Trump General Discussion VII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Imagine dedicating time to supporting this piece of shit. He doesn't care about any of us beyond the capacity with which we can benefit his reputation and legacy, which is sinking with each passing day.

Jump off the bandwagon. Do volunteer work, support your local government. Just don't waste your time, your life defending egocentric madmen.
 
Last edited:
Imagine being so privileged that you can sit idly by and laugh and post pictures of frogs as he single-handedly destroys all of your country's goodwill and marginalises everyone who doesn't look like you.
 
Well, hey, I mean, we women and Hispanics and black people and LGBT people are just being oversensitive little snowflakes when it comes to all the things Trump's saying and doing, right? Why should we worry? It's all "just talk" from Trump. He doesn't really mean any of what he says. How dare we ask for anything resembling respect and decency from the leader of our nation?

(Also, that Green guy is a moron.)
 
Imagine being so privileged that you can sit idly by and laugh and post pictures of frogs as he single-handedly destroys all of your country's goodwill and marginalises everyone who doesn't look like you.

I love Pepe the Frog. For years I've wanted a universal mark of stupidity that allowed me to filter out inflammatory nonsense and now it's finally here.
 
Well, hey, I mean, we women and Hispanics and black people and LGBT people are just being oversensitive little snowflakes when it comes to all the things Trump's saying and doing, right? Why should we worry? It's all "just talk" from Trump. He doesn't really mean any of what he says. How dare we ask for anything resembling respect and decency from the leader of our nation?

(Also, that Green guy is a moron.)

Racist politicians on our side of the pond are using the "locker room" defence now as well One Nation candidate advocated killing Indonesian journalists, attacked gays, Muslims and blacks

I love Pepe the Frog. For years I've wanted a universal mark of stupidity that allowed me to filter out inflammatory nonsense and now it's finally here.

Ha.
 
The uranium part was my favorite. Poor Alec Baldwin will never top that.
 
I never thought I'd be able to see the bright side to a military coup

The CIA is tired of sponsoring military coups overseas so they're going to ... try one on their own government?

On a more serious note, even if it's against Trump there is no way a military coup would be a positive development.
 
I don't know how likely it is that the dossier includes lies. The man who put it together has an impeccable reputation. His work is what lead to the taking down of Sep Blatter and the FIFA corruption scandal.

While he didn't intend for the dossier to be made public, putting something out there riddled with falsehoods and general sloppy work is something that would ruin his reputation and that of the company he now runs.

So while it's of course possible that some of the things in the dossier might be false, it's guaranteed that everything in there is incredibly well sourced.

I couldn't find the analysis that looked into the sourcing again. Some of the points of course had stronger backing than others. That means, the sources referred to in the dossier appeared more reliable.

The thing with the dossier is, it is so called raw intelligence, i.e. a write up of what intelligence he gathered up to that point. No claim of everything being completely true. The finetuning and throwing out of points that were too vague would probably have come at a later point.

A reputation is built over years or decades of work. At the same time, anyone knows that it's a game played by both sides. Sometimes you are being fed lies, or half-truths, and the challenge is to weed out those parts. No one has a perfect track record, so you don't lose your good reputation that easily, if the bulk of your work has proven to be rather correct.
 
I think that the lack of major violent conflict on US soil in the lifetime of any living Americans has contributed to this lack of empathy. All the wars fought by US soldiers in the last century were abroad - Americans have no concept of their homes being bombed 24/7, women and children dying in the street, masses of refugees moving on foot and living in squalor. Though in truth, Canadians don't either but there seems to be a different attitude. At least some Europeans can still remember, though even there you have the right wing "I got mine fuck you" sort of mentality on the rise.

Mind-boggling indeed. Whether you come from a country that was a perpetrator (e.g. Germany, Austria and Italy), or a country that became a victim, such as France, Poland, Czech Republic or even England, one would think that the idea of a state turning on its own people is not that foreign. And that those who flee have good reason to do so.

But it falls into a time of economic despair. The neoliberal reforms of the 1990s, the economic crisis of the late 00s and the subsequent €-crisis left a bulk of people in a poor economic situation, with no end in sight. At the same time, refugees from sub-Saharan Africa and Syria started coming in growing numbers.

The disinformation campaigns were well organised. People from Africa were immediately rendered migrants or economic refugees who had no place coming here. Syrians = Muslims = al Qaeda. If that didn't help: "Well, why don't you stay there and fight for your country?"

Frustrating to see. What I take comfort in is the fact that, if you see behind the headlines and the news stories, you will find huge numbers of people who are actually helping. Almost all members of my extended family are engaged one way or another. Entire communities are trying their utmost to provide arriving refugees with not only supplies, but also a community that is welcoming them. I hope this part of society will continue to be stronger and more numerous than the other side.

And people can't sit here and complain about how immigrants are mooching off the system only to then turn around and complain that they're "taking our jobs" when they do try and get work and make a life here. They can't have it both ways.

My favourite oxymoron: These uneducated idiots coming here living off our social welfare! They are taking away our jobs!"

Trump just said he is upgrading "fake news" to "very fake news" so they will be wrapping their minds around this for a while.

I'm in awe by his genius mind.

Just imagine if any other president had looked at a black reporter and asked her who the Congressional Black Caucus was and then asked her if they were friends of hers and could she set up a meeting? What, at her weekly meeting of the blacks?

Beautiful reminder of maycocksean, resident leader of the Blacks meeting in America. :cute:

My 100 days prediction was wrong then, I predicted low 40s.

Who knew he'd exceed my expectations so quickly?!

You should know that as a rule, he exceeds all expectations.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of caucuses

Two members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) were asked to leave a meeting between lawmakers and the country's top immigration enforcement official Thursday.
Reps. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) and Norma Torres (D-Calif.) were asked to leave the room, while several other members of the CHC were not allowed into the meeting with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting Director Tom Homan.

The meeting was originally scheduled for Tuesday, but ICE canceled, saying too many attendants had signed up. ICE then coordinated with House leadership, setting up a bipartisan meeting with a limited guest list.

Several Democrats, including House and CHC leadership, did attend the meeting.

Gutiérrez was the first to be asked to leave. Outside the room, he met Reps. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) and Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), who had not been allowed in.

"I was expecting to get let in. We're the ones who were asking for this meeting, now we've been barred from the meeting," said Vargas. "I want to know what they're doing, and now we've been barred from this meeting that we called for."

Vargas, a former member of the Jesuit order, then led a prayer with Gutiérrez and Napolitano. Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) arrived and joined the prayer circle.

Gutiérrez said Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) spokeswoman had asked him to leave the room. Ryan was not at the meeting.

"It was the Speaker's staff that came to me, and I know her very, very well, and she said she was speaking on behalf of the Speaker, that there were a limited number of seats," Gutiérrez said.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) asked Torres to leave after Gutiérrez had been ejected. She asked him to reconsider given the importance of immigration issues to her community, but he declined. She left visibly upset, a Democratic aide said.

"I was asked to leave, and I was told that if we would like to have a meeting with ICE, that we need to go with the leadership of the majority party here and ask them to schedule a meeting and ask them to schedule a meeting for us with ICE," Torres told her colleagues waiting outside the room, who were also joined by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).

Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-Calif.) said later: "Oh my God! That room is big enough. They have not filled it to capacity."

Several Democrats remained in the meeting: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), and CHC members Michelle Lujan Grisham (N.M.), the caucus chairwoman, Joaquín Castro (Texas), Lucille Roybal-Allard (Calif.) and Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.). Reps. Nita Lowey (N.Y.), Bennie Thompson (Miss.), and John Conyers (Mich.) were also in attendance.

Republicans sent Goodlatte and Reps. Raúl Labrador (Idaho), John Carter (Texas), David Valadao (Calif.) and Michael McCaul (Texas).

Inside the meeting, Democrats complained about the closed-door policy.

“I've never been in a meeting where an agency can designate who can attend,” said Pelosi, according to an aide.
Several Hispanic Dems denied entry to meeting with ICE | TheHill
 
I couldn't find the analysis that looked into the sourcing again. Some of the points of course had stronger backing than others. That means, the sources referred to in the dossier appeared more reliable.

The thing with the dossier is, it is so called raw intelligence, i.e. a write up of what intelligence he gathered up to that point. No claim of everything being completely true. The finetuning and throwing out of points that were too vague would probably have come at a later point.

A reputation is built over years or decades of work. At the same time, anyone knows that it's a game played by both sides. Sometimes you are being fed lies, or half-truths, and the challenge is to weed out those parts. No one has a perfect track record, so you don't lose your good reputation that easily, if the bulk of your work has proven to be rather correct.

not to mention the fact that the MI6 guy is currently in hiding, and his assumed Russian contact/colleague was recently found allegedly murdered :ohmy:
 
Can you imagine if Obama tweeted something like, "Rachel Maddow said greatest press conference ever"? I mean they had people count how many times the man used the word 'I'.

It's not even hypocrisy anymore, it's just who they are, it's the new party platform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom