|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 February 10 2017 06:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On February 10 2017 06:07 pmh wrote:
Trump is done for I think, the latest twitter attack on mcain is the straw that will break the camels back so to say.
All this tweeting,its fun at the start but after a while it is a bit ridiculous. Very unpresidential,he just can,t let go. Its a bit of a disappointment I have to admit. The GOP House and Senate have yet to cement their power so they still have a use for him. I think the GOP House and Senate are slowly realizing they are super fucked. They are not going to get shit done with him in office.
Eh... Doubt it. Sessions still has to introduce the Drug War 2.0 and attach Feds to local Police to introduce no knock raids on Steroids thus minorities being removed from voting rolls and so on.
|
Anything that doesn't have to go through the Senate is possible. But nothing is making it through the Senate, especially the dumpster fire bills the House has been passing.
And I'm excited for Session's attempts to crack down on drugs and deport people. The sooner the better. Bring on the civil unrest that will create.
|
I'm hoping Sessions will open a case to prosecute Hillary for the emails issue. We don't even need a special prosecutor there, just a DoJ with a Trump appointee. Since he's fulfilling even the most absurd of his campaign promises this is the next step.
|
On February 10 2017 06:30 LegalLord wrote:
I'm hoping Sessions will open a case to prosecute Hillary for the emails issue. We don't even need a special prosecutor there, just a DoJ with a Trump appointee. Since he's fulfilling even the most absurd of his campaign promises this is the next step.
like taking on wall street? since everyone else is in their pocket? rip.
|
On February 10 2017 06:33 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:30 LegalLord wrote:
I'm hoping Sessions will open a case to prosecute Hillary for the emails issue. We don't even need a special prosecutor there, just a DoJ with a Trump appointee. Since he's fulfilling even the most absurd of his campaign promises this is the next step. like taking on wall street? since everyone else is in their pocket? rip.
Interestingly enough, Bernie Sanders' earlier cautious "if you're serious about doing these good things" approach to Trump seems to have evaporated. He openly called Trump a fraud recently.
|
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally.
|
On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally.
huh, he's a bit heavier than I thought he was when looking it up to verify (cuz I doubted he was obese). he is just on the borderline between overweight and obese.
|
On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally.
Why would he have to? His businesses are now tied to his progeny. They could just punish his children directly.
|
On February 10 2017 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally. Why would he have to? His businesses are now tied to his progeny. They could just punish his children directly.
I question how much the man actually even cares about his own children to be perfectly honest. The only thing I know Donny cares about is Donny. We'll see how reckless he wants to be, going after Clinton opens them up to retaliation in the future.
On February 10 2017 06:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally. huh, he's a bit heavier than I thought he was when looking it up to verify (cuz I doubted he was obese). he is just on the borderline between overweight and obese.
I'd put him on the obese side of the coin, plus ancient, and health issues. Plus if you look at the toll being President clearly has on you as far as the aging process goes...Though that does assume the person acting as President understands the job and its weight fully, so that might not take as large of a toll on him as it did to previous Presidents.
|
|
|
Real thing he needs to worry about is skin cancer.
Unless he uses spray on.
Actually, not sure if that's better or worse.
|
On February 10 2017 06:52 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally. Why would he have to? His businesses are now tied to his progeny. They could just punish his children directly. I question how much the man actually even cares about his own children to be perfectly honest. The only thing I know Donny cares about is Donny. We'll see how reckless he wants to be, going after Clinton opens them up to retaliation in the future. Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:47 zlefin wrote:On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally. huh, he's a bit heavier than I thought he was when looking it up to verify (cuz I doubted he was obese). he is just on the borderline between overweight and obese. I'd put him on the obese side of the coin, plus ancient, and health issues. Plus if you look at the toll being President clearly has on you as far as the aging process goes...Though that does assume the person acting as President understands the job and its weight fully, so that might not take as large of a toll on him as it did to previous Presidents.
well, based on
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/15/494081537/trump-releases-weight-cholesterol-blood-sugar-and-other-medical-information
http://www.bmi-chart.info/bmi-chart/68-bmi-chart-table
his bmi is about 29.8, unless he's gained significant weight in past few months.
so quite literally borderline.
|
On February 10 2017 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally. Why would he have to? His businesses are now tied to his progeny. They could just punish his children directly.
Their not. He never filled any paperwork to give them control of his business.
|
On February 10 2017 06:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 10 2017 06:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Pretty sure he's called him a fraud plenty of times over the past few years. If Trump decides to go after Hillary he'd better look out for when the shoe is on the other foot people don't start coming after him and his family. Though he's a 70 year old obese man in questionable mental health so he most likely won't live to see the repercussions of it personally. Why would he have to? His businesses are now tied to his progeny. They could just punish his children directly. Their not. He never filled any paperwork to give them control of his business.
The more I learn about this man the more I hate him...
Not politically--although that is true as well. But just on a personal level. I like majority of conservative politicians on a personal level because they're usually just dudes who happen to be sharks at work. But this man...
|
On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote:
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable.
Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient.
Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles.
|
On February 10 2017 07:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 05:37 farvacola wrote:
That's nonsense, Danglars; Milo, perhaps even unintentionally, presents his ideas in venues and in circumstances that render substantive interaction impossible. While he most definitely has a 1st Amendment right to speak and present his ideas in a mostly unfettered manner, it's disingenuous to pretend that what gets said at these events is in any way helpful in furthering productive discourse. All sides represented at these Ted talk-comedian schtick hybrid events put their worst foot forward by function, and Milo's snide yelling shows are no exception.
The exact same thing can be said for talks led by Richard Dawkins; these events are nothing more than piñata factories with an ideological Quinceañera attached. The people who show up opposed are the sort to loudly proclaim their ideas without thinking, and those who show up in support do so specifically to see those people yell and get exposed as stupid. Performance, spectacle-based pats-on-the-back are not valuable. Nonsense. That's your ideology speaking about "helpful in furthering productive discourse." We can use any number of people railing against the current impediments of a true debate of ideas (beyond defending/accusing racism) until this republic is restored. For fuck's sake, your "perhaps even unintentionally" is an admission that it's all about your perception and not his motives. The nation's got a censorship problem in the culture and I don't care if it's antifa, college students, or academia shutting down invited speakers. I don't want Trump in the White House in 2020, but he's also a help for the sickness ... which would be totally unnecessary in a well patient. Let the speakers speak and don't justify violence against them and don't equate them to nazis or lynch squads or spread a "I'm too scared to walk on this campus that allows such hate, I'm fearful for my safety" sort of message. If Milo does his schtick and a mature audience can let that occur, he peters out in a year (except for maybe glbt idea homogeneity in the Democrat party, that might keep him relevant for longer). It's exactly a product of the front-and-center culture wars from the pendulum swinging too far past "openly calls for violence" (necessary abridgment) to "he speaks brashly and I disagree with it so it's hate speech." You want higher interaction and more substance, Lincoln/Douglas or New Deal era? Blow off the loudmouths to irrelevance and try returning to a defense of free speech ... you know, especially the speech you disagree with. You've lost the dialogue, the counter-culture is incensed and loud, wait it out and return to some more liberal first principles.
That's the spirit. When people expound hate, only silent complicity will stop their message from normalizing. #areyoureallythisfuckingstupid
|
Danglers post is the aforementioned indifference I was talking about. There are thousands of conservative speakers in the world, but Milo is the one that gets this kind of response. But the response is always the same, the snowflakes must put up with the the charlatan that the gleefully watches while other harass people in his name. But it isn't his fault, because he can't control other people.
Which is fine. He has the right to speak, even if his dialogue is of little value. His supporters well tell the snowflakes that their feelings/fears don't matter and the snowflakes now don't care about the supporter's safety or well-being. Which as the natural progression of this lack of dialogue.
Its not malice, its just not giving a shit. And people will respond in kind. Now if you attend the dumpster fire party, you might get burned.
|
Reports out that the 9th Circuit will have an order on Trump's EO ready by end of the business day.
|
Yeah I would normally be on board with the Danglars "let him speak" approach, but Milo has always walked the fine line between exercising his first amendment rights, and directly inciting harassment and violence on other people. There have been many cases where "letting him speak" resulted in real danger to his targets. In my eyes this is the difference between protesting Milo and protesting someone like Ben Shapiro, who is just a conservative commentator.
|
On February 10 2017 07:22 ZasZ. wrote:
Yeah I would normally be on board with the Danglars "let him speak" approach, but Milo has always walked the fine line between exercising his first amendment rights, and directly inciting harassment and violence on other people. There have been many cases where "letting him speak" resulted in real danger to his targets. In my eyes this is the difference between protesting Milo and protesting someone like Ben Shapiro, who is just a conservative commentator.
No one would have protested Milo had Bannon never gotten to the position of power he is in. Milo has been hate-baiting for forever now; but a lot of people have never cared or even heard of him until Bannon became the leader of the free world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
