In addition to the protests, Trump's got chaos in the ranks of the Customs and ICE folks at the airports, who were not given advance warning this was coming nor any explanations of what's expected of them. And, he's already got a court order out against him, forbidding the deportation of anybody detained under Trump's newest executive orders. Gonna be a few days sorting this one out.
[Chumpy]: "Our intelligence agencies are unanimous in the conclusion that Putin ordered Russian intelligence operations to assist Trump in winning the Presidency; even the FBI belatedly came to that conclusion, and Petes is publicly indulging himself in his faerie tales to the contrary."
LOL. Among the sore losers, that's gotta me the most sore losery meme doin' the rounds.
Back to present reality: Trump's Muslim immigration move seems pretty poorly thought out.
First or all Chumpy, I didn't say it wasn't true, just that it was a sore loser tactic. Second of all, the report from those agencies is itself an exercise in obfuscation (you'd know all about that, bein' something of an expert).
The one-sentence sound bites that made the news imply that yore Federal agencies have direct evidence of Kremlin-orchestrated cyberhacking to defeat Hillary. The report actually talks about tactics like using online trolls and the TV station RT. That RT is a Kremlin mouthpiece ain't news, it ain't even interesting. If y'all are stupid enough to let that cesspit of disinformation operate in yore country, I reckon ya got what ya asked for. One way or another, RT's bias was visible at the flick of a TV remote, didn't need any hacked email releases.
As for the cyberhacking, if the agencies don't wanna reveal anything other than it used a piece of Ukrainian software that I could have bought online for tuppence myself, then I reckon they don't got any more than that. What they do have is lots of rushing to judgement though not, I note, uniform judgement: the CIA and FBI "have high confidence in the judgement" while the NSA have only "moderate confidence". Yeah, well I got zero confidence, howd'ja like them apples! Still puts me on the same spectrum of confidence as yore agencies.
But that's all beside the point. This whole thing just feeds into the meme that Hillary had her rightful election win stolen off her by sinister forces. That's the meme that is sustaining the sore losers paradin' their idle asses in front of Trump tower, feeding their righteous anger. It suits them not to consider that they are the anti-democrats, the hateful mob, the pedlars of groupthink.
"I didn't say it wasn't true, just that it was a sore loser tactic."
That is demonstrably false. You're learning from Shorthands as you go along; I can tell.
What you did was you compared the claims of Russian intervention to a certain Russian fairy tale figure. The fairy tales of Baba Yaga were false, as in, not true. (I was introduced to Baba Yaga as a child, and spotted the reference right away) Now you claim to have not been questioning the truth of the matter. That is a lie--you were questioning the truth of the matter; no other way to explain it; ain't a misunderstanding. You lie. It's that simple.
[Chumpy]: "Now you claim to have not been questioning the truth of the matter."
God, yore slow. I'm makin' no claims one way or another. I am sayin' it's irrelevant, an obfuscatory tactic to avoid the conclusion that Hillary lost the election for herself. I'd like to say y'all will get over it in due course, but ya won't. Eight years of gripin' about W is proof enough of that. This intel report is merely the "hanging chads" of the present decade.
And, just by the way (and this is more for Lynnette and Marcus and any other readers we might get by accident), the problem with the Russian intervention in the election is not that the election was ‘stolen’ from Clinton. That's done; over with. The Trumpkins knew of the Russian connection; the vast majority of them anyway; they voted for him knowing damn good and well that they were voting for Vladimir Putin's favored candidate. Most of them would do it all over again.
However, that doesn't mean that having Putin's man in the White House isn't going to be a problem going forward. (I suggest you quit whining ‘bout Hillary--nobody gives a damn ‘bout you getting stuck on how much you hate Hillary--we have a current, ongoing problem here. We have Trump tryin’ to buddy up to Putin.)
Get real man. It's right there in front of us. We are all aware of your habit of trying to say things you can later deny. You meant the fairy tale reference, but you meant to leave yourself what's called a ‘plausible deniability’. You like to be able to deny later whatever you said earlier--it's one of your favorite things. But, this time you went too far. There is no plausible deniablility. There is no other plausible interpretation; you didn't leave yourself enough room; you didn't think it out well enough. You lie, plainly and clearly. It's that simple.
Hell, we got nearly 40% of them saying that Putin is our friend, trying to rationalize their vote. They'd rather believe that Putin is our friend than entertain questions about their own allegiance to Trump. It's not that they didn't know. It's that they didn't care. Not enough to abandon Trump anyway.
Chances of an infrastructure deal seem to be fading fast. Now that Trump's in office he's leaning towards paying for the needed infrastructure by cutting taxes on the rich (and especially on corporations). This was how Dubya said he was gonna pay for the war in Iraq--cut taxes pay for a war that way. Apparently this was gonna work on account of magic. We remember how that worked out. (Most of us anyway.) Magic didn't happen.
The Republicans are eager for the tax cuts, but they're not so enthused about any infrastructure fixes. The Democrats are eager for the infrastructure spending, but they don't believe that cutting taxes brings in more money. (Never has before, and they're leery of Trump's assurances that it'll finally work this time.)
I understand that FoxNews in New York City was the only cable news channel in the city not covering the mess that developed at Kennedy Airport. It'll be interesting to see what FoxNewsSunday has to say ‘bout it here in a few minutes.
[Chumpy]: "...they voted for him knowing damn good and well that they were voting for Vladimir Putin's favored candidate."
"However, that doesn't mean that having Putin's man in the White House isn't going to be a problem going forward."
LOL. There just ain't no reasonin' with a foamin'-at-the-mouth rabid left wing sore loser. By the same token anyone who favours Roger Federer now has "their man" as the holder of the Australian Open title, those who favour the Denver Broncos have "their team" as winners of the Super Bowl, Leonardo di Caprio fans will be pleased to see that "their man" took the Oscar. Non-dunderheads will realise that favourin' "your man" ain't the cause of him winnin' a sporting title, a movie award or the American presidency. That disconnected fact is what's known as "coincidental". I realise that big word may be rather complicated for y'all. More to the point, it may tread on yer "stolen election" meme.
Trump's Muslim immigration move seems pretty poorly thought out.
If he hopes to uphold American values, yes. If he seeks to sow hatred and fear, no.
I hope that our checks and balances eventually deal with the dictator wanna be who now resides in the White House. It was a concern of our founding fathers.
"More to the point, it may tread on yer ‘stolen election’ meme."
That's never been my theme--never. I've never said the election was stolen. I don't make that claim now. The system is the system it is. This is ‘stolen election’ thing is your story and your preoccupation; this is the story you can't let go of. This is the fight you've got to fight even when you're the only one out on that limb.
You can't quit pretending that I'm out there on that limb with you. But, I'm not.
My guess is everybody gets that except you. I might as well ignore you, ‘cause you can't get over your own fixations. But, that's your problem for today; not my problem today. I'm done tryin’ to get you over the spot you're stuck on.
Or, on second thought… Maybe you do know you're the only one who's out on that limb, but you're thinkin’ this is how you divert attention from that fact that you were intentionally lying when you were telling us that the Baba Yaga reference was not an assertion that Putin was innocent of an intervention on Trump's behalf. (When, of course, all the intelligence services say it's clear that Putin did just exactly that.)
Could be you'd prefer to try to hide the lie behind a façade of fanaticism?
"I hope that our checks and balances eventually deal with the dictator wanna be who now resides in the White House."
On the bright side; he is proving fairly inept in wielding the power of his position. It limits his ability to act as a dictator with the powers he does wield or to consolidate further powers.
I noticed that Sean Spicer has at least a couple of dark suits now, and somebody's taken care to fix that monster air gap between his neck and his suit collar
Something that's been overlooked as the media's been transfixed by the mess of Shorthands' Muslim Ban (let's not kid ourselves that it's not a Muslim Ban)… Steve Bannon, hero of Breitbart, has been given a permanent seat on the National Security Council while the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs will be called into national security meetings only when the discussions are expected to ‘require their expertise’.
This is crazy from the get-go. The military and the spooks are left out of intelligence meetings in favor of Trump's pet neo-Nazi? (Also, Rience Priebus will be sitting in on the NSC meetings--gotta stay on top of keeping the political spin ready.)
They were just talking to a retired General on one of the news shows about that. Unprecedented behavior. So, any clue as to what on earth Trump & his minions are up to? Perhaps more control over ultimate policy decisions with regard to military actions?
"So, any clue as to what on earth Trump & his minions are up to?"
Trump is famous for deciding to go along with the position of whomever was the last person to talk to him. I think this is Steve Bannon making sure that Trump doesn't talk to one of those people last.
Reince Preibus said on Meet The Press that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence are ‘welcome’ to drop in on NSC meeting whenever they want, even if they're not invited (that 's if they can smell out when and where an NSC meeting is being held)
Expecting results by the next election might be over-optimistic. However, I think we can eventually re-balance the Republic back towards a more moderate politics if we pay some serious attention the gerrymandering problem. And that's a move in the right direction. I am cheered by the word that Obama intends to work on this problem in his post-Presidency. Bill Clinton made a lot of money (and put together a decent charity in the process). Obama has hinted that he's gonna try to tackle the problem of legislators picking their voters instead of the other way ‘round. He's got some serious good will behind him; he could maybe do some serious good in that role.
Local late news is telling me that Homeland has basically backed down from Trump's executive order. They're not admitting to having backed down, but it's same thing without the admission. Gonna work on doing it right over the next 90 days maybe.
[Chumpy]: "That's never been my theme--never. I've never said the election was stolen."
Sure ya have.
[Chumpy, previously]: "...that doesn't mean that having Putin's man in the White House isn't going to be a problem going forward... We have Trump tryin’ to buddy up to Putin."
Of course, ya will deny that this is yer gist here, but I ain't interested in yer mental contortions. The fact that Trump has said in a press conference in the last forty-eight hours that he neither knows Putin nor knows how the relationship will pan out will, of course, make no difference to yer obsessions with the stolen election meme.
[Chumpy]: " I'm done tryin’ to get you over the spot you're stuck on. You are dismissed."
Ahh, that ole' leftist authoritarian streak. Kinda awkward when ya can't impose yer "alt facts" by diktat, ain't it? ;-)
I note that James Mattis, Trump's new Secretary of Defense, deeply distrusts Putin and also disagrees with Trump on "enhanced interrogation". Trump seems sanguine about letting his chosen experts decide and has said as much.
Took ya awhile to figure out that Trump would double down on the lie, and to then do the same. But, if I had, then you'd have an example by now. You'd have a quote; you've had the time. We both know that.
Marcus knows that. Lynnette knows that.
Ya got squat, except that you're a brazen liar. And, that ain't enough.
The Iraqi Parliement has invoked a reciprocal ban on U.S. citizens for a period of at least 90 days. (Link) It is not yet clear how this will effect our efforts to take Mosul back from Da‘esh, or other anti-Islamist efforts in the Iraqi/Syrian theatre of the fight against the Islamic State.
Some additional numbers I hadn't noticed first time in that Quinnipiac Poll I mentioned last thread. Trump's overall numbers are down since his inauguration, but his approval ratings among his Trumpkins actually rose a little bit. Therefore the Congressional Republicans will continue to fear him for awhile. He's more popular among their ‘base’ primary voters than they are. A Tweet from Trump and a Republican Congressman can expect to have a primary opponent. And, with the gerrymandering that's occurred over the course of the last decade or so, they're more afraid of getting primaried than of whom they'll have to meet in the general election.
Just saw an article confirming what I thought was the case….
"Refugees from Syria [whom Shorthands is intent on banning permanently] have never committed a single terrorist attack in the United States." BostonGlobe
The acting head of the Justice Department, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, (an Obama administration holdover) has issued a memo declaring that she believes Trump's executive orders regarding Musim immigrants to be unconstitutional, and she has ordered that no Justice Department attorneys will defend it in court--they won't even appear in court in defense of Trump's orders. She fully expects to be overruled as soon as Trump gets his Attorney General confirmed (fired too), but, until then….
And, she didn't last the night. Trump's already found somebody just a little further down the chain of command at Justice who will defend his executive order on immigrants from the seven Muslim countries he's selected for especial censure.
Please Lynnette, don't be such a drama queen. You're in a clear minority here. A large majority of your fellow Americans applaud Trumps ban on Muslims from jihadi hot spots. Don't be such an anti-democrat Lynnette, allow for the will of the majority once in a while.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided."
You most likely had no clue about this. Because you get your information from FAKE NEWS outlets that harp on and on about how bad Trump is and how dangerous all his actions are. You're not likely to get a poll like the one above quoted on CNN, because it doesn't rhyme with CNN's agenda and CNN is first and foremost precisely a vehicle to further an agenda.
Lee: ""Refugees from Syria [whom Shorthands is intent on banning permanently] have never committed a single terrorist attack in the United States.""
Afraid you're missing out on Syrian refugees Lee? You'd like a couple of millions of those am I right?
Trump is about to begin working with KSA and hopefully others in the region to set up safe zones for refugees IN THE REGION so those "refugees" won't have to look to Germany and Scandinavia, nor across the Atlantic, for relative safety.
It's about 6-7 years too late, since Obama could never figure it out, but thankfully it took Trump less than a week to figure out this very obvious course of action.
""A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here."
That poll is fraudulent on its face. (It's a real shame what Scott Rasmussen has allowed to happen to once quite professional polling organization.) The screening on refugees is much more stringent than is the screening on tourists or students or any other visitors allowed into the United States. Mr. Rasmussen's polling assumption is contradiction of the known facts is ‘unfortunate’ (to put it mildly). That poll is intentionally slanted. I'm actually only surprised he couldn't get higher numbers than he got.
"Afraid you're missing out on Syrian refugees Lee?"
No, I am opposed to taking in refugees. I don't like the idea of allowing entrants en masse, as I've made clear before. I think residency in the United States should be granted on a personal, case-by-case basis. However, I also don't like the idea of religious tests. I really, really don't like that. The United States is, as you have noted before, founded on a shared idea rather than on a shared ethnicity. Shorthands' new edicts seem to me to be clearly unconstitutional, and even more clearly a breach of the shared idea (even if he might have the legal power under the Constitution--which I'm pretty sure he does not have.) I am appalled that a President of the United States would issue such orders, based, as they clearly are, on the religion of the applicants (Christians from the seven named nations being up for exemptions in Shorthands' final versions of the orders, as he's told us.) This is un-American; I am appalled.
"Trump is about to begin working with KSA and hopefully others in the region to set up safe zones for refugees IN THE REGION…"
I don't believe Trump is about to do that. I believe Trump is about to such steps as are necessary to allow you to pretend you believe he was stymied by circumstances in his efforts to set up safe zones in the region. I don't think he has any intention of trying to succeed in that endeavor. He just wants to give you enough of a show so's you can pretend to believe.
So according to you Trump is calling and making deals with world leaders to fake a development to impress upon the likes of me, even though those whose support actually matters to him don't even care about said development.
Is it really so far fetched that Trump actually believes, like I and so many others, that if we could help arabs in their immediate area it would be a good thing to do, and even more so if that means we don't have to get them as (or posing as) "refugees" in our own countries?
I've been in favor of that for more than a decade. It's a cheaper solution that could help more people and we don't run the same risks with terrorism, culture clashes and diluted wellfare systems in our countries.
And now Trump is making great deals, as he promised he would, around the world:
"Is it really so far fetched that Trump actually believes…"
I don't think it's a matter of what he believes. I don't think he cares. Except about the optics; I do believe he cares about the optics of it. He's willing to do a little showboating.
By the way, I heard on the early morning news about a Quinnipiac Poll from about three weeks ago which said that the percentages in favor of a ban on refugees from Syria was 48% in favor of a ban and 43% against with the remainder in don't know/don't care/no opinion/can't decide/etc. Quinnipiac Polls are usually well done. So, the ban does have significant support, but that was also before Shorthands made it a clearly religious selection; he may have lost support over that.
The best thing is obviously a physical wall which goes deep, rises high and is topped with razor wire coils on both sides. Add electronic surveillance through motion detectors, infrared heat detectors and and of course drones in the skies. Link this through a centralized system and connect it to strategically located rapid response teams. If there's a will there's a wall - as they say in Israel.
Plus there will be beautiful gates in the wall so all the Mexicans Lee C says are desperate to get back home to Mexico for the vibrant jobs market there will be able to leave without any problems.
I don't think the Trumpkins expect to have to pay for ‛rapid response teams’ across a 2,000 mile stretch. You got any indications they even know ‛bout that requirement? (I'm guessin’ not, but figured I'd ask.)
The Wall won't work just by itself as you've pointed out. You've also pretty much said it wouldn't make a difference and there you're wrong (knowingly wrong I suspect). But on its own it'd be pretty much a wasted effort. If "Trumpkins" don't realise that they are stupid. There will be an initial building cost and then a running cost.
Not much different from a security system for a gated community, but on a much larger scale of course. Point of interest: lots and lots of folks opposed to the Wall themselves live pretty segregated and with high levels of security.
"You've also pretty much said it wouldn't make a difference and there you're wrong (knowingly wrong I suspect)."
Where it will make a difference we already have a wall up. (Approximately 700 miles of wall and/or double fence--highfence already in) The rural areas left won't benefit much from either a wall or from fencing. Certainly not enough benefit to justify the costs. There's no crowds to disappear into out there. Those areas need patrolled, not fenced. We already have 21,000 border control agents on that border, more than enough, almost too many; they're on top of one another ‛cause they won't get out of their SUVs out in the heat, so they're pretty much all concentrated on the roads. There are a few improvements down there that might be cost effective, but this new talk of a wall is a political gimmick to get the ‛right people’ elected. It's not a border control measure.
The Great Wall is, by the way a gimmick advanced by people who don't live along the border. The wall was first authorized under Dubya, but he never asked for funds for it. There's a reason for that. He was a Texan; he had lived along that border, he knew the talk of the wall was a gimmick--a symbol ya sell to those many fools out east-not something ya actually do.
The problem the Republican Party has today, the reason they are in more immediate and obvious distress than the Democratic Party (witness the takeover of the Party by Shorthands the Dancing Bear), the problem is they didn't prepare for the day when the rubes began to actually believe the faerie tales they'd been feeding them. So, now the voice of the Party isn't Wall Street, it isn't even Main Street; it's the Old South, Appalachia rose again. They weren't ready for it when the Tea Baggers went off on ‛em and FoxNews and RadioRightWing discovered that's where the ratings were.
"The wall was first authorized under Dubya, but he never asked for funds for it."
I probably need to be a little more specific here before Petes comes back and claims that a general comment like that is the equivalent of a lie on account of I'm the one who generalized. Dubya didn't ask for funds for the rest of it. He did put in wall and fence where it made sense, left the rest even though it'd been authorized, on account of it wasn't worth spending the money on.
I wasn't onboard before with the Democrats hinting in advance that they'd filibuster Shorthands' Supreme Court nominee. But, considering his choice, I'm getting more comfortable with the idea.
Clearly you haven't been listening to our version of Baghdad Bob, Sean Spicer. How that man will be able to hold his head up among reputable spokespeople after his stint with Trump is beyond me. Even he stumbles over the words he is being forced to speak.
[Chumpy]: "But, if I had [claimed the election was stolen], then you'd have an example by now. You'd have a quote; you've had the time. We both know that."
Only one so dopey was y'all could say that in response to the comment where I gave ya the quote. :-)
[Chumpy]: "(By the way, I already know your next move.)
Course ya do. It's the one I regularly use. Leave ya alone for a couple of days to calm down from yer idiocy. I mean, we already know yer too much of a liar and obfuscator to be worth conversin' with. A quick prod every few days is good fer a laugh, but I don't wanna overly encourage ya.
[Chumpy]: "No, I am opposed to taking in refugees. I don't like the idea of allowing entrants en masse, as I've made clear before. I think residency in the United States should be granted on a personal, case-by-case basis. However, I also don't like the idea of religious tests. I really, really don't like that. The United States is, as you have noted before, founded on a shared idea rather than on a shared ethnicity. Shorthands' new edicts seem to me to be clearly unconstitutional, and even more clearly a breach of the shared idea (even if he might have the legal power under the Constitution--which I'm pretty sure he does not have.) I am appalled that a President of the United States would issue such orders, based, as they clearly are, on the religion of the applicants (Christians from the seven named nations being up for exemptions in Shorthands' final versions of the orders, as he's told us.) This is un-American; I am appalled."
Not unexpectedly (either for you or the swathes of your country people in a hissy fit over this) you are confusing multiple issues. First of all, you don't have a choice about taking in refugees. A refugee is entitled to claim asylum under the UN Convention on Refugees which y'all signed up to in 1970. Secondly, you may not have noticed that yore country is surrounded by quite a lot of wet stuff, making it difficult for middle eastern refugees to claim asylum as they must do so on yore soil.
As for resettling people that y'all want to give succour to, that's entirely yore own country's prerogative. If y'all want to highlight the plight of any particular group, then that's up to you. I note that ya did that for the Rohingya Muslims, an ethnic and religious minority in Myanmar in 2015 (U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 415). Y'all have resettled over 13,000 of those folks, which is a brave and commendable thing. So what's the big deal about Trump highlighting the plight of middle eastern Christians who have suffered a much worse fate than the Rohingya? Suddenly that's un-American? Gimme a break. You are appalled becaused it's Trump and no other reason. The hissy fit continues.
"Only one so dopey was y'all could say that in response to the comment where I gave ya the quote."
That didn't happen. (You'd probably be better off to not fantasize in public like that.)
"Not unexpectedly…you are confusing multiple issues."
More public fantasy--you're not off to a good start today.
"First of all, [America doesn't] have a choice about taking in refugees."
Obama volunteered us for up to 110,000 Syrian refugees a year (if and after they cleared vetting); Hillary Clinton wanted to raise that number substantially. Shorthands wanted to drop it to zero (and has issued an executive order to that effect). All three of them would disagree with your assertion there. (You're swinging wild this morning.)
"So what's the big deal about Trump highlighting the plight of middle eastern Christians who have suffered a much worse fate than the Rohingya?"
Explaining what's wrong with banning the entry of Syrian Muslims, but allowing Syrian Christians requires a two-step reasoning process and a reference to documents. That's clearly beyond your capabilities this morning. Maybe one of these days when you're not in the public fantasy mode, maybe I'll explain it to ya then.
Shorthands' State Department (now that he has it mostly captured) has issued a blanket revocation of the visas already issued for the seven Muslim Majority nations he has chosen to pick on. I'm not sure that's entirely legal (as in ‛Constitutional’), but it well might be. The President does have substantial discretion and authority over border security. I'm guessing it'll get challenged anyway, and we'll find out eventually what the Supreme Court (now with a serious right-winger among its majority) thinks of it. (And, yes, I do believe they'll confirm Gorush in spite of any Democratic filibuster.)
Oh, and just by the way, for anybody who's noticed that I've made the switch from calling Petes out on his lies to allowing that he's just having mental problems… Ya, that's sorta true. At least, I believe it to be true. To explain…. It would take even Petes a little time to convince himself that he'd offered up quotes that he never offered up, things that do not appear in the record before him. However, he's had the time necessary to have sold himself on his own fantasies. So, while it was a lie when he told the lie, it's quit possible that he actually believes it now.
And, I just noticed that there's a lawsuit going on over Shorthands use of private security (answerable to him) in the place of the Secret Service. I knew he had added an extra layer of private guards in addition to his Secret Service protection during the campaign, and I read that he wanted to continue that practice now that he's in the White House (as best he can--the Secret Service has statutory responsibilities and jurisdictions that he has yet to fully overcome). But, I wasn't sure he'd managed to supplant the Secret Service with his own people now that he's President. Apparently he has added them as an extra layer, between himself and the federal Secret Service. (I'm wondering where was the last example I can think of where a national leader employed private security answerable only to himself? Although, Trump is being sued over his guys manhandling folks near about his campaign events, so maybe they're not gonna be answerable only to him after all.)
[Chumpy]: "Obama volunteered us for up to 110,000 Syrian refugees a year (if and after they cleared vetting); Hillary Clinton wanted to raise that number substantially. Shorthands wanted to drop it to zero (and has issued an executive order to that effect). All three of them would disagree with your assertion there."
Actually, that is in exact agreement with my assertion. I realise you are havin' serious comprehension problems, so I'll say it slower than last time: IF someone applies for asylum havin' made it to yore sovereign territory, you gotta consider their application under the conventions y'all signed up to. As for anyone comin' from abroad after applyin' for a visa, that's entirely up to y'all's selves as to whether you consider their case ... as Big Ears, Sore Loser, and Shorthands have all noted. Not only is it not "un-American" it's plain damned common sense, otherwise Ms. Merkel has a million or so folks she'd like to offload on y'all.
": IF someone applies for asylum havin' made it to yore sovereign territory…"
And IF a meteor hits the ground it will probably make a crater. Neither of these things affects what I wrote, which was not predicated on whether or not people had reached our shores (that's not enough, by the way, they have to actually get inside). You're running off on your own little tangents. And, you're running off alone; I'm not goin’ there with ya.
And, I might note for the record that Big Ears was known to joke ‛bout his big ears. Shorthands sense of humor is sufficiently cramped that he is unable to enjoy jokes about his insufficiently big stick. (To borrow a phrase from Teddy Roosevelt. Shorthands screams loudly and wields an insufficient stick. He's not exactly making us respected ‛round the world.)
Another thing to note. American law restricts asylum claims to persons having an individual claim of probable persecution if returned to their prior jurisdiction. That is, just as an example, Saddam's forces had to be looking specifically for Ahmad Chilabi in proper person. It wasn't enough under the American interpretation of asylum claims that Chilabi was a member of the persecuted Shia group. They had to know who Chilabi was and be after him in particular.
Hmmmm... I phrased that wrong; let me clear that up. The Shia, as a group, faced discrimination under Saddam, and that is not enough to give rise to an asylum claim. ‛Persecution’ is deemed an individualized problem under American law.
It's a little late, but last night's Frontline was an hour on the fight for Mosul, and it was worth the hour. If you see it going up on YouTube I recommend it.
The Trump administration has, or claims to have, officially put Iran ‘on notice’. (Reuters) Presumably Trump could Tweet at them in the middle of the night (our time--middle of the day their time). Or he could say ‘Radical Islam’ out loud, in public, maybe even more than once. Maybe that'll put ‘em in their place.
"…[S]ince the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, no one has been killed in the United States in a terrorist attack by anyone who emigrated from or whose parents emigrated from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan [or] Yemen, the seven countries targeted [in Shorthands' recent executive order]." NYT
Violent protests erupted at UC Berkeley on Wednesday night hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.
Black-clad protestors could be seen throwing fireworks at police and at the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Breitbart editor's event was to be held. They were also seen tearing down metal barriers, smashing windows of the student center and setting a fire outside the building. The university estimated that more than 1,500 protesters were gathered outside the student center. At least one person was injured, according to the university, although it was not immediately clear whether the individual was a protester, staff member or a bystander.
Shorthands screams loudly and wields an insufficient stick. He's not exactly making us respected ‛round the world.
No, unfortunately not. But it is best to remember that America is not one person. Right now I think we are involved in a fight between what is almost, not to sound too histrionic, a fascist form of government and those who believe that it is better to govern with a more open hand. The demonstrations are not just about women, or the acceptances of refugees. They are about who we really are. I am thinking we are going to see whether or not those checks and balances put in place really work or whether there will be a return to the 60's type of violence.
The form of government has not changed. Which is why I'm confident the Republic will survive Shorthands at the helm for a bit. Clearly though, he has fascist leanings, as does Steve Bannon, and several others in the inner circle. Resistance is called for. But, we'll be okay in the end. He will discredit what's left of the alliance between the rightwingers and the Goldman-Sachs wing of the Republican Party. And, I think it'll only take him a few years to do that part up proper.
Somebody described the Trump administration as malevolence luckily tempered by incompetence. That struck me as just about right.
Who do you side with Lynnette? Milo who is trying to speak up on matters of importance even if you don't necessarily agree with him. Or criminal communist thugs mixed with juvenile crybabies who raise hell, destroy property and attack people in an attempt to silence an opinion they don't agree with?
Because it does in fact seem you're increasingly siding with "protesters" these days.
Yup, Marcus, it's a strange mixed-up world. People crying "fascist" even while posting that "black-clad protestors could be seen throwing fireworks at police and at the student union center on the Berkeley campus... tearing down metal barriers, smashing windows of the student center and setting a fire outside the building."
Then there's the hordes of people tweeting "#LoveTrumpsHate" while calling for Trump to be assassinated. Over here we have the Prime Minister (who's the closest thing you'll get to an actual fascist in politics here) wondering if he might snub any meetings with Trump (as if Trump would notice). In Australia, Trump's suggestion that he might not take thousands of refugees off the hands of the Australian government (who had been accused of their mistreatment) is being treated like a declaration of war.
I guess Twitter must not have banned all these users due to most of them not being able to spell "assassinate". Maybe Twitter's automatic nastiness detection software failed to spot it, although it seems to work whenever they are banning conservatives like Milo. But I notice not everyone got away with it in spite of Twitter. Maybe that's because the idiot in question was from Kentucky.
I see the NYT's op-ed columnist ain't as coy as Chumpy about admittin' to his conviction that the election was stolen by the Russkis. Like Chumpy he reckons it's time for the gloves to come off, seein' as the Democrats have heretofore been just too darn polite when it comes to dealin' with their Republican colleagues. This is the guy who had to apologise after referring to Mitt Romney's "magic underwear". I guess Chumpy went to the same school of manners as Mr. Blow.
BYTW--election wasn't stolen by the Russkies. Most of the Trumpkins knew damn good and well they were voting for Putin's favored candidate. Most of them know it know. Most of them would do it again. That's not a theft; that's givin’ it away.
"The Trumpkins knew of the Russian connection; the vast majority of them anyway; they voted for him knowing damn good and well that they were voting for Vladimir Putin's favored candidate. Most of them would do it all over again. "However, that doesn't mean that having Putin's man in the White House isn't going to be a problem going forward." Lee C. @ Sun Jan 29, 07:11:00 am, supra, ↑↑↑
Your boy's not exactly off to an auspicious start here Petes.
"President Donald Trump on Thursday dismissed reports of contentious phone calls he’s had with foreign leaders, telling Americans not to fret over his tough talk. "“The world is in trouble, but we’re gonna straighten it out, OK? That’s what I do, I fix things,” Trump said Thursday morning at the National Prayer Breakfast. “We’re gonna straighten it out. Believe me. When you hear about the tough phone calls I’m having, don’t worry about it. Just don’t worry about it.”" Politico.com
And, then, just to make sure we all knew Shorthands got his priorities right. He took the time to rag on Arnold Schwarzenegger at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, because, after all, that's what National Prayer Breakfasts are for. Politico.com
I was reading the other day, one of Trump's biographers was saying that Trump prepared for his Presidential run mostly by listening to hours and hours of RadioRightWing. Shows.
"Milo who is trying to speak up on matters of importance even if you don't necessarily agree with him."
As a matter of principle it is unfortunate that the protests got violent and even more unfortunate that the University canceled Milo's appearance on account of that violence. That is a matter of principle. (And, I would have preferred they let him take the stage and let him take his vegetables like a man.) On the other hand, this is Milo Yiannopoulos we're talking about here. The fact that he might claim to address matters of importance doesn't mean he can also claim to have anything of importance to contribute to that conversation. He's basically a theatre act. So, the damage actually done to the hallowed principles of free speech appears to be minimal, the damage to the principle is, in fact, a matter of principle more than matter of substance. And the practical damage done to the Republic appears to be nearly nil.
The Trump administration is lifting high-tech sanctions on the Russian FSB (successor to the KGB), just in time for them to commence cyber-meddling in Europe's upcoming elections. UKIndependant
Trump's Treasury Department says that the change in sanctions the above link was hyping is merely a ‛tweak’ that allows the FSB to approve sales (as required under Russian law) for items that already legal for sales under our sanctions but had to also be cleared by the FSB. They say this is not a relaxation of the Obama imposed sanctions (not yet anyway).
People crying "fascist" even while posting that "black-clad protestors could be seen throwing fireworks at police and at the student union center on the Berkeley campus... tearing down metal barriers, smashing windows of the student center and setting a fire outside the building."
Commenting on the violence on a campus by protesters is more an illustration of my concern that we will see more of this as people start to organize against what they perceive as a government that supports a more extreme right type of mindset, such as fascism. Milo's views seem to reflect that mindset, making him a lightening rod for that kind of violent reaction.
It is quite true that I support peaceful demonstrations, such as we saw with the women's march, or those who came out in support of the refugees who would like to come to this country, but are being turned away. That does not mean I condone violence or the possible assassination of anyone, even Trump. I would far prefer to see our courts erect the roadblocks to Trump's more extreme policies.
Takin’ a break from Shorthands and the rise of the rightwingers back into the daylight…
This is almost equally spooky…
Headline reads Hybrid zoo: Introducing pig–human embryos…Chimaeras could pave the way for growing human organs in other animals. And the first line "Scientists have published the first peer-reviewed account of creating pig–human hybrid fetuses, a step toward growing animals with organs that are suitable for transplantation into humans." It gets a little less spooky as it goes along. Apparently they're growing pig fetuses with human cells mixed into them with the plan being to grow human organs in pigs; they're not mixing the genetic material to produce a true hybrid. Not got the Island of Dr. Moreau going on here, but still, that headline's a stunner when ya first run across it.
But, since I did mention Shorthands… He's still got his Twitter War with Arnold Schwarzenegger going on this morning. Gotta wonder if Arnold took into consideration when he decided to fight back that Shorthands never tires of raggin’ on people he thinks have slighted him.
And in a more problematic move, Shorthands has announced a set of unilateral sanctions against Iran. I think most of us have seen enough of this to know that unilateral sanctions almost never do any good. This will, however, alienate our allies, so Shorthands has almost certainly done Iran some good.
Gotta wonder if Arnold took into consideration when he decided to fight back that Shorthands never tires of raggin’ on people he thinks have slighted him.
There are so many hours in the day. I think The Donald will have difficulty keeping up with all of those who he thinks "slight" him. My money is on The Terminator.
"The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripartite government," Robart wrote in the order.
An avalanche of phone calls is thundering across Capitol Hill as the Senate considers a slew of President Donald Trump's nominations, causing staffers to work continuously to field requests, complaints and other messages during an already busy time in the congressional calendar.
Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said that as many as 1.5 million calls per day have been pouring into the Senate this week, according to data from Schumer's technical staff. Multiple offices reported that a bulk of messages haves been related to Betsy DeVos, Trump's controversial pick for secretary of education. Her nomination moved ahead in the Senate on Friday, and she's expected to be narrowly confirmed Monday.
I have actually contemplated emailing my state representative(a Republican) to express my displeasure with the new Trump administration. Once I get the time, I think I will. Can't hurt.
" I think The Donald will have difficulty keeping up with all of those who he thinks ‘slight’ him."
There is that. The challenges shall probably just keep on comin’.
"It seems that a federal judge has thrown a spanner in the works with regard to Trump's travel ban."
That's not as big a deal as it might seem. All those folks from the affected countries have had their outstanding visas terminated already. They have to get new ones now. The State Department will not be issuing…. The judge will find that it's a little late to be closing the barn door.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is not backing down after President Donald Trump again insulted the "New Celebrity Apprentice" host and former California governor in another early morning tweet on Friday. After Trump tweeted that Schwarzenegger "did a really bad job as Governor of California and even worse on the Apprentice," Schwarzenegger tweeted back at Trump with a link to a news story from 2006 detailing the release of Schwarzenegger's tax returns as part of his gubernatorial re-election bid.
It may not seem like it from an individual perspective, but it is a sign that there is still an independent judiciary that will not rubber stamp Trump's policies.
I reckon not. For now Trump's power comes from the Democrats being outnumbered sufficiently that they cannot impede him, and the Republicans are running scared. Trump's more popular with their primary voters than they are, for now. A word from Trump and they're on the list to get primaried. That thought terrifies them.
I don't know if Trump realizes that this fear will not carry across to the international arena. He's not gonna be able to threaten Angela Merkel nor Hassan Rouhani with an uprising among their constituency. I don't see that allying himself with Valdimir Putin, who's increasingly unpopular across the globe, is gonna get him much in the way of leverage with the politicians he has to deal with in the international arena. And I'm not at all certain he understands that.
"but it is a sign that there is still an independent judiciary that will not rubber stamp Trump's policies."
The modern rule appears to be that only Republican Presidents may appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. So long as that rule prevails, the ‘independent judiciary’ will become increasingly less independent.
I do notice that Shorthands is pursuing a typical Republican economic agenda. (Complete with regulatory policy that favors the Masters of the Universe types.) This will almost certainly result in a stagnant economy at best, another recession is probably more likely. One thing it's not gonna produce is a rush of middle-class mining and manufacturing jobs. Trump's edicts will not cause jobs lost to automation to magically return from Mexico or China whence they did not go in the first place. Nor will all his de-regulatory magic lower the cost of natural gas and make coal competitive again. (Nor will his edicts produce that long-sought unicorn sometimes known as ‘clean’ coal.)
I rather doubt that his edicts will result in anybody building a steel plant in the United States to manufacture specialty steel pipe for his oil pipelines either.
There is also an article in my paper about a town in southern Minnesota that has seen an influx of refugees. One person interviewed approves of slowing that process down and in her words "taking a breath". Sounds a bit like Marcus.
The State Department has cancelled the revocation of those visas, unless they have been physically marked "cancelled" or taken away. Then the person would have to re-apply. DHS and the State Department are saying that things should continue on as if the Executive Order never existed. But the critical point is that this may change as the government files an appeal, looking for a stay of the federal judge's order. So time is of the essence.
It seems that Trump has forgotten Arnold for the moment in his daily Twitter rant, choosing to focus on the federal judge who ruled against his refugee ban order. Calling him a "so called" judge.
The modern rule appears to be that only Republican Presidents may appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. So long as that rule prevails, the ‘independent judiciary’ will become increasingly less independent.
Which is why this judge's ruling was, for me, rather significant. He was appointed by a Republican. So it gives me hope that farther up the food change in the Supreme Court we might still have people who focus on the law rather than politics, despite their own views.
"The State Department has cancelled the revocation of those visas, unless they have been physically marked 'cancelled' or taken away."
Turns out some of our allies across the ocean were simply proceeding as if the supposed cancellation never happened. Folks had what appeared to be valid visas and they were getting on airplanes unfettered. The Trump administration had no choice but to race to get to the head of that parade, ‛cause it was happenin’ with or without ‛em, and they didn't want that to get noticed. Looking incompetent is one thing; they were ready to look incompetent. But lookin’ powerless seems to have bothered ‛em enough to make ‛em back off.
You seem to have been correct in Congress reaction to Trump's wall. They are choking on the cost, not believing, and rightly so, that the ultimate cost will be born by Mexico. The ultimate cost would be born by the American taxpayer.
There are also people along the border who live in an area that would be impacted by the wall who are saying that it will hurt their trade with Mexico, which has been critical in revitalizing the area.
(And he may get them to approve it anyway--Ryan's gotta have something to offer him to get him to approve Ryan's budget. The Great Wall of Trump is the obvious offer. So, there is the outside chance. Of course, then Ryan would have to deliver, and it's not at all clear he can do that.)
For the time being though, it appears that Trump's chaotic approach to government is causing his Trumpkins to assume that he's actually delivering on his campaign promises to shake up the system. It seems to not have occurred to them that he's simply hammering on the walls and foundations with no particular plan for how to proceed. (Turns out his often mentioned secret plan to take on Da’esh is to ask those generals whom he claimed were idiots to come up with a plan ‛cause he's got none. But, the Trumpkins haven't noticed this sort of stuff yet ‛cause it's not getting mentioned on FoxNews. Eventually, this information will seep across their barriers though.)
Trump has mentioned several times that he gets his foreign policy briefings from ‛the shows’. (link) Turns out folks who follow his Twitter account have figured out which shows he favors (Morning Joe and the O'Reilly Factor are high on the list). Advertising rates are going up accordingly as advertisers try their hand at advertising directly to Shorthands himself. I kid you not.
Trump is once again publicly professing his ‘respect’ for Vladimir Putin. And, on the subject of Putin killing folks who cross him, Trump's response, “We have a lot of killers,” Trump said. “Well, you think our country is so innocent?” (WashingtonPost) I'm gonna havta catch FoxNewsSunday in the morning and see how far they go to whitewash this again.
[Chumpy, Thu Feb 02, 09:20:00 am]: "Good Morning Petes, yeah, I see you. Happy now?"
Sorry Chumpy. Yer obsession notwithstandin', I gotta ignore y'all for a few days at a time for reasons of not havin' time for yer blather. (And also not givin' a rat's ass for it).
[Chumpy]: "BYTW--election wasn't stolen by the Russkies. Most of the Trumpkins knew damn good and well they were voting for Putin's favored candidate."
And, as expected, the idiocy continues.
[Chumpy]: "As a matter of principle it is unfortunate that the protests got violent and even more unfortunate that the University canceled Milo's appearance on account of that violence... He's basically a theatre act. So, the damage actually done to the hallowed principles of free speech appears to be minimal..."
I guess that must be the autocrat version of free speech: "free speech is important unless I determine that it dang well ain't". Nice principles ya got there, Chumpy.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused, in an order dated late Saturday night, an ‘emergency’ request, as the DoJ styled it, to reinstate Trump's immigrant ban pending determination of the issues on appeal. Shorthands shall have more ‘so-called’ judges to tweet at come Sunday morning.
[Chumpy]: "Good morning Petes; yes, I see you. Happy now?"
Nope. Yer ugly mug's attention brings me no happiness. That ain't gonna change so feel free to stop askin'. Or not. Don't much care.
It occurs to me that theatre was among the first cultural artifacts suppressed by the Nazis starting in 1933. So yer dismissal of Milo as "basically a theatre act" suggests that, on the matter of free speech, y'all are quite in tune with Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. No surprise there as ya have displayed yer illiberal stripes on more than one occasion previously.
"Nope. Yer ugly mug's attention brings me no happiness."
That's not particularly convincing. Your post was, as usual, all about me, my supposed ‘obsession’, my supposed ‘idiocy’, my ‘principles’; all about me. You had no other subjects to address. It is logical to assume you needed me to notice you. In the face of that, your denial was not convincing. Your second post simply makes your denial even less convincing.
"I'm gonna havta catch FoxNewsSunday in the morning and see how far they go to whitewash this again."
The subject of Trump's praise for Putin, and his cavalier dismissal of Putin's bloody history, and his claim that ‘We have a lot of killers’ simply did not come up. They handled the whitewash by simply not even mentioning that there might be some reason to question whether Trump was in Putin's pocket. They figure a lot of their audience will never hear of it if they never mention it. They may very well figure that right.
It occurs to me that theatre was among the first cultural artifacts suppressed by the Nazis starting in 1933. So yer dismissal of Milo as "basically a theatre act" suggests that, on the matter of free speech, y'all are quite in tune with Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels
I don't know, Petes and Lee, I think you're stretching it with that one. Berkeley shutting down a "hate speak" speaker that was generating a violent response, possibly endangering people on campus, doesn't equate with suppression of a theatrical performance.
Now someone calling out the cast of a play for daring to speak to a government representative or a comedy TV show because they dare lampoon your policies seems a little more Nazi like to me.
"Berkeley shutting down a ‘hate speak’ speaker that was generating a violent response, possibly endangering people on campus, doesn't equate with suppression of a theatrical performance."
No, it does not.
Petes way overworked the metaphor (lookin’ for some way to turn it around and had to look too hard). My point was that Milo Yiannopoulos doesn't book Berkely intending to have a reasoned political discussion. (And, let's face it, Milo Yiannopoulos almost never intends on having a reasoned political discussion, but that's a matter for another time.) He booked Berkley ‘cause he was looking for the drama, not the discussion.
It appears that some Republican Senators have gone off the reservation and are talking about things that have not been cleared for public discussion by FoxNews, things like Trump makin’ nice with Putin. WashingtonPost Mostly they do not appear to broach the issue themselves though, although they will address the issue if asked. (I still suspect that most Trumpkins are safe from exposure so long as it doesn't hit FoxNews and RadioRightWing.)
[Chumpy]: "That's not particularly convincing. Your post was, as usual, all about me, my supposed ‘obsession’, my supposed ‘idiocy’, my ‘principles’; all about me. You had no other subjects to address."
Nice try, Chumpy. Have a look at yer post of Mon Jan 30, 07:30:00 am. There are lots more of that ilk. That's you and yer obsessive intellectual insecurities. You won't find me makin' such oblique and unsolicited references to y'all. It's plain for all to see that yore whinin' above is pure projection.
[Lynnette]: "Berkeley shutting down a "hate speak" speaker that was generating a violent response, possibly endangering people on campus, doesn't equate with suppression of a theatrical performance."
I have to disagree with that characterisation. Milo is not a "hate speak" speaker. He is quite foppish and, like Trump, engages in a fair bit of self-aggrandisement. But "hate speak"? ... not from what I've seen. In any case, I'm sure I remember opining to you that hate speech should be banned (as it is in some parts of Europe), and you responded that your first amendment is a sufficiently cherished principle that even haters get to speak their mind.
As for the violent response at Berkeley, are you really suggesting that the talk should be cancelled because of the response? That would make it rather easy for any activists to shut down any talk, merely by protesting. And Lee's suggestion that Milo booked the talk to invite trouble is ridiculous. He doesn't impose himself on colleges, he is invited, generally by Republican leaning student bodies.
"He doesn't impose himself on colleges, he is invited, generally by Republican leaning student bodies."
You seem to think that changes his expectations of the reception he's gonna get at Berkley. It doesn't. He's smart enough to know what he'll get at Berkley. You may not be smart enough, but Yiannopoulos is not obliged to be willfully ignorant just to suit your predilections.
I notice that Mitch McConnell has criticized Shorthands on account of his praise of Putin and his twitter attacks on Judge Robart and has disagreed publicly with Shorthands' claim of massive voter fraud. Three open breaches with Trump (and more implied possible breaches that McConnell just hasn't been quite so open about). At the same time Paul Ryan is doing all the necessary contortions to ‘line up’ with Shorthands' erratic policy lines.
Looks to me like they're doing the ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine on Trump. McConnell is trying to show him that they can get along quite well without him (but he's not going far enough to actively and actually pick a fight with Trump). Ryan is showing him the alternative, what he can have if he just signs what they put in front of him and quits trying to pretend he's in charge of ‘their’ party.
Trump's gonna hafta figure out how to get back on top of this dynamic, or at least how to pretend this one.
Trump is considering Elliot Abrams for the #2 position at the State Department. Abrams name might sound familiar. He was a noted neo-con during the reign of Dick Cheney and he was a vocal critic of Trump during the last campaign. He insisted loudly and often that Trump was not qualified to sit in the Oval Office. But with Trump now in the Oval Office, and Rex Tillerson on the seventh floor, they badly need somebody who understands how the place works, and, if nothing else, Abrams knows where lots of the bodies are buried. (It also shows how thin is their bench that they have to accept such a vocal Trump critic. Apparently people who are, in the end, willing to work for Trump are not so easy to find as Trump might have hoped, at least, not in certain fields. As for Abrams, Trump offers him his way back out of the wilderness after the disgrace of years in service to the Cheney agenda.)
Might oughta mention that Abrams has yet to clear the person interview with Trump that is his last hurdle before an appointment and then facing up to Senate confirmation.
"Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting." TrumpTweets
I might point out that the election polls were correct. They showed Hillary with a slight majority. She came in with a slight majority (just under the 3% she needed to get over the Republicans' systemic advantage).
I hadn't mentioned it before, but I'd had the thought. I wondered when (and, I guess, if) the major networks would start declining to put Kellyanne Conway up on the screen on account of she was fast becoming a fairly transparent liar, and I thought fast becoming unlikeable onscreen (she's getting just too outraged over being called a liar to be pleasant, but not near outraged enough to start sticking closer to the truth). Seems it's started happening already, but not been much mentioned. There's the ongoing fuss between Kellyanne and CNN over whether or not they declined to host her last Sunday, and now there's rumors popping up that other shows have more quietly declined her offers to appear. She's incensed. Trump's incensed too, but he's up in arms over the editorials describing Steve Bannon as his "Karl Rove", or even Svengali type. Much outrage in the White House these days.
Milo is much more subtle than that. He cheerfully denigrates an entire religion without any thought that there are millions of people who follow it who are not extremists or rapists or gay bashers.
He makes it seem all right to paint all with the same brush. He makes claims about events here in the States that are not necessarily true to create the illusion that there is only one group of people who are the cause of hate.
In any case, I'm sure I remember opining to you that hate speech should be banned (as it is in some parts of Europe), and you responded that your first amendment is a sufficiently cherished principle that even haters get to speak their mind.
I don't recall our conversation with regard to the first amendment. I have always said that one person's right should not infringe on another's though.
As for the violent response at Berkeley, are you really suggesting that the talk should be cancelled because of the response?
I was not there so I cannot say what I would have done if I had been the one to make that decision. It does appear that the protest that occurred there was rather odd.
"I don't recall our conversation with regard to the first amendment."
I think he's conflating your position with mine there. I went over the First Amendment protections for him and how they worked to prohibit European style bans on "hate speech". My guess is he only remembers the parts he wants to remember.
With a few notable exceptions (Mitch McConnell being one of them) our Congressional Republicans have been notably quiet about Shorthands' efforts to de-legitimize the federal judges who might get in his way.
Trump's attempting to de-legitimize the independent judicial branch and the media (not a branch of government, but important enough to get a special mention in The Constitution). The only other institutional impediment to a full on fascist take-over would be the Republican legislature, and they're lookin’ fairly spooked; Trump scares the hell outta a fair number of them.
(I do, however, still have faith in the population. After all, even with Hillary as his opposition, Trump lost the popular vote, and he's not made himself any more broadly popular since then,)
[Me]: "He doesn't impose himself on colleges, he is invited, generally by Republican leaning student bodies."
[Chumpy]: "You seem to think that changes his expectations of the reception he's gonna get at Berkley. It doesn't. He's smart enough to know what he'll get at Berkley. You may not be smart enough ... blah blah"
Nope, I think that means they booked him, and not the other way round. And just to remind ourselves:
[Chumpy, @Sun Feb 05, 10:54:00 am]: "He booked Berkley ‘cause he was looking for the drama, not the discussion."
And that means yore still plucking alt facts out of yer ass.
[Chumpy]: "I might point out that the election polls were correct. They showed Hillary with a slight majority. She came in with a slight majority (just under the 3% she needed to get over the Republicans' systemic advantage)."
Nope. The polls showed that Hillary was gonna win. She didn't. Hopefully that'll sink in for y'all sometime, preferably before too much of the next four years has elapsed. Yer sore loser blather is already gittin' more than a bit tedious.
"Nope, I think that means they booked him, and not the other way round."
I see you require assistance with your English comprehension again. The booking agent works for the performer, not for the venue. And then there's alway Merriam-Webster. It works differently in police bookings, but Milo wasn't being held as a criminal.
"Nope. The polls showed that Hillary was gonna win."
You apparently need help understanding polling as well. Here's a place for you to start. Try to find the poll that measures win. After you've worked on that for awhile you may be ready for an actual lesson on understanding polling procedures.
And, if you happen to actually run across a point worth discussing in the meantime, as opposed to you wasting our time with shit you obviously don't understand and which doesn't matter anyway except as examples of you being a pompous ass and an idiot (as both your points just above) you be sure and get back with us.
[Lynnette]: "I don't recall our conversation with regard to the first amendment."
Lee could be right. It might have been with him :-)
"Milo is much more subtle than that. He cheerfully denigrates an entire religion without any thought that there are millions of people who follow it who are not extremists or rapists or gay bashers."
I agree he tars too many people with the same brush. That said, an uncomfortable number of Muslims do have worrying attitudes in those areas, including an astounding number of Muslims in the west who sympathise with ISIS. I guess Milo's approach is unlikely to win them over. The question is, should be be banned from speaking for this reason?
Well, looks like I might as well not save the next one. Just dump it right here and let Petes find it whenever…
Aside from the fact that Petes is very likely astounded by any three Muslims or more, we don't have a generally accepted meaning for the term ‘sympathize with’. My guess is Petes prefers terms that have no real meaning--he's not doing too well with ones the dictionary knows about, so undefined terms are probably much better for him. That way he can take up space in the conversation without actually saying anything, which is his favorite thing to do, talk a lot, say pretty much nothing of substance.
I note that, as of today, Shorthands is ‘uninvited’ to the customary address to Parliament when he visits London later this year (dates not set, Trump may pull out of the trip entirely). Meanwhile a petition to cancel Trump's invitation to Britain in its entirety has 1.8 million signatures; a countervailing petition has 300,000 signatures.
I get the feeling that Shorthands is not improving our image abroad as of yet. The process of Making America Great Again seems a little slow getting out of the blocks.
And, on another foreign policy front… I notice that Shorthands has still not identified any sanctions might be applied to those 25 Iranian entities (some persons, some companies) he identified shortly after putting Iran ‘on notice’. So, now we now know who in Iran is now noticing that Trump's got nothin’ to threaten ‘em with, at least, not so far. (I still think we're gonna find out that he tweets at ‘em in the wee hours of the morning and then calls that a win.)
PBS, two-hour piece in the ‛American Experience’ series on the Oklahoma City bombings, Timothy McVie and like 150+ dead folks. Some of these are worth the time, but I've not seen this one and so won't make a claim on its behalf.
"Democratic Congresswoman Kathleen Rice asked [Secretary of Homeland Security John] Kelly if he was concerned about political operatives attempting to influence the Department of Homeland Security. "“I work for one man," Kelly said. "His name is Donald Trump…" Politico.com
I might want to point out to Mr. Kelly that Donald Trump doesn't pay him, and that he actually works for us, but that's probably just a waste of time. I think what he was basically telling us there is that it's too damn late to worry about whether or not the Department of Homeland Security will become a political tool for the Trump White House--already a done deal.
The Army Corps of Engineers has issued the final permit to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to go in upstream to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. (Reuters) The Sioux claim this puts their water supply at risk, and they're expected to fight the move in court now.
I agree he tars too many people with the same brush. That said, an uncomfortable number of Muslims do have worrying attitudes in those areas, including an astounding number of Muslims in the west who sympathise with ISIS. I guess Milo's approach is unlikely to win them over. The question is, should be be banned from speaking for this reason?
I believe the answer would be no. He does have a right to his opinions and it is up to those who listen to him to determine whether or not any of his arguments supporting his points are valid. If there are those who believe him to be in error then they should also be heard. It would have been far more interesting, for me anyway, to have more of a debate type of presentation, rather than one person expounding on his ideas. But maybe that's just me. It seems there are many who go to some of these events who merely want to have someone endorse what they already believe.
I suspect that the contents of his presentation was not why Berkeley cancelled his appearance. It really did have more to do with the rather radical type of protest that was happening.
The polls showed that Hillary was gonna win. She didn't.
Now this brings up a question that I would like to pose to you. I would ask Marcus as well, but he seems to have disappeared. As someone who is outside our politics and domestic issues I am curios if you have an opinion on why so many of my fellow countrymen voted for Trump? Do you believe that this, along with Brexit and the rise of more right wing parties in other European countries, are symptoms that there is some kind of fundamental change occurring in the West? Do you believe that there are those who are seeking to take advantage of our disunity for their own gain?
Okay, maybe that was more a series of questions, but I am interested if you have any thoughts on them.
Lee, I did watch the Mosul piece on Frontline last night. It was good. It did illustrate very well the tough fight that is ongoing, and will be for some time, in Iraq. It is really too bad that in Trump they may not have the support they could use right about now.
So, now we now know who in Iran is now noticing that Trump's got nothin’ to threaten ‘em with, at least, not so far.
I did notice today that the Iranian government is trying to capitalize on Trump's poor behavior. Saying basically that he is the real face of America. So it starts. Our enemies and our rivals will have a field day with him in office. *sigh*
"It is really too bad that in Trump they may not have the support they could use right about now."
From what I'm hearing it seems the military specialists are expecting it to take six months or so to clear Da‘esh out of West Mosul. Iraq can expect to be on the ‘banned’ visa list most of that time (although it's not clear that Trump will be able to enforce it--he will maintain the list, with Iraq on it, clear to the Suprem Court is my guess). That's gonna make it real hard to cooperate against Da‘esh. And, it's gonna almost certainly seal Iran's position as champion against Da‘esh in Iraq. Bad news all around, and for nothing (there ain't a snowball's chance in hell that Putin is gonna give Trump squat in cooperation against Da'esh--ain't gonna happen).
Apparently, if Shorthands is frustrated on his very first attempt to impose a travel ban on Muslims then there's no going back ever and he'll never be able to offer us ‘security and safety’. (TrumpTweets) Turns out it is amazingly easy for the Evil Muslims to get a permanent victory over him.
New QuinnipiacPoll. Americans oppose The Great Wall of Trump by a 21 point margin; 59/38 against. (And that's IF Trump can somehow magically force Mexico to pay for it. If we have to pay for it the anti- Great Wall margin goes up to 63/35.)
Trump does have support for renegotiating trade deals though--so he's not gonna get whacked much for his anti-free-trade stance.
This fella, gal actually, writing in the NewYorker seems to be hinting at the possibility that the 9th Circuit could uphold the stay on Shorthands' immigration ban on the fairly straightforward grounds that The President of the United States is a bald-faced liar. That would be a rather remarkable holding, but Shorthands has been a remarkable President so far and he has been doin’ his dead-level best to piss ‘em off. So, it may not be entirely out of the question.
And, it's gonna almost certainly seal Iran's position as champion against Da‘esh in Iraq.
They do seem to be adept at helping Iran gain influence in the Middle East, and Iraq in particular.
I just listened to Trump boasting tonight that he knows all sorts of things, because of the intelligence briefings, that the American public does not with regard to terror. Perhaps his goal was to make everyone believe that there was actually a reason behind his ban, but he sounded very much like a kid who has been given the keys to a rather powerful car, which he really has no clue of how to drive.
That he alludes to how much intelligence information he is privy to just shows that he is inexperienced.
I hear that the Republican legislature, in the form of Mitch McConnell, shut down Elizabeth Warren's attempt to read a letter from MLK's widow with regard to Sessions. Strong arm tactics will not win many friends, I am thinking, unless they are die hard Trump supporters. While her effort was in vain, at least she added her voice in opposition.
"I just listened to Trump boasting tonight that he knows all sorts of things, because of the intelligence briefings…"
This is the same Trump who only a month maybe six weeks ago was publicly declaring that he didn't need to sit through those repetitive intelligence briefings ‘cause he was ‘like, a smart person’, right? MSNBC
"While her effort was in vain, at least she added her voice in opposition."
On top of that she got some killer video on CNN or whatever CNN calls that channel nowadays, video of the old boys tellin’ her, a woman, to basically sit down and shut up, and it don't look good, not good at all. It'll be makin’ a prominent appearance during the 2018 elections I'm sure.
In what I can only describe as a surprise, I find George Shultz and Jim Baker, a couple of aging revolutionaries from the Reagan administration, now writing an Op-Ed in the WallStreetJournal, copping to the reality of climate change and suggesting the implementation of the carbon tax as one potential tool in the fight. (Hope that link works--bypass links to the Wall Street Journal can be problematic. If it doesn't work--here's the straight-ahead link--https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-conservative-answer-to-climate-change-1486512334?mod=e2two)
I had previously noticed an upsurge in right-winger Op-Eds and essays in opposition to the carbon tax and wondered what caused them. I figure this WSJ piece musta been it.
[Lynnette]: "Okay, maybe that was more a series of questions"
Been up to my tonsils. I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, a little entertainment from the Scottish National Party at the UK Commons vote on triggering Brexit last night. Beethoven's Ode to Joy is the anthem of the European Union, which the Scots want to stay in.
[Lynnette]: "...I did watch the Mosul piece on Frontline last night. It was good."
Me too, through the magic of dodgy internet streaming ;-)
Lynnette: "Now this brings up a question that I would like to pose to you. I would ask Marcus as well, but he seems to have disappeared. As someone who is outside our politics and domestic issues I am curios if you have an opinion on why so many of my fellow countrymen voted for Trump?"
Not dissapeared. I'm in the south of Thailand scuba diving. And I'm on my tablet instead of on My PC which makes Reading easy but typing labourous.
Ansvarig short and easy it's the pendulum swinging back. White men in particular are dead tired of hearing how we are the fault of all ills and still actually be the ones who do most of the paying for those who attack us. It worked for a while because IT wasnt that intrusive into our everyday lives and we could just shut our ears to all the BULLSHIT. Now it's too late for any of that and we take the reins back. Others should think hard on what side they think will win that struggle and where they want to end up.
Women and guys shilling for muslims and hating on their own men is a perfekt exemple of: be damned careful what you wish for!
Also, we've been pretty damn civil about it too. Those BLM and other rioeters shaming themselves in the streets of the US are there only because our side has decided to let them. Which side do you think holds the real power when it comes to physical force in the US? Leftwing pampered Berkley students? Who sits on the guns? Who are able to not only raise a rabble but to get organized? The ONLY reason the left riot is the other side allows it. For now.
Merkel, that childless old catlady decided on her own to allow one million occupants into Germany. Talk about playing with fire. You really want to awake the German fighting spirit for his Lebenraum again? Because it's on the way.
"White men never tossed gays from tall buildings for sport."
No, but western "white men" have different methods, for instance they have been known to crucify gay folks, on fences especially (re: Matt Shepard) (Don't usually erecting crosses for this--save those for burning in black folks yards)
And, it's been a fairly common theme in Putin's Russia that they stand for traditional Christian morality in the face of Western tolerance for queers and gay rights. (This storyline is also catching on in our own Bible Thumper communities as they look for reasons to join Shorthands in embracing Putin.)
Ya'll seriously gonna compare guys like Trump or myself or maybe Pete on the Gay thing to those of ISIS or the sate law in most muslim nations. Really? You didn't see what a loser that was from the get go?
"The ethno-masochist has spoken. Sorry Lee, no cred for that anymore. Those days are ended."
I'm sure that's supposed to mean something. I'm just not sure what it's supposed to mean.
No wall--still highly unlikely although outside possible. Ryan needs something to trade to Trump for Trump signing a budget that'll kill the economy. Deficit financing for a useless wall is probably Ryan's best option. But, it's still a long shot.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ And that was the wrong link for Buchanan. I'd havta look harder to find the right one, but it's not important enough to chase it down. That one does speak in support of Shorthands' denigration of the U.S.A. in favor of Putin's Russia, but it doesn't get into religion or queers. Buchanan's a fairly prolific talking-head type, and he writes a lot of short propoganda pieces too.
"…Trump or myself or maybe Pete on the Gay thing to those of ISIS…"
Nope, wasn't accusing any of the three of you of personally being in on the crucifying gay guys thing. I think you're overworking your imagination there.
But you still felt you just HAD to come up with a bullshit tirade on how gays should fear the white man and not worry bout muslim migration increasing into previously white majority counntries. So ya'll gone an dug up some old shit. Foolin no one there, Lee.
You're an authoritarian Lee. You knew Hillary would make the USA poorer but with much more State authority. More of a veiled police state. A mediocracy where the apparatcnics rule the roost. A place you might get ahead.
Sorry, ya got TRUMPED!
The land of the free lives on for some time at least.
Actually, the point was that gays should fear Putin, probably not as much as Da‘esh, but authoritarian societies have never been good for gays (not since Sparta anyway). And Putin is no different. Not as bad as Da‘esh is hell of a low bar to clear. And Yiannopoulos should probably know that (Hitler put ‘em in the camps with the Jews and the Gypsies; Putin's makin’ a big deal outta how his society is gonna be hard on ‘em in general). My point was that tryin’ to sell authoritarianism to queers is probably a fool's errand. They'll know better.
LOL! Why should mercin gays Fear Putin? Smdh. Roltfl. Why even bring Putin into it? As for russian gays they've liven under Putin for more than a decade - still better to be a butt-pony in russia than in ANY muslim nation.
Are ya gettin old Lee? You start making less and less sense.
The 9th Circuit has said it will issue its opinion on Shorthands' travel ban from the Seven Muslim Majority Nations by the end of the day. They're on Pacific Time. Either way it's gonna be on to the Supreme Court, but this will decide whether the Stay of Trump's executive order remains in place while the appeal goes on to the Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit declined to lift the Stay; Trump's ban on immigrants from the Seven Muslim Majority Nations is not going to be allowed, pending a decision by either the full 9th Circuit sitting in what they call en banc, meaning all the judges come together instead of just the 3 judge panel, or it gets to the Supreme Court. But, as of now, Trump cannot enforce his travel ban. We can expect a tweet storm by morning I reckon.
"…Trump's ban on immigrants from the Seven Muslim Majority Nations…"
I guess I should clear that up. It's not an immigrant ban (it may be loosely called that sometimes in the media and in Congress) It's a visa ban--it effects all visa holders from the effected nations, not just immigrants.
It appears that, with the first publicly known payment from a foreign government to Trump's hotel across the street from the White House, we now have an official lawsuit against Trump alleging a violation of the Constitutional ‘Emoluments clause’, prohibiting Presidents from accepting payments from foreign princes and powers. (Saudi Arabia was the foreign government making the payment on behalf of one of their lobbyists who stayed in Trump's hotel)
I'm not sure what good a lawsuit is going to do; ya can't get a President impeached via a lawsuit. So, they're asking that Trump disgorge the entire Saudi payment (at the base rate of $325 per night) instead of just his ‘profits’, which he's already said he'd donate to the U.S. Treasury. (Of course, when the time comes he might not donate even the profits; he originally said he'd show his tax returns if he decided to run for President; he lies with abandon and with ease, and, so far, without much in the way of accountability or consequences.)
[Marcus]: White men in particular are dead tired of hearing how we are the fault of all ills and still actually be the ones who do most of the paying for those who attack us.
So you think this is partly to do with people in the Middle East who blame the West for the problems that beset it because of its colonial past? That this is a response to those feelings?
Women and guys shilling for muslims and hating on their own men is a perfekt exemple of: be damned careful what you wish for!
I'm not sure where you get the idea that women or gays are "shilling" for muslims or that they hate their own men.
Those BLM and other rioeters shaming themselves in the streets of the US are there only because our side has decided to let them.
So you think this is also a racial response, perhaps as a result of the Obama presidency?
The land of the free lives on for some time at least.
I think you are absolutely right about this, actually. With the courts ruling on Trump's immigration ban (yes, let's call it what it is) we are seeing some of those checks and balance built in working. I can only hope that they continue to do so. Because there are some of us out here not wanting to live under a Trump dictatorship.
It's a visa ban--it effects all visa holders from the effected nations, not just immigrants.
Yes, you are right, it is a more blanket order than just one that applies to immigrants. This is why we are seeing those who work for some of our companies affected. Something Trump did not consider. This is a disruption to out economy.
I thought this part was pretty good; good enough to repeat:
"Imagine how Republicans would have reacted if former president Obama had attacked a retailer for dropping his daughter's product line. Or asked senators to confirm a Cabinet pick who said guns are needed in schools to defend against grizzly bears. Or tried to undermine the independence of the federal judiciary. Or equated the United States' moral standing with that of Vladimir Putin's Russia. "There would have been howls of outrage, of course, and multiple investigations, and even calls for impeachment. But it's President Trump doing all those things, so Republicans in Congress are as meek and quiet as mice. "Perhaps the most striking thing about the chaotic and exhausting first three weeks of the Trump administration is the degree to which Republicans have held together, placing loyalty above all else. The party of Lincoln has sold its soul -- and like all Faustian bargains, this one will not end well." Washington Post by Eugene Robinson
But, he didn't actually follow up on that fine start he'd made; he went a different direction. So, I'll finish the thought… When they finally come unstuck, and that will happen; it's gonna get really ugly in that conference.
208 comments:
1 – 200 of 208 Newer› Newest»In addition to the protests, Trump's got chaos in the ranks of the Customs and ICE folks at the airports, who were not given advance warning this was coming nor any explanations of what's expected of them. And, he's already got a court order out against him, forbidding the deportation of anybody detained under Trump's newest executive orders. Gonna be a few days sorting this one out.
[Chumpy]: "Our intelligence agencies are unanimous in the conclusion that Putin ordered Russian intelligence operations to assist Trump in winning the Presidency; even the FBI belatedly came to that conclusion, and Petes is publicly indulging himself in his faerie tales to the contrary."
LOL. Among the sore losers, that's gotta me the most sore losery meme doin' the rounds.
Back to present reality: Trump's Muslim immigration move seems pretty poorly thought out.
"…that's gotta me the most sore losery meme doin' the rounds."
Seventeen separate federal agencies and all of them are on the Petes' ‘sore loser’ list?
And you really expect to be taken seriously?
I think you'd have been much better off to have let this go when you were only the one step behind.
First or all Chumpy, I didn't say it wasn't true, just that it was a sore loser tactic. Second of all, the report from those agencies is itself an exercise in obfuscation (you'd know all about that, bein' something of an expert).
The one-sentence sound bites that made the news imply that yore Federal agencies have direct evidence of Kremlin-orchestrated cyberhacking to defeat Hillary. The report actually talks about tactics like using online trolls and the TV station RT. That RT is a Kremlin mouthpiece ain't news, it ain't even interesting. If y'all are stupid enough to let that cesspit of disinformation operate in yore country, I reckon ya got what ya asked for. One way or another, RT's bias was visible at the flick of a TV remote, didn't need any hacked email releases.
As for the cyberhacking, if the agencies don't wanna reveal anything other than it used a piece of Ukrainian software that I could have bought online for tuppence myself, then I reckon they don't got any more than that. What they do have is lots of rushing to judgement though not, I note, uniform judgement: the CIA and FBI "have high confidence in the judgement" while the NSA have only "moderate confidence". Yeah, well I got zero confidence, howd'ja like them apples! Still puts me on the same spectrum of confidence as yore agencies.
But that's all beside the point. This whole thing just feeds into the meme that Hillary had her rightful election win stolen off her by sinister forces. That's the meme that is sustaining the sore losers paradin' their idle asses in front of Trump tower, feeding their righteous anger. It suits them not to consider that they are the anti-democrats, the hateful mob, the pedlars of groupthink.
"I didn't say it wasn't true, just that it was a sore loser tactic."
That is demonstrably false. You're learning from Shorthands as you go along; I can tell.
What you did was you compared the claims of Russian intervention to a certain Russian fairy tale figure. The fairy tales of Baba Yaga were false, as in, not true. (I was introduced to Baba Yaga as a child, and spotted the reference right away) Now you claim to have not been questioning the truth of the matter. That is a lie--you were questioning the truth of the matter; no other way to explain it; ain't a misunderstanding. You lie. It's that simple.
Trumpkins!
Fairy tales and flat out lies and yet you still expect to be taken seriously. Nothing short of amazing.
[Chumpy]: "Now you claim to have not been questioning the truth of the matter."
God, yore slow. I'm makin' no claims one way or another. I am sayin' it's irrelevant, an obfuscatory tactic to avoid the conclusion that Hillary lost the election for herself. I'd like to say y'all will get over it in due course, but ya won't. Eight years of gripin' about W is proof enough of that. This intel report is merely the "hanging chads" of the present decade.
And, just by the way (and this is more for Lynnette and Marcus and any other readers we might get by accident), the problem with the Russian intervention in the election is not that the election was ‘stolen’ from Clinton. That's done; over with. The Trumpkins knew of the Russian connection; the vast majority of them anyway; they voted for him knowing damn good and well that they were voting for Vladimir Putin's favored candidate. Most of them would do it all over again.
However, that doesn't mean that having Putin's man in the White House isn't going to be a problem going forward. (I suggest you quit whining ‘bout Hillary--nobody gives a damn ‘bout you getting stuck on how much you hate Hillary--we have a current, ongoing problem here. We have Trump tryin’ to buddy up to Putin.)
". I'm makin' no claims one way or another."
Get real man. It's right there in front of us. We are all aware of your habit of trying to say things you can later deny. You meant the fairy tale reference, but you meant to leave yourself what's called a ‘plausible deniability’. You like to be able to deny later whatever you said earlier--it's one of your favorite things. But, this time you went too far. There is no plausible deniablility. There is no other plausible interpretation; you didn't leave yourself enough room; you didn't think it out well enough. You lie, plainly and clearly. It's that simple.
"Most of them would do it all over again."
Hell, we got nearly 40% of them saying that Putin is our friend, trying to rationalize their vote. They'd rather believe that Putin is our friend than entertain questions about their own allegiance to Trump. It's not that they didn't know. It's that they didn't care. Not enough to abandon Trump anyway.
Chances of an infrastructure deal seem to be fading fast. Now that Trump's in office he's leaning towards paying for the needed infrastructure by cutting taxes on the rich (and especially on corporations). This was how Dubya said he was gonna pay for the war in Iraq--cut taxes pay for a war that way. Apparently this was gonna work on account of magic. We remember how that worked out. (Most of us anyway.) Magic didn't happen.
The Republicans are eager for the tax cuts, but they're not so enthused about any infrastructure fixes. The Democrats are eager for the infrastructure spending, but they don't believe that cutting taxes brings in more money. (Never has before, and they're leery of Trump's assurances that it'll finally work this time.)
I understand that FoxNews in New York City was the only cable news channel in the city not covering the mess that developed at Kennedy Airport. It'll be interesting to see what FoxNewsSunday has to say ‘bout it here in a few minutes.
[Chumpy]: "...they voted for him knowing damn good and well that they were voting for Vladimir Putin's favored candidate."
"However, that doesn't mean that having Putin's man in the White House isn't going to be a problem going forward."
LOL. There just ain't no reasonin' with a foamin'-at-the-mouth rabid left wing sore loser. By the same token anyone who favours Roger Federer now has "their man" as the holder of the Australian Open title, those who favour the Denver Broncos have "their team" as winners of the Super Bowl, Leonardo di Caprio fans will be pleased to see that "their man" took the Oscar. Non-dunderheads will realise that favourin' "your man" ain't the cause of him winnin' a sporting title, a movie award or the American presidency. That disconnected fact is what's known as "coincidental". I realise that big word may be rather complicated for y'all. More to the point, it may tread on yer "stolen election" meme.
Trump's Muslim immigration move seems pretty poorly thought out.
If he hopes to uphold American values, yes. If he seeks to sow hatred and fear, no.
I hope that our checks and balances eventually deal with the dictator wanna be who now resides in the White House. It was a concern of our founding fathers.
"More to the point, it may tread on yer ‘stolen election’ meme."
That's never been my theme--never. I've never said the election was stolen. I don't make that claim now. The system is the system it is. This is ‘stolen election’ thing is your story and your preoccupation; this is the story you can't let go of. This is the fight you've got to fight even when you're the only one out on that limb.
You can't quit pretending that I'm out there on that limb with you. But, I'm not.
My guess is everybody gets that except you. I might as well ignore you, ‘cause you can't get over your own fixations. But, that's your problem for today; not my problem today. I'm done tryin’ to get you over the spot you're stuck on.
You are dismissed.
Chris Wallace just sat back and let Kellyanne rant. Just sat there and looked at while she carried on. It wasn't pretty.
"My guess is everybody gets that except you."
Or, on second thought… Maybe you do know you're the only one who's out on that limb, but you're thinkin’ this is how you divert attention from that fact that you were intentionally lying when you were telling us that the Baba Yaga reference was not an assertion that Putin was innocent of an intervention on Trump's behalf. (When, of course, all the intelligence services say it's clear that Putin did just exactly that.)
Could be you'd prefer to try to hide the lie behind a façade of fanaticism?
"I hope that our checks and balances eventually deal with the dictator wanna be who now resides in the White House."
On the bright side; he is proving fairly inept in wielding the power of his position. It limits his ability to act as a dictator with the powers he does wield or to consolidate further powers.
I noticed that Sean Spicer has at least a couple of dark suits now, and somebody's taken care to fix that monster air gap between his neck and his suit collar
Something that's been overlooked as the media's been transfixed by the mess of Shorthands' Muslim Ban (let's not kid ourselves that it's not a Muslim Ban)… Steve Bannon, hero of Breitbart, has been given a permanent seat on the National Security Council while the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs will be called into national security meetings only when the discussions are expected to ‘require their expertise’.
This is crazy from the get-go. The military and the spooks are left out of intelligence meetings in favor of Trump's pet neo-Nazi? (Also, Rience Priebus will be sitting in on the NSC meetings--gotta stay on top of keeping the political spin ready.)
They were just talking to a retired General on one of the news shows about that. Unprecedented behavior. So, any clue as to what on earth Trump & his minions are up to? Perhaps more control over ultimate policy decisions with regard to military actions?
My America is out in force again tonight. It's nice to see I am not the only one how feels this ban is deplorable.
"So, any clue as to what on earth Trump & his minions are up to?"
Trump is famous for deciding to go along with the position of whomever was the last person to talk to him. I think this is Steve Bannon making sure that Trump doesn't talk to one of those people last.
Reince Preibus said on Meet The Press that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence are ‘welcome’ to drop in on NSC meeting whenever they want, even if they're not invited (that 's if they can smell out when and where an NSC meeting is being held)
Republican redistricting taking a beating in courts. This was in my paper today. There might be hope for the next election.
"There might be hope for the next election."
Expecting results by the next election might be over-optimistic. However, I think we can eventually re-balance the Republic back towards a more moderate politics if we pay some serious attention the gerrymandering problem. And that's a move in the right direction.
I am cheered by the word that Obama intends to work on this problem in his post-Presidency. Bill Clinton made a lot of money (and put together a decent charity in the process). Obama has hinted that he's gonna try to tackle the problem of legislators picking their voters instead of the other way ‘round. He's got some serious good will behind him; he could maybe do some serious good in that role.
Local late news is telling me that Homeland has basically backed down from Trump's executive order. They're not admitting to having backed down, but it's same thing without the admission. Gonna work on doing it right over the next 90 days maybe.
[Chumpy]: "That's never been my theme--never. I've never said the election was stolen."
Sure ya have.
[Chumpy, previously]: "...that doesn't mean that having Putin's man in the White House isn't going to be a problem going forward... We have Trump tryin’ to buddy up to Putin."
Of course, ya will deny that this is yer gist here, but I ain't interested in yer mental contortions. The fact that Trump has said in a press conference in the last forty-eight hours that he neither knows Putin nor knows how the relationship will pan out will, of course, make no difference to yer obsessions with the stolen election meme.
[Chumpy]: " I'm done tryin’ to get you over the spot you're stuck on. You are dismissed."
Ahh, that ole' leftist authoritarian streak. Kinda awkward when ya can't impose yer "alt facts" by diktat, ain't it? ;-)
I note that James Mattis, Trump's new Secretary of Defense, deeply distrusts Putin and also disagrees with Trump on "enhanced interrogation". Trump seems sanguine about letting his chosen experts decide and has said as much.
"Sure ya have."
Took ya awhile to figure out that Trump would double down on the lie, and to then do the same. But,
if I had, then you'd have an example by now. You'd have a quote; you've had the time. We both know that.
Marcus knows that. Lynnette knows that.
Ya got squat, except that you're a brazen liar. And, that ain't enough.
(By the way, I already know your next move.)
The Iraqi Parliement has invoked a reciprocal ban on U.S. citizens for a period of at least 90 days. (Link) It is not yet clear how this will effect our efforts to take Mosul back from Da‘esh, or other anti-Islamist efforts in the Iraqi/Syrian theatre of the fight against the Islamic State.
"Parliament", with an ‘a’ in the middle. (Petes is apparently riled, he'll be huntin’ for typos to be gleeful over.)
Some additional numbers I hadn't noticed first time in that Quinnipiac Poll I mentioned last thread. Trump's overall numbers are down since his inauguration, but his approval ratings among his Trumpkins actually rose a little bit. Therefore the Congressional Republicans will continue to fear him for awhile. He's more popular among their ‘base’ primary voters than they are. A Tweet from Trump and a Republican Congressman can expect to have a primary opponent. And, with the gerrymandering that's occurred over the course of the last decade or so, they're more afraid of getting primaried than of whom they'll have to meet in the general election.
Just saw an article confirming what I thought was the case….
"Refugees from Syria [whom Shorthands is intent on banning
permanently] have never committed a single terrorist attack in the
United States."
BostonGlobe
Trump has added the Director of the CIA back into the attendee list for NSC meetings. DNI and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are still out in the cold.
The acting head of the Justice Department, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, (an Obama administration holdover) has issued a memo declaring that she believes Trump's executive orders regarding Musim immigrants to be unconstitutional, and she has ordered that no Justice Department attorneys will defend it in court--they won't even appear in court in defense of Trump's orders. She fully expects to be overruled as soon as Trump gets his Attorney General confirmed (fired too), but, until then….
And, she didn't last the night. Trump's already found somebody just a little further down the chain of command at Justice who will defend his executive order on immigrants from the seven Muslim countries he's selected for especial censure.
At least she has the guts to stand up for what's right.
I wish I could say the same for others in our empty Emperor's circle of sycophants.
Please Lynnette, don't be such a drama queen. You're in a clear minority here. A large majority of your fellow Americans applaud Trumps ban on Muslims from jihadi hot spots. Don't be such an anti-democrat Lynnette, allow for the will of the majority once in a while.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided."
You most likely had no clue about this. Because you get your information from FAKE NEWS outlets that harp on and on about how bad Trump is and how dangerous all his actions are. You're not likely to get a poll like the one above quoted on CNN, because it doesn't rhyme with CNN's agenda and CNN is first and foremost precisely a vehicle to further an agenda.
Lee: ""Refugees from Syria [whom Shorthands is intent on banning
permanently] have never committed a single terrorist attack in the
United States.""
Afraid you're missing out on Syrian refugees Lee? You'd like a couple of millions of those am I right?
Trump is about to begin working with KSA and hopefully others in the region to set up safe zones for refugees IN THE REGION so those "refugees" won't have to look to Germany and Scandinavia, nor across the Atlantic, for relative safety.
It's about 6-7 years too late, since Obama could never figure it out, but thankfully it took Trump less than a week to figure out this very obvious course of action.
""A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey
finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on
refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until
the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential
terrorists from coming here."
That poll is fraudulent on its face. (It's a real shame what Scott Rasmussen has allowed to happen to once quite professional polling organization.) The screening on refugees is much more stringent than is the screening on tourists or students or any other visitors allowed into the United States. Mr. Rasmussen's polling assumption is contradiction of the known facts is ‘unfortunate’ (to put it mildly). That poll is intentionally slanted. I'm actually only surprised he couldn't get higher numbers than he got.
"Afraid you're missing out on Syrian refugees Lee?"
No, I am opposed to taking in refugees. I don't like the idea of allowing entrants en masse, as I've made clear before. I think residency in the United States should be granted on a personal, case-by-case basis. However, I also don't like the idea of religious tests. I really, really don't like that. The United States is, as you have noted before, founded on a shared idea rather than on a shared ethnicity. Shorthands' new edicts seem to me to be clearly unconstitutional, and even more clearly a breach of the shared idea (even if he might have the legal power under the Constitution--which I'm pretty sure he does not have.) I am appalled that a President of the United States would issue such orders, based, as they clearly are, on the religion of the applicants (Christians from the seven named nations being up for exemptions in Shorthands' final versions of the orders, as he's told us.) This is un-American; I am appalled.
Typo that could use correcting there:
"Mr. Rasmussen's polling assumption in contradiction of the known facts is ‘unfortunate’."
"Trump is about to begin working with KSA and hopefully others in the
region to set up safe zones for refugees IN THE REGION…"
I don't believe Trump is about to do that. I believe Trump is about to such steps as are necessary to allow you to pretend you believe he was stymied by circumstances in his efforts to set up safe zones in the region. I don't think he has any intention of trying to succeed in that endeavor. He just wants to give you enough of a show so's you can pretend to believe.
Post Script:
Safe zones in the region are of little interest to his Trumpkins.
Tyin' yerself into a knot there Lee, ain't ya?
So according to you Trump is calling and making deals with world leaders to fake a development to impress upon the likes of me, even though those whose support actually matters to him don't even care about said development.
Is it really so far fetched that Trump actually believes, like I and so many others, that if we could help arabs in their immediate area it would be a good thing to do, and even more so if that means we don't have to get them as (or posing as) "refugees" in our own countries?
I've been in favor of that for more than a decade. It's a cheaper solution that could help more people and we don't run the same risks with terrorism, culture clashes and diluted wellfare systems in our countries.
And now Trump is making great deals, as he promised he would, around the world:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-king-salman-abdulaziz-al-saud-agree-safe-zones-syria-yemen-a7553341.html
And all you do is bitch and moan.
"Is it really so far fetched that Trump actually believes…"
I don't think it's a matter of what he believes. I don't think he cares. Except about the optics; I do believe he cares about the optics of it. He's willing to do a little showboating.
And, here you are gettin’ all bitchy on account of I told you Trump don't care ‘bout you. So you tell me that I'm the one doin’ the bitch and moan.
It's almost enough to make me laugh.
By the way, I heard on the early morning news about a Quinnipiac Poll from about three weeks ago which said that the percentages in favor of a ban on refugees from Syria was 48% in favor of a ban and 43% against with the remainder in don't know/don't care/no opinion/can't decide/etc. Quinnipiac Polls are usually well done. So, the ban does have significant support, but that was also before Shorthands made it a clearly religious selection; he may have lost support over that.
Opinion on wall:
https://twitter.com/netanyahu/status/825371795972825089
The best thing is obviously a physical wall which goes deep, rises high and is topped with razor wire coils on both sides. Add electronic surveillance through motion detectors, infrared heat detectors and and of course drones in the skies. Link this through a centralized system and connect it to strategically located rapid response teams. If there's a will there's a wall - as they say in Israel.
Plus there will be beautiful gates in the wall so all the Mexicans Lee C says are desperate to get back home to Mexico for the vibrant jobs market there will be able to leave without any problems.
I don't think the Trumpkins expect to have to pay for ‛rapid response teams’ across a 2,000 mile stretch. You got any indications they even know ‛bout that requirement? (I'm guessin’ not, but figured I'd ask.)
The Wall won't work just by itself as you've pointed out. You've also pretty much said it wouldn't make a difference and there you're wrong (knowingly wrong I suspect). But on its own it'd be pretty much a wasted effort. If "Trumpkins" don't realise that they are stupid. There will be an initial building cost and then a running cost.
Not much different from a security system for a gated community, but on a much larger scale of course. Point of interest: lots and lots of folks opposed to the Wall themselves live pretty segregated and with high levels of security.
"You've also pretty much said it wouldn't make a difference and
there you're wrong (knowingly wrong I suspect)."
Where it will make a difference we already have a wall up. (Approximately 700 miles of wall and/or double fence--highfence already in) The rural areas left won't benefit much from either a wall or from fencing. Certainly not enough benefit to justify the costs. There's no crowds to disappear into out there. Those areas need patrolled, not fenced. We already have 21,000 border control agents on that border, more than enough, almost too many; they're on top of one another ‛cause they won't get out of their SUVs out in the heat, so they're pretty much all concentrated on the roads. There are a few improvements down there that might be cost effective, but this new talk of a wall is a political gimmick to get the ‛right people’ elected. It's not a border control measure.
The Great Wall is, by the way a gimmick advanced by people who don't live along the border. The wall was first authorized under Dubya, but he never asked for funds for it. There's a reason for that. He was a Texan; he had lived along that border, he knew the talk of the wall was a gimmick--a symbol ya sell to those many fools out east-not something ya actually do.
The problem the Republican Party has today, the reason they are in more immediate and obvious distress than the Democratic Party (witness the takeover of the Party by Shorthands the Dancing Bear), the problem is they didn't prepare for the day when the rubes began to actually believe the faerie tales they'd been feeding them. So, now the voice of the Party isn't Wall Street, it isn't even Main Street; it's the Old South, Appalachia rose again. They weren't ready for it when the Tea Baggers went off on ‛em and FoxNews and RadioRightWing discovered that's where the ratings were.
Trump is supposed to name his Supreme Court pick a 8:00 pm Eastern Time tonight, on his very own Trump internet broadcast.
Turns out the Republican leadership has an off-the-books meeting scheduled with Trump for 7:00 pm. There may be a rebellion cookin’ in the ranks.
"The wall was first authorized under Dubya, but he never asked
for funds for it."
I probably need to be a little more specific here before Petes comes back and claims that a general comment like that is the equivalent of a lie on account of I'm the one who generalized. Dubya didn't ask for funds for the rest of it. He did put in wall and fence where it made sense, left the rest even though it'd been authorized, on account of it wasn't worth spending the money on.
I wasn't onboard before with the Democrats hinting in advance that they'd filibuster Shorthands' Supreme Court nominee. But, considering his choice, I'm getting more comfortable with the idea.
Please Lynnette, don't be such a drama queen.
Clearly you haven't been listening to our version of Baghdad Bob, Sean Spicer. How that man will be able to hold his head up among reputable spokespeople after his stint with Trump is beyond me. Even he stumbles over the words he is being forced to speak.
And, how could I forget to mention...this person.
[Chumpy]: "But, if I had [claimed the election was stolen], then you'd have an example by now. You'd have a quote; you've had the time. We both know that."
Only one so dopey was y'all could say that in response to the comment where I gave ya the quote. :-)
[Chumpy]: "(By the way, I already know your next move.)
Course ya do. It's the one I regularly use. Leave ya alone for a couple of days to calm down from yer idiocy. I mean, we already know yer too much of a liar and obfuscator to be worth conversin' with. A quick prod every few days is good fer a laugh, but I don't wanna overly encourage ya.
[Chumpy]: "No, I am opposed to taking in refugees. I don't like the idea of allowing entrants en masse, as I've made clear before. I think residency in the United States should be granted on a personal, case-by-case basis. However, I also don't like the idea of religious tests. I really, really don't like that. The United States is, as you have noted before, founded on a shared idea rather than on a shared ethnicity. Shorthands' new edicts seem to me to be clearly unconstitutional, and even more clearly a breach of the shared idea (even if he might have the legal power under the Constitution--which I'm pretty sure he does not have.) I am appalled that a President of the United States would issue such orders, based, as they clearly are, on the religion of the applicants (Christians from the seven named nations being up for exemptions in Shorthands' final versions of the orders, as he's told us.) This is un-American; I am appalled."
Not unexpectedly (either for you or the swathes of your country people in a hissy fit over this) you are confusing multiple issues. First of all, you don't have a choice about taking in refugees. A refugee is entitled to claim asylum under the UN Convention on Refugees which y'all signed up to in 1970. Secondly, you may not have noticed that yore country is surrounded by quite a lot of wet stuff, making it difficult for middle eastern refugees to claim asylum as they must do so on yore soil.
As for resettling people that y'all want to give succour to, that's entirely yore own country's prerogative. If y'all want to highlight the plight of any particular group, then that's up to you. I note that ya did that for the Rohingya Muslims, an ethnic and religious minority in Myanmar in 2015 (U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 415). Y'all have resettled over 13,000 of those folks, which is a brave and commendable thing. So what's the big deal about Trump highlighting the plight of middle eastern Christians who have suffered a much worse fate than the Rohingya? Suddenly that's un-American? Gimme a break. You are appalled becaused it's Trump and no other reason. The hissy fit continues.
"Only one so dopey was y'all could say that in response to the
comment where I gave ya the quote."
That didn't happen. (You'd probably be better off to not fantasize in public like that.)
"Not unexpectedly…you are confusing multiple issues."
More public fantasy--you're not off to a good start today.
"First of all, [America doesn't] have a choice about taking in
refugees."
Obama volunteered us for up to 110,000 Syrian refugees a year (if and after they cleared vetting); Hillary Clinton wanted to raise that number substantially. Shorthands wanted to drop it to zero (and has issued an executive order to that effect). All three of them would disagree with your assertion there. (You're swinging wild this morning.)
"So what's the big deal about Trump highlighting the plight of middle
eastern Christians who have suffered a much worse fate than the
Rohingya?"
Explaining what's wrong with banning the entry of Syrian Muslims, but allowing Syrian Christians requires a two-step reasoning process and a reference to documents. That's clearly beyond your capabilities this morning. Maybe one of these days when you're not in the public fantasy mode, maybe I'll explain it to ya then.
Shorthands' State Department (now that he has it mostly captured) has issued a blanket revocation of the visas already issued for the seven Muslim Majority nations he has chosen to pick on. I'm not sure that's entirely legal (as in ‛Constitutional’), but it well might be. The President does have substantial discretion and authority over border security. I'm guessing it'll get challenged anyway, and we'll find out eventually what the Supreme Court (now with a serious right-winger among its majority) thinks of it. (And, yes, I do believe they'll confirm Gorush in spite of any Democratic filibuster.)
Oh, and just by the way, for anybody who's noticed that I've made the switch from calling Petes out on his lies to allowing that he's just having mental problems…
Ya, that's sorta true. At least, I believe it to be true. To explain…. It would take even Petes a little time to convince himself that he'd offered up quotes that he never offered up, things that do not appear in the record before him. However, he's had the time necessary to have sold himself on his own fantasies. So, while it was a lie when he told the lie, it's quit possible that he actually believes it now.
And, I just noticed that there's a lawsuit going on over Shorthands use of private security (answerable to him) in the place of the Secret Service. I knew he had added an extra layer of private guards in addition to his Secret Service protection during the campaign, and I read that he wanted to continue that practice now that he's in the White House (as best he can--the Secret Service has statutory responsibilities and jurisdictions that he has yet to fully overcome). But, I wasn't sure he'd managed to supplant the Secret Service with his own people now that he's President. Apparently he has added them as an extra layer, between himself and the federal Secret Service. (I'm wondering where was the last example I can think of where a national leader employed private security answerable only to himself? Although, Trump is being sued over his guys manhandling folks near about his campaign events, so maybe they're not gonna be answerable only to him after all.)
[Chumpy]: "Obama volunteered us for up to 110,000 Syrian refugees a year (if and after they cleared vetting); Hillary Clinton wanted to raise that number substantially. Shorthands wanted to drop it to zero (and has issued an executive order to that effect). All three of them would disagree with your assertion there."
Actually, that is in exact agreement with my assertion. I realise you are havin' serious comprehension problems, so I'll say it slower than last time: IF someone applies for asylum havin' made it to yore sovereign territory, you gotta consider their application under the conventions y'all signed up to. As for anyone comin' from abroad after applyin' for a visa, that's entirely up to y'all's selves as to whether you consider their case ... as Big Ears, Sore Loser, and Shorthands have all noted. Not only is it not "un-American" it's plain damned common sense, otherwise Ms. Merkel has a million or so folks she'd like to offload on y'all.
": IF someone applies for asylum havin' made it to yore sovereign territory…"
And IF a meteor hits the ground it will probably make a crater.
Neither of these things affects what I wrote, which was not predicated on whether or not people had reached our shores (that's not enough, by the way, they have to actually get inside). You're running off on your own little tangents. And, you're running off alone; I'm not goin’ there with ya.
And, I might note for the record that Big Ears was known to joke ‛bout his big ears. Shorthands sense of humor is sufficiently cramped that he is unable to enjoy jokes about his insufficiently big stick. (To borrow a phrase from Teddy Roosevelt. Shorthands screams loudly and wields an insufficient stick. He's not exactly making us respected ‛round the world.)
Another thing to note. American law restricts asylum claims to persons having an individual claim of probable persecution if returned to their prior jurisdiction. That is, just as an example, Saddam's forces had to be looking specifically for Ahmad Chilabi in proper person. It wasn't enough under the American interpretation of asylum claims that Chilabi was a member of the persecuted Shia group. They had to know who Chilabi was and be after him in particular.
Hmmmm... I phrased that wrong; let me clear that up. The Shia, as a group, faced discrimination under Saddam, and that is not enough to give rise to an asylum claim. ‛Persecution’ is deemed an individualized problem under American law.
@Lynnette,
It's a little late, but last night's Frontline was an hour on the fight for Mosul, and it was worth the hour. If you see it going up on YouTube I recommend it.
The Trump administration has, or claims to have, officially put Iran ‘on notice’. (Reuters) Presumably Trump could Tweet at them in the middle of the night (our time--middle of the day their time). Or he could say ‘Radical Islam’ out loud, in public, maybe even more than once. Maybe that'll put ‘em in their place.
"…[S]ince the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, no one has been
killed in the United States in a terrorist attack by anyone who
emigrated from or whose parents emigrated from Syria, Iraq, Iran,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan [or] Yemen, the seven countries targeted [in
Shorthands' recent executive order]."
NYT
It seems that Berkeley isn't too thrilled with Milo either.
Violent protests erupted at UC Berkeley on Wednesday night hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.
Black-clad protestors could be seen throwing fireworks at police and at the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Breitbart editor's event was to be held. They were also seen tearing down metal barriers, smashing windows of the student center and setting a fire outside the building.
The university estimated that more than 1,500 protesters were gathered outside the student center. At least one person was injured, according to the university, although it was not immediately clear whether the individual was a protester, staff member or a bystander.
Thanks for letting me know about the Mosul piece. I will look for it when I get a chance.
Shorthands screams loudly and wields an insufficient stick. He's not exactly making us respected ‛round the world.
No, unfortunately not. But it is best to remember that America is not one person. Right now I think we are involved in a fight between what is almost, not to sound too histrionic, a fascist form of government and those who believe that it is better to govern with a more open hand. The demonstrations are not just about women, or the acceptances of refugees. They are about who we really are. I am thinking we are going to see whether or not those checks and balances put in place really work or whether there will be a return to the 60's type of violence.
"…a fascist form of government…"
The form of government has not changed. Which is why I'm confident the Republic will survive Shorthands at the helm for a bit. Clearly though, he has fascist leanings, as does Steve Bannon, and several others in the inner circle. Resistance is called for. But, we'll be okay in the end. He will discredit what's left of the alliance between the rightwingers and the Goldman-Sachs wing of the Republican Party. And, I think it'll only take him a few years to do that part up proper.
Somebody described the Trump administration as malevolence luckily tempered by incompetence. That struck me as just about right.
Who do you side with Lynnette? Milo who is trying to speak up on matters of importance even if you don't necessarily agree with him. Or criminal communist thugs mixed with juvenile crybabies who raise hell, destroy property and attack people in an attempt to silence an opinion they don't agree with?
Because it does in fact seem you're increasingly siding with "protesters" these days.
Yup, Marcus, it's a strange mixed-up world. People crying "fascist" even while posting that "black-clad protestors could be seen throwing fireworks at police and at the student union center on the Berkeley campus... tearing down metal barriers, smashing windows of the student center and setting a fire outside the building."
Then there's the hordes of people tweeting "#LoveTrumpsHate" while calling for Trump to be assassinated. Over here we have the Prime Minister (who's the closest thing you'll get to an actual fascist in politics here) wondering if he might snub any meetings with Trump (as if Trump would notice). In Australia, Trump's suggestion that he might not take thousands of refugees off the hands of the Australian government (who had been accused of their mistreatment) is being treated like a declaration of war.
I guess Twitter must not have banned all these users due to most of them not being able to spell "assassinate". Maybe Twitter's automatic nastiness detection software failed to spot it, although it seems to work whenever they are banning conservatives like Milo. But I notice not everyone got away with it in spite of Twitter. Maybe that's because the idiot in question was from Kentucky.
I see the NYT's op-ed columnist ain't as coy as Chumpy about admittin' to his conviction that the election was stolen by the Russkis. Like Chumpy he reckons it's time for the gloves to come off, seein' as the Democrats have heretofore been just too darn polite when it comes to dealin' with their Republican colleagues. This is the guy who had to apologise after referring to Mitt Romney's "magic underwear". I guess Chumpy went to the same school of manners as Mr. Blow.
Good Morning Petes, yeah, I see you. Happy now?
BYTW--election wasn't stolen by the Russkies. Most of the Trumpkins knew damn good and well they were voting for Putin's favored candidate. Most of them know it know. Most of them would do it again. That's not a theft; that's givin’ it away.
"The Trumpkins knew of the Russian connection; the vast majority of
them anyway; they voted for him knowing damn good and well that
they were voting for Vladimir Putin's favored candidate. Most of them
would do it all over again.
"However, that doesn't mean that having Putin's man in the White
House isn't going to be a problem going forward."
Lee C. @ Sun Jan 29, 07:11:00 am, supra, ↑↑↑
Your boy's not exactly off to an auspicious start here Petes.
"President Donald Trump on Thursday dismissed reports of
contentious phone calls he’s had with foreign leaders, telling Americans
not to fret over his tough talk.
"“The world is in trouble, but we’re gonna straighten it out, OK? That’s
what I do, I fix things,” Trump said Thursday morning at the National
Prayer Breakfast. “We’re gonna straighten it out. Believe me. When
you hear about the tough phone calls I’m having, don’t worry about it.
Just don’t worry about it.”"
Politico.com
And, then, just to make sure we all knew Shorthands got his priorities right. He took the time to rag on Arnold Schwarzenegger at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, because, after all, that's what National Prayer Breakfasts are for. Politico.com
I was reading the other day, one of Trump's biographers was saying that Trump prepared for his Presidential run mostly by listening to hours and hours of RadioRightWing. Shows.
"Milo who is trying to speak up on matters of importance even if
you don't necessarily agree with him."
As a matter of principle it is unfortunate that the protests got violent and even more unfortunate that the University canceled Milo's appearance on account of that violence. That is a matter of principle. (And, I would have preferred they let him take the stage and let him take his vegetables like a man.)
On the other hand, this is Milo Yiannopoulos we're talking about here. The fact that he might claim to address matters of importance doesn't mean he can also claim to have anything of importance to contribute to that conversation. He's basically a theatre act. So, the damage actually done to the hallowed principles of free speech appears to be minimal, the damage to the principle is, in fact, a matter of principle more than matter of substance. And the practical damage done to the Republic appears to be nearly nil.
The Trump administration is lifting high-tech sanctions on the Russian FSB (successor to the KGB), just in time for them to commence cyber-meddling in Europe's upcoming elections. UKIndependant
Trump's Treasury Department says that the change in sanctions the above link was hyping is merely a ‛tweak’ that allows the FSB to approve sales (as required under Russian law) for items that already legal for sales under our sanctions but had to also be cleared by the FSB. They say this is not a relaxation of the Obama imposed sanctions (not yet anyway).
People crying "fascist" even while posting that "black-clad protestors could be seen throwing fireworks at police and at the student union center on the Berkeley campus... tearing down metal barriers, smashing windows of the student center and setting a fire outside the building."
Commenting on the violence on a campus by protesters is more an illustration of my concern that we will see more of this as people start to organize against what they perceive as a government that supports a more extreme right type of mindset, such as fascism. Milo's views seem to reflect that mindset, making him a lightening rod for that kind of violent reaction.
It is quite true that I support peaceful demonstrations, such as we saw with the women's march, or those who came out in support of the refugees who would like to come to this country, but are being turned away. That does not mean I condone violence or the possible assassination of anyone, even Trump. I would far prefer to see our courts erect the roadblocks to Trump's more extreme policies.
Who do you side with Lynnette?
It is more who I do not side with. I do not side with those who promote hate.
Takin’ a break from Shorthands and the rise of the rightwingers back into the daylight…
This is almost equally spooky…
Headline reads Hybrid zoo: Introducing pig–human embryos…Chimaeras could pave the way for growing human organs in other animals. And the first line "Scientists have published the first peer-reviewed account of creating pig–human hybrid fetuses, a step toward growing animals with organs that are suitable for transplantation into humans."
It gets a little less spooky as it goes along. Apparently they're growing pig fetuses with human cells mixed into them with the plan being to grow human organs in pigs; they're not mixing the genetic material to produce a true hybrid. Not got the Island of Dr. Moreau going on here, but still, that headline's a stunner when ya first run across it.
But, since I did mention Shorthands… He's still got his Twitter War with Arnold Schwarzenegger going on this morning. Gotta wonder if Arnold took into consideration when he decided to fight back that Shorthands never tires of raggin’ on people he thinks have slighted him.
And in a more problematic move, Shorthands has announced a set of unilateral sanctions against Iran. I think most of us have seen enough of this to know that unilateral sanctions almost never do any good. This will, however, alienate our allies, so Shorthands has almost certainly done Iran some good.
Gotta wonder if Arnold took into consideration when he decided to fight back that Shorthands never tires of raggin’ on people he thinks have slighted him.
There are so many hours in the day. I think The Donald will have difficulty keeping up with all of those who he thinks "slight" him. My money is on The Terminator.
It seems that a federal judge has thrown a spanner in the works with regard to Trump's travel ban.
"The court concludes that the circumstances brought before it today are such that it must intervene to fulfill its constitutional role in our tripartite government," Robart wrote in the order.
The judge was a George W. Bush appointee.
Congress deluged with phone calls
An avalanche of phone calls is thundering across Capitol Hill as the Senate considers a slew of President Donald Trump's nominations, causing staffers to work continuously to field requests, complaints and other messages during an already busy time in the congressional calendar.
Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said that as many as 1.5 million calls per day have been pouring into the Senate this week, according to data from Schumer's technical staff.
Multiple offices reported that a bulk of messages haves been related to Betsy DeVos, Trump's controversial pick for secretary of education. Her nomination moved ahead in the Senate on Friday, and she's expected to be narrowly confirmed Monday.
I have actually contemplated emailing my state representative(a Republican) to express my displeasure with the new Trump administration. Once I get the time, I think I will. Can't hurt.
" I think The Donald will have difficulty keeping up with all of those
who he thinks ‘slight’ him."
There is that. The challenges shall probably just keep on comin’.
"It seems that a federal judge has thrown a spanner in the works
with regard to Trump's travel ban."
That's not as big a deal as it might seem. All those folks from the affected countries have had their outstanding visas terminated already. They have to get new ones now. The State Department will not be issuing…. The judge will find that it's a little late to be closing the barn door.
The latest in the Donald/Terminator Twitter feud.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is not backing down after President Donald Trump again insulted the "New Celebrity Apprentice" host and former California governor in another early morning tweet on Friday.
After Trump tweeted that Schwarzenegger "did a really bad job as Governor of California and even worse on the Apprentice," Schwarzenegger tweeted back at Trump with a link to a news story from 2006 detailing the release of Schwarzenegger's tax returns as part of his gubernatorial re-election bid.
That's not as big a deal as it might seem.
It may not seem like it from an individual perspective, but it is a sign that there is still an independent judiciary that will not rubber stamp Trump's policies.
"Can't hurt."
I reckon not. For now Trump's power comes from the Democrats being outnumbered sufficiently that they cannot impede him, and the Republicans are running scared. Trump's more popular with their primary voters than they are, for now. A word from Trump and they're on the list to get primaried. That thought terrifies them.
I don't know if Trump realizes that this fear will not carry across to the international arena. He's not gonna be able to threaten Angela Merkel nor Hassan Rouhani with an uprising among their constituency. I don't see that allying himself with Valdimir Putin, who's increasingly unpopular across the globe, is gonna get him much in the way of leverage with the politicians he has to deal with in the international arena. And I'm not at all certain he understands that.
"but it is a sign that there is still an independent judiciary that will not rubber stamp Trump's policies."
The modern rule appears to be that only Republican Presidents may appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. So long as that rule prevails, the ‘independent judiciary’ will become increasingly less independent.
I do notice that Shorthands is pursuing a typical Republican economic agenda. (Complete with regulatory policy that favors the Masters of the Universe types.) This will almost certainly result in a stagnant economy at best, another recession is probably more likely.
One thing it's not gonna produce is a rush of middle-class mining and manufacturing jobs. Trump's edicts will not cause jobs lost to automation to magically return from Mexico or China whence they did not go in the first place. Nor will all his de-regulatory magic lower the cost of natural gas and make coal competitive again. (Nor will his edicts produce that long-sought unicorn sometimes known as ‘clean’ coal.)
I rather doubt that his edicts will result in anybody building a steel plant in the United States to manufacture specialty steel pipe for his oil pipelines either.
Huh! CNN managed to dig up 5 women from Arizona who absolutely love Trump. One of them was just saying she couldn't understand why anyone doesn't.
Reminds me a bit of The Stepford Wives.
There is also an article in my paper about a town in southern Minnesota that has seen an influx of refugees. One person interviewed approves of slowing that process down and in her words "taking a breath". Sounds a bit like Marcus.
The State Department has cancelled the revocation of those visas, unless they have been physically marked "cancelled" or taken away. Then the person would have to re-apply. DHS and the State Department are saying that things should continue on as if the Executive Order never existed. But the critical point is that this may change as the government files an appeal, looking for a stay of the federal judge's order. So time is of the essence.
It seems that Trump has forgotten Arnold for the moment in his daily Twitter rant, choosing to focus on the federal judge who ruled against his refugee ban order. Calling him a "so called" judge.
The modern rule appears to be that only Republican Presidents may appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. So long as that rule prevails, the ‘independent judiciary’ will become increasingly less independent.
Which is why this judge's ruling was, for me, rather significant. He was appointed by a Republican. So it gives me hope that farther up the food change in the Supreme Court we might still have people who focus on the law rather than politics, despite their own views.
"The State Department has cancelled the revocation of those visas,
unless they have been physically marked 'cancelled' or taken away."
Turns out some of our allies across the ocean were simply proceeding as if the supposed cancellation never happened. Folks had what appeared to be valid visas and they were getting on airplanes unfettered. The Trump administration had no choice but to race to get to the head of that parade, ‛cause it was happenin’ with or without ‛em, and they didn't want that to get noticed. Looking incompetent is one thing; they were ready to look incompetent. But lookin’ powerless seems to have bothered ‛em enough to make ‛em back off.
You seem to have been correct in Congress reaction to Trump's wall. They are choking on the cost, not believing, and rightly so, that the ultimate cost will be born by Mexico. The ultimate cost would be born by the American taxpayer.
There are also people along the border who live in an area that would be impacted by the wall who are saying that it will hurt their trade with Mexico, which has been critical in revitalizing the area.
Worst part about the cost of Trump's wall is that it's wasted money. I think he could get the Congress to approve it otherwise.
(And he may get them to approve it anyway--Ryan's gotta have something to offer him to get him to approve Ryan's budget. The Great Wall of Trump is the obvious offer. So, there is the outside chance. Of course, then Ryan would have to deliver, and it's not at all clear he can do that.)
Looking incompetent is one thing; they were ready to look incompetent.
Yes, apparently so.
For the time being though, it appears that Trump's chaotic approach to government is causing his Trumpkins to assume that he's actually delivering on his campaign promises to shake up the system. It seems to not have occurred to them that he's simply hammering on the walls and foundations with no particular plan for how to proceed. (Turns out his often mentioned secret plan to take on Da’esh is to ask those generals whom he claimed were idiots to come up with a plan ‛cause he's got none. But, the Trumpkins haven't noticed this sort of stuff yet ‛cause it's not getting mentioned on FoxNews. Eventually, this information will seep across their barriers though.)
Trump has mentioned several times that he gets his foreign policy briefings from ‛the shows’. (link) Turns out folks who follow his Twitter account have figured out which shows he favors (Morning Joe and the O'Reilly Factor are high on the list). Advertising rates are going up accordingly as advertisers try their hand at advertising directly to Shorthands himself. I kid you not.
Trump is once again publicly professing his ‘respect’ for Vladimir Putin. And, on the subject of Putin killing folks who cross him, Trump's response, “We have a lot of killers,” Trump said. “Well, you think our country is so innocent?” (WashingtonPost) I'm gonna havta catch FoxNewsSunday in the morning and see how far they go to whitewash this again.
Protests again this weekend over Trump's policies.
I don't remember when I've seen this much anger. Nor do I remember when a president has cared so little about pissing off so many.
[Chumpy, Thu Feb 02, 09:20:00 am]: "Good Morning Petes, yeah, I see you. Happy now?"
Sorry Chumpy. Yer obsession notwithstandin', I gotta ignore y'all for a few days at a time for reasons of not havin' time for yer blather. (And also not givin' a rat's ass for it).
[Chumpy]: "BYTW--election wasn't stolen by the Russkies. Most of the Trumpkins knew damn good and well they were voting for Putin's favored candidate."
And, as expected, the idiocy continues.
[Chumpy]: "As a matter of principle it is unfortunate that the protests got violent and even more unfortunate that the University canceled Milo's appearance on account of that violence... He's basically a theatre act. So, the damage actually done to the hallowed principles of free speech appears to be minimal..."
I guess that must be the autocrat version of free speech: "free speech is important unless I determine that it dang well ain't". Nice principles ya got there, Chumpy.
Good morning Petes; yes, I see you. Happy now?
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused, in an order dated late Saturday night, an ‘emergency’ request, as the DoJ styled it, to reinstate Trump's immigrant ban pending determination of the issues on appeal. Shorthands shall have more ‘so-called’ judges to tweet at come Sunday morning.
[Chumpy]: "Good morning Petes; yes, I see you. Happy now?"
Nope. Yer ugly mug's attention brings me no happiness. That ain't gonna change so feel free to stop askin'. Or not. Don't much care.
It occurs to me that theatre was among the first cultural artifacts suppressed by the Nazis starting in 1933. So yer dismissal of Milo as "basically a theatre act" suggests that, on the matter of free speech, y'all are quite in tune with Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. No surprise there as ya have displayed yer illiberal stripes on more than one occasion previously.
"Nope. Yer ugly mug's attention brings me no happiness."
That's not particularly convincing. Your post was, as usual, all about me, my supposed ‘obsession’, my supposed ‘idiocy’, my ‘principles’; all about me. You had no other subjects to address. It is logical to assume you needed me to notice you. In the face of that, your denial was not convincing. Your second post simply makes your denial even less convincing.
"I'm gonna havta catch FoxNewsSunday in the morning and see how
far they go to whitewash this again."
The subject of Trump's praise for Putin, and his cavalier dismissal of Putin's bloody history, and his claim that ‘We have a lot of killers’ simply did not come up. They handled the whitewash by simply not even mentioning that there might be some reason to question whether Trump was in Putin's pocket. They figure a lot of their audience will never hear of it if they never mention it. They may very well figure that right.
It occurs to me that theatre was among the first cultural artifacts suppressed by the Nazis starting in 1933. So yer dismissal of Milo as "basically a theatre act" suggests that, on the matter of free speech, y'all are quite in tune with Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels
I don't know, Petes and Lee, I think you're stretching it with that one. Berkeley shutting down a "hate speak" speaker that was generating a violent response, possibly endangering people on campus, doesn't equate with suppression of a theatrical performance.
Now someone calling out the cast of a play for daring to speak to a government representative or a comedy TV show because they dare lampoon your policies seems a little more Nazi like to me.
Trump slams Hamilton & SNL.
"Berkeley shutting down a ‘hate speak’ speaker that was
generating a violent response, possibly endangering people on
campus, doesn't equate with suppression of a theatrical
performance."
No, it does not.
Petes way overworked the metaphor (lookin’ for some way to turn it around and had to look too hard). My point was that Milo Yiannopoulos doesn't book Berkely intending to have a reasoned political discussion. (And, let's face it, Milo Yiannopoulos almost never intends on having a reasoned political discussion, but that's a matter for another time.) He booked Berkley ‘cause he was looking for the drama, not the discussion.
I suspect Petes was yanking your chain. But it was a nice lead in to my point about Trump.
Off to a play today.
"I suspect Petes was yanking your chain."
Yes; him I ignored.
It appears that some Republican Senators have gone off the reservation and are talking about things that have not been cleared for public discussion by FoxNews, things like Trump makin’ nice with Putin. WashingtonPost Mostly they do not appear to broach the issue themselves though, although they will address the issue if asked. (I still suspect that most Trumpkins are safe from exposure so long as it doesn't hit FoxNews and RadioRightWing.)
[Chumpy]: "That's not particularly convincing. Your post was, as usual, all about me, my supposed ‘obsession’, my supposed ‘idiocy’, my ‘principles’; all about me. You had no other subjects to address."
Nice try, Chumpy. Have a look at yer post of Mon Jan 30, 07:30:00 am. There are lots more of that ilk. That's you and yer obsessive intellectual insecurities. You won't find me makin' such oblique and unsolicited references to y'all. It's plain for all to see that yore whinin' above is pure projection.
[Lynnette]: "Berkeley shutting down a "hate speak" speaker that was generating a violent response, possibly endangering people on campus, doesn't equate with suppression of a theatrical performance."
I have to disagree with that characterisation. Milo is not a "hate speak" speaker. He is quite foppish and, like Trump, engages in a fair bit of self-aggrandisement. But "hate speak"? ... not from what I've seen. In any case, I'm sure I remember opining to you that hate speech should be banned (as it is in some parts of Europe), and you responded that your first amendment is a sufficiently cherished principle that even haters get to speak their mind.
As for the violent response at Berkeley, are you really suggesting that the talk should be cancelled because of the response? That would make it rather easy for any activists to shut down any talk, merely by protesting. And Lee's suggestion that Milo booked the talk to invite trouble is ridiculous. He doesn't impose himself on colleges, he is invited, generally by Republican leaning student bodies.
"Have a look at yer post of Mon Jan 30, 07:30:00 am."
Do you really think changing the subject from your post to last week is going to work? If you do, then you're slippin’.
"He doesn't impose himself on colleges, he is invited, generally
by Republican leaning student bodies."
You seem to think that changes his expectations of the reception he's gonna get at Berkley. It doesn't. He's smart enough to know what he'll get at Berkley. You may not be smart enough, but Yiannopoulos is not obliged to be willfully ignorant just to suit your predilections.
I notice that Mitch McConnell has criticized Shorthands on account of his praise of Putin and his twitter attacks on Judge Robart and has disagreed publicly with Shorthands' claim of massive voter fraud. Three open breaches with Trump (and more implied possible breaches that McConnell just hasn't been quite so open about).
At the same time Paul Ryan is doing all the necessary contortions to ‘line up’ with Shorthands' erratic policy lines.
Looks to me like they're doing the ‘good cop, bad cop’ routine on Trump. McConnell is trying to show him that they can get along quite well without him (but he's not going far enough to actively and actually pick a fight with Trump). Ryan is showing him the alternative, what he can have if he just signs what they put in front of him and quits trying to pretend he's in charge of ‘their’ party.
Trump's gonna hafta figure out how to get back on top of this dynamic, or at least how to pretend this one.
Trump is considering Elliot Abrams for the #2 position at the State Department. Abrams name might sound familiar. He was a noted neo-con during the reign of Dick Cheney and he was a vocal critic of Trump during the last campaign. He insisted loudly and often that Trump was not qualified to sit in the Oval Office. But with Trump now in the Oval Office, and Rex Tillerson on the seventh floor, they badly need somebody who understands how the place works, and, if nothing else, Abrams knows where lots of the bodies are buried. (It also shows how thin is their bench that they have to accept such a vocal Trump critic. Apparently people who are, in the end, willing to work for Trump are not so easy to find as Trump might have hoped, at least, not in certain fields. As for Abrams, Trump offers him his way back out of the wilderness after the disgrace of years in service to the Cheney agenda.)
Might oughta mention that Abrams has yet to clear the person interview with Trump that is his last hurdle before an appointment and then facing up to Senate confirmation.
Today's morning jewel from the TrumpTweets
"Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC
polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme
vetting."
TrumpTweets
I might point out that the election polls were correct. They showed Hillary with a slight majority. She came in with a slight majority (just under the 3% she needed to get over the Republicans' systemic advantage).
I hadn't mentioned it before, but I'd had the thought. I wondered when (and, I guess, if) the major networks would start declining to put Kellyanne Conway up on the screen on account of she was fast becoming a fairly transparent liar, and I thought fast becoming unlikeable onscreen (she's getting just too outraged over being called a liar to be pleasant, but not near outraged enough to start sticking closer to the truth). Seems it's started happening already, but not been much mentioned. There's the ongoing fuss between Kellyanne and CNN over whether or not they declined to host her last Sunday, and now there's rumors popping up that other shows have more quietly declined her offers to appear. She's incensed. Trump's incensed too, but he's up in arms over the editorials describing Steve Bannon as his "Karl Rove", or even Svengali type. Much outrage in the White House these days.
Gotta wonder how long they can keep it up.
Milo is not a "hate speak" speaker.
Milo is much more subtle than that. He cheerfully denigrates an entire religion without any thought that there are millions of people who follow it who are not extremists or rapists or gay bashers.
Milo
He makes it seem all right to paint all with the same brush. He makes claims about events here in the States that are not necessarily true to create the illusion that there is only one group of people who are the cause of hate.
In any case, I'm sure I remember opining to you that hate speech should be banned (as it is in some parts of Europe), and you responded that your first amendment is a sufficiently cherished principle that even haters get to speak their mind.
I don't recall our conversation with regard to the first amendment. I have always said that one person's right should not infringe on another's though.
As for the violent response at Berkeley, are you really suggesting that the talk should be cancelled because of the response?
I was not there so I cannot say what I would have done if I had been the one to make that decision. It does appear that the protest that occurred there was rather odd.
Black bloc protest
"I don't recall our conversation with regard to the first amendment."
I think he's conflating your position with mine there. I went over the First Amendment protections for him and how they worked to prohibit European style bans on "hate speech". My guess is he only remembers the parts he wants to remember.
With a few notable exceptions (Mitch McConnell being one of them) our Congressional Republicans have been notably quiet about Shorthands' efforts to de-legitimize the federal judges who might get in his way.
Trump's attempting to de-legitimize the independent judicial branch and the media (not a branch of government, but important enough to get a special mention in The Constitution). The only other institutional impediment to a full on fascist take-over would be the Republican legislature, and they're lookin’ fairly spooked; Trump scares the hell outta a fair number of them.
(I do, however, still have faith in the population. After all, even with Hillary as his opposition, Trump lost the popular vote, and he's not made himself any more broadly popular since then,)
[Me]: "He doesn't impose himself on colleges, he is invited, generally by Republican leaning student bodies."
[Chumpy]: "You seem to think that changes his expectations of the reception he's gonna get at Berkley. It doesn't. He's smart enough to know what he'll get at Berkley. You may not be smart enough ... blah blah"
Nope, I think that means they booked him, and not the other way round. And just to remind ourselves:
[Chumpy, @Sun Feb 05, 10:54:00 am]: "He booked Berkley ‘cause he was looking for the drama, not the discussion."
And that means yore still plucking alt facts out of yer ass.
[Chumpy]: "I might point out that the election polls were correct. They showed Hillary with a slight majority. She came in with a slight majority (just under the 3% she needed to get over the Republicans' systemic advantage)."
Nope. The polls showed that Hillary was gonna win. She didn't. Hopefully that'll sink in for y'all sometime, preferably before too much of the next four years has elapsed. Yer sore loser blather is already gittin' more than a bit tedious.
"Nope, I think that means they booked him, and not the other way
round."
I see you require assistance with your English comprehension again.
The booking agent works for the performer, not for the venue.
And then there's alway Merriam-Webster. It works differently in police bookings, but Milo wasn't being held as a criminal.
"Nope. The polls showed that Hillary was gonna win."
You apparently need help understanding polling as well. Here's a place for you to start. Try to find the poll that measures win. After you've worked on that for awhile you may be ready for an actual lesson on understanding polling procedures.
And, if you happen to actually run across a point worth discussing in the meantime, as opposed to you wasting our time with shit you obviously don't understand and which doesn't matter anyway except as examples of you being a pompous ass and an idiot (as both your points just above) you be sure and get back with us.
'Til then…
[Lynnette]: "I don't recall our conversation with regard to the first amendment."
Lee could be right. It might have been with him :-)
"Milo is much more subtle than that. He cheerfully denigrates an entire religion without any thought that there are millions of people who follow it who are not extremists or rapists or gay bashers."
I agree he tars too many people with the same brush. That said, an uncomfortable number of Muslims do have worrying attitudes in those areas, including an astounding number of Muslims in the west who sympathise with ISIS. I guess Milo's approach is unlikely to win them over. The question is, should be be banned from speaking for this reason?
[Chumpy]: "...if you happen to actually run across a point worth discussing in the meantime..."
With you? Unlikely. Yankin' yore chain, on the other hand ... ;-)
You gave it up easy tonight. Getting tired of being a pompous ass, not to mention wrong?
"…an astounding number of Muslims in the west who sympathise with ISIS."
And just what is this ‘astounding number’? (Figured I'd give you something rather more important to be wrong about.)
Well, looks like I might as well not save the next one. Just dump it right here and let Petes find it whenever…
Aside from the fact that Petes is very likely astounded by any three Muslims or more, we don't have a generally accepted meaning for the term ‘sympathize with’. My guess is Petes prefers terms that have no real meaning--he's not doing too well with ones the dictionary knows about, so undefined terms are probably much better for him. That way he can take up space in the conversation without actually saying anything, which is his favorite thing to do, talk a lot, say pretty much nothing of substance.
Sounds like Chumpy's Googlin' hand is otherwise engaged again. ;-)
So ya got nothing at all then. Okay I can live with that discovery.
I note that, as of today, Shorthands is ‘uninvited’ to the customary address to Parliament when he visits London later this year (dates not set, Trump may pull out of the trip entirely). Meanwhile a petition to cancel Trump's invitation to Britain in its entirety has 1.8 million signatures; a countervailing petition has 300,000 signatures.
I get the feeling that Shorthands is not improving our image abroad as of yet. The process of Making America Great Again seems a little slow getting out of the blocks.
And, on another foreign policy front… I notice that Shorthands has still not identified any sanctions might be applied to those 25 Iranian entities (some persons, some companies) he identified shortly after putting Iran ‘on notice’. So, now we now know who in Iran is now noticing that Trump's got nothin’ to threaten ‘em with, at least, not so far. (I still think we're gonna find out that he tweets at ‘em in the wee hours of the morning and then calls that a win.)
@ Lynnette,
PBS, two-hour piece in the ‛American Experience’ series on the Oklahoma City bombings, Timothy McVie and like 150+ dead folks.
Some of these are worth the time, but I've not seen this one and so won't make a claim on its behalf.
"Democratic Congresswoman Kathleen Rice asked [Secretary of
Homeland Security John] Kelly if he was concerned about political
operatives attempting to influence the Department of Homeland
Security.
"“I work for one man," Kelly said. "His name is Donald Trump…"
Politico.com
I might want to point out to Mr. Kelly that Donald Trump doesn't pay him, and that he actually works for us, but that's probably just a waste of time. I think what he was basically telling us there is that it's too damn late to worry about whether or not the Department of Homeland Security will become a political tool for the Trump White House--already a done deal.
The Army Corps of Engineers has issued the final permit to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to go in upstream to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. (Reuters) The Sioux claim this puts their water supply at risk, and they're expected to fight the move in court now.
I agree he tars too many people with the same brush. That said, an uncomfortable number of Muslims do have worrying attitudes in those areas, including an astounding number of Muslims in the west who sympathise with ISIS. I guess Milo's approach is unlikely to win them over. The question is, should be be banned from speaking for this reason?
I believe the answer would be no. He does have a right to his opinions and it is up to those who listen to him to determine whether or not any of his arguments supporting his points are valid. If there are those who believe him to be in error then they should also be heard. It would have been far more interesting, for me anyway, to have more of a debate type of presentation, rather than one person expounding on his ideas. But maybe that's just me. It seems there are many who go to some of these events who merely want to have someone endorse what they already believe.
I suspect that the contents of his presentation was not why Berkeley cancelled his appearance. It really did have more to do with the rather radical type of protest that was happening.
The polls showed that Hillary was gonna win. She didn't.
Now this brings up a question that I would like to pose to you. I would ask Marcus as well, but he seems to have disappeared. As someone who is outside our politics and domestic issues I am curios if you have an opinion on why so many of my fellow countrymen voted for Trump? Do you believe that this, along with Brexit and the rise of more right wing parties in other European countries, are symptoms that there is some kind of fundamental change occurring in the West? Do you believe that there are those who are seeking to take advantage of our disunity for their own gain?
Okay, maybe that was more a series of questions, but I am interested if you have any thoughts on them.
curios should be curious :)
Lee, I did watch the Mosul piece on Frontline last night. It was good. It did illustrate very well the tough fight that is ongoing, and will be for some time, in Iraq. It is really too bad that in Trump they may not have the support they could use right about now.
So, now we now know who in Iran is now noticing that Trump's got nothin’ to threaten ‘em with, at least, not so far.
I did notice today that the Iranian government is trying to capitalize on Trump's poor behavior. Saying basically that he is the real face of America. So it starts. Our enemies and our rivals will have a field day with him in office. *sigh*
"It is really too bad that in Trump they may not have the support
they could use right about now."
From what I'm hearing it seems the military specialists are expecting it to take six months or so to clear Da‘esh out of West Mosul. Iraq can expect to be on the ‘banned’ visa list most of that time (although it's not clear that Trump will be able to enforce it--he will maintain the list, with Iraq on it, clear to the Suprem Court is my guess). That's gonna make it real hard to cooperate against Da‘esh. And, it's gonna almost certainly seal Iran's position as champion against Da‘esh in Iraq. Bad news all around, and for nothing (there ain't a snowball's chance in hell that Putin is gonna give Trump squat in cooperation against Da'esh--ain't gonna happen).
Apparently, if Shorthands is frustrated on his very first attempt to impose a travel ban on Muslims then there's no going back ever and he'll never be able to offer us ‘security and safety’. (TrumpTweets) Turns out it is amazingly easy for the Evil Muslims to get a permanent victory over him.
New QuinnipiacPoll. Americans oppose The Great Wall of Trump by a 21 point margin; 59/38 against. (And that's IF Trump can somehow magically force Mexico to pay for it. If we have to pay for it the anti- Great Wall margin goes up to 63/35.)
Trump does have support for renegotiating trade deals though--so he's not gonna get whacked much for his anti-free-trade stance.
This fella, gal actually, writing in the NewYorker seems to be hinting at the possibility that the 9th Circuit could uphold the stay on Shorthands' immigration ban on the fairly straightforward grounds that The President of the United States is a bald-faced liar. That would be a rather remarkable holding, but Shorthands has been a remarkable President so far and he has been doin’ his dead-level best to piss ‘em off. So, it may not be entirely out of the question.
And, it's gonna almost certainly seal Iran's position as champion against Da‘esh in Iraq.
They do seem to be adept at helping Iran gain influence in the Middle East, and Iraq in particular.
I just listened to Trump boasting tonight that he knows all sorts of things, because of the intelligence briefings, that the American public does not with regard to terror. Perhaps his goal was to make everyone believe that there was actually a reason behind his ban, but he sounded very much like a kid who has been given the keys to a rather powerful car, which he really has no clue of how to drive.
That he alludes to how much intelligence information he is privy to just shows that he is inexperienced.
I hear that the Republican legislature, in the form of Mitch McConnell, shut down Elizabeth Warren's attempt to read a letter from MLK's widow with regard to Sessions. Strong arm tactics will not win many friends, I am thinking, unless they are die hard Trump supporters. While her effort was in vain, at least she added her voice in opposition.
"I just listened to Trump boasting tonight that he knows all sorts of
things, because of the intelligence briefings…"
This is the same Trump who only a month maybe six weeks ago was publicly declaring that he didn't need to sit through those repetitive intelligence briefings ‘cause he was ‘like, a smart person’, right? MSNBC
"While her effort was in vain, at least she added her voice in opposition."
On top of that she got some killer video on CNN or whatever CNN calls that channel nowadays, video of the old boys tellin’ her, a woman, to basically sit down and shut up, and it don't look good, not good at all. It'll be makin’ a prominent appearance during the 2018 elections I'm sure.
In what I can only describe as a surprise, I find George Shultz and Jim Baker, a couple of aging revolutionaries from the Reagan administration, now writing an Op-Ed in the WallStreetJournal, copping to the reality of climate change and suggesting the implementation of the carbon tax as one potential tool in the fight. (Hope that link works--bypass links to the Wall Street Journal can be problematic. If it doesn't work--here's the straight-ahead link--https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-conservative-answer-to-climate-change-1486512334?mod=e2two)
I had previously noticed an upsurge in right-winger Op-Eds and essays in opposition to the carbon tax and wondered what caused them. I figure this WSJ piece musta been it.
[Lynnette]: "Okay, maybe that was more a series of questions"
Been up to my tonsils. I'll get back to you. Meanwhile, a little entertainment from the Scottish National Party at the UK Commons vote on triggering Brexit last night. Beethoven's Ode to Joy is the anthem of the European Union, which the Scots want to stay in.
[Lynnette]: "...I did watch the Mosul piece on Frontline last night. It was good."
Me too, through the magic of dodgy internet streaming ;-)
Lynnette: "Now this brings up a question that I would like to pose to you. I would ask Marcus as well, but he seems to have disappeared. As someone who is outside our politics and domestic issues I am curios if you have an opinion on why so many of my fellow countrymen voted for Trump?"
Not dissapeared. I'm in the south of Thailand scuba diving. And I'm on my tablet instead of on My PC which makes Reading easy but typing labourous.
Ansvarig short and easy it's the pendulum swinging back. White men in particular are dead tired of hearing how we are the fault of all ills and still actually be the ones who do most of the paying for those who attack us. It worked for a while because IT wasnt that intrusive into our everyday lives and we could just shut our ears to all the BULLSHIT. Now it's too late for any of that and we take the reins back. Others should think hard on what side they think will win that struggle and where they want to end up.
Women and guys shilling for muslims and hating on their own men is a perfekt exemple of: be damned careful what you wish for!
Gays not guys, in that last sentense. Milo gets that. One think more guys would. White men never tossed gays from tall buildings for sport.
Also, we've been pretty damn civil about it too. Those BLM and other rioeters shaming themselves in the streets of the US are there only because our side has decided to let them. Which side do you think holds the real power when it comes to physical force in the US? Leftwing pampered Berkley students? Who sits on the guns? Who are able to not only raise a rabble but to get organized? The ONLY reason the left riot is the other side allows it. For now.
Merkel, that childless old catlady decided on her own to allow one million occupants into Germany. Talk about playing with fire. You really want to awake the German fighting spirit for his Lebenraum again? Because it's on the way.
"White men never tossed gays from tall buildings for sport."
No, but western "white men" have different methods, for instance they have been known to crucify gay folks, on fences especially (re: Matt Shepard) (Don't usually erecting crosses for this--save those for burning in black folks yards)
And, it's been a fairly common theme in Putin's Russia that they stand for traditional Christian morality in the face of Western tolerance for queers and gay rights. (This storyline is also catching on in our own Bible Thumper communities as they look for reasons to join Shorthands in embracing Putin.)
Essay: How Russia Became the Leader of the Global Christian Right
Essay: Moral Supremacy and Mr. Putin by Pat Buchanan (guess where he comes down on that).
The ethno-masochist has spoken. Sorry Lee, no cred for that anymore. Those days are ended.
Btw there Will be a Wall. Have you reached that for you unfortunate conclusion yet?
Ya'll seriously gonna compare guys like Trump or myself or maybe Pete on the Gay thing to those of ISIS or the sate law in most muslim nations. Really? You didn't see what a loser that was from the get go?
"The ethno-masochist has spoken. Sorry Lee, no cred for that
anymore. Those days are ended."
I'm sure that's supposed to mean something. I'm just not sure what it's supposed to mean.
No wall--still highly unlikely although outside possible. Ryan needs something to trade to Trump for Trump signing a budget that'll kill the economy. Deficit financing for a useless wall is probably Ryan's best option. But, it's still a long shot.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
And that was the wrong link for Buchanan. I'd havta look harder to find the right one, but it's not important enough to chase it down. That one does speak in support of Shorthands' denigration of the U.S.A. in favor of Putin's Russia, but it doesn't get into religion or queers. Buchanan's a fairly prolific talking-head type, and he writes a lot of short propoganda pieces too.
"…Trump or myself or maybe Pete on the Gay thing to those of ISIS…"
Nope, wasn't accusing any of the three of you of personally being in on the crucifying gay guys thing. I think you're overworking your imagination there.
But you still felt you just HAD to come up with a bullshit tirade on how gays should fear the white man and not worry bout muslim migration increasing into previously white majority counntries. So ya'll gone an dug up some old shit. Foolin no one there, Lee.
You're an authoritarian Lee. You knew Hillary would make the USA poorer but with much more State authority. More of a veiled police state. A mediocracy where the apparatcnics rule the roost. A place you might get ahead.
Sorry, ya got TRUMPED!
The land of the free lives on for some time at least.
Actually, the point was that gays should fear Putin, probably not as much as Da‘esh, but authoritarian societies have never been good for gays (not since Sparta anyway). And Putin is no different. Not as bad as Da‘esh is hell of a low bar to clear. And Yiannopoulos should probably know that (Hitler put ‘em in the camps with the Jews and the Gypsies; Putin's makin’ a big deal outta how his society is gonna be hard on ‘em in general). My point was that tryin’ to sell authoritarianism to queers is probably a fool's errand. They'll know better.
"You're an authoritarian Lee."
Okay, I'm guessin’ it's well into happy hour in Thailand. I'll get back to ya when you're a little less clouded of mind.
Ciao for now.
LOL! Why should mercin gays Fear Putin? Smdh. Roltfl. Why even bring Putin into it? As for russian gays they've liven under Putin for more than a decade - still better to be a butt-pony in russia than in ANY muslim nation.
Are ya gettin old Lee? You start making less and less sense.
A bit sauced at the moment yes, but apart from bad grammar I see no faults in any of My posts.
The 9th Circuit has said it will issue its opinion on Shorthands' travel ban from the Seven Muslim Majority Nations by the end of the day. They're on Pacific Time. Either way it's gonna be on to the Supreme Court, but this will decide whether the Stay of Trump's executive order remains in place while the appeal goes on to the Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit declined to lift the Stay; Trump's ban on immigrants from the Seven Muslim Majority Nations is not going to be allowed, pending a decision by either the full 9th Circuit sitting in what they call en banc, meaning all the judges come together instead of just the 3 judge panel, or it gets to the Supreme Court. But, as of now, Trump cannot enforce his travel ban. We can expect a tweet storm by morning I reckon.
"…Trump's ban on immigrants from the Seven Muslim Majority Nations…"
I guess I should clear that up. It's not an immigrant ban (it may be loosely called that sometimes in the media and in Congress) It's a visa ban--it effects all visa holders from the effected nations, not just immigrants.
It appears that, with the first publicly known payment from a foreign government to Trump's hotel across the street from the White House, we now have an official lawsuit against Trump alleging a violation of the Constitutional ‘Emoluments clause’, prohibiting Presidents from accepting payments from foreign princes and powers. (Saudi Arabia was the foreign government making the payment on behalf of one of their lobbyists who stayed in Trump's hotel)
I'm not sure what good a lawsuit is going to do; ya can't get a President impeached via a lawsuit. So, they're asking that Trump disgorge the entire Saudi payment (at the base rate of $325 per night) instead of just his ‘profits’, which he's already said he'd donate to the U.S. Treasury. (Of course, when the time comes he might not donate even the profits; he originally said he'd show his tax returns if he decided to run for President; he lies with abandon and with ease, and, so far, without much in the way of accountability or consequences.)
[Marcus]: White men in particular are dead tired of hearing how we are the fault of all ills and still actually be the ones who do most of the paying for those who attack us.
So you think this is partly to do with people in the Middle East who blame the West for the problems that beset it because of its colonial past? That this is a response to those feelings?
Women and guys shilling for muslims and hating on their own men is a perfekt exemple of: be damned careful what you wish for!
I'm not sure where you get the idea that women or gays are "shilling" for muslims or that they hate their own men.
Those BLM and other rioeters shaming themselves in the streets of the US are there only because our side has decided to let them.
So you think this is also a racial response, perhaps as a result of the Obama presidency?
The land of the free lives on for some time at least.
I think you are absolutely right about this, actually. With the courts ruling on Trump's immigration ban (yes, let's call it what it is) we are seeing some of those checks and balance built in working. I can only hope that they continue to do so. Because there are some of us out here not wanting to live under a Trump dictatorship.
It seems that Trump has spoken with the Chinese president and has said that he will support the one China policy.
It's a visa ban--it effects all visa holders from the effected nations, not just immigrants.
Yes, you are right, it is a more blanket order than just one that applies to immigrants. This is why we are seeing those who work for some of our companies affected. Something Trump did not consider. This is a disruption to out economy.
"out" should be "our"
I thought this part was pretty good; good enough to repeat:
"Imagine how Republicans would have reacted if former president
Obama had attacked a retailer for dropping his daughter's product
line. Or asked senators to confirm a Cabinet pick who said guns are
needed in schools to defend against grizzly bears. Or tried to
undermine the independence of the federal judiciary. Or equated the
United States' moral standing with that of Vladimir Putin's Russia.
"There would have been howls of outrage, of course, and multiple
investigations, and even calls for impeachment. But it's President
Trump doing all those things, so Republicans in Congress are as
meek and quiet as mice.
"Perhaps the most striking thing about the chaotic and exhausting first
three weeks of the Trump administration is the degree to which
Republicans have held together, placing loyalty above all else. The
party of Lincoln has sold its soul -- and like all Faustian bargains, this
one will not end well."
Washington Post by Eugene Robinson
But, he didn't actually follow up on that fine start he'd made; he went a different direction.
So, I'll finish the thought… When they finally come unstuck, and that will happen; it's gonna get really ugly in that conference.
Post a Comment