[jogs]

Susan Rice. Look her up. The main stream media refuses to report anything negative about the left.

[Zelandakh]

 jogs, on 2017-April-04, 07:35, said:

Susan Rice. Look her up. The main stream media refuses to report anything negative about the left.

You mean like that bastian of the alt-right, The Atlantic? I guess in your world it is ok to collude with state enemies but not to try and uncover evidence of wrong-doing by those enemies? Well in that case, I guess you are almost right.

[kenberg]

Whatever the case with Susan Rice, we see a familiar pattern.

I was wiretapped.
Well, I didn't say I was wiretapped I said I was "wiretapped"
By "wiretapped", note the quotes, I meant I was surveilled.
Well, make that "surveilled".
What I really said, ok, make that "said", is that others connected to me were "surveilled".
Well, yes, the surveillance came up as a routine part of the surveillance of foreign agents but definitely, in the words of Spicer, something happened. Or at least "something happened".
I was right. I am a;ways right. The health care bill would have "covered everyone". Obama is a "Muslim", "born" in "Kenya" . The "Earth" is "flat". (See Tom Friedman, he has a whole "book" on it.)
It's impossible to pin down a bowl of Jello and pointless to try. And I don't much care for the taste anyway.

As the defendant says in Chicago, "He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times." That was funny. This isn't.

[WellSpyder]

 kenberg, on 2017-April-04, 08:56, said:

As the defendant says in Chicago, "He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times."

My wife's favourite line in Chicago! (I wonder whether there is a warning for me lurking there, somewhere??)

[barmar]

I miss the good old days when they only word we needed to put in quotes was "is".

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-April-02, 07:35, said:

Richard Dreyfess accused Donald Trump of being an idiot for his treatment of fellow republicans while campaigning for president. Trump won the nomination and won the presidency. Trump is brilliant and Dreyfess is the idiot for not recognizing this.
Donald Trump speaks like an uncouth trash talking 18-year-old enlisted man from the hicks.
The self-righteous progressive left has taken a page out of the Mao playbook. Mao did not allow criticism of his policies. With PC the left does not allow criticism of its views. Critics will be called racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, bigots, etc. Well, I happen to be a proud shariaphobe. How can anyone be in favor of a morality system from the 7th century?
One can't be for both political correctness and free speech. That would be an oxymoron. Donald Trump is the first national figure to speak against political correctness. The first amendment protects people who are uncouth and unrefined. The first amendment allows everyone to offend. The left needs to develop thicker skin.



Sorry Rob, American voters prefer Archie to Meathead.

His approval rating as of April 4, 2017, is 35%.

Quote

According to the poll, the majority of Americans also believe the following about the president:
“He is not honest”
“He does not have good leadership skills”
“He does not care about average Americans”
“He is not level-headed”
“He does not share their values”
Additionally, 52% of voters say they are embarrassed to have Trump has president, according to the poll.

Even prior to the Republican primaries, how could anyone have believed his con man BS and NOT have envisioned his ineptitude? It still baffles me.

[ldrews]

 kenberg, on 2017-April-02, 07:14, said:

I think you are understating the issue. Here is a thought experiment. Imagine Trump, after shedding his political neophytism (probably not a word), is able to push through exactly the healthcare bill that he thinks is best. What would be in it? I have no idea, and I doubt anyone else has. Maybe Ivanka knows, or Jared knows, but I don't. Trump likes to win. Everyone understands that. But beyond winning, what does he wish to accomplish?

Since passage of any health care legislation requires the cooperation of Congress, I have serious doubts that any health care bill will pass. Obamacare will remain in force. and will probably stay in force until it implodes/crashes or the costs skyrocket to the point that many people will effectively have no health care. Even now some families have deductibles in the $9,000 range. For them that is the same as having no health care at all.

So it probably doesn't matter what Trump has in mind. Whatever it is, we won't see it in our lifetime.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-01, 18:37, said:

Since I see Trump as having little clout with Congress, yes I expect him to use Executive Orders. The problem is that, as we have seen, Executive Orders can be reversed by the next Administration. To me, the upside is that most of things that I would like to see happen can probably be accomplished via Executive Orders.

Focusing on golf course usage is again getting distracted from the essential operations. I really don't care how often he plays golf, I care that he initiates actions to reduce government, reduce regulations, etc., etc.

Don't watch the hands, don't listen to the chatter, focus on what cup is the pea under! Otherwise you will lose.

I don't think you really understand the limited scope of an executive order.

[nige1]

Ex CIA Director John Brennan's Richard Dimbleby Lecture

John Brennan talks well

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-April-04, 17:54, said:

I don't think you really understand the limited scope of an executive order.

Great! Would you please explain the limitations to me.

[Zelandakh]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-04, 18:32, said:

Great! Would you please explain the limitations to me.

Start by reading this and note in particular:

Quote

executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.

Quote

all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[6] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes.

Once you feel you have a basic understanding of what an EO is, read this, which outlines the limits in more detail.

Quote

four important limits on executive orders: the federal judiciary, Congress, the public and the Office of Legal Counsel.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-April-04, 18:32, said:

Great! Would you please explain the limitations to me.

Sure.

The President with his EOs tells those departments and agencies that fall under the executive branch how they must operate. Even then, all EOs can be ruled illegal by the judicial system, and EOs cannot encroach on the powers of the legislative branch.

The more telling consequences of the Trump presidency (oxymoron intended) is not his anti-Obama executive orders but the cabinet picks and other department picks he has made. What we are seeing on that front is an organized attempt via the Jeff Sessions-led Justice Department to suppress voting rights by omission of federal protection, less protection for the environment in favor of corporations, and less protection of the working class and women, again favoring capital over labor.

[y66]

From Is the Risk of Russia-NATO War Going Up or Down? by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub

Quote

The international relations field spends a lot of energy thinking about low-probability, high-risk scenarios. There is probably none higher-risk than a nuclear war between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The scenario is not that Moscow or Washington would deliberately start a war. Rather, it’s that an accident or provocation, occurring at a time of high tension, could set off an unintended escalation. Under the terrible logic of deterrence, rapid retaliation and something called first strike instability, this would spiral into full-on war.

When Max wrote a long article on that scenario, during a period of rising tension in early 2015, the political scientist Jay Ulfelder tried to indirectly measure its probability by surveying a database of expert political forecasters. He found an aggregate view of an 11 percent chance of Russian-American war before 2020, and an 18 percent chance that such a conflict would go nuclear.

In total, Mr. Ulfelder’s surveyed experts assessed about a 2 percent probability of Russian-American nuclear war, the potential consequences of which include the literal destruction of humanity. That’s very low, but it’s still about twice the odds that any individual American will die in a car accident, and 180 times the odds of them being killed by a gun.

With all that’s happening between Russia and the United States, and with Russia’s expanding influence operations targeting Europe, is that risk going up or down?

David Wood, writing for the Huffington Post, argues this week that the risk is growing. He bases this on the frequency with which NATO intercepts Russian military jets flying without filing a flight plan or broadcasting a transponder code. The flights are considered provocations meant to intimidate European NATO states, and they create a risk of unintended escalation.

James Stavridis, the commander of NATO in Europe from 2009 to 2013, told Mr. Wood, “We are now at maximum danger” due to the risk of miscalculation, which he called “probably higher than at any other point since the end of the Cold War.”

We might argue, though, that the risk peaked in early 2015 and has since declined for three big reasons. More

[jogs]

 Winstonm, on 2017-April-04, 15:04, said:

Additionally, 52% of voters say they are embarrassed to have Trump has president, according to the poll.

These same posters concluded that Hillary had better than a 97% chance of winning.
Markets would tank with Trump as president.
World markets are all at or near all time highs.
Small business optimism is at a 20 year high.

Don't trust left-wing posters.

[Trinidad]

 jogs, on 2017-April-05, 07:53, said:

These same posters concluded that Hillary had better than a 97% chance of winning.
Markets would tank with Trump as president.
World markets are all at or near all time highs.
Small business optimism is at a 20 year high.

Don't trust left-wing posters.

Did you read this (particularly the part I emphasized), before you posted?

 Winstonm, on 2017-April-05, 06:21, said:

Sure.

The President with his EOs tells those departments and agencies that fall under the executive branch how they must operate. Even then, all EOs can be ruled illegal by the judicial system, and EOs cannot encroach on the powers of the legislative branch.

The more telling consequences of the Trump presidency (oxymoron intended) is not his anti-Obama executive orders but the cabinet picks and other department picks he has made. What we are seeing on that front is an organized attempt via the Jeff Sessions-led Justice Department to suppress voting rights by omission of federal protection, less protection for the environment in favor of corporations, and less protection of the working class and women, again favoring capital over labor.

Of course, markets will go up. But for those who are working, instead of living on capital, raising financial markets won't do them much good. And if they are going up at their expense, as Winston pointed out, it will work out for the worse for the majority of the population.

Rik

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-April-05, 07:53, said:

These same posters concluded that Hillary had better than a 97% chance of winning.
Markets would tank with Trump as president.
World markets are all at or near all time highs.
Small business optimism is at a 20 year high.

Don't trust left-wing posters.

It occurs to me that you are really not that much different than the followers Jim Jones, relying, by faith alone, as a true believer should. Donald Trump and his minions care nothing for the populists who propelled him into office, yet they continue (but dwindling) to support the illusion he created by words alone.

If you are a religious person, you should be reminded that, "you will know them by their acts."

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-April-03, 08:08, said:

That is a huge stretch. This is a dispute between the President of the United States and the local community.
When the president vetoes a bill, it requires 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate to override the president's veto. Now the progressive left thinks every low level circuit judge is more powerful than the president.

No, but anyone with a single working cell in his brain knows that the branches of government were created to have equality of power - it is called checks and balances.

[kenberg]

McConnell and McCain in friendly disagreement:

https://www.washingt...m=.bc32f4d5828c

Quote

“Look at the Senate through the long history of the body, the practical effect of all this will be to take us back to where we were,” McConnell, 75, told reporters Tuesday.

On the other side is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the fiery 80-year-old who sees this move as the next step in the inexorable slide to crushing the chamber’s bipartisan traditions. He thinks senators who view this as a good step are, well, not fully in command of their faculties.

“Idiot, whoever says that is a stupid idiot, who has not been here and seen what I’ve been through and how we were able to avoid that on several occasions,” McCain said Wednesday, recalling past efforts to defuse these judicial confirmation wars. “And they are stupid and they’ve deceived their voters because they are so stupid.”

Just another day at the office.

The House is supposed to be the excitable side, right? The Senate is deliberative and serene.

Good luck to us all, it appears that we will need it.

[y66]

One of those 2 guys is definitely an idiot or, for those with old school senatorial sensibilities, not seeing this clearly and it's not McConnell who has no illusions about what this is about.

[Winstonm]

What I find truly disheartening is that after 100+ days 35 out of 100 people surveyed still approve of Donald Trump's performance as president. I really thought as a country we were better than that.