, but on the other hand to switch intellectual gears that quickly. That's gotta be rough.
In some ways, it may be similar to combat troops coming home. I am sure there is a period of adjustment that might not be that easy.
I would imagine the first thing would be that the former president can take a nice long poop in the morning with out having to read or talk to anyone. :D
I was gunna guess eternal golf vacation.
Seems to me that former presidents look noticeably more youthful and vibrant once they emerge from their post inauguration blues.
Maybe Obama can live a lesser stressful life, but there's one thing he has to take with him and that is people from Secret Service, which is sadly that a former President need lifetime protection. I could understand while he was the President, but that now after he have retired.
So he and his family is not free and that is very sad indeed.
Markus
Mr Quatro
01-20-17, 02:55 PM
I often wonder what former presidents do on the morning of 21 January.
:D
Michele Obama gets to learn how to make a western omelet for her husband and keep the toast warm and the coffee hot. :D
She did look a little down in the few moments I saw her today, but I would think a big load is off of Obama's shoulders with that black box turned over to POTUS Trump's envoy's.
I even enjoyed his ra ra speech to put America first, put America jobs first, to give back to America the riches that they have been robbed of by _________
fill in the blanks.
I hope he can deliver. One thing I know for sure every word he said will be quoted back to him before the next election. If he can produce a winning team working to put America first. Then he will get four more years to finish the job. A war costing trillions or a tidal wave on the west coast could ruin his whole day and his come back trial for the white house.
One noticeable item showing on NBC right now are the discontented rebel rouser's disrupting the same avenue's and street that the Presidential parade is fixing to travel down after they finish lunch in the Capitol building.
I see smoke and lots of police and bricks being thrown through limnos parked on side street's.
What I see is not good ... I don't think it is without someone's organized funding.
Know what I mean?
Commander Wallace
01-20-17, 03:01 PM
Seems to me that former presidents look noticeably more youthful and vibrant once they emerge from their post inauguration blues.
Only former presidents or heads of state can know the strains their positions put on them. They of course signed up for it. I would imagine that after 8 years, the former president(s) would be only too happy to not have that responsibility any longer. If you get more sleep, you tend to look more rejuvenated. :yep:
Hopefully, the country can come together within the framework of not only the Constitution but also our common interests and the well being of the Country as a whole and it's people.
Rockin Robbins
01-20-17, 03:14 PM
Chances are former Presidents heave a tremendous sign of relief that disaster didn't befall them or the country on their watch. Destiny is not something that can be strictly controlled and survival equals victory sometimes!
Skybird
01-20-17, 03:19 PM
She did look a little down in the few moments I saw her today
Who knows what it was that Ivana Trump gave her as a present earlier this day. :D
AVGWarhawk
01-20-17, 03:25 PM
Chances are former Presidents heave a tremendous sign of relief that disaster didn't befall them or the country on their watch. Destiny is not something that can be strictly controlled and survival equals victory sometimes!
I'm certain, in their mind(presidents), a heavy load is lifted off their shoulders. It is not an easy job at all.
AVGWarhawk
01-20-17, 03:31 PM
I often wonder what former presidents do on the morning of 21 January.
It has got to be quite the sudden change. The former president was still "on duty" the morning of 20 Jan and got the same briefings and perhaps had to go to the same meetings.
But all that changes the morning of 21 Jan. I bet it is quite the stressful change. On one hand, I believe that there has to be a sense of relief with outgoing presidents. It is, after all, a stressful and thankless job, but on the other hand to switch intellectual gears that quickly. That's gotta be rough.
In some ways, it may be similar to combat troops coming home. I am sure there is a period of adjustment that might not be that easy.
I would imagine the first thing would be that the former president can take a nice long poop in the morning with out having to read or talk to anyone. :D
I would hope the president(retired) would find some peace with himself and the job he has done. It is a thankless job then entails 24/7 attention.
AVGWarhawk
01-20-17, 03:34 PM
Michele Obama gets to learn how to make a western omelet for her husband and keep the toast warm and the coffee hot. :D
She did look a little down in the few moments I saw her today, but I would think a big load is off of Obama's shoulders with that black box turned over to POTUS Trump's envoy's.
Michelle is NOT cooking a damn thing and will not from here on out. Michelle did not look down. She looked disgusted standing next to the pasty orange guy.
I need your help guys
CNN and other news media have this evening shown a double photo glued together-The picture on the left is from 2009 and the picture is from today(2017)
On the picture to the left you can see thousands and thousands of people, while there's only some thousands of people on the Right picture
I Have read comments that the picture has been manipulated somehow.
The only manipulation I can think of is when these pictures was taken on that day- Example the left picture was taken about 11.30 local time(2009) and the second was taken about 8.00 or 9.00 local time(2017).
Markus
AVGWarhawk
01-20-17, 03:36 PM
Who knows what it was that Ivana Trump gave her as a present earlier this day. :D
A box of laxatives or a pair Don's undies. From the looks of Michelle she did not know what to say or do with the gift.
AVGWarhawk
01-20-17, 03:38 PM
I need your help guys
CNN and other news media have this evening shown a double photo glued together-The picture on the left is from 2009 and the picture is from today(2017)
On the picture to the left you can see thousands and thousands of people, while there's only some thousands of people on the Right picture
I Have read comments that the picture has been manipulated somehow.
The only manipulation I can think of is when these pictures was taken on that day- Example the left picture was taken about 11.30 local time(2009) and the second was taken about 8.00 or 9.00 local time(2017).
Markus
If it is coming from CNN it is manipulated. Much like the rest of the news that is presented to the public by CNN.
At the end of the day who cares how many attended? If there was less the reason is PROTESTERS promising problems. Who wants to walk into that?
Rockin Robbins
01-20-17, 04:33 PM
I need your help guys
CNN and other news media have this evening shown a double photo glued together-The picture on the left is from 2009 and the picture is from today(2017)
On the picture to the left you can see thousands and thousands of people, while there's only some thousands of people on the Right picture
I Have read comments that the picture has been manipulated somehow.
The only manipulation I can think of is when these pictures was taken on that day- Example the left picture was taken about 11.30 local time(2009) and the second was taken about 8.00 or 9.00 local time(2017).
Markus
I don't care whether the picture was manipulated or not. Certainly the crowds were manipulated in 2009, with people crying and saying "Now I don't ever have to worry about my car payments ever again," low information voters who thought Obama could wave his magic wand and transform their lives into prosperity.
Well, in one aspect, 2009 was a historic time, where beyond a shadow of a doubt it was demonstrated that a majority of white voters would vote for a black candidate, where nobody every could say again that to be black was to be forever outside of the right to be taken seriously, to be respected, trusted and relied upon. It was a powerful demonstration that we are NOT a racist country, that the only limits we endure are the limits we put on ourselves. In that alone the event was worthy of the crowds. But that was NOT why they were there.
This is not to say that there aren't bad people out there, but when the chips are down, just as in the Civil War, just as in the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the majority of Americans are for righting the wrongs of the past, rising above the shortsightedness of their ancestors and doing the right thing.
Then Obama ran the country for eight years based on the busted premise that racism was rampant in the police forces of our large cities. Those are the cities with Democratic governments since the 1930s, with black police commissioners and plenty of black mayors and elected officials. Their actions were proffered and accepted by many as evidence of a racist United States. Hogwash! The people who put forth such rubbish don't deserve to govern. And they are not any longer.
It's time to take our cities back. It's time to rehabilitate those who have stayed in those smoking piles of debris, to absorb the great cost of making up for the 75 years they have been shamelessly ( can't say f*e*c*klessly here on Subsim)exploited by those pretending to be their defenders and to provide a genuine chance of success and prosperity. Don't give them squat except the chance to earn self-respect, genuine worth and the good life that comes from their own hard work.
Those people in the inner cities are smart as any of us, and they are tough too. Those are powerful tools for success for any company who wants to benefit from their efforts. Helping them is the solution to all our economic problems. As of now they are a big drain on the economy. They can be a supercharger for our economic engine if we do the right thing. It's not the most urgent, but it is the most important thing that Trump has the opportunity to accomplish.
Rockstar
01-20-17, 04:34 PM
I don't think Trump was ever going to be good for memorable oration.
It may not have given anyone here the feeling Chris Mathews had when President Obama spoke. But the nice part about President Trump's speech is I dont think he referred to himself once the entire time he spoke.
Onkel Neal
01-20-17, 05:14 PM
President Trump.
President Trump. And the good news we are all still here and not vaporize in a nuclear Armageddon. Well that's the first load of rubbish put to rest by those who said Trump will blow us all up within minutes of taking office. :03:
So lets see if Trump will make America great again. :ping:
Jeff-Groves
01-20-17, 05:37 PM
It's not Trump that will make America great again.
He may inspire the People of America to take back the power to do that.
But it's all up to the People.
Always has been.
Buddahaid
01-20-17, 05:43 PM
We're even more screwed than I thought then.:O:
Jeff-Groves
01-20-17, 05:53 PM
Kind of like Survivors on an Island.
If they don't all pull together they are screwed.
I'm building a boat.
:o
Or waiting for a friend to buy one.
:)
ikalugin
01-20-17, 05:57 PM
So did Trump sighn anything interesting?
Jeff-Groves
01-20-17, 06:00 PM
I'm pretty sure he did the "Stuck my thumb in a pie" thing.
Remains to see if he pulled out a plum.
From now on, every issues in the U.S. is in good hand and will be solved, period.
This thread should be closed immediately.
Failing to do so will be considered as a lack of patriotism and will be severely punished.
You have been warned.
And the good news we are all still here and not vaporize in a nuclear Armageddon. Well that's the first load of rubbish put to rest by those who said Trump will blow us all up within minutes of taking office. :03:
So lets see if Trump will make America great again. :ping:
I was thinking almost the same thing, after have read all these negative comment
I got this imaginary picture in my head
Scene right after Mr Trump have taken the oath.
Trump to the public-I know I suppose to hold a speech, you have to wait I have something to do first, it will take 5-10 minutes, then I will give my speech.
Scene 2. Trump return to the scene and the microphones.
Trump to the public. Trump make his speech, right after he have said God Save America, he caught and say to the people around the area and to those who's watching it on TV or Internet.
"I have given the military order to send every nuke we have to wards Russia, China, North Korea and some other countries, including some in the Middle East
America are going to be great again"
I know a very weird imaginary thinking.
Markus
Jeff-Groves
01-20-17, 07:53 PM
It don't work that way no matter what Hollywood would have you believe.
Aktungbby
01-20-17, 08:02 PM
Should be interesting, certainly.
Wonder if we'll see scenes like this:
I mean, those million bikers are going to have to park somewhere, aren't they? :hmmm: https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0Qj6-ZHCaOypXERBAVBJ5LnmbuM=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7843605/crowd_split_social_y.jpg Donald Trump said his inauguration would have "record-setting turnout (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/movies/trump-meryl-streep-golden-globes-speech.html?_r=0)," but a quick glance at bird's-eye photos of his event and Barack Obama's in 2009 shows how far that claim is from the truth. In recent days, various groups estimated that the crowd for Trump was likely to be between 700,000 and 900,000 (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Trump-Inauguration-Crowd-Estimates-410559995.html) people. In 2009, an estimated 1.8 million people (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103884.html)flocked to the National Mall to watch the swearing-in of the nation's first black president. the thousands who’d flocked to the Mall extended less than half the distance to the Washington Monument. Attendees reported short lines at several security gates. Morning commuters to Washington talked of nearly empty cars on the D.C. subway.
An astonishing 10,000 charter buses (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/08/AR2008120803650.html) applied for permits for Obama's event; for Trump' (http://’/)s swearing-in, only 200 buses (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/200-buses-have-applied-for-inauguration-parking-1200-for-the-womens-march_us_5878e7dfe4b09281d0ea697f) applied. In 2009, 98 percent (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/NATL-The-Presidential-Inauguration-by-the-Numbers--185774591.html)of the city's hotel rooms were sold out. As of this Thursday afternoon, there appeared to be plenty of (https://twitter.com/ByronTau/status/822182697531482112)hotel rooms (https://twitter.com/ngeidner/status/822112071240257536)available. And while Obama's inauguration was a star-studded event (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/08/obama-inauguration-celebr_n_156257.html), many celebrities declined to perform (http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/1/17/14295904/who-is-performing-at-trump-inauguration-three-doors-down) at Trump's ceremony, leaving him with bands that have almost completely faded from memory.
It's all over but the crying of the left,,, now I do not have to cater to mental illnesses,, unearth your work boots ,,get a haircut,, and get ready to go back to work,, and unfundamentally change this country..
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0Qj6-ZHCaOypXERBAVBJ5LnmbuM=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7843605/crowd_split_social_y.jpg
yes there was a lot more would be dissappointed people on the right side of that picture. [2009] I sure was what a waste he could have been great but nnoooooooooooo,..
Jeff-Groves
01-20-17, 08:20 PM
Who could afford the trip?
Who could afford the trip?
more like who wanted to be at ground zero,,,Blew through DC,, Monday what a mad house ,, back in Florida now just watched a Atlas launch go America.
It's all over but the crying of the left,,, now I do not have to cater to mental illnesses,, unearth your work boots ,,get a haircut,, and get ready to go back to work,, and unfundamentally change this country..
I'm not going to argue with yubba anymore, he is proving his ignorance very well all on his own! Too much Call of Duty is having an effect on his line of thinking. Unfundamentally???? What is that?
Buddahaid
01-20-17, 11:04 PM
No let him free.... It's very educational, seriously.
I'm not going to argue with yubba anymore,
He doesn't have to cater to mental illnesses, so why should you? :03:
Buddahaid
01-20-17, 11:09 PM
He doesn't have to cater to mental illnesses, so why should you? :03:
Whaa....
http://3e8srg4b6qwh33x5ic36aap8.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/image00-1.gif
I think we should go with the flow and make Yubba moderator. :yep:
em2nought
01-21-17, 01:02 AM
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0Qj6-ZHCaOypXERBAVBJ5LnmbuM=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7843605/crowd_split_social_y.jpg
So you really think Trump supporters want to visit the swamp? He has to clean it up first. :03:
Buddahaid
01-21-17, 01:06 AM
No, thems gators in da swamp, foo....:Kaleun_Salute:
So you really think Trump supporters want to visit the swamp? He has to clean it up first. :03:
Got to admit, I wasn't aware that you cleaned up a swamp by adding more swamp to it. :hmmm:
Schroeder
01-21-17, 07:03 AM
I'm not going to argue with yubba anymore, he is proving his ignorance very well all on his own!
You've been on the board since 2005 and you only noticed that now?:o:doh:
Jimbuna
01-21-17, 08:10 AM
No more disparaging remarks toward community members if you'd all be so kind.
I'm not going to argue with yubba anymore, he is proving his ignorance very well all on his own! Too much Call of Duty is having an effect on his line of thinking. Unfundamentally???? What is that?
Call of Duty at least I did it in real life,,, I guess it's the contaminated water talking that I injested at Le Juene,for 4 years, far as I know I'm all ready dead,,.. But at Least I can follow the rule of law in this great nation something you can't even do in this forum,, funny I say something like that,,and I draw a notification,, like I have been always saying if it weren't for double standards liberals wouldn't have any,,.. I'm sorry that I missed the classes on how unicorns give away free stuff.
I guess it's the contaminated water talking that I injested at Le Juene,for 4 years
It's Lejeune. How does a guy who spent four whole years there get the spelling so wrong?
It's Lejeune. How does a guy who spent four whole years there get the spelling so wrong?
I am Marine I don't care, must be the water effected my spellin, oh e before u oh well.. I though i seplled injested wrong.
Tango589
01-21-17, 09:56 AM
The last speech of the Inauguration should be an announcement that:
"Mr President, you have a maximum of 8 years to see how badly you can balls this country up. Your time starts.....now!"
Platapus
01-21-17, 10:54 AM
[QUOTE=AVGWarhawk;2459411]If it is coming from News media it is manipulated. Much like the rest of the news that is presented to the public by News media.
Fixed that for ya. :03:
All news-as-profit media stynks these days.
Rockstar
01-21-17, 12:03 PM
[QUOTE=AVGWarhawk;2459411]If it is coming from News media it is manipulated. Much like the rest of the news that is presented to the public by News media.
Fixed that for ya. :03:
All news-as-profit media stynks these days.
Particularly internetz media and those claiming to have all the facts. They make their money by the number of clicks they get. They target particular audiences basically reporting exactly what they want hear so they keep right on clicking away.
Basically:
http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/156029/trust-no-one.jpg
[QUOTE=Platapus;2459599]
Particularly internetz media and those claiming to have all the facts. They make their money by the number of clicks they get. They target particular audiences basically reporting exactly what they want hear so they keep right on clicking away.
It's pretty much what daddy Soros wants you too hear in the main stream media.
Rockin Robbins
01-21-17, 02:22 PM
The last speech of the Inauguration should be an announcement that:
"Mr President, you have a maximum of 8 years to see how badly you can balls this country up. Your time starts.....now!"
And make no mistake about that, we have great examples from history beginning with Andrew Jackson:
Jackson somehow got the idea that national banks and mints were evil. Not thinking too much about why economies work and how, he closed the National Bank and shut down the mint, leaving private banks to print all money. Well, what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that plan?
A merchant in Florida had no way of knowing whether that dollar bill issued from the First Bank of Atlanta was any good or not. That's a propblem.. NO, that's a GREAT OPPORTUNITY. Suddenly more than half the money in circulation was conterfeit. And because that was most of the money that was, the populace supported counterfeiters. All money was just about worthless and even with the counterfeiters, there wasn't enough to buy anything. For 20 years middle class people actually starved to death in our largest cities. In addition, Jackson's parrot swore so colorfully he had to be ejected from Jackson's funeral. Trump's chances of living down to that standard are about zero.
Woodrow Wilson
This guy walked into a pretty well designed government. One if its better features was that the individual states had actual representation in the Legislature. There was no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" where the legislators, unable to figure out a way to fund what they wanted, just hands it over to the states, "you are required to do and pay for this!" That was because each state appointed two representatives from state legislatures to sit on the, you guessed it, United States Senate.
Totally removing all direct state influence on the Federal Government, Wilson remade the Senate into nothing more than a duplication of the functions of the House of Representatives, permanently destroying the carefully contrived balance of power and establishing the Imperial Federal Government, which rules unchecked over the affairs of states.
Trump could run on the premise of the "forgotten Americans" because Woodrow Wilson remade our Republican form of goverment in his own image, making us into two countries, each fighting for our lives: inside the beltway and outside the beltway. The haves and the flyovers.
Thank you Woodrow Wilson. Second worst president in history.
But number three is the only one who could reasonably be accused of treason and genocide: Andrew Johnson, president right after Lincoln was shot. Thanks to Lincoln's policies of reconciliation plus rigid enforecement of emancipation, meaning that former slaves had rights to equal respect, responsibility, consequence and reward as any southern plantation owner, governments from local to state to national had great representation from black mayors, black assemblymen, black representatives and senators on the state and national levels from the entire south.
However, Andrew Johnson was an unreconstructed Rebel. And his constitutional duty was to administrate and enforce the laws of the United States of America. He did no such thing. He declared a national holiday on civil rights, giving reactionary southern bigots the green light to murder, lynch, disenfranchise, and worse. Overnight, black representation in all levels of government fell to zero. Again, a black man had no rights a white man was bound to respect. What ten years ago was the defeat of a morally bankrupt southern plantation system turned into a Confederate rout. This wasn't victory, it was eradication. Southerners everywhere rejoiced. Principled Yankee senators (real senators in those days) and Representatives impeached Johnson for his heinous acts. The conviction failed by one vote, which John F Kennedy celebrated in his famous book Profiles in Courage. Kennedy cast it as "one courageous principled vote kept an innocent man from being railroaded." I'll choose to think that Kennedy was merely ignorant of the facts.
If you want to dub Johnson as worst president in history I won't stand in your way. He sucked worse than Trump even has any opportunity to screw the pooch.
I'd mention Obama and cite the 90 million people not part of the workforce, the greatest proportion in all history, plus the fact that unemployment statistics are so muddied that they will never again mean anything. While the economy burned, Obama fiddled with healthcare, a horribly expensive thing that the country had to get healthy again even to think about fooling with. I'd mention that the people who suffered most under his reign were the very ones who supported him the strongest, that Yes We Can became No We Didn't Even Try. He is the only president in history who did not have a single quarter of more than 3% annual growth rate in his entire eight years, that's thirty-two quarters! But nobody starved over 20 years. Half the population of certain states were not marked for murder by the other half. Obama didn't remake a carefully constructed governmental system to disenfranchise every state in the Union.
Whatever Obama did or didn't accomplish he's not in shouting distance of the famous Bottom Three Presidents. And Trump can't get there either. They were just too bad.
Catfish
01-21-17, 03:13 PM
How does Trump want "all those umemployed" get to work again?
The USA has an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent right now. This is a very good rate, compared to everywhere in the world :hmmm:
Jeff-Groves
01-21-17, 04:17 PM
Building walls?
:haha:
Yeah, I think people were right about the number of people attending Trumps inauguration, it seems that they've all arrived a day late. :hmmm:
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/480/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2017/1/21/bfc79671-478f-4ac7-98da-3313e1f50840.jpg
http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/201701/f_womens_march_170121.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg
Jeff-Groves
01-21-17, 04:27 PM
They are woman! What the heck did you expect?
:o
There would probably be twice that many but they couldn't follow the GPS on the phones due to texting or yapping.
em2nought
01-21-17, 05:25 PM
They are woman! What the heck did you expect?
:o
There would probably be twice that many but they couldn't follow the GPS on the phones due to texting or yapping.
bahahahahaha :D
How does Trump want "all those umemployed" get to work again?
The USA has an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent right now. This is a very good rate, compared to everywhere in the world :hmmm:
98 million out of the work force of 300 million you do the math
Mr Quatro
01-21-17, 06:29 PM
They are woman! What the heck did you expect?
:o
There would probably be twice that many but they couldn't follow the GPS on the phones due to texting or yapping.
at least none of those women are from subsim :woot:
can you imagine the amount of social media organization that took?
98 million out of the work force of 300 million you do the math
LOL Out of the 93.8 million Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age. Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)
LOL Out of the 93.8 million Americans age 16 and up who are deemed "not in the labor force," 9.7 million of them are between 16 and 19 years of age. Another 5.7 million are between 20 and 24. And 37.8 million are age 65 and over. (In fact, 17.5 million are over 75 years old.)
ain't denial a mutha ???
Rockstar
01-21-17, 07:48 PM
Basically:
http://images.techtimes.com/data/images/full/156029/trust-no-one.jpg
No I wouldn't say to trust no one instead I'd say dont be such a narrow minded bigoted extremist.
No I wouldn't say to trust no one instead I'd say dont be such a narrow minded bigoted extremist.
But if you can't trust the 'Lamestream media'™, and you can't trust "internetz media and those claiming to have all the facts", then who does that leave?
Rockstar
01-21-17, 09:08 PM
didnt say you cant trust anyone or media, we have to get our information from someplace. I just said I think its the number of 'clicks' that make the money on the intardnetz. The easist way for an outlet to make the dollars is simply target and audience and whats the best way to gain an audience? I figure it would be to tell them what they want to hear so the thoughts and feelings of the little snowflakes are validated and they'll keep coming back.
I was just tryin to say dont be such narrrow minded bigoted extremist when you search the intardnetz for information. Nor did I say it would be easy. As for me I get my breaking news reports here at Subsim where Im assured both sides of an arguement. :)
Buddahaid
01-21-17, 10:10 PM
But if you can't trust the 'Lamestream media'™, and you can't trust "internetz media and those claiming to have all the facts", then who does that leave?
Nuns.
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/35/4b/ce/354bce372c925ede3f8b8947e95d9283.jpg
How does Trump want "all those umemployed" get to work again?
The USA has an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent right now. This is a very good rate, compared to everywhere in the world :hmmm:
The unemployment rate only counts those currently collecting unemployment insurance. Once that runs out they are no longer included in that rate.
The more illuminating metric is The Labor Force Participation Rate. The percentage of the population over age 16 who currently have a job.
https://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2006_2016_all_period_M1 2_data.gif
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
As you can see not too good. Apparenly the lowest since the 1970's. n
I like the new White House Press Secretary, always wondered where he'd gone to:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yfAeMtcURg0/hqdefault.jpg
I like the new White House Press Secretary, always wondered where he'd gone to:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yfAeMtcURg0/hqdefault.jpg
BBC will hire any body.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=9312
Jimbuna
01-22-17, 09:15 AM
I wasn't impressed with the attitude or supposed accuracy of the first announcement given to the White House press corps by the White House press secretary Sean Spicer and despite the source I'm citing (which I normally neither trust or rate) this article appears to be accurate as I viewed it from further sources on tv last night.
A visibly upset White House press secretary Sean Spicer made journalists wait an hour on Saturday for a five-minute tongue lashing about 'deliberately false reporting' that he said has already become commonplace in the 30-hour-old Trump presidency.
Spicer blasted the White House press corps over a pair of tweets, criticized their coverage of President Donald Trump's afternoon visit with CIA employees, and upbraided them for their editors' decisions to report unconfirmed crowd-counts from Friday's inauguration.
'This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period! – both in person and around the globe,' Spicer claimed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4143874/Trump-think-1-5-million-watched-sworn-in.html
I wasn't impressed with the attitude or supposed accuracy of the first announcement given to the White House press corps by the White House press secretary Sean Spicer and despite the source I'm citing (which I normally neither trust or rate) this article appears to be accurate as I viewed it from further sources on tv last night.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4143874/Trump-think-1-5-million-watched-sworn-in.html
I love the fact that Trump said it was over a million, then Spicer said that they didn't know the numbers ('no one had numbers'), and then gave some numbers which added up to around 750k which according to him was the 'the largest audience to ever see an inauguration'. :yep:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdantUf5tXg
Bigly. :yeah:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=9315
Thought everyone was unemployed thanks to Obama? :O:
Thought everyone was unemployed thanks to Obama? :O:
Who buses unemployed Republicans to events for free and pay them to make a--es out of themselves,, Like the Democrats do ???? :hmmm:
Platapus
01-22-17, 11:02 AM
“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” -- John Clemens' kid Sammy
Buddahaid
01-22-17, 11:12 AM
Who buses unemployed Republicans to events for free and pay them to make a--es out of themselves,, Like the Democrats do ???? :hmmm:
I can't wait for the cigar to explode.
And I didn't know Democrats bused Republicans for free but I do know some Republicans make a__es out of themselves.
Who buses unemployed Republicans to events for free and pay them to make a--es out of themselves,, Like the Democrats do ???? :hmmm:
Probably those 'million bikers (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2456967&highlight=bikers#post2456967)' of yours that were supposed to show up at the inauguration, I guess that must have been part of the 1.5 million that Trump said showed up. I mean, Trump doesn't lie does he? He only tells the truth, because lying is what Hillar...sorry, 'Hitlery'™ does, and so Trump would never do that! :yep:
Onkel Neal
01-22-17, 12:05 PM
Who buses unemployed Republicans to events for free and pay them to make a--es out of themselves,, Like the Democrats do ???? :hmmm:
True that
Jeff-Groves
01-22-17, 02:23 PM
Probably those 'million bikers (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2456967&highlight=bikers#post2456967)' of yours that were supposed to show up at the inauguration,
They would have been there if the Dem's hadn't tricked them with 'Free Beer' signs everywhere.
Subnuts
01-22-17, 02:45 PM
A million bikers were going to come, but unfortunately, they all owned Harleys manufactured in the last decade, and 999,500 ended up breaking down before they could get within 10 miles of the Capitol building.
Jeff-Groves
01-22-17, 02:58 PM
More likely the trailers they hauled them on broke down.
Maybe those bikers shoulda had Yamahas or Hondas... :D
<O>
Jeff-Groves
01-22-17, 03:00 PM
Triumphs.
Aktungbby
01-22-17, 03:02 PM
Norton Commandos:up:
Catfish
01-22-17, 03:16 PM
BSAs!
As we in the US continue our descent into Orwellian hell, we now have to deal with outright lies...er, um...excuse me... "alternative facts":
Kellyanne Conway cites ‘alternative facts’ in tense interview with Chuck Todd over false crowd size claims:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kellyanne-conway-cites-alternative-facts-in-tense-interview-with-chuck-todd-over-false-crowd-size-claims-171242433.html
We are currently awaiting the Trump Reich's implementation of Kafkaesque "trials"...
<O>
Jeff-Groves
01-22-17, 03:22 PM
As we in the US continue our descent into Orwellian hell, we now have to deal with outright lies...er, um...excuse me... "alternative facts":
Kellyanne Conway cites ‘alternative facts’ in tense interview with Chuck Todd over false crowd size claims:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kellyanne-conway-cites-alternative-facts-in-tense-interview-with-chuck-todd-over-false-crowd-size-claims-171242433.html
We are currently awaiting the Trump Reich's implementation of Kafkaesque "trials"...
<O>
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
:o
Orwellian hell?
The Trump Reich's?
You in Colorado by chance? Cause you ARE smoking something.
As we in the US continue our descent into Orwellian hell, we now have to deal with outright lies...er, um...excuse me... "alternative facts":
Kellyanne Conway cites ‘alternative facts’ in tense interview with Chuck Todd over false crowd size claims:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kellyanne-conway-cites-alternative-facts-in-tense-interview-with-chuck-todd-over-false-crowd-size-claims-171242433.html
We are currently awaiting the Trump Reich's implementation of Kafkaesque "trials"...
<O>
Would you be so kind to clarify,, when we started our continued descent into a Orwellian hell,, Trump has only been President for 2 days,, you keep forgetting the Democrats have been in charge for the last decade starting in 2006 when they won both houses of congress.. We avoided your Orwellian nightmare by voting in Trump,, you want to be like the EU and ditch the Constitution you are free to move there by all means,,..We are the riches country in the world you are just mad that the folk you support were stopped dead in their tracks from stealing our country out from under us in the name new world order redistrabution.
Jeff-Groves
01-22-17, 04:55 PM
we now have to deal with outright lies
So. The E-mail scandal is not lies that we had to deal with?
Can I send you my address? I really want some of that stuff you are smoking.
Face it.
No body elected gets some kind of Superman Suit that allows magic powers.
We elected ALL of them. From the local Mayor all the way up the ladder.
We did that by Law.
Under free will.
Majority rules and all that? It is what We have put in place and allowed.
Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
:o
Orwellian hell?
The Trump Reich's?
You in Colorado by chance? Cause you ARE smoking something.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear; some people just can't recognize sarcasm when it is obvious. A sense of humor seems to be only apparent when someone uses a smiley?...
No, I'm not from Colorado; I'm from California, you know, the state Trump acolytes falsely claim denied Trump a win in the popular vote; it's not our fault Trump is so unpopular (as evidenced by “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.” - not!)...
No, I don't smoke, neither cigarettes nor anything else; never have and never will. Can you claim likewise, because you appear to have drunk some highly questionable Kool-Aid... :haha:
(Note: Smiley added for clarity's sake...) :D
Would you be so kind to clarify,, when we started our continued descent into a Orwellian hell,, Trump has only been President for 2 days,, you keep forgetting the Democrats have been in charge for the last decade starting in 2006 when they won both houses of congress.. We avoided your Orwellian nightmare by voting in Trump,, you want to be like the EU and ditch the Constitution you are free to move there by all means,,..We are the riches country in the world you are just mad that the folk you support were stopped dead in their tracks from stealing our country out from under us in the name new world order redistrabution.
I refer to my statement towards the previous quote...
However, it is true Trump and his circle have been engaging in a pattern of deception and mistruth for as long as Trump has been actively campaigning for the Presidency. Time after time, the falsehoods, even over minor issues, uttered and held by Trump, and his associates, has been well documented and, in a great many cases, documented by irrefutable video and audio recordings. So, Trump has been practicing his apparent lack of a grasp on reality long before his "2 days" and this problem doesn't appear to be near a solution anytime in the foreseeable future; the main problem is previously Trump's lies and denials of fact were only the vices of a private citizen; now they are the vices of the President of the United States, and, by the nature of their positions within the government, the likewise vices of Trump's staff and appointees are now official matters of our government; it brings to mind the line by Will Rogers who, when criticized by some members of Congress over his jokes about them and their actions, he noted that when he made a joke about politics and the government, it was just a joke; when Congress made a joke it was law. Unfortunately, for the US, the current joke now resides and the White House and he and his joke acolytes in other in other prominent governing positions are now in the position of making laws happen; somehow, I don't think we're going to like the punchlines...
White House Pushes ‘Alternative Facts.’ Here Are the Real Ones:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html?_r=0
Makes one wonder: If someone will lie about relatively minor issues, would they hesitate to lie about major, meaningful issues...
As for "new world order", the last major usage of the term was in January, 1991 in a State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress by... George H. W. Bush. Odd, but I never thought of him as a liberal, much less a Communist; maybe I missed something...
Now, "Would you be so kind to clarify", specifically, why any reasonable, intelligent person should trust or support such a transparently dishonest administration, or is dishonesty only a problem when someone you don't like is in office? Honesty and dishonesty is not fungible; nor are integrity and artifice...
<O>
I can not confirm following story
I have through some not-main stream media been told that Trump's 10 year old son is being mocked mostly on the Internet.
I truly hope it's nothing but fake news.
Markus
Jeff-Groves
01-22-17, 06:03 PM
Vienna,
I'm gonna be totally honest with you.
I poked fun at your comments just out of making a joke or 3.
Ya it was selfish and Trollish on my part.
So you up near the Golden Triangle?
:03:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=200&pictureid=9260Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear; some people just can't recognize sarcasm when it is obvious. A sense of humor seems to be only apparent when someone uses a smiley?...
However, it is true Trump and his circle have been engaging in a pattern of deception and mistruth for as long as Trump has been actively campaigning for the Presidency. Time after time, the falsehoods, even over minor issues, uttered and held by Trump, and his associates, has been well documented and, in a great many cases, documented by irrefutable video and audio recordings. So, Trump has been practicing his apparent lack of a grasp on reality long before his "2 days" and this problem doesn't appear to be near a solution anytime in the foreseeable future; the main problem is previously Trump's lies and denials of fact were only the vices of a private citizen; now they are the vices of the President of the United States, and, by the nature of their positions within the government, the likewise vices of Trump's staff and appointees are now official matters of our government; it brings to mind the line by Will Rogers who, when criticized by some members of Congress over his jokes about them and their actions, he noted that when he made a joke about politics and the government, it was just a joke; when Congress made a joke it was law. Unfortunately, for the US, the current joke now resides and the White House and he and his joke acolytes in other in other prominent governing positions are now in the position of making laws happen; somehow, I don't think we're going to like the punchlines...
White House Pushes ‘Alternative Facts.’ Here Are the Real Ones:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html?_r=0
Makes one wonder: If someone will lie about relatively minor issues, would they hesitate to lie about major, meaningful issues...
As for "new world order", the last major usage of the term was in January, 1991 in a State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress by... George H. W. Bush. Odd, but I never thought of him as a liberal, much less a Communist; maybe I missed something...
Now, "Would you be so kind to clarify", specifically, why any reasonable, intelligent person should trust or support such a transparently dishonest administration, or is dishonesty only a problem when someone you don't like is in office? Honesty and dishonesty is not fungible; nor are integrity and artifice...
<O>
"Would you be so kind to clarify", specifically, why any reasonable, intelligent person should trust or support such a transparently dishonest administration, or is dishonesty only a problem when someone you don't like is in office? Honesty and dishonesty is not fungible; nor are integrity and artifice,,,Like Hillary that has a trail of dead bodies behind her that a blind man could see,, a women that sold access to her while she was in office by to the highest bidder,that's called bribery, not too mention all the lies about Benghazi I hope she rots in prison..
So. The E-mail scandal is not lies that we had to deal with?
Can I send you my address? I really want some of that stuff you are smoking.
Face it.
No body elected gets some kind of Superman Suit that allows magic powers.
We elected ALL of them. From the local Mayor all the way up the ladder.
We did that by Law.
Under free will.
Majority rules and all that? It is what We have put in place and allowed.
As I said, I really have nothing to send you; clear mind, clear thought, and all that; but you do seem to have a personal knowledge of the substance(s), so I'm fairly sure you have your own sources :D
Yes, we all elect them, but just because they get elected, it doesn't mean we have to fully support them nor does it mean we can't hold them accountable for their actions or words. This idea is in something called the 1st Amendment; look it up, I'm sure it's still there...at least for now...
There is getting elected by fair, popular vote and there is getting elected by tinkering with the process. There is a myth that Trump is somehow the "people's choice". The popular vote for President, while it may not be the final arbiter, is, by far, the most accurate metric of the "will of the people". There are tons of polls of the electorate taken before the elections citing 'representative population samples' with all sorts of caveats and 'margins of error', but there is only one that is the true reflection of the voter's sentiment: the Election Day results; results that are the summation of single, individual voters, expressing their choices in private and with a finality not found in other polls, no 'margins of error' or caveat, just the plain, unvarnished results. In 2016, the actual voters, the citizens, spoke and a clear majority, 54.9%, voted for candidates other than Trump. Trump is not the People's Choice; this the voters made clear. Trump is not popular and has no real mandate from the voters. In fact, Trump wasn't even the popular choice among the GOP voters in the Party's primaries: 55.1% of GOP voters voted for candidates other than Trump, one percent more than the margin in the Presidential election. But, of course, Trump has declared he scored the greatest ever election victory, but the votes don't lie; Trump, however, does. He even lies about his Electoral college win saying it was a "massive landslide" when, in fact, his Electoral win only ranks 46th in the history of the US; Trump also has the third worst popular vote margin among Electoral winning candidates. The sparser attendance at Trump's inauguration is not an anomaly, it is a further indication the majority of American's are still not "Team Trump"...
One more thing: bringing up the E-mail scandal. Maybe someone didn't tell you, but Hillary Clinton is not the President neither are Bill Clinton or Obama. If the best that can be done is to refer back to some other person(s) and whatever they may have done or said to refute what is being said about Trump, then to quote your leader, that is "sad", "weak". What the Clintons, Obama, or anyone else may have done or said has no real relevance to what Trump says or does as President. If the prior failings of others is used to somehow justify or explain away the failings of Trump, then the takeaway is the continuation of failings is acceptable and should not be remedied. Since the cornerstone of Trump's sales pitch is the reform of the bad aspects of government, you know, "drain the swamp', he should not have any real failings to defend, much less failings on the level of those he and his minions so loudly criticize. What was that Biblical admonition about specks of sawdust in others' eyes and the plank in one's own?...
So, it would be nice, when trying to defend or explain the actions of the current President, who is relevant and important to the current and future fate of the US, instead of a recitation of the past wrongs, a verifiable explanation of why we should trust or believe or support Trump would be a better help. No one cited for past wrong is even running for office or in the White House; they don't matter. Trump is in the White House: His conduct does matter...greatly...
<O>
Vienna,
I'm gonna be totally honest with you.
I poked fun at your comments just out of making a joke or 3.
Ya it was selfish and Trollish on my part.
So you up near the Golden Triangle?
:03:
No offense taken or bad feelings... :salute:
No, I'm in the Hellish Half, more precisely, Los Angeles, and, even more precisely, the Innermost Circle Of Hell, Hollywood. I was, however, born in San Francisco and lived there until I left shortly after I finished high school; I came to LA because I had a girlfriend here who later became my first ex. I do hope to someday soon to go back to San Francisco to finish out whatever days are left me...
<O>
[QUOTE=vienna;2459996]
[Yes, we all elect them, but just because they get elected, it doesn't mean we have to fully support them nor does it mean we can't hold them accountable for their actions or words. This idea is in something called the 1st Amendment; look it up, I'm sure it's still there...at least for now...]
Didn't Hillary mention Alex Jones and people like him should be shut down since now you want to protect the first amendment.
[There is getting elected by fair, popular vote and there is getting elected by tinkering with the process. There is a myth that Trump is somehow the "people's choice". The popular vote for President, while it may not be the final arbiter, is, by far, the most accurate metric of the "will of the people".]
Just because Hillary won a few Blue States with millions of more votes only means she won that state that's why we have a electorial college so a few sanctuary states don't dictate the whole of the country,,,,
[There are tons of polls of the electorate taken before the elections citing 'representative population samples' with all sorts of caveats and 'margins of error', but there is only one that is the true reflection of the voter's sentiment: the Election Day results; results that are the summation of single, individual voters, expressing their choices in private and with a finality not found in other polls, no 'margins of error' or caveat, just the plain, unvarnished results. In 2016, the actual voters, the citizens, spoke and a clear majority, 54.9%, voted for candidates other than Trump. Trump is not the People's Choice; this the voters made clear. Trump is not popular and has no real mandate from the voters. In fact, Trump wasn't even the popular choice among the GOP voter in the Party's primaries: 55.1% of GOP voters voted for candidates other than Trump, one percent more than the margin in the Presidential election. But, of course, Trump has declared he scored the greatest ever election victory, but the votes don't lie; Trump, however, does. He even lies about his Electoral college win saying it was a "massive landslide".]
polls mean nothing when people are afraid to speak their mind because of the liberal pc crap..
[One more thing: bringing up the E-mail scandal. Maybe someone didn't tell you, but Hillary Clinton is not the President neither are Bill Clinton or Obama.]
If you commit a crime you should be held accountable,, no matter who you are,, you are not special or above the law.
[ Trump's sales pitch is the reform of the bad aspects of government, you know, "drain the swamp', he should not have any real failings to defend, much less failings on the level of those he and his minions so loudly criticize. What was that Biblical admonition about specks of sawdust in others' eyes and the plank in one's own?...]
Didn't Nancy Pelosi then speaker of the house make the same sales pitch ???
[So, it would be nice, when trying to defend or explain the actions of the current President, who is relevant and important to the current and future fate of the US, instead of a recitation of the past wrongs,.Trump is in the White House: His conduct does matter...greatly...]
I guess it didn't bother you when Bill Clinton got sexual favors in the Oval office..
[QUOTE=vienna;2459996]
[Yes, we all elect them, but just because they get elected, it doesn't mean we have to fully support them nor does it mean we can't hold them accountable for their actions or words. This idea is in something called the 1st Amendment; look it up, I'm sure it's still there...at least for now...]
Didn't Hillary mention Alex Jones and people like him should be shut down since now you want to protect the first amendment.
[There is getting elected by fair, popular vote and there is getting elected by tinkering with the process. There is a myth that Trump is somehow the "people's choice". The popular vote for President, while it may not be the final arbiter, is, by far, the most accurate metric of the "will of the people".]
Just because Hillary won a few Blue States with millions of more votes only means she won that state that's why we have a electorial college so a few sanctuary states don't dictate the whole of the country,,,,
[There are tons of polls of the electorate taken before the elections citing 'representative population samples' with all sorts of caveats and 'margins of error', but there is only one that is the true reflection of the voter's sentiment: the Election Day results; results that are the summation of single, individual voters, expressing their choices in private and with a finality not found in other polls, no 'margins of error' or caveat, just the plain, unvarnished results. In 2016, the actual voters, the citizens, spoke and a clear majority, 54.9%, voted for candidates other than Trump. Trump is not the People's Choice; this the voters made clear. Trump is not popular and has no real mandate from the voters. In fact, Trump wasn't even the popular choice among the GOP voter in the Party's primaries: 55.1% of GOP voters voted for candidates other than Trump, one percent more than the margin in the Presidential election. But, of course, Trump has declared he scored the greatest ever election victory, but the votes don't lie; Trump, however, does. He even lies about his Electoral college win saying it was a "massive landslide".]
polls mean nothing when people are afraid to speak their mind because of the liberal pc crap..
[One more thing: bringing up the E-mail scandal. Maybe someone didn't tell you, but Hillary Clinton is not the President neither are Bill Clinton or Obama.]
If you commit a crime you should be held accountable,, no matter who you are,, you are not special or above the law.
[ Trump's sales pitch is the reform of the bad aspects of government, you know, "drain the swamp', he should not have any real failings to defend, much less failings on the level of those he and his minions so loudly criticize. What was that Biblical admonition about specks of sawdust in others' eyes and the plank in one's own?...]
Didn't Nancy Pelosi then speaker of the house make the same sales pitch ???
[So, it would be nice, when trying to defend or explain the actions of the current President, who is relevant and important to the current and future fate of the US, instead of a recitation of the past wrongs,.Trump is in the White House: His conduct does matter...greatly...]
I guess it didn't bother you when Bill Clinton got sexual favors in the Oval office..
Who did or said what in the past, if there is anything legally actionable, either civilly or criminally, is a matter for the law to deal with; I do not condone any such actions; it is out of my hands and yours...
Absolutely nothing in your response explains, justifies, or excuses Trump's conduct or the conduct of his minions. It would be refreshing to have someone actually make a cogent argument, based solely on Trump's conduct and not just deflect and distract with blanket referrals to someone else's shortcomings; they do not currently sit in the White House; Trump does; that is a firm truth no matter who says it. If you expect people to support Trump, you're going to have to do a better sales job. Don't just keep telling us about what others have done in the past; start telling us, specifically, why we should overlook Trump's innate dishonesty and lack of suitability for office and just accept him for what he is: a hypocrite who calls for reform all the while continuing to engage in the very conduct, and worse, he claims to despise. If the best that can be said about Trump is he's as bad as those who came before him (if not worse), then, if his supporters voted for the election image of Trump, they've been swindled, big time; they just fell for the same old politics as usual, nothing new, nothing changed, and perhaps, far worse; same snake oil, different package, possibly worse results. So, come on, tell us, specifically, without distraction, deflection, and without invoking someone else as a sad, weak excuse, why anyone should trust, at face value, anything Trump does or says. Let's hear the sales pitch...
...then, again, I guess it hard to sell something when you have such a defective product...
<O>
Buddahaid
01-22-17, 09:38 PM
[QUOTE=yubba;2460005]
Who did or said what in the past, if there is anything legally actionable, either civilly or criminally, is a matter for the law to deal with; I do not condone any such actions; it is out of my hands and yours...
Absolutely nothing in your response explains, justifies, or excuses Trump's conduct or the conduct of his minions. It would be refreshing to have someone actually make a cogent argument, based solely on Trump's conduct and not just deflect and distract with blanket referrals to someone else's shortcomings; they do not currently sit in the White House; Trump does; that is a firm truth no matter who says it. If you expect people to support Trump, you're going to have to do a better sales job. Don't just keep telling us about what others have done in the past; start telling us, specifically, why we should overlook Trump's innate dishonesty and lack of suitability for office and just accept him for what he is: a hypocrite who calls for reform all the while continuing to engage in the very conduct, and worse, he claims to despise. If the best that can be said about Trump is he's as bad as those who came before him (if not worse), then, if his supporters voted for the election image of Trump, they've been swindled, big time; they just fell for the same old politics as usual, nothing new, nothing changed, and perhaps, far worse; same snake oil, different package, possibly worse results. So, come on, tell us, specifically, without distraction, deflection, and without invoking someone else as a sad, weak excuse, why anyone should trust, at face value, anything Trump does or says. Let's hear the sales pitch...
...then, again, I guess it hard to sell something when you have such a defective product...
<O>
Wow! This should get interesting, or maybe not....
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.