From his cabinet picks it looks like they've been fooled again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/...cretary-nominee-assets-confirmation.html?_r=0
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
From his cabinet picks it looks like they've been fooled again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/...cretary-nominee-assets-confirmation.html?_r=0
I guess the following belongs in this thread as much as in any other. And there's a bonus....
It appears now to be official that the current US President is barred from the UK Parliament. BBC was reporting this over the past day or two; now that the Speaker of the House has said he will not permit him entry, and he has such veto power, that just about does it. According to Bloomberg, it's for "Racism and Sexism": Trump Barred From U.K. Parliament Over ‘Racism and Sexism’
Now, the bonus: there is ONE other extremely prominent Head of State who is absolutely barred from entering the UK Parliament. Who is it? (Please: UK members sit on your hands to let others have a chance for a bit at this one).
And now on edit -
There goes Hockeythug "Disagreeing" with this post. Such action is utterly fascinating, in that -
It appears now to be official that the current US President is barred from the UK Parliament. BBC was reporting this over the past day or two; now that the Speaker of the House has said he will not permit him entry, and he has such veto power, that just about does it. According to Bloomberg, it's for "Racism and Sexism": Trump Barred From U.K. Parliament Over ‘Racism and Sexism’
Now, the bonus: there is ONE other extremely prominent Head of State who is absolutely barred from entering the UK Parliament. Who is it? (Please: UK members sit on your hands to let others have a chance for a bit at this one).
And now on edit -
There goes Hockeythug "Disagreeing" with this post. Such action is utterly fascinating, in that -
- Last paragraph is a statement of historical fact, set up as a quiz. One can "disagree" with that as much as a fish can clap.
- Prior paragraph is a notification of breaking news. One can "disagree" with that as much as a fish can clap.
- That leaves us the opening paragraph/sentence. So I guess Hockeythug guesses the post belongs in a different thread. Now, there's a cocklebur in his britches for sure.
I am more worried about a real war. I think they've already got the plan to provoke a war with Iran.
I can certainly get behind reading the transcripts before the media interpretation, but you have to be weary of whether anything a politician says is true. So it's not really complete before fact checking, and unless you have a MASSIVE amount of time on your hands you're going to need the medias help with that.
Once you read the transcript, and then you fact check you'll have a good idea what led someone to support Trump.
On the flip side you'll also understand why the hatred for him is so high. Where the media tends to spin things really negatively. As an example I didn't like his CIA speech after reading the transcript, but I didn't interpret it to be nearly as bad as the media made it out to be.
Whether or not Trump is a fool, you must admit, Jerry Brown hates his guts. There's perhaps no finer endorsement. Anybody who makes that weasel quiver is OK in my book.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Yes.
I find many conservatives hypocrites when they call themselves the party of family values. Neither party has "family values" in their corner. We can find families with good values in each party (as well as bad ones in each).
But if you want an example of really good family values, look at Obama's family, not Trump's.
I'm really glad my kids grew up during their formative years with Obama and his family in the White House.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
@diesel do you just disagree with everything I post or do you really think there are no democrats with good family values? Or perhaps you think Obama does not have a good family? I guess you think that being married three times like Trump is a good example of family values?
You have some really strange idea of family values for disagreeing with my post. Then again, I think you just see my name and hit disagree without reading. It's childish really since you account for most of my dislikes. Please just add me to your ignore list! I already know you disagree with everything I post, even before I hit post. So no need to keep telling me.
You have some really strange idea of family values for disagreeing with my post. Then again, I think you just see my name and hit disagree without reading. It's childish really since you account for most of my dislikes. Please just add me to your ignore list! I already know you disagree with everything I post, even before I hit post. So no need to keep telling me.
And why did you dislike his post, and not mine? What was wrong with mine?
Why'd you leave me out???
I know it's OT, but I need to comment on this. This is simply not true. Even the most right-wing political party that has some chances to get a few members into parliament in September does not favour a "Gerxit". They want to limit EU power, but that's it. And right now the polls come in at ~10% for that party (AfD, Alternative für Deutschland).
The next chancellor will probably be either Merkel (center-right party) or Martin Schulz (center-left party). No candidate is in favour of actual open borders. They all want some control over who's coming. I hope someone improves control of what refugees do once they're here. Most of them are very nice people and I'm more than happy we give them a safe place to stay. But some of them don't follow the rules, and they need to be found and dealt with, which doesn't appear to happen right now.
The reason why Merkel might not get a fourth term as chancellor is simply that we are fed up with her conservative economic and social policies. I mean, we still don't have gay marriage – mostly thanks to Merkel because she "doesn't feel it's the right thing to do". It's time for change, and I do hope the left-wing candidate Schulz wins in September.
what liberals seem to unable to grasp is that trump really didn't win this election as much as hillary lost the election.
her vile history, her rigging the primary against bernie and other factors kept many of her voters home. if the democrats had a genuine/viable candidate to offer they more than likely wouldn't have lost the election.
as opposed to the expansion of the wars we are currently involved in?
impeachment? for what?Even after just two weeks in office, it's not hard to find more than ample grounds for impeachment. If only the weasels in Washington had the guts to do it.Maybe they're waiting to build a case against Pence for a double impeachment.
please elaborate on what you'd charge him with?
to paraphrase the immediate past occupant of the office,
elections have consequences, you guys lost, get over it.
Driver Dave
Member
There is no way Elon can do what he does without having active engagement with the government.
The government is one of Space X's customers.
States are fast becoming Tesla Energy's big customers.
Tesla is battling against the car industry, the energy industry, the oil industry, the dealership industry.
He can't just walk around, holding a sign and "protesting".
He's got to get in there, make the case, try to make things happen, no matter who is "in charge".
Not doing that is just not an option.
The government is one of Space X's customers.
States are fast becoming Tesla Energy's big customers.
Tesla is battling against the car industry, the energy industry, the oil industry, the dealership industry.
He can't just walk around, holding a sign and "protesting".
He's got to get in there, make the case, try to make things happen, no matter who is "in charge".
Not doing that is just not an option.
-
Democrats were so sure of winning they did not care how unpopular their candidate was (also lets keep in mind that she lost already once). Pretty much no one in their right mind thought that Trump would win. In any case, he only won because of EC and only by 160k votes.
Going back to Trump - at least not winning popular vote has limited Trump's gloating (yes, it could be worse).
Democrats were so sure of winning they did not care how unpopular their candidate was (also lets keep in mind that she lost already once). Pretty much no one in their right mind thought that Trump would win. In any case, he only won because of EC and only by 160k votes.
Going back to Trump - at least not winning popular vote has limited Trump's gloating (yes, it could be worse).
Last edited:
saying that he only won because of the electoral college is showing a bit of ignorance.
the EC has been in place since the inception of the nation, and unlike the dems who gamed their primaries and delegate selection to assure hillary the nation, trump recognized the rules in place. Trump used the EC rules to win the election by focusing on states he could win and places where he could rack up EC votes to negate the huge numbers of EC votes in CA and the east coast.
if trump was unable to win in places like FL, PA, OH, MI he wouldn't be president, if you noticed his campaign he focused on those states while during the lead up to the election hillary pandered to her sycophants and did little to win the "toss-up" votes.
Now that we are in the Off-Topic area hopefully we can continue to dwell on this topic.
Just to clarify one more time, my intention of studying Trump is not to blindly believe him. But to know what he is telling the other side and what they are listening.
I read many headlines and a few reports about Trump's RNC speech. It was painted as a meaningless disaster by the media. For the first time yesterday I actually picked up the transcript. For people who don't doubt the details, it is actually a very compelling speech. If this is what the other side is hearing and believing (with blind faith), then it's no surprise Trump has won.
Donald Trump’s dark speech to the Republican National Convention, annotated
OT, PS: Arguing about popular vote is moot point. If presidency was determined by popular vote then both candidates would have campaigned very differently... Secondly, I believe Electoral College is a better model. It basically considers each region as a voting sample and projects accordingly. If we have 100% voter participation rate then popular vote might make sense but we all know that's not the case... Win is a win. Its beyond point to argue about that.
Just to clarify one more time, my intention of studying Trump is not to blindly believe him. But to know what he is telling the other side and what they are listening.
I read many headlines and a few reports about Trump's RNC speech. It was painted as a meaningless disaster by the media. For the first time yesterday I actually picked up the transcript. For people who don't doubt the details, it is actually a very compelling speech. If this is what the other side is hearing and believing (with blind faith), then it's no surprise Trump has won.
Donald Trump’s dark speech to the Republican National Convention, annotated
OT, PS: Arguing about popular vote is moot point. If presidency was determined by popular vote then both candidates would have campaigned very differently... Secondly, I believe Electoral College is a better model. It basically considers each region as a voting sample and projects accordingly. If we have 100% voter participation rate then popular vote might make sense but we all know that's not the case... Win is a win. Its beyond point to argue about that.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
