-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Seriious? The one lawyer you find to back up Trump is the guy who authorised & wrote the basis for the US spying on its own citizens under Bush?
Thats.. well.. not surprising from you, but pretty fucking funny!
And again, you have zero idea what her job was, -
"Her job might be to advise, it is not to decide wether to argue for the legally binding EO"
Thats EXACTLY her fricking job, its to advise the departments & the Pres if its actions will stand up in court, and trhats exactly what she did. Her role is to ensure the US Government are not pushing laws in ciourt they cannot defend.
As for the idea this had been run past the DOJ - she is THE HEAD of the DOJ... they literally ran down the line at the DOJ till they found someone low enough down to agree & got them to say "OK" despite not actually having the authority to say so.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
I would have answered, but you need to work on not asking question like a snide ass hat, because I just assume you not being genuine.
... you dont think I make my views known enough? Yeah that is a new one.. or maybe you are just full of it and don't pay attention to anyone who doesn't agree with you?
So that'll be a no then. STUNNED!
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Seriious? The one lawyer you find to back up Trump is the guy who authorised & wrote the basis for the US spying on its own citizens under Bush?
Thats.. well.. not surprising from you, but pretty fucking funny!
And again, you have zero idea what her job was, -
"Her job might be to advise, it is not to decide wether to argue for the legally binding EO"
Thats EXACTLY her fricking job, its to advise the departments & the Pres if its actions will stand up in court, and trhats exactly what she did. Her role is to ensure the US Government are not pushing laws in ciourt they cannot defend.
As for the idea this had been run past the DOJ - she is THE HEAD of the DOJ... they literally ran down the line at the DOJ till they found someone low enough down to agree & got them to say "OK" despite not actually having the authority to say so.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
I would have answered, but you need to work on not asking question like a snide ass hat, because I just assume you not being genuine.
... you dont think I make my views known enough? Yeah that is a new one.. or maybe you are just full of it and don't pay attention to anyone who doesn't agree with you?
So that'll be a no then. STUNNED!
What part of it has already gone through the DOJ vetting process are you failing to get?
And no they didn't run down the line, their is a department, which I named that is responsible, and they passed it, stop making stuff up. -
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
I've unlocked the topic, but under the following condition; no more personal comments.
I'll just delete anything with even with a hint of playing the man instead of the ball.
No problem dickhead.
-
I apologize for the source, and the writer himself is also somewhat "special" but I think the content of the article is worthy of discussion regarding populism and how that's linked to the Trump phenomenon, Brexit etc.
I liked this quote:
"Listen here, all ye smacked, condescending asses, all you powderpuff socialist theorists who’ve never had to work an honest, sweaty day in your lives—one of the things I’m always ready to bang fists over is the accusation that I don’t know what it’s like to be working-class. On my way back from the inauguration, I stopped to take a picture in front of the house I grew up in outside Philly. The people in this neighborhood don’t give a soaring fuck about your tranny bathrooms and your crocodile tears for Muslim refugees and illegal immigrants, nor do they want to hear a single word about how uber-wealthy parlor pinks at The Nation understand what’s in their best interests—they just want to work an honest job, take care of their kids, and eat a couple Italian hoagies while watching yet another Super Bowl where the Eagles won’t be playing."
Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
and the writer himself is also somewhat "special"
Goad has written some great shit over the years. 'Answer Me', 'the redneck manifesto', 'shit magnet' etc etc all brilliant.
I disagree with a lot of his politics but enjoy his rants -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
What part of it has already gone through the DOJ vetting process are you failing to get?
And no they didn't run down the line, their is a department, which I named that is responsible, and they passed it, stop making stuff up.So long as "someone" in the department - tho' very much not the HEAD of the dept,. who they purposfully tried to keep out, you are cool with that? OK. We will probably continue to disagree on that. Here's hoping he's not doing the ssame thing with the military - tho' sidelining the Joint Cheif of Staff is not a good pointer.
So you've moved on gfrom her not doing her job? Lets not -
Jeff Sessions is Trumps nominee to be AG. Here he grills Yates when she was nominated (Sessions wanted the nominee to say she wasn't going to give Obama a free hand) -
Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination by saying well, [then-President Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that? But if the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no? Yates: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.
She got confirmed, because, um, thats her fricking job clearly stated to a hostile senator at her confirmation & he agreed.
-
Non offensive, factual post with clear opinion.
It is vital that the Republicans get a productive first 2 years from the Senate. The reason for that is in 2018, Dems have 26 seats up for re-election-however in 2020 and 2022 the Republicans have 22 each time. So, a failure to do well will lead to them losing power later.
So, the confirmation process for Gorsuch will be vital and fascinating.
Further, if Trump is in office for 8 years, he will have 2-3 more opportunities to appoint a SC judge. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.
Yep, 100%
There's a chunk of America - and very much the wider world, that don't see "tranny bathrooms" or civil liberties for blacks or gays or women as an expansion of those peoples rights up towards the levels of rights already afforded to the average white man, they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man.
So you get people who have never met a gay person outraged at the attack on their rights presented by gay marriage or seeing accepting trannies exist as an attempt to set a tranny loose on their kids. They feel they've already lost so much that anything anyone else is getting must come from them, even when its a rights issue, not a job or a house.
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
What part of it has already gone through the DOJ vetting process are you failing to get?
And no they didn't run down the line, their is a department, which I named that is responsible, and they passed it, stop making stuff up.So long as "someone" in the department - tho' very much not the HEAD of the dept,. who they purposfully tried to keep out, you are cool with that? OK. We will probably continue to disagree on that. Here's hoping he's not doing the ssame thing with the military - tho' sidelining the Joint Cheif of Staff is not a good pointer.
So you've moved on gfrom her not doing her job? Lets not -
Jeff Sessions is Trumps nominee to be AG. Here he grills Yates when she was nominated (Sessions wanted the nominee to say she wasn't going to give Obama a free hand) -
Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination by saying well, [then-President Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that? But if the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no? Yates: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president. She didnt follow the law, so she also lied when answering Sessions... and she sure as eggs was not independent.
She got confirmed, because, um, thats her fricking job clearly stated to a hostile senator at her confirmation & he agreed.
No, not someone, the actual team assigned to do exactly that, vet EO for legality. She didnt like what they decided so threw a political tantrum.
The right process was followed, the right team at the DOJ signed it off as legal, and this Obama flunky just had a tantrum because she thought it MAY be illegal because of some things said by people afterwards? Because she played games she took away any chance of it being tested in court.
She didnt give advice, she went against her own departments advice and made an order to not support a legal instruction. -
@Wairau said in US Politics:
non offensive post factually showing Democratic Housel Leader blatantly using identity politics
opinion: clear dishonesty, lying comes easy for liberals who think the ends justifies the means
That is so funny.
-
non offensive post stating the fact about immigrant bans by past presidents:
not very offensive opinion: Democrats (be they politicians or media) are responsible for the scary deterioration in American political discourse. When you want to know what evil they are involved in or plotting, listen to their lies. Russia...Fake news...Obama issued 6 immigrant bans......
White House documents also show that former President Bill Clinton issued six immigrant bans; George W. Bush six immigrant bans; and former President Ronald Reagan four. And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians after Tehran seized the U.S. embassy.
-
Again, her job is to ensure laws passed stand up in court. The day after this ban went out 4 federal judges at least partially revoked it.
-
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.
Yep, 100%
There's a chunk of America - and very much the wider world, that don't see "tranny bathrooms" or civil liberties for blacks or gays or women as an expansion of those peoples rights up towards the levels of rights already afforded to the average white man, they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man.
So you get people who have never met a gay person outraged at the attack on their rights presented by gay marriage or seeing accepting trannies exist as an attempt to set a tranny loose on their kids. They feel they've already lost so much that anything anyone else is getting must come from them, even when its a rights issue, not a job or a house.
Yes they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man. Heysus Christus.
That wasn't the point made in the article. The point was that people have far more important things to worry about than trannie rights in toilets and gay marriage. They wish that these were the most important concerns in their lives.
-
Yeah, they see it as zero sum, if congress or the president is giving rights to blacks, gays, women etc that must mean they are not trying to get the economy going again. Every smiling happy homo couple must represent a white guy with no job.
That idea that progess can be made on multiple fronts is gone. The Trump vote were very much zero-sum, its me or them, if someone not like me is doing well, it is at my expense.
-
non offensive post with humor (check if you are a real person. If you don't laugh, you're not real...):
Democrats still looking for real people
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-real-people-lessons-234198 -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
I apologize for the source, and the writer himself is also somewhat "special" but I think the content of the article is worthy of discussion regarding populism and how that's linked to the Trump phenomenon, Brexit etc.
I liked this quote:
"Listen here, all ye smacked, condescending asses, all you powderpuff socialist theorists who’ve never had to work an honest, sweaty day in your lives—one of the things I’m always ready to bang fists over is the accusation that I don’t know what it’s like to be working-class. On my way back from the inauguration, I stopped to take a picture in front of the house I grew up in outside Philly. The people in this neighborhood don’t give a soaring fuck about your tranny bathrooms and your crocodile tears for Muslim refugees and illegal immigrants, nor do they want to hear a single word about how uber-wealthy parlor pinks at The Nation understand what’s in their best interests—they just want to work an honest job, take care of their kids, and eat a couple Italian hoagies while watching yet another Super Bowl where the Eagles won’t be playing."
Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.
Can't deny this isn't a real thing or that the tapping in to this demographic is probably the key to a lot of what is happening around the world at the moment.
I disagree with holding this group up as some kind of paragon (if that was the intention of the writer) and ridiculing other groups.
This group are hardly the ones you turn to to advance a society. Maybe they don't make mistakes when they make change but that's more because they don't participate in change rather than being mistake free. -
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Again I'm not endorsing the source and feel a bit dirty linking to it, but I think this article helps explain some of what went down this year.
Yep, 100%
There's a chunk of America - and very much the wider world, that don't see "tranny bathrooms" or civil liberties for blacks or gays or women as an expansion of those peoples rights up towards the levels of rights already afforded to the average white man, they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man.
So you get people who have never met a gay person outraged at the attack on their rights presented by gay marriage or seeing accepting trannies exist as an attempt to set a tranny loose on their kids. They feel they've already lost so much that anything anyone else is getting must come from them, even when its a rights issue, not a job or a house.
Yes they see it as a destruction of the rights of the average white man. Heysus Christus.
That wasn't the point made in the article. The point was that people have far more important things to worry about than trannie rights in toilets and gay marriage. They wish that these were the most important concerns in their lives.
A great example of how different people can read the same thing and have a completely different take on its meaning.
US Politics