In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote: EU, trade and Germany I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic. With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment.
Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx.
I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel.
I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now.
The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him.
Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly.
And yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot.
I love how unconditional support to Israel is meant to be a good thing. Blow up the last possible hope of a dialog in the Middle East for absolutely no gain, yeaaaaah!!!
By the way. Muslims are the new jews, bro. It's unfashionable to say that Abraham and Moshe want to take over the world, so now it's Muhammad and Khaled who are inherently evil because islam is a cancer. Alt right edgelords are not self aware enough to realize it makes one just as much of a biggoted ass.
Now, by the way and since we are at it, I am old enough myself to remember when Hillary was gonna get us in a nuclear war with Russia. Now we have a man child who treats international diplomacy with volatile nuclear power the same way than a 12 years old girl manages her social life. And whose son in law he has sent everywhere to treat with foreign powers is so unbelievably clueless that he got his security clearance removed for damage control because of how much he was getting owned.
Also, Trump has no masterplan. To have a masterplan, you need to be able to get some kind of understanding of the situation, which is clearly doesn't, for anything. You can keep feeling good supporting that jerk by thinking he is a smartass "trolling the left", if that makes you feel better.
Donald Trump was so eager to have Vladimir Putin attend the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow that he wrote a personal letter to the Russian president inviting him to the event, according to multiple people familiar with the document.
At the bottom of the typed letter, Trump scrawled a postscript adding that he looked forward to seeing “beautiful” women during his trip.
John Dowd, an attorney for President Trump, said he was not familiar with the letter. “It’s all nonsense,” he said. A White House spokesman and attorneys for the Trump Organization declined to comment.
Pffff-fff-fff-fff. That's the sound of laughing through teeth.
Completely different: I'll also mention the Kim Jung Un and Trump summit is never and could never happen. And you shouldn't want it to. Neither men have put themselves in any position where they can be seen showing the other respect -- you have to establish that part first, or else. It will either turn into a meaningless contest of ugly body-language (or worse), something Trump is genuinely great at, or... they might end up really liking each other! But... how would that look to their respective constituencies?
When Obama nixed our sanctions on Cuba, he did so after a steady history of Cuba relatively keeping neutral. And he did it without grandstanding, because that would have only gotten in the way. It would've invited all the right-wing media skepticism. He created the policy, and then he showed the presidential diplomacy. Which seems backwards at first, but is the way I suspect it has to be done with despot nations like NK.
I can not even fantasize a way in which Trump and Kim Jung Un both walk away from a meeting with each other feeling mutually-benefited. As the brilliant marketing and PR people "scenario" this meeting, I think they're going to realize it's basically the worst idea imaginable and should be cancelled.
This is why you use diplomats, where getting insulted and kissing-ass is part of the job-description. But Rexxon Ilyich Tillersunov decided our State Department doesn't need those.
On March 10 2018 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: By the way. Steve Bannon is talking at the annual conference of Marine Le Pen, Russia backed, xenophobic neo fascist Front National party.
So that there is no misunderstanding on who is standing with whom.
I mean, CPAC.
On March 10 2018 23:42 farvacola wrote: Megyn Kelly is a terrible reporter.
She looked good as the relatively principled conservative on Fox. MSNBC made a big oops when they nabbed her.
On March 10 2018 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: By the way. Steve Bannon is talking at the annual conference of Marine Le Pen, Russia backed, xenophobic neo fascist Front National party.
So that there is no misunderstanding on who is standing with whom.
On March 10 2018 23:42 farvacola wrote: Megyn Kelly is a terrible reporter.
She looked good as the relatively principled conservative on Fox. MSNBC made a big oops when they nabbed her.
It's just interesting that the current administration is not aligned in any way anymore with normal, traditional european right wing parties. It's become the big brother of the xenophobic and populist european far right. Which by the way is backed and financed by the Kremlin.
On March 10 2018 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: By the way. Steve Bannon is talking at the annual conference of Marine Le Pen, Russia backed, xenophobic neo fascist Front National party.
So that there is no misunderstanding on who is standing with whom.
I mean, CPAC.
On March 10 2018 23:42 farvacola wrote: Megyn Kelly is a terrible reporter.
She looked good as the relatively principled conservative on Fox. MSNBC made a big oops when they nabbed her.
It's just interesting that the current administration is not aligned in any way anymore with normal, traditional european right wing parties. It's become the big brother of the xenophobic and populist european far right. Which by the way is backed and financed by the Kremlin.
It's chilling.
Yeah. I don't really care if you're right or left winged in general. The US republicans have absolutely nothing in common with your interests in any way shape of form at the moment unless you're so far right, Mussolini is to your left. If you're a republican and still defending Trump as your president on those grounds, you have not been paying attention.
On March 10 2018 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: By the way. Steve Bannon is talking at the annual conference of Marine Le Pen, Russia backed, xenophobic neo fascist Front National party.
So that there is no misunderstanding on who is standing with whom.
I mean, CPAC.
On March 10 2018 23:42 farvacola wrote: Megyn Kelly is a terrible reporter.
She looked good as the relatively principled conservative on Fox. MSNBC made a big oops when they nabbed her.
It's just interesting that the current administration is not aligned in any way anymore with normal, traditional european right wing parties. It's become the big brother of the xenophobic and populist european far right. Which by the way is backed and financed by the Kremlin.
It's chilling.
Heh, funny, I could have sworn that Americans are funding the far right in my country.
On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote: EU, trade and Germany I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic. With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment.
Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx.
I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel.
I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now.
The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him.
Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly.
And yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot.
Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho.
On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote: EU, trade and Germany I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic. With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment.
Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx.
I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel.
I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now.
The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him.
Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly.
And yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot.
Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho.
Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?
I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between.
Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it?
Trump has shown a disdain for due process and civil rights through out his run for office and presidency. But that isn't the scary part about someone like Trump in power. The scary part is the people that Trump puts into power and gives free reign. Sheriff Clark almost being put into the NSA is a good example. Trump wanted him in the NSA because Sheriff Clark heaped praise on Trump, so under-qualified clown gets a job in an agency that has real power. Lucky for us the NSA pushed back and congress leaned on the White House withdraw the job.
On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote: EU, trade and Germany I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic. With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment.
Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx.
I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel.
I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now.
The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him.
Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly.
And yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot.
Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho.
Well it for sure won't change the world now that he's not going to do it..or did you skip that part? He waddled around hyping the media for something he immediately changed his mind on, like he does with everything always. He's a pathological liar, and people still take him at his word.
Of some note, President Trump's second pardon was of Navy sailor Kristian Saucier, who took unauthorized photos inside classified sections of a nuclear powered submarine. Saucier's lawyer argue for leniency by comparing the defendent's crimes to that of Hillary Clinton in her mishandling of classified information a couple of years ago. Ultimately, Saucier completed his 12 month sentence before being pardoned, despite Trump discussing the possibility of pardoning him much sooner. The sentence length was probably driven more by Saucier's attempts to destroy the evidence than the initial offense of taking the photos.
I really don't get why Trump wanted to pardon this guy so badly but at least he waited until after the sentence. Apparently, the guy has more job opportunities now and can lose the ankle bracelet which doesn't really bother me.
On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote: EU, trade and Germany I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic. With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment.
Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx.
I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel.
I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now.
The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him.
Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly.
And yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot.
Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho.
Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?
I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between.
Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it?
Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.'
Yeah let's not pretend that comparison is anything but monumentally stupid. The word literally may have lost much of its actual meaning, but come the fuck on.
On March 11 2018 02:49 micronesia wrote: Of some note, President Trump's second pardon was of Navy sailor Kristian Saucier, who took unauthorized photos inside classified sections of a nuclear powered submarine. Saucier's lawyer argue for leniency by comparing the defendent's crimes to that of Hillary Clinton in her mishandling of classified information a couple of years ago. Ultimately, Saucier completed his 12 month sentence before being pardoned, despite Trump discussing the possibility of pardoning him much sooner. The sentence length was probably driven more by Saucier's attempts to destroy the evidence than the initial offense of taking the photos.
I really don't get why Trump wanted to pardon this guy so badly but at least he waited until after the sentence. Apparently, the guy has more job opportunities now and can lose the ankle bracelet which doesn't really bother me.
what's not to get? it seems like it's a straightforward case of "but her emails", so he's doing it to play to his base by using it as a talking point, as he has been doing for quite some time.
On March 10 2018 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: By the way. Steve Bannon is talking at the annual conference of Marine Le Pen, Russia backed, xenophobic neo fascist Front National party.
So that there is no misunderstanding on who is standing with whom.
I mean, CPAC.
On March 10 2018 23:42 farvacola wrote: Megyn Kelly is a terrible reporter.
She looked good as the relatively principled conservative on Fox. MSNBC made a big oops when they nabbed her.
It's just interesting that the current administration is not aligned in any way anymore with normal, traditional european right wing parties. It's become the big brother of the xenophobic and populist european far right. Which by the way is backed and financed by the Kremlin.
It's chilling.
Heh, funny, I could have sworn that Americans are funding the far right in my country.
Are they? Which americans?
The french FN recognized the crimean invasion two days after being lent a huge amount of money by a small russian bank linked to the Kremlin. Talking of traitors...
EPT
and later put no tarrifs.
